Home/Federal/Federal Register/2026-22443

Rule2026-22443

Streamlining Contested Adjudications in Licensing Proceedings

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

November 3, 2026

Effective

December 3, 2026

Issuing agencies

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Abstract

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, agency, or Commission) is revising the agency's rules of practice and procedure to streamline contested adjudications in NRC licensing proceedings in response to the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024 (ADVANCE Act) and Executive Order 14300, Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 211 (Tuesday, November 3, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 3, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69446-69490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-22443]

[[Page 69445]]

Vol. 91

Tuesday,

No. 211

November 3, 2026

Part IV

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

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

42 CFR Part 513

Streamlining Contested Adjudications in Licensing Proceedings; Final
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 91 , No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2026 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 69446]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 2, 51, 52, 53, and 54

[NRC-2025-1501]
RIN 3150-AL58

Streamlining Contested Adjudications in Licensing Proceedings

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, agency, or
Commission) is revising the agency's rules of practice and procedure to
streamline contested adjudications in NRC licensing proceedings in
response to the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear
for Clean Energy Act of 2024 (ADVANCE Act) and Executive Order 14300,
Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 3, 2026, and applies to
contested adjudicatory proceedings noticed on or after the effective
date.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-1501 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may
obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of
the following methods:
<bullet> Federal Rulemaking Website: Electronically at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Search for Docket ID NRC-2025-1501. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Helen Chang; telephone: 301-415-3228;
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a6eec3cac3c888e5cec7c8c1e6c8d4c588c1c9d0">[email&#160;protected]</a>. For technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
<bullet> NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html">https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html</a>. To begin the search, select ``Begin ADAMS Public Search.''
For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d6869284f884b3a5b9a3a4b5b396b8a4b5f8b1b9a0">[email&#160;protected]</a>. For the convenience of the reader,
instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are
provided in the ``Availability of Documents'' section.
<bullet> NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies
of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an
appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#035347512d5166706c76716066436d71602d646c75">[email&#160;protected]</a> or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8
a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Spencer, Office of the General
Counsel, telephone: 301-287-9115; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4904202a21282c25671a392c272a2c3b09273b2a672e263f">[email&#160;protected]</a>, staff
of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

A. Need for the Regulatory Action

The Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for
Clean Energy Act of 2024 (ADVANCE Act) was signed into law in July of
2024. The ADVANCE Act establishes requirements to enhance the NRC's
timeliness and efficiency, including a broad requirement for efficiency
through an updated Mission Statement.\1\ As directly relevant to the
hearing process, ADVANCE Act Sec. 505(b) requires the NRC to provide
``efficient and timely . . . proceedings'' for a broad category of
licensing actions, and ADVANCE Act Sec. 207(c) requires the NRC (for
certain reactor combined license applications) to, among other things,
complete ``any necessary public licensing hearings and related
processes'' not later than two years after docketing the application,
to the maximum extent practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ ADVANCE Act of 2024, Public Law 118-67, div. B, Sec. Sec.
206, 207, 501, 504, 505, 506 (2024). For example, Section 506
requires the NRC to periodically improve its performance metrics and
milestone schedules for completing safety evaluations ``to provide
the most efficient metrics and schedules reasonably achievable.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subsequently, the President directed a series of reforms to improve
the agency's efficiency and effectiveness in the May 23, 2025,
Executive Order (E.O.) 14300, ``Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission'' (90 FR 22587, May 29, 2025). As relevant to
this final rule, section 5(j) of E.O. 14300 directs the NRC to
streamline its public hearing process. Relatedly, E.O. 14300 section
5(a) directs the NRC to establish fixed deadlines for its evaluation
and approval of specified licensing actions and requests, section 5(d)
directs the NRC to establish an expedited approval pathway for reactor
designs tested and demonstrated by the Department of Defense (also
referred to as the Department of War (DOW)) \2\ or the Department of
Energy (DOE), and section 5(e) directs the NRC to ``[e]stablish a
process for high-volume licensing of microreactors and modular
reactors[.]''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ The Department of Defense (DOD) was authorized to use the
secondary title, the Department of War (DOW), in September 2025 by
Executive Order. See Executive Order No. 14347, ``Restoring the
United States Department of War,'' 90 FR 43893 (dated September 5,
2025; published September 10, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to Congressional and Executive action, the NRC has
developed this final rule focused on streamlining the agency's rules of
practice and procedure. The changes to the contested hearing process
will reduce burden, increase clarity, and promote efficiencies in line
with deadlines established in accordance with the ADVANCE Act and E.O.
14300.

B. Major Provisions

Major provisions of this final rule include the following:
<bullet> Revisions to the contested hearing process that will
enable the NRC to generally complete adjudications within 11 to 13.5
months or faster for expedited proceedings.
<bullet> A requirement for evidentiary hearings to begin as soon as
practicable upon admission of contentions.
<bullet> Strict deadlines for the completion of hearings.
<bullet> Tailored hearing schedules that correspond to the staff's
review schedule to the maximum extent practicable, considering the
complexity of the application.
<bullet> A reduction in discovery burden on all parties to focus on
information of highest value and reflect the greater availability of
information due to technological developments.
<bullet> Revisions to accelerate Commission review of appeals.
<bullet> Elimination, refinement, or addition of provisions that
will accommodate the schedule directives of the ADVANCE Act and E.O.
14300.

C. Costs and Benefits

This final rule is considered to be a deregulatory action and will
reduce burden for both the government and hearing participants by
streamlining contested hearing proceedings. Over the five-year analysis
period (2026-2030), the revisions to the contested hearing procedures
are projected to yield savings for the public, the industry, and
government. The combined net savings would generate cumulative
undiscounted savings of $67.4 million. Using 2025 as the base year, the
net present value (NPV) of these net savings is $61.7 million,
discounted at 3 percent, or $55.2 million, discounted at 7 percent. The
projected annualized cost savings would be $13.5 million

[[Page 69447]]

discounted at 3 percent, or $13.5 million discounted at 7 percent.
These values represent net savings, as implementation and transition
costs are expected to be minimal.
For more information, please see the regulatory analysis included
later in this notice.

Table of Contents

I. Executive Order 14300: Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission
II. Background
III. Discussion
IV. Opportunities for Public Participation
V. Public Comment Analysis
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
VII. Regulatory Analysis
VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
IX. Plain Writing
X. National Environmental Policy Act
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
XII. Executive Orders
XIII. Congressional Review Act
XIV. Availability of Guidance
XV. Severability
XVI. Availability of Documents

I. Executive Order 14300: Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission

On May 23, 2025, the President signed E.O. 14300, ``Ordering the
Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.'' Section 5, ``Reforming
and Modernizing the NRC's Regulations,'' directs the NRC to undertake a
review and wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance documents
as guided by the policies set forth in section 2 of the E.O. This
rulemaking addresses section 5(j), which directs the NRC to
``[s]treamline the public hearings process,'' and also supports meeting
the objectives of sections 5(a), 5(d), and 5(e) of E.O. 14300, as
discussed below.

II. Background

Since its inception, the Commission has periodically taken steps to
assess and improve the efficiency of its adjudicatory process, as
discussed in a 2004 rule (69 FR 2182, pages 2182 through 2186, January
14, 2004) (hereafter ``2004 Adjudications Rule''). Generally, these
reforms have yielded less formal adjudications intended to reduce the
burden of litigation costs for all parties and remove procedural
mechanisms that are not essential to developing an adequate hearing
record. The Commission last finalized a major reformation of its
hearing processes in 2004 in anticipation of a significant volume of
new proceedings to consider applications for new facilities, to renew
operating licenses, to reflect restructuring in the electric utility
industry, and to license waste storage facilities.
The Commission now expects a similar increase in licensing
applications in the coming years, and Congress and the President have
directed the NRC to prepare to review and process these applications as
expeditiously as possible. In 2024, Congress passed the ADVANCE Act,
which established requirements to enhance the NRC's timeliness and
efficiency, such as the direction to update the NRC's mission statement
to provide that the NRC's licensing and regulation of the civilian use
of radioactive materials and nuclear energy be conducted in a manner
that is efficient and does not unnecessarily limit--(1) the civilian
use of radioactive materials and deployment of nuclear energy; or (2)
the benefits of civilian use of radioactive materials and nuclear
energy technology to society. The ADVANCE Act also addresses the
hearing process, with section 505(b) amending the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (AEA) section 181 to require the NRC to provide
``efficient and timely . . . proceedings'' for a broad category of
licensing actions. Also, for certain reactor combined license
applications, section 207(c) of the ADVANCE Act requires the NRC, to
the maximum extent practicable, to (1) complete safety and
environmental reviews not later than 18 months of docketing, (2)
complete ``any necessary public licensing hearings and related
processes'' not later than two years after docketing, and (3) make a
final decision on whether to issue the combined license not later than
25 months after docketing.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ This expedited process applies only to applicants for
combined licenses who meet certain requirements regarding, among
other things, the use of previously approved designs on existing
commercial reactor sites (or on substantially similar sites adjacent
thereto), as described in Sec. 207(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Building on the ADVANCE Act, the President signed E.O. 14300
``Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,'' on May
23, 2025 (90 FR 22587, May 29, 2025). Section 3 of E.O. 14300 directs
the NRC to consider the benefits of increased availability of, and
innovation in, nuclear power to the nation's economic and national
security in addition to safety, health, and environmental
considerations, when the NRC carries out its licensing and related
regulatory functions. In furtherance of the President's directive, E.O.
14300 tasked the NRC with streamlining its public hearing process. As
relevant here, section 5 of E.O. 14300 directs the NRC to undertake a
review and wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance documents
and establishes specific tasks this effort must encompass, including
streamlining the public hearings process, as directed by section 5(j).
Relatedly, section 5(a) of the E.O. directs the NRC to establish
fixed deadlines for its evaluation and approval of specified licensing
actions and other requests from a licensee or potential licensee rather
than nonbinding generic milestone schedule guidelines. These deadlines
include taking no more than 18 months to make a final decision on an
application to construct and operate a new reactor of any type and
taking no more than one year to make a final decision on an application
to continue operating an existing reactor of any type. Section 5(a)
also directs the NRC to adopt shorter deadlines tailored to particular
reactor types or licensing pathways as appropriate. In addition,
section 5(e) of the E.O. directs the NRC to establish a process for
high-volume licensing of microreactors and modular reactors, and
section 5(d) of the E.O. directs the NRC to establish an expedited
pathway to approve reactor designs that the DOW or the DOE have tested
and that have demonstrated the ability to function safely.
In some cases, completing licensing decisions within the E.O.-
directed timeframes could turn on timely completion of a contested
adjudication. However, the Commission's existing hearing procedures in
title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 2, ``Agency
Rules of Practice and Procedure,'' provide model milestones that would
collectively exceed the timeframes specified in E.O. 14300. And these
milestones, which are not binding, are sometimes exceeded in practice.
Therefore, the Commission is revising its hearing procedures to support
faster adjudications that will enable the agency to meet the licensing
timelines contemplated by the ADVANCE Act and E.O. 14300. The NRC
believes that the revised adjudicatory deadlines will provide
reasonable timeframes for parties to meaningfully raise, and the
presiding officer to resolve, disputed issues. These revisions will
continue the overall trend, described previously, of reducing the
formality in NRC adjudications to enhance efficiency.
The NRC's predecessor agency, the Atomic Energy Commission, at one
time believed that the AEA required formal adjudicatory hearings in all
cases (2004 Adjudications Rule, 69 FR 2182, page 2183, January 14,
2004). Now the prevailing view is that, with the exception of hearings
on applications for licenses to construct and operate

[[Page 69448]]

uranium enrichment facilities, informal hearings will also satisfy the
AEA. (2004 Adjudications Rule, 69 FR 2182, pages 2183 through 2186,
January 14, 2004). On balance, these amendments generally use simpler,
more informal processes and shorter schedules to complete adjudications
within the timeframes contemplated in the ADVANCE Act and E.O.
14300.While the final rule establishes three primary pathways for
hearings (a ``Standard Proceeding'' for 18-month reviews, a ``Focused
Proceeding'' for 12-month proceedings, and an ``Expedited Proceeding''
for faster reviews), the Commission does not intend for these
designations to be rigid. Rather, in light of the direction in E.O.
14300 to ``adopt shorter deadlines tailored to particular reactor types
or licensing pathways as appropriate,'' the rule does not preclude
reliance on the Commission's authority to move a proceeding to a faster
pathway when warranted. Additionally, within the pathways, the final
rule directs the presiding officer to ensure the hearing schedule does
not exceed the staff review schedule to the greatest extent
practicable. Collectively, these provisions should ensure that the
hearing procedures for each adjudication appropriately reflect the
complexity of the issues raised by the underlying application.
The Commission has chosen to use a Licensing Board as the default
presiding officer for contested licensing proceedings, including
license transfers, because Boards are independent and statutorily
established, possess legal and technical expertise, and are well placed
to efficiently conduct NRC licensing proceedings given their experience
and ability to focus exclusively on adjudicatory matters. Considering
the wide variety of situations a Board could face after a contention is
admitted, the presiding officer will have considerable flexibility to
select the appropriate procedures for resolving disputed issues within
the strict timeframes imposed by this rulemaking. For example, these
procedures will continue to rely primarily on written pleadings and
statements to maintain clarity and precision in the record, although
the presiding officer will have the flexibility to convene oral
proceedings when necessary.
These revisions will require evidentiary hearings to be held as
soon as practicable after a decision admitting contentions.
Nonetheless, to support more efficient and timely resolution of
admitted contentions in certain circumstances, the procedures and
practice will still provide for motions to dismiss contentions and
motions for summary disposition prior to an evidentiary hearing.
These procedures also address new or amended contentions filed
later in the NRC's review process to ensure that the NRC is still able
to complete adjudications in a timely manner. The Commission is making
three significant revisions to accomplish this goal.
First, in light of the dynamic nature of our licensing process,
parties frequently file new or amended contentions throughout NRC
adjudications, often in response to amended applications or other new
information. To accommodate these filings within the 18-month and 1-
year E.O. 14300 timelines, the revisions establish deadlines the
presiding officer must use in setting hearing schedules that will
provide sufficient time to (1) fully litigate an initial round of
contentions (including an evidentiary hearing on any admitted
contentions) and (2) fully litigate a second round of new or amended
contentions through an evidentiary hearing on those contentions, even
if there is no overlap between the rounds of litigation.
Second, the Commission recognizes that, in rare instances, critical
issues could arise sufficiently late in a proceeding to challenge the
E.O. 14300 timelines for a decision on the application. To ensure that
only critical issues have the potential to be admitted late in the
proceeding, these revisions establish that the NRC's standards for
reopening the record will apply to contentions raising new issues that
are submitted after the date by which the presiding officer would be
expected to enter an initial decision after an evidentiary hearing on
the initial round of contentions, assuming that the evidentiary hearing
phase immediately commences upon the admission of the contention and
there are no delays along the way.
Third, these revisions establish that new or amended contentions
would not be considered pending before the agency until the presiding
officer finds there is good cause for submitting these contentions
after the prescribed initial filing deadline for contentions (i.e.,
that they have been timely submitted based on new, materially different
information). This change will, as discussed later in this notice,
eliminate the possibility of parties delaying licensing in certain
proceedings simply by filing an untimely new or amended contention.
As stated previously, the Commission is establishing hearing
schedules that would allow for two non-overlapping hearings to be
conducted within the 18-month and 1-year E.O. 14300 timelines--one
hearing for contentions submitted by the initial filing deadline for
contentions and a second hearing held thereafter on a new or amended
contention arising later in the review. The revisions to 10 CFR part 2
primarily accomplish this acceleration by requiring the presiding
officer to commence the evidentiary hearing as soon as practicable
after admitting contentions. In contrast, evidentiary hearings
generally do not begin under the existing rules until after the staff
completes its review.
This change also reflects the Commission's understanding that the
E.O.'s discussion of fixed deadlines for the NRC's evaluation to
support a final decision on the application refers to the agency's
approval of the licensing action or other request if the NRC's
evaluation determines that applicable requirements are met. Given this
understanding, the changes in this final rule focus on ensuring that
there is a final presiding officer decision on all contested issues
within the E.O. 14300 timelines as these decisions have immediate
effect by default, regardless of the pendency of appeals. As such, the
presiding officer's decision would allow the licensing decision to be
made even in circumstances where the AEA requires a hearing to be
completed before the issuance and effectiveness of a license.
Consequently, in this final rule, the appeals process occurs outside of
the scope of the fixed deadlines outlined in section 5(a) of E.O.
14300. Nonetheless, the NRC is streamlining the appeals process to
support the overarching goals of the ADVANCE Act and E.O. 14300. First,
this final rule makes small changes to the filing deadlines for
appeals, shortening the process. Second, the Commission recognizes the
importance of issuing its adjudicatory decisions in a timely manner and
will use milestones in its internal procedures to effectuate this goal.
While the Commission expects these revisions will substantially
improve the efficiency of NRC contested licensing adjudications, they
do not constitute a wholesale rewrite of 10 CFR part 2, and many
proceedings such as enforcement proceedings, proceedings on denials of
applications, or proceedings for construction or operation of a high-
level waste geological repository are only minimally impacted.
Proceedings under Sec. 52.103 or 53.1452 are also minimally impacted
by the changes because the procedures for such hearings are established
by case-specific order, and the NRC will consider modifications to the
existing standard procedures for these proceedings in a separate
process. Further, a final rule published April 15,

[[Page 69449]]

2026 (91 FR 20063) increased flexibility in the mandatory hearing
process, and a policy statement published June 8, 2026 (91 FR 34661)
made changes to the agency's mandatory hearing process for reactors to
increase efficiency and timeliness while also enhancing public
participation. Additionally, in a separate rulemaking, the NRC proposed
changes to the agency's implementation of the National Environmental
Policy Act (91 FR 42086, July 7, 2026), which could impact the scope of
issues that may be permissible for adjudication in contested hearings.
The changes in this final rule are a series of targeted amendments
intended to ensure timely and efficient contested adjudication for most
NRC licensing actions.
This final rule reflects changes to the proposed rule made in
response to public comments, as documented in the ``NRC Response to
Public Comments: Streamlining Contested Adjudications in Licensing
Proceedings'' (hereafter, Comment Response Document). This final rule
also accounts for changes made to the regulations since publication of
the proposed rule, including a final rule adding a new 10 CFR part 53,
``Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced
Reactors'' (91 FR 15696, March 30, 2026), which generally revised 10
CFR part 2 to apply the same processes to applications under 10 CFR
part 53, ``Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for
Commercial Nuclear Plants,'' as would apply to corresponding
applications under 10 CFR part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production
and Utilization Facilities,'' or 10 CFR part 52, ``Licenses,
Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.'' This final
contested hearings rule includes these changes and consistently treats
10 CFR part 53 applications and licenses the same as the corresponding
applications and licenses under 10 CFR parts 50 and 52. This final rule
also accounts for changes made by the rule, mentioned previously, that
increased flexibility in the mandatory hearing process (91 FR 20063,
April 15, 2026). In addition, this final rule makes certain
corrections, clarifications, and other minor changes that were not in
response to comments but that the NRC identified during the development
of the final rule. All changes made in the final rule logically grow
out of the proposed rule provisions.

III. Discussion

To achieve the objectives described previously, the Commission is
amending 10 CFR part 2 in the following areas:

Hearing Schedule Framework and New Definitions in 10 CFR 2.4

In this rule, the NRC is taking a tailored approach to timeframes
for hearing requests and evidentiary hearings to account for specific
types of applications rather than the one-size-fits-all approach in the
existing regulations, where the same time is generally provided for
hearing requests and evidentiary hearings on shorter or simpler
applications as on longer or complex applications. The tailored
timeframes in this final rule provide sufficient time for the parties
to meaningfully raise and litigate disputed issues in the type of
proceeding at issue and for the presiding officer to make accurate
determinations on these disputed issues. Using tailored hearing
timelines is consistent with direction in the Nuclear Energy Innovation
and Modernization Act section 102(c), ADVANCE Act section 504, and E.O.
14300 section 5 regarding specified timelines for different types of
NRC reviews.
To accomplish this objective, the NRC is establishing three basic
timeframes for most licensing proceedings so that the NRC's hearing
regulations are clear and manageable and provide greater flexibility,
while recognizing that it would be impractical to establish a multitude
of timeframes for every type of proceeding and constantly modify
hearing processes and regulations to account for the different NRC
decision-making schedules as they are updated over time. Nonetheless,
as discussed later, the NRC is accounting for potential variability in
NRC decision-making schedules by requiring the presiding officer in
each proceeding to establish a hearing schedule that, to the greatest
extent practicable, will not extend past the NRC staff's scheduled date
for completing its review of the application. This provision could, for
example, address an expedited NRC review under E.O. 14300 section 5(d)
of a reactor design tested and demonstrated by DOE or DOW.
The NRC is adding new definitions in Sec. 2.4 to account for the
three basic timeframes established by this rule. The new definitions
are ``Standard Proceeding,'' ``Focused Proceeding,'' and ``Expedited
Proceeding,'' where Standard Proceedings have the longest hearing
schedules, Expedited Proceedings have the shortest hearing schedules,
and Focused Proceedings have hearing schedules in between these two
categories. The proposed rule followed the same basic scheduling
construct as this final rule but did not establish formal labels for
Standard Proceedings or Focused Proceedings.\4\ The NRC has determined
that the clarity of 10 CFR part 2 will be enhanced by formal labels for
each basic type of proceeding, and the final rule is accordingly adding
definitions for Standard Proceedings and Focused Proceedings. Also, in
establishing the basic hearing timeframes in this rule, the NRC has
followed the general approach taken in the proposed rule by specifying
the applications that are in the Standard Proceeding category and the
applications that are in the Expedited Proceeding, with the Focused
Proceeding category including, with certain limited exceptions, all
other licensing proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The preamble for the proposed rule (91 FR 10450, March 3,
2026) referred to Standard Proceedings as ``most complex''
proceedings, referred to Focused Proceedings as ``other''
proceedings, and referred to Expedited Proceedings as ``highly
expedited proceedings.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The new definition for ``Standard Proceeding'' captures those
applications that generally present more complex technical issues than
those applications that fall into the other categories. While the
applications in this category are not all equally complex, they are
currently subject to the longer 18-month standard NRC review schedules
and warrant longer hearing schedules because of the anticipated
complexity of material on which contentions could be based, as well as
the potential complexity of the technical issues that could be the
subject of admitted contentions. As discussed later in this notice, the
hearing schedules established for Standard Proceedings support the
potential completion of two non-overlapping evidentiary hearings within
13.5 months and allow for Commission consideration of any associated
appeals within 18 months.
Reactor applications falling under the Standard Proceeding category
are those for the grant of a construction permit, an operating license,
or a combined license under 10 CFR part 50, 52, or 53 for a commercial
production or utilization facility (other than a non-power production
or utilization facility (NPUF)), where the application does not
reference an NRC approval providing finality in the adjudicatory
proceeding on design matters (e.g., a design certification or
manufacturing license).\5\

[[Page 69450]]

For materials licenses, the proposed rule applied the Standard hearing
schedules to the following licenses: (1) a license to construct and
operate a uranium enrichment facility, and (2) a license to construct
or operate a uranium recovery or fuel cycle facility under 10 CFR part
40, ``Domestic Licensing of Source Material,'' or part 70, ``Domestic
Licensing of Special Nuclear Material.'' The NRC is retaining these
categories in the final rule but in response to comments is clarifying
what constitutes a ``fuel cycle facility'' in this category.
Specifically, licenses for new fuel cycle facilities that are subject
to the Standard hearing schedules are those that are subject to subpart
H of 10 CFR part 70, ``Additional Requirements for Certain Licensees
Authorized To Possess a Critical Mass of Special Nuclear Material,''
i.e., a facility with a critical mass of special nuclear material that
necessitates an integrated safety analysis and other requirements in
subpart H because of the facility's safety significance. In addition,
in this final rule, the NRC has determined that an application for a
new low-level-waste disposal facility under 10 CFR part 61, ``Licensing
Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste,'' should be
included in the Standard Proceeding category. The currently operating
low-level waste disposal facilities are licensed by agreement states
rather than the NRC, but it is possible that an application for a new
facility might be filed with the NRC. If such an application were to be
filed, the NRC has determined that the application should be included
in the Standard Proceeding category given the types of technical issues
that would be involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The proposed rule specifically referenced a design
certification and manufacturing license on the basis that these NRC
approvals provide finality in the adjudicatory proceeding on design
matters. To be consistent with the language used in proposed Sec.
2.1207(c) (final Sec. 2.1207(b)), the final rule adjusts the
proposed rule Sec. 2.309(b) language to focus on the function that
the NRC approval provides (e.g., providing finality in the
adjudicatory proceeding on design matters), with a design
certification and manufacturing license being given as examples of
approvals that provide such finality. A similar adjustment is made
to the language of final rule Sec. 2.1207(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The new definition for ``Focused Proceeding'' covers those
applications that are subject to more focused NRC reviews because they
are generally less complex than applications within the Standard
Proceeding category. As such, Focused Proceedings are amenable to
faster NRC reviews and hearing schedules than those reserved for
Standard Proceedings. Many applications in the Focused Proceeding
category are currently subject to a 12-month standard NRC review
schedule. Several others are subject to an 18-month standard NRC review
schedule, but the NRC would aim to complete the review of these
applications more quickly than 18 months if practical since they would
generally be less complex and narrower in scope than other applications
subject to an 18-month standard review schedule (e.g., 10 CFR part 52
combined license applications referencing a design certification).
Appropriately accelerating hearing schedules, when warranted, for
limited scope applications responds to direction in E.O. 14300, section
5(a), which states that the E.O. 14300 deadlines are ``maximum time
periods,'' and that ``the NRC shall adopt shorter deadlines tailored to
particular reactor types or licensing pathways as appropriate.'' As
discussed later in this notice, the hearing schedules established for
Focused Proceedings support the potential completion of two non-
overlapping evidentiary hearings within 12 months.
Following the approach taken in the proposed rule, the Focused
Proceeding category has been defined to include all proceedings for the
grant, renewal, licensee-initiated amendment, or termination of
licenses or permits subject to 10 CFR parts 30, 32 through 36, 39, 40,
50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 61, 70, and 72, except for a Standard Proceeding,
an Expedited Proceeding, a proceeding for the construction or operation
of a high-level waste geological repository, or a proceeding on a
denial of an application. Applications in the Focused Proceeding
category include, but are not limited to, operating reactor license
renewal applications under 10 CFR part 53 or 54; applications for new
10 CFR part 50, 52, or 53 licenses referencing an NRC approval
providing finality in the adjudicatory proceeding on design matters
(e.g., a design certification or manufacturing license); 10 CFR part 52
or 53 early site permit applications; materials license renewal
applications; applications to construct or operate new facilities under
10 CFR part 70 that are not subject to the requirements of subpart H of
10 CFR part 70; license amendment requests; NPUF license applications;
and limited work authorization applications. Moreover, several
commenters proposed accelerating Nth-of-a-kind proceedings. The
Commission expects that the agency will seek to complete these
proceedings significantly in advance of the E.O. 14300 timeframe
because the staff will have previously resolved the majority of
technical issues. Moreover, the NRC recently finalized a new reactor
generic environmental impact statement, which will resolve a
significant number of environmental issues in most Nth-of-a-kind
proceedings. Therefore, the NRC has also added these proceedings to the
Focused Proceedings hearing track. Additionally, commenters noted that
faster proceedings would be appropriate for uranium enrichment
facilities that employ technologies that have been licensed and
operated. The NRC agrees. Given the limited set of technical and
environmental contentions these proceedings are expected to raise, the
NRC has also added these proceedings to the definition of Focused
Proceedings.
Similarly, several commenters suggested providing faster procedures
for limited work authorizations. Generally, these proceedings only
resolve a limited set of technical and siting issues. Moreover, while
in the past a limited work authorization may have occasioned a more
detailed environmental review, the NRC recently finalized a generic
environmental impact statement for new reactors that would resolve the
majority of these issues in most cases. Consequently, the NRC has also
included proceedings on these applications within the definition of
``Focused Proceedings.''
The new definition of ``Expedited Proceeding'' captures those
applications that are particularly simple or narrow in scope and should
be subject to significantly expedited hearing schedules because they
will be reviewed on a more expedited basis than the other reviews the
NRC would typically handle. As reflected in the standard review
schedules on the NRC website at <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/generic-schedules.html">https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/generic-schedules.html</a>, the NRC currently intends to apply an 18-month or 12-
month review schedule to most types of applications it receives.
However, some applications have a significantly shorter anticipated
review schedule. For example, measurement uncertainty recapture uprate
license amendments currently have a six-month review schedule, stretch
power uprates have a nine-month review schedule, and amendments
adopting a Technical Specifications Task Force traveler using the
Consolidated Line-Item Improvement Process currently have a seven-month
review schedule. To support expedited decision-making on these
applications, the NRC is including these three types of applications
within the definition of ``Expedited Proceeding,'' and applying
significantly expedited hearing schedules to these proceedings to
reflect the shorter review schedules and focused nature of these
reviews. Additionally, several commenters noted that licensing
applications that reference prior NRC approvals providing issue
finality are not likely to spark complex litigation.

[[Page 69451]]

The NRC agrees that these proceedings would present a sufficiently
narrowed set of issues, particularly when the application references a
categorical exclusion, that Expedited Proceedings would be warranted in
all cases. Applications taking advantage of issue finality and
categorical exclusions will have the vast majority of technical and
environmental issues resolved for the facility, and the remaining
issues are unlikely to present complex contentions requiring extended
litigation. Therefore, the NRC has revised the definition ``Expedited
Proceedings'' to always include these types of applications. As
discussed later in this notice, the hearing schedules established for
Expedited Proceedings support the potential completion of an
evidentiary hearing within 5 to 5.5 months.
The NRC recognizes that other applications may warrant more
expedited treatment in the hearing process than would otherwise apply
given the definitions discussed previously. For example, in accordance
with E.O. 14300 section 5(e), the NRC has published a proposed rule (91
FR 23628, May 1, 2026) to establish a risk-informed and performance-
based regulatory framework in a new 10 CFR part 57 for rapid licensing
and high-volume deployment of new microreactors and other reactors with
comparable risk profiles. As part of that rulemaking, the NRC has
included a specific request for comment on whether to include certain
10 CFR part 57 applications within the ``Expedited Proceeding''
category.
Independent of these efforts, the NRC might later decide to include
an application or a class of applications within the scope of
``Expedited Proceeding'' without changes to the Code of Federal
Regulations. The NRC already has the authority to impose or modify
hearing procedures and schedules without changes to the Code of Federal
Regulations and has done so in the past (e.g., through case-specific
orders for uranium enrichment proceedings). To enhance the NRC's
agility to expedite proceedings in appropriate circumstances, the
Commission may use its authority to determine whether a specific
application or class of applications should be included in a different
hearing timeline. One commenter pointed out that it would not be
appropriate for microreactor applications to impose hearing schedules
patterned on 18-month NRC reviews of applications to construct and/or
operate larger, complex reactors. As discussed in the Comment Response
Document, the NRC agrees with the commenter on this point, but the term
``microreactor'' is not precisely defined and the NRC has not defined,
and has not proposed to define, in the regulations a category of
smaller commercial reactors licensed under 10 CFR part 50, 52, or 53
that would be subject to more accelerated hearing schedules and
processes than larger commercial reactors licensed under the same
frameworks. The issue of defining the category of entities that would
be considered ``microreactors'' in 10 CFR parts 50, 52, and 53 is
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
The definitions of ``Standard Proceeding,'' ``Focused Proceeding,''
and ``Expedited Proceeding'' cover most, but not all, license-related
proceedings before the NRC. These definitions do not include
enforcement proceedings, proceedings on denials of applications,
proceedings for construction or operation of a high-level waste
geological repository, or proceedings under Sec. 52.103 or 53.1452
because this rule is not intended to establish schedules for such
proceedings. In addition, these definitions do not cover license
transfer proceedings because the NRC is taking a more nuanced approach
to transfer proceeding schedules, as explained later in this notice,
while remaining generally consistent with the schedule timeframes
established by this rule.
In sum, these changes would support hearing schedules that align
with the overall timeliness goals of E.O. 14300, including the 18-month
and 1-year deadlines for certain licensing actions, with more expedited
hearing schedules for certain applications when warranted.
Finally, the NRC is adding a new definition of ``Standard Hearing
Completion Date'' to Sec. 2.4 to support changes elsewhere in this
notice regarding standards and schedules for late-stage challenges
after the deadline. As discussed later, the NRC considers it
appropriate in certain cases to apply a faster evidentiary hearing
schedule to such challenges if the associated contention is admitted
for hearing. In addition, the NRC considers it appropriate to apply the
reopening criteria to such challenges that raise new issues not within
the scope of existing admitted or proposed contentions. The NRC is
applying these provisions after the point in the proceeding in which
the NRC could have completed an evidentiary hearing in the situation
where a contention filed by the hearing request deadline is both
admitted for hearing and proceeds to the evidentiary hearing phase
immediately after the admission of the contention, consistent with the
NRC's policy of holding evidentiary hearings as early as practicable.
Because the revised regulations define the time (1) in which
contentions, answers, and replies are to be filed, (2) when decisions
on contention admissibility are due, and (3) when initial decisions
after an evidentiary hearing are to be issued, the NRC is able to
compute the Standard Hearing Completion Date for different types of
proceedings. The NRC is including the Standard Hearing Completion Dates
for these proceedings in Sec. 2.1207 and in Federal Register notices
announcing an opportunity to request a hearing, as discussed later in
this notice. The definition of ``Standard Hearing Completion Date'' in
Sec. 2.4 defines how the date is calculated, consistent with the
description in this paragraph.
The proposed rule used the term ``Standard Record Closure Date''
rather than ``Standard Hearing Completion Date,'' but the NRC changed
the terminology in this final rule to reflect that the ``Date'' is used
for two independent purposes: to identify a time after which certain
evidentiary hearing schedules are accelerated and to define a time when
proposed contentions raising new issues must meet the standards for
reopening the record. The NRC also revised the proposed rule definition
so that it focuses solely on how the Standard Hearing Completion Date
is calculated, with provisions on reopening appearing solely in Sec.
2.326.

Other Changes to Definitions in Sec. 2.4

The NRC is also changing the definitions of ``contested
proceeding'' and ``potential party'' in Sec. 2.4, which are related to
matters discussed in more detail later in this notice. The NRC is
modifying the definition of ``contested proceeding'' to conform to
changes to Sec. 2.309(c) regarding motions for leave to file hearing
requests, intervention petitions, and contentions after the deadline
established for such submissions (collectively ``challenges after the
deadline''), in particular to reflect that until the motion for leave
to file is granted upon a showing of good cause, the challenge after
the deadline would not be considered pending before the NRC.
Nonetheless, while the challenge after the deadline is not pending
before the NRC, the motion for leave to file would still be considered
within the scope of the contested proceeding since the purpose of the
motion is to seek permission to file a challenge after the deadline to
contest the application. The NRC is also revising the definition of
``potential

[[Page 69452]]

party'' by removing references to subpart M of 10 CFR part 2,
``Procedures for Hearings on License Transfer Applications,'' which
currently governs proceedings on license transfer applications. Many
recent license transfer applications raise technical issues on
decommissioning the Commission did not intend subpart M to address.
Therefore, the NRC is eliminating subpart M and conducting license
transfer proceedings under the more general provisions in subpart L of
10 CFR part 2, ``Simplified Hearing Procedures for NRC Adjudications.''

Representation by Those Who Are Not Attorneys

For the reasons given in the Comment Response Document, the NRC has
not adopted the limitations on non-attorney representation that were
included in the proposed rule. Also, as discussed in a 2020 decision in
the Vogtle proceeding (CLI-20-6, 91 NRC 225), the Commission has given
greater latitude to hearing requests submitted by non-attorney
intervenors while acknowledging that non-attorney petitioners are still
expected to comply with our procedural rules. The NRC is clarifying
that it is retaining this latitude for non-attorneys; however, this
latitude is limited to construing the pleadings.

Requirements for Publication of Federal Register Notices Announcing an
Opportunity To Request a Hearing, and Petition To Intervene

The NRC is making several changes to the regulations in Sec. Sec.
2.101, 2.104, and 2.105 regarding the publication of Federal Register
notices announcing an opportunity to request a hearing and petition to
intervene. First, the NRC will generally notice these hearing
opportunities as early as practicable. The hearing process may not
reasonably be initiated before the NRC staff accepts the application
for review (i.e., dockets the application), but noticing the hearing
opportunity as early as practicable thereafter would accelerate issue
identification and resolution and could help mitigate any unavoidable
delays that may occur later (e.g., from illness of counsel or a
witness). For certain proceedings, Sec. 2.104(a) already requires the
staff to issue the hearing notice ``as soon as practicable after the
NRC has docketed the application.'' With one exception, the NRC is
changing Sec. Sec. 2.104 and 2.105 to expand this requirement to
publish notices as soon as practicable to other Federal Register
notices announcing a hearing opportunity in order to accelerate the
initiation of the adjudicatory process, with a conforming change to
Sec. 2.101(f)(5). The exception pertains to notices of proposed action
subject to the requirements of Sec. 50.91 or 53.1515. Notices under
Sec. 50.91 or 53.1515 are for proposed amendments to specified
production and utilization facility licenses. Historically, such
notices have generally been published on a periodic basis given their
volume. Given the high volume, it would not be practical to require
individual Federal Register notices for these licensing actions. Also,
only a small number of these amendments are challenged in the hearing
process, and the associated licensing actions may be taken during the
pendency of a hearing if the NRC makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination.
Second, the NRC is modifying Sec. Sec. 2.104 and 2.105 to provide
that Federal Register notices announcing a hearing opportunity must
provide additional clarity by stating the Standard Hearing Completion
Date specified in Sec. 2.1207 and the additional filing deadline
information required by Sec. 2.309(b)(5). The basis for this change is
described later in this notice in the context of changes to Sec. 2.309
requirements for hearing requests, intervention petitions, and
contentions.
Consistent with current practice, Federal Register notices will
continue to state that prospective participants should notify the
Secretary at least 10 days before filing a hearing request. While the
agency recognizes this practice as helpful, in that it provides
sufficient time to create an electronic hearing docket for a proceeding
to facilitate compliance with electronic filing requirements and
identify applicant and NRC staff contacts, imposing the practice as an
additional requirement, as requested by one commenter on the rule, is
not necessary. Outside the rulemaking process, the NRC will look to
clarify notice templates to highlight the importance of meeting the
requirements for electronic filing, including a timely request to
establish a docket.

Good Cause for Extensions of Time

Meeting the licensing deadlines contemplated in the ADVANCE Act and
E.O. 14300 will require strict adherence to the schedules described in
the rule. Under existing Sec. 2.307(a), time periods in 10 CFR part 2
may be extended either upon a showing of good cause or by stipulation
of the parties. An extension of time by stipulation of the parties
usually does not result in significant delay as the applicant and NRC
staff have an interest in timely adjudication, and such extensions
sometimes lead to more efficient resolution of issues (e.g., an
extension to complete consultation on a motion). However, contested
extensions are more likely to lead to delay, and in recent years the
NRC has sometimes found good cause for extensions based on requests
detailing ordinary circumstances, such as general resource planning
challenges.
The NRC has determined that no changes must be made to Sec.
2.307(a), but in order to ensure that extension requests do not
undermine timely adjudications, the NRC is reiterating the need for
parties to clearly demonstrate good cause under Sec. 2.307. Good cause
is necessarily context specific, and the Commission has previously
explained in its 2012 rule (77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012) that good
cause in the context of Sec. 2.307 should include ``extraordinary
circumstances.'' Extraordinary circumstances are those events that are
not within the parties' control, such as sickness or weather. Major
holidays could similarly be an extraordinary circumstance. Thus, in
normal circumstances the presiding officer should only grant an
extension when a circumstance outside of the ordinary occurs that is
not brought on by the movant's actions or inactions. In addition, under
the ADVANCE Act and E.O. 14300, efficient and timely decision-making on
license applications is a key focus area for the agency. Therefore, in
circumstances where an extension request has the potential to extend an
adjudicatory proceeding past the NRC staff's scheduled date to complete
its review, the presiding officer should take into account schedule
needs when making its determination and minimize the amount of time
necessary to accommodate the circumstances giving rise to good cause.

Requirements for Hearing Requests, Intervention Petitions, and
Contentions

The NRC is revising its regulations for hearing requests,
intervention petitions, and contentions to (1) refine but not raise the
contention admissibility criteria, (2) accelerate filing and decision
deadlines consistent with the ADVANCE Act and E.O. 14300, (3) clarify
and improve the requirements for hearing requests, intervention
petitions, and new or amended contentions filed after the deadline in
Sec. 2.309(b) (i.e., ``challenges after the deadline''), and (4)
provide clarity to participants on timelines, including when the
reopening standards would apply to contentions raising new issues after
the Standard Hearing Completion Date. However, as discussed in the
Comment Response Document, this final rule is not adopting a provision
in the proposed rule that would have

[[Page 69453]]

bifurcated filings and decisions on standing and contention
admissibility (with standing being addressed on a more accelerated
schedule), nor is the final rule adopting proposed Sec. 2.309(k),
which would have accelerated the filing of merits information on
proposed contentions. As such, this final rule will not change current
practice on these two matters: litigants will continue to address
standing and contention admissibility in the same filings, the
presiding officer will address both matters in the same decision, and
litigants will not be required to file additional information on the
merits of proposed contentions.
The NRC is also refining the contention admissibility criteria in
two ways. First, the NRC is augmenting the requirement in Sec.
2.309(f)(1)(iv) to demonstrate that a contention is material by
requiring the petitioner to specify the legal requirement on which the
contention is based. Specifying the pertinent legal requirement is
important for demonstrating the materiality of the contention, and
clarity in this regard can avoid needless confusion about the legal
basis for a contention (e.g., safety versus environmental requirements)
and the inefficiencies that accompany efforts to resolve such
confusion. Second, the NRC is revising Sec. 2.309(f)(1)(vi) to require
the petitioner to clearly indicate whether a contention is one of
omission or adequacy. Different requirements apply to contentions of
omission versus contentions of adequacy, and a lack of clarity
regarding the nature of the contention requires additional resources
from the NRC staff, applicant, and presiding officers to address.
As discussed previously, the NRC is taking a tailored approach to
timeframes for initial filings and decisions thereon to account for
specific types of applications rather than the more one-size-fits-all
approach in the existing regulations, where the same time is provided
for contentions on shorter or simpler applications as on longer or more
complex applications. These tailored timeframes provide sufficient time
for petitioners to meaningfully raise disputed issues in their hearing
requests, for the applicant and NRC staff to file answers to hearing
requests, and for the presiding officer to determine whether the
standing and contention requirements are met.
Applying the tailoring approach described in the previous
paragraph, this final rule includes the following schedules for hearing
requests:
<bullet> Under revised Sec. 2.309(b), hearing requests and
intervention petitions are due within set time periods after
publication of the Federal Register notice announcing the hearing
opportunity, depending on the type of application. As reflected in
table 1, the NRC is retaining the existing standard 60-day filing
period for Standard Proceedings, retaining the existing 20-day filing
period for license transfer applications, providing a 30-day filing
period for Expedited Proceedings, and providing a 45-day filing period
for Focused Proceedings.
<bullet> The NRC is retaining the existing 60-day filing period for
hearing requests in Standard Proceedings because the pertinent
applications generally present more complex technical issues than other
license applications. The NRC is retaining the 20-day filing deadline
for license transfer applications because this is a sufficiently
expeditious period, and petitioners have demonstrated the ability to
comply with this deadline over the last few decades.
<bullet> The NRC is establishing a 45-day filing period for hearing
requests in Focused Proceedings because the covered applications are
generally less complex than applications within the Standard Proceeding
category, as discussed previously.
<bullet> The NRC is providing a 30-day hearing request period for
the types of applications designated as Expedited Proceedings in this
final rule--this provides sufficient time to evaluate and file hearing
requests on these simple or narrow applications and meets the need for
expedited decision-making on those applications. A 30-day period also
ensures conformance with the 30-day notice provisions in AEA section
189 for proceedings on license and license amendment applications for
production and utilization facilities under AEA sections 103 and 104b.
and testing facilities under AEA section 104c.
These initial filing periods reflect the NRC's consideration of the
need for timeliness and efficiency pursuant to the ADVANCE Act and E.O.
14300, as well as the anticipated length and complexity of the
identified applications. This includes accounting for factors that
would reduce the scope and complexity of the adjudicatory proceeding,
such as whether an application for a production or utilization facility
references a prior NRC approval providing issue finality in the
adjudicatory proceeding that encompasses design issues.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Existing NRC regulations establish that certain NRC
approvals finally resolve specified issues in later proceedings
referencing the NRC approval. To the extent an issue is finally
resolved, it may not be revisited in a later proceeding absent a
rule waiver--this effectively limits the scope of that later
proceeding. Design certifications and manufacturing licenses are
existing NRC approvals that provide issue finality in the
adjudicatory proceeding that would encompass design issues. The NRC
notes that a standard design approval does not provide finality in
the adjudicatory proceeding and therefore would not affect the scope
of the adjudication, while an early site permit provides finality in
an adjudicatory proceeding but only on a narrower scope of issues
that does not include the design of the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NRC is also taking a tailored approach to the time provided for
applicant and NRC staff answers to hearing requests and intervention
petitions. Where the existing 60-day period for filing hearing requests
is retained, the NRC is retaining the existing 25-day filing period for
answers. Where the petitioner's filing period is reduced, the answer
period would also be reduced, such that a 20-day answer period would
correspond to a 45-day hearing request period, and a 15-day answer
period would correspond to 30-day and 20-day hearing request periods.
These reduced answer periods are 5 days shorter than the corresponding
answer periods in the proposed rule, but as explained in the proposed
rule, those proposed answer periods accounted for proposed Sec.
2.309(k), which would have required an applicant's answer (and
permitted the NRC staff's answer) to contain additional information on
the merits of proposed contentions, including expert declarations.
Since this final rule is not adopting proposed Sec. 2.309(k), a modest
reduction in the proposed rule answer periods is appropriate, and the
due dates reflect the timeliness and efficiency goals in the ADVANCE
Act and E.O. 14300 and the expected complexity of the proceedings.
Finally, to avoid prejudice to the applicant and NRC staff, the NRC has
clarified Sec. 2.309(i) in this final rule so that the deadlines in
Sec. 2.309(i) for answers to hearing requests filed by the deadline in
Sec. 2.309(b) also apply to hearing requests filed by an approved
extension to this Sec. 2.309(b) deadline.
Consistent with existing regulations, replies to answers to hearing
requests and intervention petitions submitted by the deadline in Sec.
2.309(b) are due within 7 days of the answers.
These changes necessitate conforming changes to other regulations.
For example, the NRC is removing the reference in Sec. 54.27 to a 60-
day filing period for hearing requests in power reactor license renewal
proceedings because this final rule imposes a shorter filing period in
such proceedings and because time periods for filing hearing requests
should be specified in 10 CFR part 2 and not in other parts of the
NRC's regulations. The NRC is also making other minor changes to Sec.
2.309,

[[Page 69454]]

such as dividing Sec. 2.309(a) into subparagraphs for clarity. In
addition, the NRC is deleting the sentence in Sec. 2.309(a) addressing
proceedings under Sec. Sec. 52.103 and 53.1452 to simplify the text
and because that sentence is unnecessary given that other provisions of
the NRC's regulations state that the Commission, acting as the
presiding officer, will decide whether to grant hearing requests in
proceedings under Sec. Sec. 52.103 and 53.1452.
The NRC is retaining the existing filing periods for hearing
requests, intervention petitions, answers, and replies in proceedings
under subpart J of 10 CFR part 2, ``Procedures Applicable to
Proceedings for the Issuance of Licenses for the Receipt of High-Level
Radioactive Waste at a Geologic Repository,'' proceedings under Sec.
52.103 or 53.1452, and proceedings under Sec. 2.108(b)(2) on a denial
of an application. As stated previously, this final rule is not
intended to have more than a minimal impact on these types of
proceedings. For clarity, the NRC notes that a demand for hearing in
response to a denial of an application is not subject to the
requirements of Sec. 2.309 for hearing requests, and that a hearing
request under Sec. 2.108(b)(2) is subject to the requirements of Sec.
2.309 because it comes from a person other than the applicant whose
application was denied.
For all proceedings other than those under subpart J of 10 CFR part
2 or under Sec. 52.103 or 53.1452, the NRC is modifying Sec. 2.309(j)
to impose accelerated deadlines for decisions by presiding officers on
hearing requests submitted by the deadline in Sec. 2.309(b). The
decision will be due 30 days from the filing of replies in a transfer
proceeding or Expedited Proceeding and 35 days from the filing of
replies for other proceedings. Also, the Sec. 2.309 deadlines for
presiding officer decisions on hearing requests, intervention
petitions, and contentions (including for such filings made after the
filing deadline in Sec. 2.309(b)) may be extended only if
extraordinary circumstances prevent the presiding officer from issuing
a decision by the deadline. Further, at the earliest practicable
opportunity, the presiding officer would be required to notify the
Commission and the litigants of the delay and the extraordinary
circumstances that necessitate a delay. The potential need for oral
argument, prehearing conferences, or additional briefing do not by
themselves constitute extraordinary circumstances. Finally, while not
addressed in the regulation text itself, the revised framework provides
the presiding officers flexibility to take steps to accelerate the
commencement of the evidentiary hearing phase, such as prioritizing
issuance of decisions on admissible contentions.
The NRC is making several modifications to Sec. 2.309(c) to
clarify and improve the requirements for challenges after the deadline
(i.e., hearing requests, intervention petitions, and new or amended
contentions filed after the deadline in Sec. 2.309(b)). First, the NRC
is clarifying and revising its regulations to avoid delays in making
licensing decisions in certain proceedings due to the submission of
challenges after the deadline that arrive near the end of the NRC
staff's application review. Currently, petitioners must submit
``motions for leave to file'' contentions after the deadline that must
satisfy Sec. 2.309(c). Hearing requests and intervention petitions
after the deadline must also satisfy Sec. 2.309(c), although NRC
regulations do not require a ``motion for leave to file'' such filings.
The NRC is extending the ``motion for leave to file'' concept to
hearing requests and intervention petitions after the deadline, and
clarifying that challenges after the deadline would not be considered
pending before the NRC until the motion for leave to file has been
granted upon a showing of good cause under Sec. 2.309(c). These
changes address statutory requirements for a pre-effectiveness hearing
(or pre-effectiveness hearing opportunity) for certain licensing
actions.\7\ For example, AEA section 189a.(1)(A) allows the NRC to
issue operating licenses for certain facilities ``in the absence'' of a
request for hearing from a person whose interest may be affected;
therefore, the pendency of a hearing request before the NRC could
affect the timing of the NRC's licensing decision. However, the AEA
does not require a hearing request submitted after the specified
deadline for hearing requests to be considered automatically pending
before the NRC regardless of when it was filed. Rather, the related AEA
section 189a.(1)(A) requirement specifying a 30-day notice period for
operating licenses indicates that Congress contemplated that hearing
requests be filed within specified periods.\8\ The AEA provides no
absolute right to file challenges after the specified notice period,
nor does it indicate that petitioners may file challenges at any time
they choose and thereby delay NRC action on the application. Under this
change, challenges after the deadline would not be considered pending
before the agency (and therefore would not delay NRC action on an
application subject to a pre-effectiveness hearing requirement) unless
and until the motion for leave to file the challenge after the deadline
has been granted upon a showing under Sec. 2.309(c) of good cause for
filing after the deadline. Thus, as reflected in a new Sec.
2.309(c)(7) and in revisions to Sec. 2.340(i)(2), (j)(4), and (k)(2),
the mere submission of such challenges after the deadline would not
interfere with timely NRC licensing or regulatory decisions, even for
those applications subject to a pre-effectiveness hearing (or pre-
effectiveness hearing opportunity) requirement. The effectiveness of
the licensing action in these circumstances would be stayed only if the
petitioner meets the standard for granting a stay request.\9\ To
reflect the motion for leave to file terminology, the NRC is also
making conforming changes in other paragraphs of Sec. 2.309 and in
Sec. Sec. 2.4 (definition of ``contested proceeding'') and 2.323(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ The Commission's 1992 decision in the Shoreham proceeding
(CLI-92-4, 35 NRC 69) explains the statutory basis for the pre-
effectiveness hearing requirements for specified production and
utilization facilities. A partial list of applications for which a
pre-effectiveness hearing (or hearing opportunity) is currently
required is included in current 10 CFR 2.1202(a). In addition, AEA
section 193(b) requires the NRC to complete a ``single adjudicatory
hearing'' before issuing a license to construct and operate a
uranium enrichment facility. A pre-effectiveness hearing is not
required for license transfers, most materials licenses, and reactor
license amendments not involving a significant hazards
consideration.
\8\ The other pre-effectiveness hearing requirements in AEA
section 189a. also involve provisions where the NRC is required to
give specified notice. In addition, AEA section 193(b)(1)-(2)
requires the NRC to conduct a single adjudicatory hearing before the
issuance of a license for such construction and operation, which
does not require that late-filed requests should automatically stay
NRC action.
\9\ Under Commission case law, the person requesting a stay of a
licensing decision must either show irreparable harm that is
imminent, certain, and great, or make an ``overwhelming showing'' of
likelihood of success on the merits that amounts to a ``virtual
certainty.'' See, for example, discussion in the Commission's 2019
decision in the Pilgrim proceeding, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-19-11, 90 NRC 258, 264-80
(2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, the NRC is modifying the timeline for motions for leave to
file and associated challenges after the deadline. For the motion and
challenge to be considered timely, they would need to be filed within
30 days of the new, materially different information giving rise to the
challenge after the deadline. Currently, the regulations do not specify
when the filing is considered to be timely, although 30 days is the
time usually prescribed in presiding officer scheduling orders. This
filing period would be accelerated to 20 days from the new, materially
different information in transfer proceedings and

[[Page 69455]]

Expedited Proceedings because these proceedings are on a shorter
timeline, and 20 days provides an appropriate period given the nature
and scope of those proceedings. Because challenges after the deadline
should be narrowly focused on new, materially different information, 15
days will be provided for answers to challenges after the deadline,
consistent with the tailored approach to schedules described earlier.
In addition, 7 days is provided for replies associated with challenges
after the deadline, consistent with existing requirements. Finally,
presiding officer decisions on challenges after the deadline will be
due within 25 days of the reply, a deadline reflecting the anticipated
narrower scope of challenges after the deadline. These deadlines for
answers, replies, and decisions are reflected in new Sec. 2.309(c)(5)
and (6).
Finally, the NRC is modifying Sec. 2.309(g) to reflect changes to
Sec. 2.310 that are discussed later in this notice, in particular the
elimination of provisions in Sec. 2.310(d).
The different timelines under Sec. 2.309 for initial filings and
decisions thereon for hearing requests and intervention petitions filed
by the deadline in Sec. 2.309(b)(1) and (b)(3) are reflected in table
1 (for simplicity, the table uses ``hearing request'' to refer to both
hearing requests and intervention petitions). Table 2 provides the new
timelines for motions for leave to file hearing requests, intervention
petitions, and new or amended contentions filed after the deadline in
Sec. 2.309(b)(1) and (b)(3).
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03NO26.024

BILLING CODE 7590-01-C
For clarity, the NRC is adding a new Sec. 2.309(b)(5) (with cross-
references in Sec. Sec. 2.104 and 2.105) requiring Federal Register
notices announcing an opportunity for hearing to specify the applicable
filing deadlines for hearing requests, intervention petitions, and
contentions (including those filed after the Sec. 2.309(b)(1)-(b)(3)
deadlines), and the applicable deadlines for the associated answers and
replies. These notices will also be required to specify the Standard
Hearing Completion Date for the proceeding, which is important
information for application of the revised reopening requirements in
Sec. 2.326 and certain scheduling provisions in subpart L of 10 CFR
part 2, as explained later in this notice.

Selection of Hearing Procedures

As a result of this final rule, the NRC will use a revised hearing
format in subpart L of 10 CFR part 2 to govern the adjudication of
admitted contentions in almost all proceedings for the grant, renewal,
licensee-initiated amendment, termination, or transfer of licenses or
permits subject to 10 CFR parts 30, 32 through 36, 39, 40, 50, 52, 53,
54, 55, 61, 70 and 72. Subpart L is already used for most of these
proceedings, but the NRC is increasing its use of subpart L with the
following changes:
<bullet> The NRC will conduct proceedings on a license to construct
and operate a uranium enrichment facility under subpart L of 10 CFR
part 2 rather than subpart G of 10 CFR part 2 because the revised
subpart L provides a faster, more streamlined process than subpart G
and is better suited for licensing proceedings (in fact, most licensing
proceedings are already conducted under subpart L). The NRC previously
decided to conduct these uranium enrichment proceedings under subpart G
because AEA section 193 requires such proceedings to be conducted ``on
the record'' (i.e., in

[[Page 69456]]

accordance with the formal procedures in the APA for ``on the record''
proceedings). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
subsequently concluded in 2004 (391 F.3d 338) that subpart L complies
with these formal APA requirements. The revisions to subpart L continue
to ensure that these enrichment proceedings comply with the formal APA
requirements, while being more streamlined and efficient than the
subpart G procedures. The NRC is also removing and reserving Sec.
2.310(c) and revising Sec. 2.700 to reflect this change.
<bullet> The NRC is eliminating the provision in Sec. Sec.
2.310(d) and 2.700 providing that certain proceedings for nuclear power
reactors would be held under subpart G of 10 CFR part 2 if (as stated
in Sec. 2.310(d)) ``the presiding officer by order finds that
resolution of the contention or contested matter necessitates
resolution of issues of material fact relating to the occurrence of a
past activity, where the credibility of an eyewitness may reasonably be
expected to be at issue, and/or issues of motive or intent of the party
or eyewitness material to the resolution of the contested matter.''
This possibility has not been exercised since it was established in the
2004 Adjudications Rule (69 FR 2182, January 14, 2004), and subpart L
of 10 CFR part 2 provides for cross-examination, if needed.
<bullet> The NRC is removing and reserving Sec. 2.310(g) and
subpart M of 10 CFR part 2, which currently governs license transfer
proceedings, because the revisions to subpart L of 10 CFR part 2
suitably ensure that transfer proceedings are conducted promptly. As
explained later in this notice, the streamlined and expedited subpart L
procedures impose strict deadlines for completing license transfer
evidentiary hearings in about 2.5 to 3.5 months. Also, subpart M is
premised on the Commission serving as the presiding officer for
transfer proceedings, but the NRC has decided to employ a Licensing
Board as the presiding officer for transfer proceedings, as explained
previously. The NRC is making conforming changes to reflect the removal
of subpart M in Sec. 2.4 (definition of ``potential party'') and in
Sec. Sec. 2.313(a), 2.901, and 2.1103. In addition, the NRC is
revising Sec. 2.1103 to clarify the applicability of subpart K of 10
CFR part 2, adding a reference to 10 CFR part 52 to maintain
consistency with the hearing format selection requirements in Sec.
2.310, and providing, consistent with Sec. 2.310(e), that subpart K
would apply to the identified spent nuclear fuel storage capacity
expansion proceeding upon the request of a party to use subpart K but
that, otherwise, subpart L would be used.
<bullet> The NRC is revising Sec. 2.310(e) and removing and
reserving Sec. 2.310(h) to eliminate the option of using subpart N of
10 CFR part 2 for licensing proceedings that would by default be
conducted under subpart L of 10 CFR part 2 (absent those rare
circumstances triggering the use of an alternative subpart). Subpart N
was created to provide simplified procedures with oral hearings for the
expeditious resolution of disputes. However, the NRC has never used
subpart N since it was created in the 2004 Adjudications Rule (69 FR
2182, January 14, 2004), and the NRC believes that the oral hearing
procedures for subpart N are generally not well suited for licensing
proceedings, which often involve complex technical subject matter,
where the precision of a primarily written hearing format is desirable.
<bullet> To reflect these changes, the NRC is also making
conforming changes to Sec. 2.310(a). In addition, the NRC is removing
cross-references in 10 CFR parts 52 and 53 to specified subparts of 10
CFR part 2 as potential sources of hearing procedures for certain
license applications. These cross-references are not consistent with
this rule's changes to Sec. 2.310, and hearing formats should be
specified in 10 CFR part 2 and not in other parts of the NRC's
regulations. The affected sections in 10 CFR part 52 are Sec. 52.21
and 52.163 (appendix N to 10 CFR part 52, section 8 was considered an
affected section in the proposed rule, but section 8 was subsequently
removed from the regulations (91 FR 20063, April 15, 2026)). The
affected sections in 10 CFR part 53 are Sec. Sec. 53.1149 and 53.1285.

Timeline for Motions Submitted in Expedited Proceedings

Consistent with the overall streamlining approach of this final
rule, the agency is amending Sec. 2.323 to reduce the timelines for
submittal of motions and corresponding answers in Expedited
Proceedings. As previously discussed, Expedited Proceedings are simpler
or narrower in scope and on a shorter timeline than typical proceedings
covered under 10 CFR part 2. To achieve timelines commensurate with the
substance and pace of Expedited Proceedings, Sec. 2.323(a)(2) is
changed to require that motions filed in these proceedings must be made
no later than seven (7) days after the occurrence or circumstance from
which the motion arises. Further, Sec. 2.323(c) is amended to state
that answers to motions in Expedited Proceedings must be submitted
within seven (7) days after service of the motion. The agency is also
instituting a simple restructuring of Sec. 2.323(c) into three
subparagraphs (1)-(3), introducing additional clarity and improving
readability of the applicable requirements. Finally, in this final
rule, the NRC is making an administrative correction to Sec. 2.323(c)
to change the title ``Assistant Secretary'' to the current title
``Deputy Secretary.'' The NRC is also making this correction in
Sec. Sec. 2.346 and 2.808.

Reopening Standards

The NRC intends to complete contested hearings on a schedule that
supports licensing within the timelines contemplated by the ADVANCE Act
and E.O. 14300. Consequently, to ensure that the adjudicatory process
concludes within these timelines, the revised adjudicatory procedures
have been constructed so as to generally accommodate an evidentiary
hearing on admitted contentions filed by the Sec. 2.309(b) deadline
for filing contentions and a hearing on admitted contentions filed
after that deadline, even if there is essentially no overlap between
the filing and decision schedules for the two. To help accomplish this,
the rule introduces a mechanism referred to as the Standard Hearing
Completion Date, which facilitates the timely disposition of issues
during the contested hearing process. The Standard Hearing Completion
Date serves an important dual purpose in maintaining efficiency by
identifying a time after which certain evidentiary hearing schedules
are accelerated and, as discussed in the following paragraphs, defining
a time when proposed contentions raising new issues must meet the
standards for reopening the record.
The NRC acknowledges that in rare cases critical issues may arise
late in a proceeding that might require the adjudication to exceed the
NRC staff review timelines established in accordance with the ADVANCE
Act and E.O. 14300. However, only critical issues should lead to such
delays. Existing Sec. 2.326 addresses this in part by requiring
contentions filed after the record closes for an adjudicatory
proceeding to meet the heightened reopening standards in Sec. 2.326,
which require the contention to be timely in accordance with Sec.
2.309(c), address a significant safety or environmental issue, and
demonstrate that it would likely materially affect the outcome of the
proceeding. Under existing case law, the reopening standards would
apply after the last live contention in the proceeding is resolved.
However, it is possible under existing precedent for a chain of
periodically

[[Page 69457]]

filed new or amended contentions, none of them admissible, to hold open
the record of the proceeding even to the end of the NRC's review of an
application. To avoid this anomalous result and to provide a standard
time for when the record would close to new issues for a proceeding,
the revisions to Sec. 2.326 add a new paragraph (e)(1) stating that
the record for the proceeding will automatically close at the Standard
Hearing Completion Date, a date providing sufficient time to hold an
evidentiary hearing on admitted contentions submitted by the original
deadline. The Standard Hearing Completion Date is based on the timeline
structure of a particular proceeding, and applying the reopening
standards to new issues raised after this date balances the rights of
potential intervenors with the need for efficiency and predictability
in a proceeding. The imposition of the reopening standards at this
juncture in the timeline is intended to ensure that new issues
submitted late in the proceeding are only admitted if shown to be
critical, and would not affect litigation of issues already raised in a
previously filed contention, as explained in subsequent paragraphs.
There may be instances in which an evidentiary hearing is completed
before the Standard Hearing Completion Date. Consistent with existing
practice, the presiding officer is expected to issue an order closing
the record after the evidentiary hearing and before issuing the initial
decision. In keeping with existing practice and consistent with themes
underlying existing agency case law, Sec. 2.326(e)(1) also provides
that the record closes for the adjudicatory proceeding if the presiding
officer enters an order closing the record following an evidentiary
hearing but before the Standard Hearing Completion Date.
These revisions to Sec. 2.326 comport with existing NRC precedent
and are not intended to supersede the concepts already enshrined in
case law. The Commission has routinely emphasized that the adjudicatory
record for a proceeding closes at the conclusion of an evidentiary
hearing, for example, in a 2012 decision in the Pilgrim proceeding
(CLI-12-3, 75 NRC 132). Also, the Commission has applied the reopening
provisions even earlier in a proceeding (e.g., when a proceeding
terminates once all contentions have been decided), such as in the
Commission's 2012 decision in the North Anna proceeding (CLI-12-14, 75
NRC 692). Therefore, under existing precedent, the proceeding would
terminate and the reopening provisions would apply in a situation when
a presiding officer denies all hearing requests filed by the deadline
in Sec. 2.309(b) and there are no pending contentions in the
proceeding.
The Commission has also recognized that if some issues are pending
once the record closes, the record may remain open on those limited
issues; an example is the Commission's decision in the Pilgrim
proceeding (CLI-12-3, 75 NRC 132). This practice of keeping the record
open for particular issues while closing the overall record for the
proceeding has been supported in federal court in a 2013 decision in
Massachusetts v. NRC (708 F.3d 63, footnote 18). Therefore, the new
Sec. 2.326(e)(1) also clarifies that if other contentions either
remain pending or are subject to a motion for leave to file at the time
the record closes, the record will remain open only with respect to the
particular issues raised by those contentions. As a result, petitioners
could continue to litigate live contentions filed prior to closure of
the record under final Sec. 2.326(e)(1) without having to meet the
reopening standards. This would include (in certain narrow cases)
filing proposed amendments of contentions on issues within the scope of
the existing contention. For example, a petitioner may adjust an
environmental contention filed on the application to address an NRC
environmental document's discussion of the same particular issue, given
that the NRC has the ultimate responsibility to comply with
environmental laws and (when the NRC environmental document has been
issued) the hearing on the issue would concern the adequacy of the NRC
environmental document. Similarly, the reopening standards under final
Sec. 2.326(e)(1) would not apply to a contention of adequacy arising
from new information mooting a contention of omission, where the
contention of adequacy remains within the bounds of the bases set forth
in support of the original contention. This aligns with well-
established scope principles outlined in existing caselaw, such as the
McGuire/Catawba proceeding (CLI-02-28, 56 NRC 373). However, reopening
would apply to a new or amended contention filed after the record
closure date under Sec. 2.326(e)(1) that is not squarely within the
confines of a live contention filed before that date (e.g., if the pre-
record-closure contention raised a particular environmental
qualification concern for a component, a post-record-closure contention
would have to meet the reopening standards if it raised a different
type of environmental qualification concern for the component).
By providing the public with an opportunity to request a hearing
prior to closing the record, this change comports with applicable
Federal case law considering challenges to the NRC's reopening
standards. In the 1984 decision Deukmejian v. NRC (751 F.2d 1287), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit addressed a challenge to the
NRC requiring an intervenor to meet the reopening standards to
participate in a proceeding on a full power operating license in order
to challenge an applicant's application to amend a low power license by
extending the license term. The court determined the two actions were
separate proceedings. By requiring the petitioner to meet the
heightened pleading requirements in the reopening standard, the NRC
improperly abridged the petitioner's hearing rights under section 189a.
of the Atomic Energy Act. Thus, under Deukmejian, the NRC must provide
petitioners with at least one opportunity to participate in an
adjudication prior to closing the record. The revisions to Sec. 2.326
meet this standard because they would not close the record until well
after the opportunity to request a hearing expires.
Also, because the revisions to Sec. 2.326 close the record in the
specified circumstances, the NRC is revising Sec. Sec. 2.104, 2.105,
and 2.309(b)(5) to require Federal Register notices announcing
opportunities to request hearings to state the Standard Hearing
Completion Date for the proceeding. This will put the public on notice
and provide additional clarity on record closure.
Further, to avoid any implication that final Sec. 2.326(e)(1)
overrides or otherwise annuls existing case law, the NRC is adding in
response to comments a new Sec. 2.326(e)(2) clarifying that, if the
presiding officer enters an order closing the record following
resolution of all live contentions in the proceeding, the record for
the adjudicatory proceeding will close on the date specified in the
order.
Finally, in addition to the adjustments described previously to
address the scheduling directives of the ADVANCE Act and E.O. 14300,
the agency is modifying the criteria included in Sec. 2.326(a)(2) to
state that a significant environmental issue under the National
Environmental Policy Act can only be identified in a proceeding where a
categorical exclusion listed in 10 CFR part 51 does not apply. The
final rule language clarifies that categorical exclusions specifically
pertain to the agency's obligations under the National Environmental
Policy Act. In circumstances where a categorical

[[Page 69458]]

exclusion is used to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act,
by definition, there are no significant environmental issues associated
with the proposed Federal action under that statute. The agency
considers this to be a clarity change responsive to the potential for
increased use of categorical exclusions in future reviews. In another
clarity change, the final rule specifically refers to categorical
exclusions listed in 10 CFR part 51 because categorical exclusions in
the regulations have issue preclusive effect in NRC proceedings.

Discovery

The NRC is making several changes to reduce burdens to the parties
from their obligations to make certain disclosures after contentions
are admitted in most licensing proceedings and is also expediting the
production of initial disclosures to support the accelerated
evidentiary hearing timeframes in subpart L of 10 CFR part 2.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ These changes do not affect the discovery provisions in
proceedings under subpart G or subpart J of 10 CFR part 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NRC staff's hearing file obligations are being entirely
eliminated by this rule. Experience shows the hearing file currently
required by Sec. 2.1203 is burdensome and provides little value to the
litigation because it covers the entire application under review
instead of focusing on the admitted contentions. Moreover, the hearing
file was established before the NRC required electronic filing of
applications, regularly posted the entirety of applications and related
documents on its website, and developed robust search functions in
public-facing ADAMS. To the extent members of the public face
difficulties in searching ADAMS, NRC Public Document Room staff are
available to assist during business hours. Thus, the rationale
supporting the hearing file obligation has become outdated. While the
NRC is eliminating the hearing file requirements in Sec. 2.1203, it is
retaining paragraph (d) of this section, which specifies that no
additional forms of discovery are authorized beyond what is permitted
by subpart C of 10 CFR part 2.
In a change from the proposed rule, the NRC is retaining the NRC
staff's Sec. 2.336(b) disclosure obligations. While the staff's
disclosures largely replicate the applicant's required disclosures or
otherwise concern internal documents that are typically not produced to
the other parties, there could be cases where the staff would disclose
relevant information that would not otherwise be produced.
To effectuate the elimination of the hearing file requirement, the
NRC is changing the scope of case-specific orders issued under Sec.
2.307(c) for access to sensitive unclassified information. Under
existing Commission precedent, these orders no longer apply to a
petitioner if its hearing request is granted, as discussed in a 2010
decision in the South Texas Project combined license proceeding (CLI-
10-24; 72 NRC 451, 461-63). That precedent, however, was issued when
regulations required the NRC staff to disclose documents unrelated to
the admitted contentions. Since the NRC staff would no longer produce a
hearing file under Sec. 2.1203, a change is needed so that a
petitioner who is admitted as a party could continue to make requests
for access under the Sec. 2.307(c) access order on matters outside the
scope of disclosures under Sec. 2.336. The NRC intends to revise its
templates for Sec. 2.307(c) access orders to reflect this change; no
change to the regulations is needed for this purpose.
The NRC is modifying the Sec. 2.336(b) disclosures obligation in
proceedings on denials of applications. In these types of proceedings,
the staff is required to be a party and is in opposition to the
applicant. The NRC is modifying Sec. 2.336(b) to tailor the required
document disclosures to the circumstances associated with a proceeding
on a denial of an application (e.g., the document categories associated
with the application and NRC correspondence with the applicant would
not apply because the applicant already would be in possession of this
material). Finally, the NRC is making conforming changes to Sec.
2.336(a) to reflect applicant disclosures in a proceeding on a denial
of an application.
Second, the NRC is further modifying Sec. 2.336 to reduce the
burdens of other participants. Parties commonly agree to exclude from
disclosures non-public draft documents that have not been circulated
among the parties; the NRC is codifying this practice in the NRC's
regulations in new subparagraphs (a)(4) and (b)(2). Moreover, in
response to comments, the NRC is adding new subparagraphs (a)(5) and
(b)(3) to exclude internal instant messages, text messages, and voice
messages from mandatory disclosure absent a showing of exceptional
circumstances. This exclusion only applies to communications that are
internal to a party, its litigation team, and its contractors; if a
single external person or entity is included in a communication, the
communication would not be subject to this exclusion. These internal
communications are generally high-volume, but low-value, and similar to
non-public drafts that reveal a party's internal thinking. Generally,
NRC licensing proceedings involve admitted contentions from qualified
intervenors and focus on the technical conclusions on safety and
environmental issues and how they are supported,\11\ rather than on
intent or motive that could be revealed through a party's internal
thinking. Therefore, the NRC finds it appropriate to focus disclosures
on technical documents that will reach the ultimate issues in dispute.
However, to avoid inadvertently excluding relevant technical documents
merely because they are attached to an excluded internal communication,
the NRC is not excluding any documents attached to those excluded
internal communications. These attachments would need to be included
within the scope of mandatory disclosures if they are relevant to the
admitted contentions. Also, in exceptional circumstances, such as when
an admitted contention or license denial proceeding relates to a
party's intent or motive and these types of internal communications
would be relevant to the specific issue in the proceeding, the
presiding officer may require that these communications be included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ For example, in a 2006 decision in a proceeding on the USEC
American Centrifuge Plant (CLI-06-10, 63 NRC 451, 455), the
Commission explained that the NRC's adjudicatory hearings serve to
``adjudicate genuine, substantive safety and environmental issues
placed in contention by qualified intervenors.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under existing rules, the duty to update disclosures relevant to an
admitted contention ends when the presiding officer issues a decision
resolving the contention. In this final rule, the NRC is also providing
that the duty to update ends upon the initiation of the evidentiary
hearing phase for the contention as delineated in an order from the
presiding officer. This change serves to avoid requiring updates during
the evidentiary hearing phase, as the relevant documents should have
been disclosed by this point, and the evidentiary hearing is the most
resource-intensive phase of the process.\12\ Notably, this does not
relieve

[[Page 69459]]

litigants from their ongoing general obligation to keep the presiding
officer and litigants informed of relevant new developments in a
proceeding, as the Commission emphasized in its 2006 decision in the
USEC proceeding (CLI-06-10, 63 NRC 451).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ The NRC has revised this section in the final rule. The
proposed rule regulatory text stated at Sec. 2.336(d) that ``The
duty to update disclosures relevant to an admitted contention ends
when the presiding officer issues a decision resolving the
contention or thirty days prior to the start of an evidentiary
hearing, whichever occurs first; however, termination of the duty to
update disclosure does not relieve parties of their continuing
obligation to keep the presiding officer and litigants informed of
relevant new developments in a proceeding.'' The proposed rule
regulatory text was ambiguous, as it did not specify when the
evidentiary hearing started, and if misinterpreted might not have
achieved the stated purpose in the proposed rule preamble, to
achieve an efficient and timely adjudication process by not
requiring disclosures during the evidentiary hearing phase. The NRC
is revising the regulatory text to reconcile the regulatory text
with its stated purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the NRC is revising Sec. 2.336(a) and (b) for added
clarity and to require parties to produce their initial disclosures
within 20 days of a presiding officer order admitting contested issues
into the proceeding when the proceeding is immediately moving to the
evidentiary hearing phase under Sec. 2.332(d), while continuing to
allow a 30-day period if the proceeding is not immediately moving to
the evidentiary hearing phase or for an order granting a demand for
hearing upon a denial of an application. Twenty days should be
sufficient for diligent litigants to prepare their Sec. 2.336
disclosures given the reduced scope of disclosures and modern discovery
and file management tools, including artificial intelligence. Also, an
accelerated initial disclosures schedule is necessary to support the
expedited evidentiary hearing timeframes that are in the revised
subpart L of 10 CFR part 2 when the proceeding is continuing to the
evidentiary hearing phase immediately. In proceedings that are not
moving immediately to the evidentiary hearing phase, i.e., when the
expedited discovery schedule is not needed, the extra 10 days will
allow parties additional time to meet their disclosure obligations.
The 20 or 30 days would generally run from the date of an order
admitting contentions to account for new or amended contentions that
might be admitted after the Sec. 2.309(b) initial filing deadline for
contentions. However, in a proceeding on a denial of an application,
the 30-day period would run from the order granting a demand for
hearing.

Conforming Changes to Scheduling Regulations

To accommodate the shorter timeframes for completing adjudications
contemplated by this final rule, the NRC is making a number of
conforming amendments to other sections in 10 CFR part 2, which pertain
to scheduling. Specifically, the NRC is revising paragraph (b) in Sec.
2.312, ``Notice of hearing,'' to reflect the Commission's expectation
that considerations informing the selection of a time and place for a
hearing should not override the overall timeframes established for
timely adjudications by this rule or by any proceeding-specific
Commission order. To provide additional flexibilities that may
facilitate meeting those timeframes, the NRC is also revising Sec.
2.329, ``Prehearing conference,'' to give the presiding officer or
Commission discretion on whether to hold a prehearing conference.
Next, the NRC is making a number of edits to Sec. 2.332, ``General
case scheduling and management,'' to conform to the streamlined
procedures and shortened timeframes elsewhere in this rule. Because the
timeframes in this rule are mandatory, the NRC is revising paragraph
(a) to reflect the presiding officer's obligation to develop a schedule
that would meet the licensing timeframes in this rule. Likewise, the
NRC is amending paragraph (d) to conform to the Commission's
expectations that hearings under subpart L of 10 CFR part 2 would
ordinarily begin once the presiding officer admits contentions, not
when the staff issues its review documents. Specifically, the presiding
officer would immediately proceed to an evidentiary hearing after the
admission of a contention unless either (i) the NRC staff or applicant
intend to seek dismissal or summary disposition of the admitted
contention or (ii) the NRC staff decides to participate as a party but
is not yet able to take final positions on the matters in controversy.
Section 2.332(d) includes notification requirements to effectuate this
provision--the proposed rule required these notifications within seven
days of admission of the contention, but to avoid unnecessary delay,
this final rule requires the notifications to be filed as soon as
possible and no later than seven days after admission of the
contention. The commencement of the evidentiary hearing phase would be
delayed in cases where the NRC staff or applicant seek to resolve a
contention through a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary
disposition because the process for seeking dismissal or summary
disposition is quicker and less resource-intensive than an evidentiary
hearing; thus, the dismissal or summary disposition process may be a
more efficient way of resolving a contention if the presiding officer
decides that the standards for dismissing the contention are
satisfied.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ The exception for summary disposition has been added to
this final rule in response to comments; the proposed rule referred
only to motions to dismiss. This change is a modest expansion of the
proposed rule provision that is consistent with its stated purpose
(91 FR 10462) of providing for contention resolution processes that
are ``quicker and less resource-intensive than an evidentiary
hearing[.]'' As the proposed rule recognized (91 FR 10464),
``Summary disposition may be a useful tool to avoid the resource
expenditures associated with an evidentiary hearing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other reason for delaying the commencement of the evidentiary
hearing--when the NRC staff seeks to participate as a party but is not
able to take a final position on the matters in controversy--reflects
the special role the NRC staff has in the licensing process and the
Commission's desire to ensure that the presiding officer is aware of
the NRC staff's considered position on the contested issues in those
cases where the staff chooses to participate as a party. The NRC staff
may not always be in the position (particularly early in its review of
an application-specific or first-of-a-kind issue) to take a final
position on the matters in controversy (e.g., the NRC staff is seeking
further information from the applicant or further considering
information already provided). In this regard, the NRC staff is in a
different position from the petitioner (who formulated and supported
the proposed contention and should be in a position to commence the
evidentiary hearing upon admission of the contention) and the applicant
(who developed the application and should have the wherewithal to
promptly address challenges to it). In the interest of prompt
adjudication, revised Sec. 2.332(d) further requires the NRC staff, in
cases where it decides to participate as a party but is not yet able to
take a final position on the admitted contention, to prioritize its
resources to put itself in a position to provide testimony on the
contention at the earliest practicable time and notify the presiding
officer and the other parties when the staff is ready to do so.
Because the evidentiary hearing phase would, with certain
exceptions, immediately commence after admission of a contention,
litigants should ensure they are prepared to move immediately to an
evidentiary hearing posture if a proposed contention is admitted. Thus,
the NRC expects that litigants will consider their potential strategies
and resource needs to litigate contentions at an evidentiary hearing
before a presiding officer issues its decision on contention
admissibility.
Section 2.332(d) is further revised to require the presiding
officer, to the greatest extent practicable, to establish a schedule
that will not extend past the

[[Page 69460]]

NRC staff's scheduled date for completing its review of the particular
application. This provision has the purpose of ensuring timely NRC
decision-making when it is practicable to do so and is intended to
address both individual NRC reviews that are on a more expedited review
schedule as well as the resolution of admitted contentions submitted
later during an NRC review. In establishing a schedule under this
provision, the presiding officer must ensure, as stated later in this
rule, that the process still supports accurate decision-making and the
development of a sound record, while giving parties a fair and equal
opportunity to make their cases.
As a conforming change, the NRC is revising Sec. 51.104(a) to
remove the prohibition, in proceedings where a final environmental
impact statement (EIS) has been prepared in connection with a proposed
action, on the NRC staff either presenting a position on matters within
the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act or offering the
final EIS into evidence until the final EIS is made available. There is
no statutory basis for this prohibition. Also, delaying the
commencement of evidentiary hearings on environmental contentions until
a final EIS has been completed, which might occur near the end of the
NRC's review period, does not support the timeliness and efficiency
goals of the ADVANCE Act and E.O. 14300. With the removal of this
prohibition, the operative provisions of Sec. 51.104(a) and (b) would
be essentially identical, so the NRC is further consolidating Sec.
51.104(a) and (b) into Sec. 51.104(a) and removing and reserving Sec.
51.104(b).
In another conforming change, the NRC is revising Sec. 2.332(b) to
reflect that only enforcement proceedings, not licensing proceedings,
would be subject to the model milestones in appendix B to 10 CFR part
2. As discussed later, strict deadlines would be imposed in licensing
proceedings rather than model milestones.
Finally, the NRC is amending Sec. 2.334, ``Implementing hearing
schedule for proceeding,'' by clarifying paragraph (a) to directly
state the presiding officer's obligation to take necessary measures to
ensure timely adjudication, by revising paragraph (b) to incorporate
the standard in Sec. 2.307(a) for extending a schedule and to
incorporate an ``extraordinary circumstances'' standard for extending
the deadline for completing an evidentiary hearing under subpart L of
part 2, and by revising paragraph (c) to require the presiding officer
to notify the Commission of any delays beyond the timeframes
established by this rule.

Revisions to Hearing Format in Subpart L of 10 CFR Part 2 and
Conforming Changes Elsewhere in Part 2

As explained previously, the NRC is making a number of significant
changes to subpart L of 10 CFR part 2 to streamline and accelerate the
hearing process for proceedings for the grant, renewal, licensee-
initiated amendment, termination, or transfer of licenses or permits
subject to 10 CFR parts 30, 32 through 36, 39, 40, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55,
61, 70 and 72. The two most significant changes are (1) to establish
strict deadlines for the issuance of initial decisions in most
licensing proceedings and (2) to provide greater flexibility to the
presiding officer to decide which components of the subpart L hearing
process are needed to support the presiding officer's decision-making.
The NRC is also making other changes to streamline proceedings and
ensure prompt and accurate decision-making, as discussed in the
following paragraphs.
The NRC is establishing strict deadlines for the issuance of an
initial decision to ensure that adjudicatory proceedings are promptly
conducted to support the efficiency goals of the ADVANCE Act and E.O.
14300. These deadlines are tailored to different types of proceedings
to account for the varying complexity of different license applications
as well as the greater need for expedited decision-making in certain
proceedings (e.g., in Expedited Proceedings). These deadlines may only
be extended if extraordinary circumstances necessitate a delay.
The NRC is also providing presiding officers greater flexibility in
structuring the subpart L of 10 CFR part 2 evidentiary hearing phase
because admitted contentions could take a wide variety of forms, and
the presiding officer in an individual proceeding is better placed to
decide what information is needed for the admitted contentions before
it to support accurate decision-making and the development of a sound
record, while ensuring that the parties are given a fair and equal
opportunity to make their cases (e.g., if one party may file written
testimony and a position statement, all other parties would have the
same opportunity). The presiding officer would also tailor the hearing
schedule to the particular circumstances of a proceeding while
complying with requirements for decision-making deadlines.
The specific changes to subpart L of 10 CFR part 2 and conforming
changes elsewhere in this part are detailed in the following
subsections for clarity and completeness.
A. Changes to Scope Provisions in Sec. 2.1200
The NRC is revising Sec. 2.1200 to reflect the modified scope of
subpart L of 10 CFR part 2, as discussed previously in the context of
changes to Sec. Sec. 2.310 and 2.700. As stated before, license
transfer proceedings will now be conducted under subpart L, as well as
contested proceedings on the grant of licenses to construct and operate
uranium enrichment facilities. The NRC is also clarifying Sec. 2.1200
to reflect the existing provision in Sec. 2.310(b) providing that
enforcement proceedings may be held under subpart L if all parties
agree.
B. Changes to Sec. 2.1202 Regarding the NRC Staff's Authority and Role
The NRC is making several modifications to the provisions in Sec.
2.1202 regarding the NRC staff's authority to take licensing actions
and its role in the adjudicatory proceeding. First, the NRC is
modifying provisions on the issuance and effectiveness of licensing
decisions during the pendency of a hearing. Currently, Sec. 2.1202(a)
provides that the NRC staff is expected to promptly issue its approval
or denial of the application, or take other appropriate action on the
underlying regulatory matter for which a hearing was provided, and that
the NRC staff's action is effective upon issuance except for several
listed licensing actions. The NRC is revising the list of exceptions in
Sec. 2.1202(a) as follows:
<bullet> Currently, the listed exceptions include all applications
to construct and/or operate a production or utilization facility
(including limited work authorizations and combined licenses). However,
the pre-effectiveness hearing requirements in AEA section 189a. apply
to production and utilization facilities licensed under AEA sections
103 and 104b. (corresponding to facilities under Sec. Sec. 50.21(b)
and 50.22 and 10 CFR part 53) or testing facilities licensed under AEA
section104c. (corresponding to a facility under Sec. 50.21(c) that
meets the definition of ``testing facility'' in Sec. 50.2). The AEA's
pre-effectiveness hearing requirements do not apply to production and
utilization facilities licensed under AEA section104a. (i.e., medical
therapy facilities under Sec. 50.21(a)) or to production and
utilization facilities licensed under AEA section 104c. that are not
testing facilities (i.e., non-testing facilities under Sec. 50.21(c)).
The NRC is revising Sec. 2.1202(a)(1) to reflect the scope of the
AEA's pre-effectiveness

[[Page 69461]]

hearing requirements and in recognition of the lower safety
significance of medical therapy facilities under Sec. 50.21(a) and
non-testing facilities under Sec. 50.21(c).
<bullet> The NRC is revising Sec. 2.1202(a)(3) to remove the
existing exception for 10 CFR part 52 or 53 manufacturing licenses and
put in its place an exception for licenses to construct and operate
uranium enrichment facilities. In the 2007 rule adding the exception
for manufacturing licenses (72 FR 49352, page 49420, August 28, 2007),
the Commission acknowledged that there is no statutory requirement for
including an exception for manufacturing licenses, but stated,
``Nonetheless, as a matter of discretion, the NRC has decided to treat
manufacturing licenses similar to construction permits in this regard,
although the NRC reserves the right to change its practice in the
future.'' The NRC is removing the exception for manufacturing licenses
because such licenses are not subject to the AEA's pre-effectiveness
hearing requirements, a manufacturing license authorizes only the
manufacture (not operation) of a facility, and vendors may fabricate
major portions of a facility without a manufacturing license so long as
those portions do not constitute a production or utilization facility.
In these circumstances, there is no substantial reason to delay the
issuance and effectiveness of a manufacturing license because of a
pending hearing on the license application. The NRC is including an
exception for applications for licenses to construct and operate
uranium enrichment facilities. Such applications are currently subject
to hearings under subpart G of 10 CFR part 2, but the NRC will now
conduct contested hearings on these applications under subpart L of 10
CFR part 2. As stated previously, licenses to construct and operate
uranium enrichment facilities are subject to a statutory pre-
effectiveness hearing requirement, so it is appropriate to include them
in the list of exceptions in Sec. 2.1202(a).
The NRC is also modifying Sec. 2.1202(b), regarding the role of
the NRC staff in the hearing process, to accelerate the time in which
the NRC staff is required to notify the presiding officer and the other
parties of whether it will participate as a party in the proceeding,
consistent with changes being made to Sec. 2.332(d).
C. Changes to Sec. 2.1203 Regarding Elimination of Hearing File
As discussed previously, the NRC is eliminating the hearing file
requirements in paragraphs (a) to (c) of Sec. 2.1203, while retaining
the prohibition on additional discovery currently in paragraph (d) of
Sec. 2.1203.
D. Changes to Sec. 2.1205 Regarding Summary Disposition
The NRC is making several changes regarding the schedule for
summary disposition motions. First, to avoid unduly burdening parties
as they undertake evidentiary hearing activities, the NRC is modifying
Sec. 2.1205(a) so that summary disposition motions are not permitted
later than 30 days before the scheduled date for filing initial written
testimony, absent permission from the Commission or presiding officer.
Summary disposition may be a useful tool to avoid the resource
expenditures associated with an evidentiary hearing, but after
evidentiary hearing activities are underway, the filing of summary
disposition motions risks distracting parties from their hearing
preparations and burdening them unnecessarily.
Second, consistent with other changes in this final rule, the NRC
is reducing the time for filing answers to summary disposition motions
from 20 days to 15 days after service of the motion. The NRC also is
providing a 20-day period from the filing of answers for a decision on
the motion. Fifteen days should be sufficient for parties to address
the pertinent standards for summary disposition motions, and a 20-day
period for decisions is consistent with the overall hearing schedule
and other timeframes for decisions in this final rule.
E. Changes to Sec. 2.1206 to Sec. 2.1210 Regarding the Hearing
Process and Schedule
Currently, Sec. 2.1206 to Sec. 2.1210 provide the principal
requirements for the subpart L evidentiary hearing process and
schedule, including prescriptive requirements for which written filings
are permitted and when, and whether an oral hearing must be held. For
the reasons discussed earlier, the NRC is replacing these detailed
requirements with simpler, more flexible, and more informal provisions
for most proceedings. However, as reflected in an amended Sec.
2.1206(a)(2), a hearing in a proceeding expressly required by the AEA
to be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing
(i.e., a proceeding for the grant of a license to construct and operate
a uranium enrichment facility) will be required to comply with the
APA's formal procedures for ``on the record'' hearings.\14\ As
explained in the following paragraphs, Sec. Sec. 2.1206 and 2.1207 are
completely revised, while Sec. Sec. 2.1208 and 2.1209 are removed and
reserved, and minor conforming changes are made to Sec. 2.1210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ In the final rule, the NRC has modified this provision in
Sec. 2.1206(a)(2) and the related provision in Sec. 2.1206(d) to
refer to ``a proceeding expressly required by the [AEA] to be
determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing''
rather than to a proceeding on a license to construct and operate a
uranium enrichment facility. Although a proceeding on a license to
construct and operate a uranium enrichment facility is the only NRC
licensing proceeding subject to the ``on the record'' procedures,
the NRC made the change to focus on the underlying statutory
requirement, which will also account for any potential future
statutory changes without the need for a revision to the
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under revised Sec. 2.1206(a), the presiding officer would issue a
scheduling order that would include the presiding officer's
determinations on which written filings are permitted, the schedule for
these filings, whether to hold an oral hearing, and the schedule for
issuing an initial decision. Motions for cross-examination under Sec.
2.1204 would be permitted (consistent with the existing regulations).
Otherwise, the presiding officer would largely have flexibility to
decide which written filings the parties would be permitted to make to
provide the information necessary to support the presiding officer's
decision. These potential written filings, which are listed in Sec.
2.1206(b)(1), are (1) initial testimony, position statements, and
supporting exhibits; (2) rebuttal testimony, position statements, and
supporting exhibits; (3) motions in limine and motions to strike; (4)
written briefing and/or written responses to questions from the
presiding officer; (5) proposed questions for the presiding officer to
ask the witnesses; and (6) proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law. These listed filings are currently available in a hearing process
under subpart L of 10 CFR part 2, but the presiding officer would have
flexibility to determine which filings to permit in a particular case.
Similarly, the presiding officer would generally have flexibility to
determine whether an oral hearing is needed to support the presiding
officer's decision--currently, an oral hearing is required unless all
parties agree to a hearing based solely on written presentations, but
the NRC sees no need to require that an oral hearing be held as a
default matter in all proceedings.
The initial decision is the culmination of the evidentiary hearing
process, and the NRC is requiring that the scheduling order include the
schedule for an initial decision, which must comply with the
requirements of Sec. Sec. 2.332 and (if applicable) 2.1207. As
discussed later in this document, the amended Sec. 2.1207

[[Page 69462]]

provides schedule requirements for the issuance of initial decisions in
most licensing proceedings.
Revised Sec. 2.1206(b)(2) identifies certain additional
flexibilities for the parties and the presiding officer that would
apply depending on which written filings are permitted. Historically,
written testimony in subpart L proceedings has been submitted in
question-and-answer form, but a party would be allowed to submit
testimony in affidavit form if the party prefers. Section 2.1206(b)(2)
also provides that if statements of position and proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law are both permitted, parties would be
allowed to file statements of position in the form of proposed findings
and conclusions to facilitate the prompt preparation of proposed
findings and conclusions after the hearing. Finally, Sec. 2.1206(b)(2)
clarifies the presiding officer's authority to allow oral motions in
limine or motions to strike in lieu of (or in addition to) written
filings. The amended Sec. 2.1206(b)(2) does not provide an exhaustive
list of flexibilities, and the presiding officer retains all authority
provided in the pertinent provisions of 10 CFR part 2 to regulate the
conduct of the proceeding.
The amended Sec. 2.1206(c) retains requirements in existing
subpart L of 10 CFR part 2 regarding the participants' ability to
designate and present their own witnesses; the presiding officer's
discretion to formulate and ask questions as the presiding officer
considers appropriate; the presiding officer's authority to address
situations where a witness is unable to appear in an oral hearing; and
existing provisions on the propounding of questions by the presiding
officer and the submission of proposed questions for the presiding
officer to ask the witnesses.
While the presiding officer would ordinarily have great flexibility
to structure the evidentiary hearing, for two types of proceedings--a
proceeding expressly required by the AEA to be determined on the record
after opportunity for an agency hearing (i.e., a proceeding on an
application to construct and operate a uranium enrichment facility) and
a proceeding on a denial of an application--revised Sec. 2.1206(d)
requires (consistent with existing subpart L of 10 CFR part 2) that (1)
a transcribed oral hearing be held unless all parties jointly agree to
dispense with an oral hearing, and (2) each party be permitted to file
written testimony, a position statement, and supporting exhibits; to
submit rebuttal evidence and argument; and to file proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law. These elements of an evidentiary hearing
are required for a proceeding concerning the grant of a license to
construct and operate a uranium enrichment facility to maintain
consistency with the requirements for formal ``on the record'' hearings
in the APA.\15\ The NRC is also retaining these elements of a subpart L
hearing for denials of applications because hearings on denials
ordinarily arise from a ``demand for hearing'' under Sec. 2.103 or
2.108 that would not typically involve the robust issue development
provided in the initial filings under the Sec. 2.309 process.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ The NRC recognizes that an oral hearing may not be required
by the APA in all cases. As reflected in 5 U.S.C. 556(d), an agency
may, in ``applications for initial licenses . . . , when a party
will not be prejudiced thereby, adopt procedures for the submission
of all or part of the evidence in written form'' even in a formal
APA hearing.
\16\ The NRC acknowledges that for denials noticed under Sec.
2.108(b), any person whose interest may be affected may file an
intervention petition under Sec. 2.309, but the NRC does not
anticipate that a hearing on a denial of an application would
ordinarily arise through this mechanism. Instead, a hearing on a
denial of an application would most likely result from a demand for
hearing from the applicant under Sec. 2.103 or 2.108--a demand for
hearing is not subject to the requirements of Sec. 2.309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NRC is providing scheduling requirements in Sec. 2.1207 for
issuance of initial decisions in proceedings under subpart L, with the
exception of enforcement proceedings and proceedings on denials of
applications.\17\ For each type of proceeding, Sec. 2.1207 includes
(1) a deadline for initial decisions for contentions, including (as
applicable) a shorter deadline for initial decisions on contentions
submitted after the Standard Hearing Completion Date, (2) a
specification of the Standard Hearing Completion Date for that type of
proceeding, and (3) a requirement that extraordinary circumstances are
necessary for delays beyond the deadline for initial decision.
Deadlines are stated in terms of calendar days from the admission of
the contention, assuming that the presiding officer immediately
proceeds to an evidentiary hearing in accordance with Sec. 2.332(d),
although if this does not occur (e.g., the NRC staff is not yet able to
take a final position on the contested issues, the applicant seeks to
resolve the admitted contention through a summary disposition motion)
the deadline would run from an alternative triggering event established
in the scheduling order (e.g., the NRC staff's notification that it is
able to take a final position on the contested issues, a presiding
officer order denying or partially denying an applicant summary
disposition motion).Also, in accordance with changes to Sec. 2.334(c)
discussed previously, the presiding officer must provide written
notification to the Commission any time during the course of the
proceeding when it appears that the issuance of the initial decision
will be delayed beyond the time specified in the hearing schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ The NRC is not imposing specific schedules for issuance of
initial decisions in subpart L enforcement proceedings and
proceedings on denials of application because circumstances are
likely to vary in these proceedings. In addition, neither the
ADVANCE Act nor E.O. 14300 address schedules for enforcement
proceedings. Also, denials of applications would be subject to the
general requirement in Sec. 2.332(c) to establish a schedule to
expedite the proceeding, and the Commission expects that presiding
officers would consider relevant comparable hearing schedules in
Sec. 2.1207 in establishing a hearing process and schedule that
ensure a prompt and fair proceeding that supports accurate decision-
making and development of an adequate record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In establishing deadlines, the NRC considered the anticipated
complexity of the pertinent application, along with associated NRC
review deadlines and goals. More time is given for the Standard
Proceeding applications subject to an 18-month standard NRC review
schedule, while less time is given for less complex applications. While
the complexity of the issues admitted for hearing in a particular
proceeding will depend on case-specific factors, more complex
applications have the potential for more complex contested issues,
which is a factor to be considered in establishing these general
evidentiary hearing deadlines in the regulations. However, if a less
complex dispute is amenable to a shorter process, the Licensing Board
should account for that in its schedule for an individual proceeding.
In some cases, the NRC has not established a standard review
schedule shorter than 18 months for a particular application, but the
NRC would seek to come to a final decision in substantially less than
18 months, if practical, because the application review is less
complicated or of narrower scope (e.g., a 10 CFR part 52 commercial
reactor application referencing an issued design certification, which
finally resolves most design issues for both the staff review and the
adjudicatory proceeding). The deadlines in final Sec. 2.1207 account
for these circumstances.
The NRC has also considered different timelines depending on when
the contention was submitted. For two reasons, the NRC is generally
establishing a shorter deadline for initial decisions on contentions
submitted after the Standard Hearing Completion Date. First, an
expedited schedule is needed for admitted contentions submitted later
in a proceeding to support prompt NRC decision-making consistent with
the

[[Page 69463]]

direction in the ADVANCE Act and E.O. 14300. As stated previously and
discussed in more detail later in the context of table 4, the NRC's
general overall goal with these changes has been to establish a process
where two non-overlapping hearings could be held within the 18-month
and 1-year E.O. 14300 deadlines (one hearing on contentions submitted
by the Sec. 2.309(b) deadline--as reflected in the calculation of the
Standard Hearing Completion Date--and the second hearing on a new or
amended contention submitted after the Standard Hearing Completion
Date). Second, consistent with other changes to 10 CFR part 2 in this
final rule (in particular, those in Sec. 2.332(d)), the NRC would
ordinarily proceed to an evidentiary hearing on contentions submitted
earlier in the proceeding as soon as practicable. Thus, hearings on
admitted contentions submitted later in the proceeding would be
expected to narrowly focus on new information arising later in the
review, in contrast to contentions submitted early in the review that
might embrace the entire application. To promote clarity, Sec. 2.1207
specifies the Standard Hearing Completion Date for different types of
proceedings, based on the new definition of this term in Sec. 2.4, and
the Standard Hearing Completion Date for a particular proceeding would
be specified in the Federal Register notice announcing the hearing
opportunity, in accordance with this rule's revisions to Sec. Sec.
2.104, 2.105, and 2.309. The Standard Hearing Completion Dates in this
final rule reflect changes to proposed rule scheduling provisions
discussed elsewhere in this notice; also, the NRC has corrected an
omission in the proposed rule by including a separate Standard Hearing
Completion Date in final Sec. 2.1207(d) for transfer proceedings other
than those for a license authorizing operation of a reactor.
Regarding the specific deadlines in Sec. 2.1207, the NRC is
establishing in Sec. 2.1207(a) the longest deadline (135 days) for the
Standard Proceeding applications (i.e., those that, as described
previously, are subject to a 60-day filing period for hearing
requests). The NRC determined this 135-day deadline by establishing a
reasonable, hypothetical schedule for conducting a formal APA hearing
in a Standard Proceeding for a license to construct and operate a
uranium enrichment facility. While the presiding officer has
flexibility to establish a hearing schedule based on the specific
circumstances of a proceeding, the hypothetical schedule that follows
in table 3 shows that 135 days is sufficient time to conduct an
evidentiary hearing that includes initial and rebuttal testimony and
statements of position, an oral hearing, and post-hearing proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law. A shorter deadline (100 days)
is provided for hearings on contentions submitted after the Standard
Hearing Completion Date, for the reasons given previously and as
supported by the hypothetical timeline in table 3. These initial
decision deadlines, combined with the associated timetables for initial
filings identified in tables 1 and 2, support the ability to resolve
contested adjudicatory issues within the NRC's standard 18-month review
schedules for these enrichment applications with substantial margin, as
shown in table 4.
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

[[Page 69464]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03NO26.025

BILLING CODE 7590-01-C
In the proposed rule, the NRC had proposed shorter evidentiary
hearing deadlines for other applications in the Standard Proceeding
category, but these deadlines were largely premised on the submission
of additional merits information in the initial filings under proposed
Sec. 2.309(k). Proposed Sec. 2.309(k) was intended to expedite the
evidentiary hearing through the development of additional merits
information up front that could be used for the evidentiary hearing and
would also enlighten the litigants as to the merits positions of the
other parties. Under proposed Sec. 2.309(k), the litigants would
generally have been further along in developing their initial testimony
and position statements and could have saved additional time and
resources by focusing these filings on the merits positions of the
other parties. Since this final rule does not adopt the provisions in
proposed Sec. 2.309(k), the NRC is adjusting the evidentiary hearing
schedules to provide a modest amount of additional time for the parties
to prepare their initial testimony and position statements given the
absence of information that would have been developed and disclosed
under proposed Sec. 2.309(k). Therefore, the NRC is modestly
increasing the evidentiary hearing schedules for the other Standard
Proceeding applications to account for this change, as discussed in the
Comment Response Document. Specifically, the NRC is applying the
deadlines discussed previously for formal enrichment proceedings to the
completion of evidentiary hearings for other applications in the
Standard Proceeding category. Both types of applications are subject to
similar NRC review schedules and can involve litigation of more complex
nuclear safety issues. While these other Standard Proceeding
applications are not subject to the formal APA hearing requirements as
a matter of law, any adjustments the NRC might make because of this
difference would not be sufficiently large to justify the complexity of
a different hearing timeline. The NRC has not developed a hypothetical
timeline for the non-enrichment evidentiary hearings because the
presiding officer has greater flexibility on how to structure these

[[Page 69465]]

proceedings, as they are not subject to the formal APA hearing
requirements.
Section 2.1207(b) prescribes initial decision deadlines for
Expedited Proceedings where the application references both (i) a
categorical exclusion listed in 10 CFR part 51, and (ii) an NRC
approval providing finality in the adjudicatory proceeding on design
information within the application (including a design certification or
a manufacturing license). In such cases, the potential adjudicatory
issues should be narrow in scope. For this reason, and to support the
expedited review schedules involved, the NRC is establishing a 65-day
initial decision deadline.\18\ This deadline is 20 days longer than the
proposed rule deadline for these proceedings because the proposed rule
deadlines were quite short and therefore heavily relied on the
acceleration of merits filings in proposed Sec. 2.309(k) to expedite
the filing of the parties' initial testimony and position statements.
Since this final rule is not adopting proposed Sec. 2.309(k), more
time will be needed for the evidentiary hearing, as explained in the
Comment Response Document. For contentions submitted by the deadline in
Sec. 2.309(b), the NRC could complete the evidentiary hearing in about
5 months from the Federal Register notice announcing the hearing
opportunity, which would support the NRC's review schedules for
applications in Expedited Proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ The NRC is not establishing a separate initial decision
schedule for contentions submitted after the Standard Hearing
Completion Date because the 65-day period is already short.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2.1207(c) establishes initial decision deadlines for
operating reactor transfer proceedings and for Expedited Proceedings
other than those covered by Sec. 2.1207(b). Operating reactor transfer
proceedings are treated more like Expedited Proceedings because (i)
transfer proceedings are narrow in scope; (ii) there is a shorter time
period for filing contentions in transfer proceedings (20 days from the
Federal Register notice); (iii) the existing model milestones in
appendix B to 10 CFR part 2, already establish an expedited hearing
schedule for transfer proceedings; and (iv) operating reactor transfer
proceedings are currently subject to an 8-month standard NRC review
schedule. Therefore, the NRC is accounting for these characteristics by
providing an 80-day initial decision deadline for operating reactor
transfer proceedings. The NRC is providing the same 80-day timeframes
for Expedited Proceedings under Sec. 2.1207(c) in light of the more
focused nature of these applications, while recognizing that there is
greater scope for potential contentions in these proceedings compared
to Expedited Proceedings under Sec. 2.1207(b). These 80-day deadlines
are 20 days longer than the proposed rule deadlines to account for the
NRC's decision not to adopt the proposed Sec. 2.309(k) requirements in
this final rule.
Finally, while operating reactor transfers are subject to an
expedited schedule under Sec. 2.1207(c), consistent with the nature of
the review and the NRC's 8-month standard review schedule, other
transfer proceedings (including for reactors under construction or in
decommissioning) are subject to the scheduling provisions in Sec.
2.1207(d) because the NRC currently has a 12-month standard review
schedule for these transfer applications. Also, experience has shown
that adjudications for transfers of reactors in decommissioning are
somewhat more complex than operating reactor transfers, a circumstance
that was not contemplated when the model milestones for license
transfer hearings were established.
Section 2.1207(d) establishes initial decision deadlines for other
licensing proceedings, i.e., Focused Proceedings and transfer
proceedings other than those covered by Sec. 2.1207(c). The initial
decision deadlines reflect the NRC's consideration of the need for
timeliness and efficiency pursuant to the ADVANCE Act and E.O. 14300,
as well as the anticipated potential complexity of adjudication for the
identified applications. Deadlines are modestly shorter under Sec.
2.1207(d) than under Sec. 2.1207(a), which addresses the Standard
Proceeding applications. Specifically, Sec. 2.1207(d) imposes a 110-
day initial decision deadline for contentions submitted by the Standard
Hearing Completion Date and a 100-day deadline for contentions
submitted thereafter. These deadlines are modestly longer than the
proposed rule deadlines (by 10 days) to reflect the NRC's decision not
to adopt proposed Sec. 2.309(k), as discussed in the Comment Response
Document. As shown later in table 4, these deadlines, combined with the
timeframes for initial filings, should generally support NRC decision-
making on applications within 12 months of docketing of the application
(even when a later hearing is held on new or amended contentions). Many
applications under Sec. 2.1207(d), including power reactor license
renewal applications, are currently subject to a 12-month standard NRC
review schedule. Some of the applications under Sec. 2.1207(d) are
currently subject to an 18-month standard NRC review schedule, but the
NRC would aim to complete the review of these applications more quickly
than 18 months if practical since they would generally be less complex
and narrower in scope than other applications subject to an 18-month
standard review schedule (e.g., 10 CFR part 52 combined license
applications referencing a design certification). In addition, to the
extent that new or amended contentions are not at issue because there
are no substantial changes to the application during the review, these
timelines would potentially support NRC decision-making a little over 7
months after docketing of the application if the NRC staff is able to
finish its review in that period. Finally, as stated previously, Sec.
2.332(d) requires presiding officers in their scheduling orders to
establish a schedule that, to the greatest extent practicable, will not
extend past the NRC staff's scheduled date for completing its review of
the particular application.
Tables 4 and 5 present information on how the overall hearing
timelines support the NRC's decision-making schedules for different
types of applications. Table 4 addresses applications covered by the
somewhat longer hearing schedules in Sec. 2.1207(a) and (d), and table
5 addresses the more expedited hearing schedules in Sec. 2.1207(b) and
(c). These tables assume that (1) the presiding officer immediately
proceeds to an evidentiary hearing when a contention is admitted, which
the NRC intends to happen where practicable, and (2) the new or amended
contention is submitted one day after the Standard Hearing Completion
Date (i.e., one day after the calculated initial decision date for the
first hearing). These tables show:
<bullet> For the Standard Proceeding applications under Sec.
2.1207(a), there is substantial margin to the 18-month standard NRC
review schedule for these applications. This margin accounts for
potential delays when the evidentiary hearing phase does not
immediately commence after contention admissibility. Also, while the
appeals process is not within the scope of the E.O. 14300 deadlines in
this final rule, the timelines in table 4 allow time for Commission
consideration of appeals within the 18-month standard schedules for
applications under Sec. 2.1207(a), even for an appeal taken of an
initial decision in an evidentiary hearing held on a new or amended
contention submitted one day after the Standard Hearing Completion
Date.
<bullet> For Expedited Proceedings and operating reactor transfer
proceedings

[[Page 69466]]

addressed by Sec. 2.1202(b) and (c), the timeframes support the
potential completion of hearings around 5 to 5.5 months after
publication of the Federal Register notice, which supports the NRC's
expedited decision-making goals for these proceedings.
<bullet> For Focused Proceedings and transfer proceedings addressed
by Sec. 2.1202(d), the timeframes support NRC decision-making in about
12 months from publication of the Federal Register notice (or about 11
months, for a transfer application subject to Sec. 2.1202(d)), which
supports NRC decision-making for applications subject to a 12-month
standard NRC review schedule, as well as some applications subject to
an 18-month standard NRC review schedule that the NRC would attempt to
complete sooner.
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03NO26.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03NO26.027

BILLING CODE 7590-01-C
With the revisions to Sec. Sec. 2.1206 and 2.1207, the provisions
in existing Sec. Sec. 2.1208 and 2.1209 are unnecessary and,
therefore, Sec. Sec. 2.1208 and 2.1209 are removed and reserved. Also,
minor conforming changes are made to the initial decision provisions of
Sec. 2.1210. Namely, the NRC is modifying an internal cross-reference
and changing ``an informal hearing'' to ``a hearing'' in Sec.
2.1210(a) to account for subpart L of 10 CFR part 2 covering uranium
enrichment proceedings subject to the APA's formal hearing
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ The NRC's current standard review schedules for the listed
applications are subject to change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Change to Sec. 2.1213 Regarding Time To File a Stay Request
As explained earlier in this notice, the NRC is modifying Sec.
2.1213(c) to reduce the time period for filing an answer to a request
to stay an NRC staff action from 10 days to 7 days. As explained later
in this notice, the NRC is modifying Sec. 2.1213(a) so that the
Commission itself will decide on requests to stay NRC staff action on a
license transfer application.

[[Page 69467]]

G. Addition of New Sec. 2.1214 Regarding Transfer Proceedings To
Reflect the Elimination of Subpart M of 10 CFR Part 2
The NRC is removing and reserving subpart M of 10 CFR part 2
because, as explained previously, the NRC is conducting adjudications
on transfer applications under subpart L of 10 CFR part 2 rather than
subpart M. However, there are certain provisions for transfer
proceedings in subpart M that are distinct to those proceedings and
should be retained. Therefore, the NRC is adding a new Sec. 2.1214 in
subpart L to incorporate the provisions of existing Sec. Sec. 2.1301,
2.1302, 2.1305, 2.1315, and 2.1316(b), with minor modifications to
reflect the context of subpart L in which these provisions now reside.
Also, consistent with changes made elsewhere in this rule, the
provision in Sec. 2.1214(d) has been modified in this final rule so
that the requirement for the NRC staff to offer the safety evaluation
report into evidence applies only if the safety evaluation report is
available at the time a hearing is conducted.
H. Elimination of Sections II and III of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 2
As stated previously, the NRC is including strict deadlines for
issuance of initial decisions for most adjudicatory proceedings under
subpart L of 10 CFR part 2, while providing presiding officers with the
flexibility to tailor hearing schedules within these deadlines. The NRC
is also eliminating subpart M of 10 CFR part 2. As a conforming change,
the NRC is also eliminating the model milestones for hearings under
subpart L and subpart M that are in appendix B to 10 CFR part 2. Thus,
sections II and III of appendix B are removed and reserved.

Appeals

As discussed previously, in this final rule, the appeals process
occurs outside of the scope of the fixed deadlines outlined in section
5(a) of E.O. 14300 because the appeals process does not itself delay
the issuance or effectiveness of a license. Nonetheless, the NRC is
promulgating broad changes to its contested hearing process, including
revisions associated with appeals, in response to the ADVANCE Act and
the general direction to streamline the public hearings process in
section 5(j) of E.O.14300. To streamline the overall process, the
changes to the appeals process primarily implement shortened timelines.
Further, simple structural changes were made in Sec. 2.311 to
streamline the requirements and add clarity. These changes involve
consolidation of the requirements in the section into paragraph (a),
Types of appeals covered under this section; paragraph (b), Timing of
appeals and associated filings under this section; and paragraph (c),
Scope of appeals under this section. These structural changes primarily
involve consolidating existing Sec. 2.311(d) into Sec. 2.311(c) and
consolidating existing Sec. 2.311(e) into Sec. 2.311(a), (b), and
(c). The following paragraphs discuss the NRC's streamlining of the
appeals process.
Specifically, the agency is amending Sec. 2.341(b)(1) to reduce
the time for filing a petition for review of an agency decision with
the Commission from 25 days to within 20 days after service of a full
or partial initial decision by a presiding officer, and within 20 days
after service of any other decision or action by a presiding officer
with respect to which a petition for review is authorized. Sections
2.311 and 2.341(b)(3) are amended to allow any other party to the
proceeding to file an answer supporting or opposing Commission review
within 20 days after service of a petition for review and reduce the
period of time the petitioning party has to file a 5-page reply brief
from 10 days to 7 days. In response to public comments, the page limit
count for answers to appeals in Sec. 2.341(b)(3) is adjusted from 25
pages to 30 pages. This adjustment matches the page limit count allowed
for petitions for review, promoting equity and consistency in the
regulations. The modest reductions in filing times described previously
are in keeping with the ADVANCE Act and the direction of E.O. 14300 to
streamline processes. For interlocutory appeals under Sec.
2.311(a)(1)-(3), the agency is limiting the time for filing the appeal
or petition from 25 days to 20 days, consistent with the other appeals.
For interlocutory appeals under Sec. 2.311(a)(1)-(3) and petitions
for interlocutory review under Sec. 2.341(f)(2), the agency makes no
procedural distinction between them and other appeals because, in many
cases, the complexity of an interlocutory appeal is similar to other
appeals. Also, this final rule modifies Sec. 2.311 to add a reply
brief opportunity for interlocutory appeals under Sec. 2.311(a)(1)-
(3).
The agency is modifying Sec. 2.311(b)(2), which addresses
interlocutory appeals of an order under Sec. 2.310 selecting hearing
procedures, to require the moving party to file an appeal with the
Commission no later than seven days after the order--this should be
sufficient time to address the comparatively simple matter of selection
of hearing procedures. The NRC similarly allots seven days after
service of the appeal for any party to file a brief in opposition. The
regulatory language further clarifies that a reply brief in response to
a brief in opposition is not permitted.
The proposed rule had proposed changes to Sec. 2.311 to address
interlocutory appeals of decisions on contentions submitted by the
deadline in Sec. 2.309(b) but separately from the hearing request to
account for the proposed rule's bifurcation of standing and contention
admissibility. Since the final rule does not adopt the proposed rule's
bifurcation scheme, these changes have not been included in the final
rule.

Referred Rulings and Certified Questions

In cases where the presiding officer identifies significant and
novel legal or policy issues, or where prompt decision by the
Commission is necessary to materially advance the orderly disposition
of the proceeding, the presiding officer has the discretion to refer
its ruling to the Commission or certify a question to the Commission
for disposition. To ensure efficiency in this process, the agency is
including language in Sec. 2.323(f)(1) clarifying that where
practicable, the presiding officer should first rule on the matter in
question and then seek Commission input in the form of a referred
ruling, rather than certify a question to the Commission without
issuing a ruling. This change aims to minimize delays in the proceeding
during the pendency of the Commission's review. Section 2.323(g) is
adapted to clarify that unless otherwise ordered, the referral of a
ruling to the Commission does not stay the proceeding or extend the
time for performance of any act.

Reconsideration

To shorten the process for motions for reconsideration in keeping
with the streamlining and burden reduction efforts of the ADVANCE Act
and E.O. 14300, the agency is changing the period to file a motion in
Sec. 2.323(e) from 10 days to 7 days; the period for responses is also
reduced from 10 days to 7 days. This change is accompanied by a
conforming change to Sec. 2.323(a)(2) clarifying that motions for
reconsideration are not subject to the general 10-day timeline for
motions. Further changes are also carried forward in Sec. 2.345(a)(1)
to reflect a seven-day deadline for filing a petition for
reconsideration and a seven-day answer period. Similarly, changes to
Sec. 2.341(d) reduce the filing timeline for petitions for
reconsideration before the Commission to seven days, with a seven-day
answer period.

[[Page 69468]]

The agency anticipates these changes will provide clarity for the
parties and serve overall efficiency efforts. Also, seven-day filing
periods should be sufficient because reconsideration is only warranted
when the existing regulatory standard of compelling circumstances
applies, such as in cases of a clear, material error that could not be
reasonably anticipated.

Stays of Decisions and Application for a Stay

Consistent with the streamlining efforts throughout 10 CFR part 2,
the NRC is changing the Sec. 2.342(a) timeline for an application for
a stay of the effectiveness of the decision or action pending filing of
and a decision on a petition for review; the NRC is reducing the filing
deadline from 10 days after service of a decision or action of a
presiding officer to 7 days. This change is paired with a revision to
Sec. 2.342(d) to clarify that the period for any party to file an
answer supporting or opposing the granting of a stay is seven days
after service of an application for a stay.
Under existing Sec. 2.1213, any application for a stay of the
effectiveness of the NRC staff's action on a matter involved in a
hearing must be filed with the presiding officer within seven days of
the issuance of the notice of the NRC staff's action under Sec.
2.1202(a). While the agency is not altering this timeline, the agency
is reducing the corresponding timeline in Sec. 2.1213(c) for any party
or the NRC staff to file an answer supporting or opposing the granting
of a stay from 10 days to 7 days after service of an application for a
stay of the NRC staff's action.
These modest timeline reductions should not significantly impact
the burden on the parties to address the limited requirements and
capped length of stay applications and associated answers. Further,
these timeline changes are consistent with changes in this rule for
similar filings while advancing the directives of the ADVANCE Act and
E.O. 14300.
Further, in response to a public comment on the proposed rule, the
NRC is amending Sec. 2.1213(a) to clarify that the Commission will
make decisions on applications to stay the effectiveness of an NRC
staff order in a license transfer proceeding. Rulings on such
applications require speed and stability, which may be more readily
afforded if the Commission maintains its authority for deciding stay
applications during license transfer proceedings.

Delivery of Hard Copy Documents

Under existing Sec. 2.302, litigants must generally utilize the
NRC's electronic filing system unless they (1) obtain an exemption from
that requirement by demonstrating good cause to use a nonelectronic
means of transmission for electronic documents on optical storage media
or to file paper documents, or else (2) file without an exemption a
document containing electronic portions that may not be transmitted via
the E-Filing system for reasons of security or electronic format. In
recent years these circumstances have been rare, and the NRC
anticipates they will arise even less frequently going forward. When an
alternative to electronic transmission is used, however, Sec. 2.306
automatically extends the timeframes in 10 CFR part 2 to account for
the additional time it will take for nonelectronic transmission of the
document. Collectively, these extensions could considerably delay a
proceeding. Therefore, the NRC is amending Sec. 2.306(b) to direct the
presiding officer to establish whether, and how long, the timeframes in
10 CFR part 2 should be extended in cases when nonelectronic
transmission is allowed. Prior to this presiding officer order, the NRC
is retaining the existing extensions of time in Sec. 2.306. In
considering the need to extend the timeframes to account for
nonelectronic service of documents, the presiding officer should ensure
that the extensions will not cumulatively challenge timely completion
of the adjudication.

IV. Opportunities for Public Participation

The NRC published the proposed rule on March 3, 2026 (91 FR 10450),
and the due date for comments was April 2, 2026. In the proposed rule
notice, the NRC sought advice and recommendations from the public on
the following specified topics:

Overall Framework
Accelerating the Consideration of the Merits of Proposed Contentions
Specific Hearing Provisions
Discovery
Applicability of Rule Changes

The NRC hosted a public meeting on March 19, 2026, to engage with
external stakeholders on the proposed rule during the public comment
period. The NRC provided an overview of the proposed rule and answered
questions from attendees but did not take comments on the proposed rule
at the meeting. A summary of this public meeting is available in ADAMS,
as provided in the ``Availability of Documents'' section.

V. Public Comment Analysis

In response to the proposed rule, the NRC received 33 unique
comment submissions. The public comment submissions are available from
the Federal e-Rulemaking website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under
Docket ID NRC-2025-1501 and in ADAMS, as referenced in the
``Availability of Documents'' section. The NRC prepared a document
summarizing and responding to the public comments, titled ``NRC
Response to Public Comments: Streamlining Contested Adjudications in
Licensing Proceedings'' (Comment Response Document), also referenced in
the ``Availability of Documents'' section. The Comment Response
Document also includes a discussion of how this final rule changed as a
result of the public comments.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, 5
U.S.C. 605(b), the NRC certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule applies in the context of NRC adjudicatory proceedings
concerning nuclear reactors or nuclear materials. Reactor licensees are
large organizations that do not fall within the definition of a small
business found in section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632,
within the small business standards set forth in 13 CFR part 121,
``Small Business Size Regulations,'' or within the size standards
established by the NRC (Sec. 2.810). Some materials licensees are
small businesses. Based upon the historically low number of requests
for hearings involving materials licensees, it is not expected that
this rule will have any significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small businesses.

VII. Regulatory Analysis

The NRC has prepared a final regulatory analysis for this rule in
accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4. The
analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered
by the NRC. The NRC has determined that the actions in this rule are
expected to reduce regulatory burden and generate cost savings for both
the government and hearing participants by streamlining contested
hearing proceedings.
As part of the proposed rule, the NRC requested public comment on
the draft regulatory analysis, and a few comments were received that
were relevant to the regulatory analysis. In response to these
comments, the NRC added clarifying text to describe the qualitative
assessment of certain impacts. Also, the NRC revised the regulatory
analysis to reflect changes made from the proposed

[[Page 69469]]

rule to the final rule in response to other comments (e.g., changes
eliminating proposed Sec. 2.309(k) and the proposed bifurcation of
standing and contention admissibility, changes to exclude certain
internal communications from mandatory disclosures). In addition to
these comment-related updates, the NRC made an update to the wage rates
from 2024 to 2025, the most recent year for which data were available.
Taken together, these updates result in revised impact estimates. The
final regulatory analysis is detailed in the following paragraphs.
This analysis uses current contested hearing procedures for
licensing proceedings under 10 CFR part 2 as the baseline and evaluates
the changes in this rule as the regulatory alternative and estimates
the final rule's costs and cost savings for the first five years of
implementation of the rule.\21\ The final rule addresses many different
types of applications, from applications to construct or operate
reactors, to applications to construct or operate significant materials
facilities, to applications for license renewals, amendments, and
transfers, as well as applications associated with the proposed restart
of reactors in decommissioning. Past experience suggests that,
depending on the type of application, there is a greater or lesser
probability that a hearing request will be filed or that a hearing
request, if granted, will proceed to an evidentiary hearing. For
example, previous 10 CFR part 52 early site permit and combined license
applications for large reactors were nearly always the subject of a
hearing request, while reactor license amendment applications are
rarely challenged. Power reactor license renewal applications are often
contested. Regarding the likelihood that an evidentiary hearing will be
held, of the eight combined license applications for large reactors
that were granted, an evidentiary hearing was held on four of these
applications. There is a lower rate of holding evidentiary hearings for
early site permit and reactor license renewal applications, but
contested uranium recovery applications have led to a number of
evidentiary hearings in the past 10 years. Past experience is to some
degree informative, but any effort to extrapolate from this experience
will be subject to substantial uncertainty. In addition, there is
uncertainty in predicting how many applications of various types will
be submitted or how many will be challenged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ The NRC staff relied on past or current costs to estimate
the future costs of implementation of this final rule. For steps for
which the staff has no data, the staff estimated the level of effort
based on similar steps in the process or provided a qualitative
assessment. In addition, the five-year time horizon was chosen
because it allows for a reasonably reliable prediction of the number
of proceedings, which is one of the bases of this analysis.
Furthermore, the estimates are based on average labor burdens and
wage rates; actual outcomes may vary across applicants, NRC staff,
and petitioners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognizing this uncertainty, the NRC has attempted to develop
numerical estimates for this regulatory analysis. The NRC expects an
increase in the number of applications that are the subject of a
hearing request because of an expected increase in the number of new
reactor applications, up to nine applications per year for the next
five years based on pre-application engagements. In addition, 20 power
reactor license renewal applications are expected between 2026-
2030.\22\ Based on this information, the NRC has developed a rough
estimate that 15 license proceedings per year will be the subject of a
hearing request over the next five years. Based on data from the last
20 years, hearing requests have been granted in 60 percent of the
proceedings in which they have been filed, so the NRC estimates that
hearing requests will be granted in 9 of these 15 proceedings. Based,
in part, on the number of new reactor applications expected and the
relative frequency of evidentiary hearings for such applications, the
NRC estimates that about 33 percent of the proceedings will lead to an
evidentiary hearing (5 evidentiary hearings on average per 15
proceedings with hearing requests).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ Notices of intent to submit license renewal applications
are listed on the NRC's website at <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/subsequent-license-renewal.html">https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/subsequent-license-renewal.html</a> and
<a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html">https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resource Projections for Next Five Years Based on Existing Requirements

Combining the previous estimated probabilities for the granting of
hearing requests and holding of evidentiary hearings, with the
available, albeit limited, internal data on resources expended on NRC
hearings, the NRC anticipates that, on average, the NRC staff
participating as a party in a contested proceeding would expend 4,150
hours per proceeding on average under the existing requirements--this
average accounts for proceedings where hearing requests are denied,
those that proceed to an evidentiary hearing, and those where hearing
requests are granted but do not proceed to an evidentiary hearing
because the admitted contentions are resolved prior to hearing.
The NRC does not possess data on applicant resource expenditures in
contested hearings, but the NRC expects an applicant's resources (in
terms of hours) to generally be similar to the NRC staff's under the
existing rules because the applicant and NRC staff use similar
personnel to accomplish similar tasks (answering hearing requests,
developing Sec. 2.336 document disclosures, writing testimony, etc.).
However, an applicant is not subject to a hearing file requirement like
the staff is. Therefore, the NRC projects that applicant resources
under existing requirements are 3,925 hours per proceeding in which a
hearing request is filed, a bit less than the NRC staff.
The NRC also does not possess data on petitioner resource
expenditures in contested hearings. Petitioners vary widely in terms of
their level of resources and how many contested issues they raise, but
the NRC roughly estimates that, on average, a petitioner would expend
about half the applicant's resources (1,975 hours) in a proceeding in
which a hearing request is filed.
The NRC would also expend resources for presiding officers to
conduct adjudicatory proceedings, where the presiding officer would be
a three-member Licensing Board with support staff. In addition, the
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication would draft opinions for
Commission consideration that address appeals of presiding officer
decisions. In the absence of informative internal data, the NRC
estimates (with substantial uncertainty) that there would be 4,700
hours of total NRC adjudicatory decision-making staff resources
expended per proceeding in which a hearing request is submitted. This
estimate is based on timeframes for adjudicatory decision-making under
the existing rules and the following additional assumptions:
<bullet> As stated above, the NRC assumes that evidentiary hearings
are held in 33 percent of the proceedings in which a hearing request is
filed.
<bullet> There would likely be one or more rounds of new or amended
contentions submitted after a hearing request is filed.
<bullet> Presiding officer decisions on an initial hearing request
and presiding officer decisions after an evidentiary hearing would
likely be appealed, and there may be other petitions for review
submitted during a proceeding.
<bullet> Given the higher volume of applications expected in the
next five years, there would likely be overlap in Licensing Board
member service for different proceedings given the longer timeframes in
the existing process (i.e.,

[[Page 69470]]

over these longer timeframes, a member of one Licensing Board in active
litigation would likely serve on multiple other Licensing Boards in
active litigation).

Resource Projections for Next Five Years Based on the Final Rule

The final rule makes a number of changes that affect the resources
of litigants:
<bullet> For the initial filings (hearing requests/contentions,
answers, and replies), the final rule accelerates the schedule for
filings and decisions thereon, which could save a modest amount of
resources. However, participants might compensate for this to some
degree by concentrating their resources during the shorter filing and
decision periods.
<bullet> The final rule saves substantial resources during the
intermediate phase, between admission of contentions and the
evidentiary hearing. Currently, evidentiary hearings are not held until
the staff completes its review. This has led to lengthy intermediate
periods where parties periodically update their document disclosures
(and for the staff, the hearing file) and engage in other litigation
activities. The NRC staff will no longer have to produce a hearing
file, and the much shorter intermediate period would limit the
disclosure burdens of the other parties, as well as limit burdens from
other litigation activities during the intermediate period. Further,
this final rule excludes some high-volume, low value internal
electronic communications from disclosure, which should alleviate
burdens on parties making document disclosures.
<bullet> The final rule will also save substantial resources during
the evidentiary hearing phase. The existing model milestones in subpart
L of 10 CFR part 2 envision an evidentiary hearing phase of about nine
months from a triggering event to an initial decision, and in practice
the evidentiary hearing phase has on average taken substantially longer
than this. Under the final rule, the evidentiary hearing phase will
generally be limited to between 2 to 4.5 months, with 3.5 to 4.5 months
being the set period for most proceedings. Also, the schedule could
only be extended if extraordinary circumstances necessitate a delay. A
much shorter evidentiary hearing phase will inherently limit the number
of filings and other litigation activities and otherwise limit the
resources that can be expended. Nonetheless, these resource savings
would only accrue if an evidentiary hearing is held.
Considering these factors together, the NRC estimates that the NRC
staff's resource burdens will drop from 4,150 hours to 3,025 hours per
proceeding in which a hearing request is filed. Applicants are expected
to see a drop in resource burden from 3,925 hours per contested
proceeding to 3,025 hours. The NRC staff will see a larger resource
savings than the applicant because of the elimination of the staff's
hearing file obligations. Finally, the NRC estimates a modest drop in
petitioner resource expenditures from 1,975 hours per contested
proceeding to about 1,525 hours (about half of the applicant's resource
expenditures).
In this final rule, the NRC estimates a greater per-proceeding
resources savings for litigants than it estimated in the proposed rule.
This difference generally results from two changes from the proposed to
final rule. First, in most licensing proceedings, the proposed rule
would have required litigants to provide more information on the merits
of proposed contentions in their initial filings, which would have
increased resource burdens somewhat at the initial filing stage.
Accelerating the resolution of contested issues by including more
information on the merits in initial filings was intended to bring
about a compensating burden reduction for those contentions that are
admitted, but this reduction would have been limited to contentions
that were admitted and proceeded to an evidentiary hearing (whereas
most proposed contentions are not admitted and some admitted
contentions are resolved before an evidentiary hearing is held). In
total, the proposed rule provision was expected to increase resource
burdens on participants to save some time in the overall schedule--this
proposal has not been adopted in this final rule. Second, the proposed
rule would have accelerated filings and decisions on standing to save
some litigant resources associated with the filing of contentions in
circumstances where standing is not demonstrated. Estimated resource
savings here would have been limited because presiding officers usually
find that petitioners demonstrate standing, and a substantial amount of
litigant resources would have been expended on litigation of
contentions by the time a decision on standing would have been issued.
However, the proposal to accelerate the consideration of standing has
been eliminated in this final rule for reasons discussed in this notice
and in response to comments. Ultimately, eliminating both of these
proposed rule provisions results in a modest resource savings for
litigants in comparison to the proposed rule.
For NRC adjudicatory decision-making staff, the NRC estimates that
the resource burdens in proceedings where a hearing request is filed
will drop from 4,700 hours per proceeding to 3,900 hours per
proceeding. This estimated resource savings accounts for the following
factors:
<bullet> Significantly reduced periods for presiding officer
decision-making limit the resources that would be employed. For
example, currently, there is about a 3.5-month period, on average,
between submission of a contention and a ruling thereon. However, under
the new final rule, this period is reduced to about 1.5 to 2.5 months.
In addition, as stated above, evidentiary hearings take 9 months or
longer under existing regulations, while most evidentiary hearings
under the new final rule will take about 3.5 to 4.5 months total.
<bullet> However, savings from the reduced time periods will be
limited by the following factors: (1) presiding officers might
compensate for shorter periods to some degree by concentrating their
resources during the shorter decision periods, (2) there will less
likely be overlap in time spent by Licensing Board members on multiple
proceedings in active litigation at the same time because the
litigation period for each proceeding will be shorter, leading to less
overlap in active litigation, and (3) evidentiary hearings are expected
in only 33 percent of proceedings in which a hearing request is
submitted, thereby diluting the average savings from a shorter
evidentiary hearing period in the per-proceeding average.
In this final rule, the NRC estimates a smaller per-proceeding
resources savings for NRC adjudicatory decision-making staff than it
estimated in the proposed rule. That is because the final rule does not
include the proposed rule's provision on accelerating the consideration
of standing, which was assumed to save some resources for adjudicatory
decision-making staff on contentions in those cases where the presiding
officer concluded that standing was not demonstrated, and because the
final rule does not include milestones for Commission decisions on
appeal, which was assumed to save resources through reduced periods for
adjudicatory decision making.
It is difficult to make accurate predictions regarding these
factors, so the estimate of resource savings under the new requirements
is subject to uncertainty.

[[Page 69471]]

Monetized Projections for Next Five Years Based on Existing and New
Requirements

Building on the time-resources analysis discussed above, the NRC
monetizes the time spent by the government staff, applicants, and
petitioners on proceedings by applying fully loaded hourly wage rates.
<bullet> For the government staff, the NRC uses its own internal
labor rate of $164 per hour.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ The NRC incremental labor rate of $164, which is available
at <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking/regulatory-analysis">https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking/regulatory-analysis</a>, differs from those developed under the NRC's license fee
recovery program (10 CFR part 170, ``Fees for facilities, materials,
import and export licenses, and other regulatory services under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended''). NRC labor rates for fee
recovery purposes are appropriately designed for full-cost recovery
of the services rendered and as such include non-incremental costs
(e.g., overhead, administrative, and logistical support costs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> For the applicants, who typically include utilities or
corporate entities seeking licenses or related proceedings, the NRC
bases the hourly rates on two data sources. For outside legal services,
the NRC used the Fitzpatrick Matrix, which serves as a proxy for market
rates for attorneys and paralegals doing complex federal litigation in
the Washington, DC, area.\24\ Since hearing proceedings will involve
the use of outside legal counsel, the Fitzpatrick Matrix is used to
estimate the hourly cost of attorney and paralegal time. For 2025, the
hourly rates for attorneys of varying experience levels ranged from
$540 to $933, with a simple average of $793. The matrix also lists a
single hourly rate for paralegals of $255. For non-legal labor
categories, the NRC used wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS).\25\ The estimated BLS mean hourly wage for relevant positions in
2025 are $66.66 for health and safety engineers, $63.13 for compliance
officers, $67.26 for nuclear engineers, $67.01 for engineers, all
others, and $43.10 for legal support workers. The NRC applied a
multiplier of 2.4 to this BLS wage data to arrive at a fully loaded
rate (e.g., $159.98 per hour for health and safety engineers); \26\ no
such adjustment was made to the Fitzpatrick Matrix rates as these
already reflect market-based rates. For the purposes of this analysis,
the NRC assumes a staffing distribution for applicants of 50 percent
for lawyers, 20 percent for nuclear engineers, 15 percent for
paralegals, 5 percent for health and safety engineers, 5 percent for
engineers, all others, and 5 percent for compliance staff. Applying
these percentages to the Fitzpatrick Matrix data and the adjusted BLS
data yields a blended applicant rate of about $491 per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia (USAO-
DC), Civil Division, The Fitzpatrick Matrix, available at <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/media/1395096/dl?inline">https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/media/1395096/dl?inline</a>. Beginning in 2022,
USAO-DC replaced its previous USAO/Laffey Matrix with the
Fitzpatrick Matrix. Federal agencies, including the Department of
Justice, Federal Trade Commission, and Securities and Exchange
Commission, have used the Laffey Matrix, and subsequently the
Fitzpatrick Matrix, to estimate attorney fee rates or legal service
costs in regulatory analyses or information collection activities.
\25\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment
and Wage Statistics, National Industry-Specific Occupational
Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025.
\26\ The fully loaded wage rates include fringe and indirect
management costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> For petitioners, which also include public-interest
organizations and community groups, their wage rates are also derived
from the two data sources mentioned previously, with a staffing
distribution under the existing regulations of 25 percent for lawyers,
20 percent for nuclear engineers, 20 percent for engineers, all others,
20 percent for legal support staff, 10 percent for health and safety
engineers, and 5 percent for paralegals. This estimated staffing
distribution accounts for the fact that some petitioners under existing
regulations employ non-attorneys as representatives (typically,
officers of the petitioning non-governmental organization (NGO)) while
other petitioners do employ attorneys, although these may be assisted
by officers of petitioning NGOs. NGO officers supporting litigation
activities are represented by the legal support staff portion of the
staffing distribution. Applying fully loaded hourly rates to the BLS
wage data only, this yields a blended and weighted petitioner rate of
about $312 per hour.
Using these wage rates, the time spent on proceedings is monetized
by multiplying the hours per proceeding by the applicable wage rate and
then by 15 proceedings annually. If the existing regulations were to
remain in place, the applicants will spend about $28.9 million (3,925 x
$491 x 15 proceedings) on proceedings per year, the NRC adjudicatory
staff will spend about $11.6 million annually (4,700 hours x $164 x
15), the NRC technical staff and attorneys will spend about $10.2
million annually (4,150 hours x $164 x 15), and petitioners will spend
about $9.2 million annually (1,975 x $312 x 15). The combined spending
on anticipated proceedings is about $59.9 million annually,
undiscounted, if this rule is not implemented.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ Totals in aggregated data throughout this regulatory
analysis may differ slightly from the sum of individual values
because of rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With this final rule, the applicants will spend about $22.3 million
annually on proceedings (3,025 x $491 x 15 proceedings), the NRC
adjudicatory staff about $9.6 million annually (3,900 hours x $164 x
15), the NRC technical staff and attorneys about $7.4 million annually
(3,025 hours x $164 x 15), and petitioners about $7.1 million annually
(1,525 x $312 x 15). The applicants, government, and petitioners will
spend about $46.5 million annually, undiscounted, if this rule is
implemented.

Cost Savings and Regulatory Accounting Presented in 2025 Base Year
Dollars

Over the five-year analysis period (2026-2030), the final rule
revisions are projected to yield net savings for the public, the
industry, and government. The combined net savings will generate
cumulative undiscounted savings of $67.4 million (savings minus costs).
Using 2025 as the base year, the net present value (NPV) of these net
savings is $61.7 million, discounted at 3 percent, or $55.2 million,
discounted at 7 percent. The projected annualized cost savings will be
$13.5 million discounted at 3 percent, or $13.5 million discounted at 7
percent.
Because the final rule streamlines existing hearing procedures, the
cost of implementing this rule for the hearing participants is expected
to be minimal. The NRC does not currently have empirical data to
quantify incremental implementation or transition-related effects
associated with the accelerated filing schedules and the revised
hearing provisions. Consistent with OMB Circular A-4, when impacts
cannot be reliably monetized, agencies provide a qualitative
assessment. Accordingly, the agency has examined potential
implementation and transition effects and determined them to be minimal
since the rule streamlines internal agency proceedings without
significantly changing the basic adjudicatory framework.
This final rule retains the existing approach to hearing requests
by noticing opportunities for hearing after docketing and requiring a
demonstration of standing and contention admissibility for a hearing
request to be granted. The criteria for standing are unchanged, and the
contention admissibility standards have been refined, without being
raised. If a hearing request is granted, the agency still generally
employs the same types of procedural mechanisms for evidentiary
hearings as under the existing rules (e.g., written testimony and
position statements, oral hearings, proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law), although the

[[Page 69472]]

presiding officer will have greater flexibility to determine which
procedural mechanisms to use in a particular hearing. Adjudicatory
schedules have been significantly changed, which will require greater
discipline on the part of participants to meet those schedules, but
participants will still face the same basic task of managing time and
resources. The NRC also retains other procedural mechanisms, such as
motions, summary disposition, standards for reopening the record,
discovery, appeals, stay requests, and requests for reconsideration.
Participants will have to familiarize themselves with changes to some
of these procedural mechanisms (e.g., application of reopening
standards after the Standard Hearing Completion Date, exclusions of
certain documents from discovery), but the costs of doing so are
expected to be minimal.
The regulatory analysis embedded in the Federal Register notice for
the proposed rule included rulemaking costs for developing the final
rule, but these costs have been removed from table 6 in this final
rule. The costs associated with developing this final rule have already
occurred; they are treated as sunk and are not included in this
analysis. These costs sunset at the time the final rule is issued.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03NO26.028

The applicants, accounting for the largest share of cost savings,
will save about $33.1 million over 5 years, undiscounted, with an NPV
of $30.4 million discounted at 3 percent, or $27.2 million discounted
at 7 percent.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03NO26.029

Additionally, the NRC adjudicatory staff will realize savings of
about $9.8 million over 5 years, undiscounted, with an NPV of $9.0
million discounted at 3 percent, or $8.1 million discounted at 7
percent.

[[Page 69473]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03NO26.030

During the same period, the NRC technical staff and attorneys will
save about $13.8 million over 5 years, undiscounted, with an NPV of
$12.7 million discounted at 3 percent, or $11.3 million discounted at 7
percent.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03NO26.031

The petitioners' savings total about $10.5 million, undiscounted,
with an NPV of $9.6 million discounted at 3 percent, or $8.6 million
discounted at 7 percent.

[[Page 69474]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03NO26.032

Overall, this final rule is considered to be a deregulatory action
and will reduce burden for both the agency and hearing participants by
streamlining the hearing process. These deregulatory actions translate
into net savings with an NPV of $55.2 million over the five-year
analysis horizon, or $13.5 million annually in 2025 dollars at a 7
percent discount rate.
In addition to this analysis, the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs directs agencies to report results as a perpetual
stream (perpetuity) once a rule is implemented. The perpetual stream
has annualized savings of about $13.5 million.

VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule and issue finality
provisions do not apply to this rule because the amendments do not
involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR
chapter I and are not inconsistent with any applicable issue finality
provision in 10 CFR part 52 or 53. Therefore, a backfit analysis or
issue finality assessment is not required for this rule.

IX. Plain Writing

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal
agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized
manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the
Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, ``Plain
Language in Government Writing,'' published June 10, 1998 (63 FR
31885).

X. National Environmental Policy Act

This rule involves an amendment to administrative and procedural
requirements in 10 CFR part 2, with conforming changes to 10 CFR parts
51, 52, 53, and 54, and thus qualifies as an action for which no
environmental review is required under the categorical exclusions set
forth in Sec. 51.22(a)(1) and (a)(3). Therefore, neither an EIS nor an
environmental assessment has been prepared for this rulemaking.

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule does not contain a collection of information as
defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. Existing collections of information for 10 CFR
parts 51, 52, 53, and 54 were approved by the Office of Management and
Budget, approval numbers 3150-0021, 3150-0151, 3150-0155, and 3150-
0274.

Public Protection Notification

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting
or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control
number.

XII. Executive Orders

The following are Executive orders that are related to this final
rule:

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review (as Amended by
Executive Order 14215, Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies)

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined
that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

B. Executive Order 14154: Unleashing American Energy

The NRC has examined this final rule and has determined that it is
consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154.

C. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation

This action is a deregulatory action as defined by E.O. 14192.
Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found
in Section VII of this document, ``Regulatory Analysis.''

D. Executive Order 14270: Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting To Unleash
American Energy

E.O. 14270, ``Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American
Energy,'' directs the NRC to insert a conditional sunset date into all
new or amended NRC regulations provided the regulations are (1)
promulgated under the AEA, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as
amended (ERA), or the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended
(NWPA); (2) not statutorily required; and (3) not part of the NRC's
permitting regime. The NRC determined that the regulatory changes in
this final rule are for hearing processes that are required by statute
and are part of the NRC's regulatory permitting scheme authorized by
the AEA, ERA, or NWPA. Therefore, the NRC views this rulemaking to be
outside the scope of E.O. 14270 and did not insert conditional sunset
dates for the regulatory changes in this final rule.

XIII. Congressional Review Act

This final rule is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget
has found that it does not meet the criteria at 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

XIV. Availability of Guidance

The NRC will not be issuing guidance for this rulemaking because
the rulemaking specifies requirements for adjudications, and how these
requirements apply would be highly

[[Page 69475]]

dependent on the specific claims made by litigants and the specific
circumstances associated with these claims.

XV. Severability

This final rule makes changes to the requirements for contested
hearings in NRC licensing proceedings. For the reasons described
previously and in response to comments, the NRC has determined that its
authority to promulgate these changes is well-supported in law and
practice and should be upheld in any legal challenge. However, in the
event that any portion of this rule is declared invalid, the NRC
intends that the remaining portions be severable and continue in
effect. Specifically, the NRC has independently considered each of
those provisions in this rule, and intends that, if any of the
provisions of this rule (or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance) is held to be invalid by a court, such invalidity would
not affect other provisions or application of such provisions to other
persons or circumstances that can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application. For example:
<bullet> This rule includes provisions for different types of
applications. If the provisions for one type of application are held to
be invalid, the provisions for other types of applications should
continue in effect since these other provisions are not intertwined
with the provisions held to be invalid and were independently
considered, with their own supporting basis and analysis.
<bullet> This rule provides scheduling provisions for several
procedural categories, including hearing requests, intervention
petitions, contentions, motions, discovery, petitions for review,
interlocutory appeals, requests for interlocutory review, stay
requests, requests for reconsideration, and evidentiary hearings. If
the schedule requirements for one procedural category are held to be
invalid, the schedule requirements for other procedural categories
should remain in effect because the schedules for each procedural
category are not intertwined and were independently considered, with
their own supporting basis and analysis.
<bullet> In addition to schedule provisions, the rule includes
changes to various procedural categories, including changes to
definitions, Federal Register notices, contention standards, the
reopening standards, discovery requirements, selection of hearing
procedures, actions the staff can take during the pendency of a
hearing, evidentiary hearings, additional procedures in Sec. 2.1214
for license transfer proceedings, procedures for referred rulings and
certified questions, and provisions for computation of time associated
with delivery of hard copy documents. If the provisions for one type of
procedural category are held to be invalid, the provisions for other
types of procedural categories should continue in effect since these
other provisions are not intertwined with the provisions held to be
invalid and were independently considered, with their own supporting
basis and analysis.
In addition, to the extent there are multiple changes in a
category, if one of the changes in the category is held to be invalid,
the other changes in the category should continue in effect because
these changes were independently considered, with their own supporting
basis and analysis. Examples include the various definitional changes;
the two refinements to the contention admissibility criteria; the
different reopening changes (e.g., the Sec. 2.326(a) change, the
provisions in each sentence of Sec. 2.326(e)(1), and the change in
Sec. 2.326(e)(2)); the various discovery changes (e.g., elimination of
subpart L hearing file, limitation on NRC staff's Sec. 2.336
disclosures, exclusion of draft documents from Sec. 2.336 disclosures,
exclusion of certain internal communications from Sec. 2.336
disclosures, changes to discovery schedules); the evidentiary hearing
procedure changes; and the changes in each paragraph of Sec. 2.1214.
Finally, for all of the matters described in the previous
paragraphs, the agency's purpose in making its proceedings timely and
efficient would best be effectuated by applying the provisions in this
final rule to the maximum practicable extent.

XVI. Availability of Documents

The documents identified in the following table are available to
interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as
indicated.
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

[[Page 69476]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03NO26.033

[[Page 69477]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OM

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on November 3, 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.