[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 113 (Monday, June 14, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32836-32849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-13113]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 2

RIN 3150-AH31


Licensing Proceeding for a High-Level Radioactive Waste Geologic 
Repository; Licensing Support Network, Submissions to the Electronic 
Docket

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its Rules of 
Practice applicable to the use of the Licensing Support Network (LSN) 
and the electronic hearing docket in the licensing proceeding on the 
disposal of high-level radioactive waste at a geologic repository. The 
amendments establish the basic requirements and standards for the 
submission of adjudicatory materials to the electronic hearing docket 
by parties to the high-level radioactive waste licensing proceeding. 
The amendments also address the issue of reducing the unnecessary 
loading of duplicate documents on individual participant LSN document 
collection servers (Web sites); the continuing obligation of LSN 
participants to update their documentary material after the initial 
certification; the Secretary of the Commission's determination that the 
DOE license application is electronically accessible; and the 
provisions on material that may be excluded from the LSN.

DATES: Effective Date: July 14, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francis X. Cameron, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-
1642, e-mail FXC@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J, provide 
for, among other things, the use of an electronic information 
management system to provide documents related to the high-level 
radioactive waste (HLW ) repository licensing proceeding. Originally 
promulgated on April 14, 1989 (54 FR 14944), the information management 
system required by Subpart J is to have the following functions:
    (1) The Licensing Support Network (LSN) provides full text search 
and retrieval access to the relevant documents of all parties and 
potential parties to the HLW repository licensing proceeding beginning 
in the time period before the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) license 
application for the repository is submitted;
    (2) The NRC Electronic Information Exchange (EIE) provides for 
electronic submission of filings by the parties, as well as the orders 
and decisions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP), 
during the proceeding; and
    (3) The Electronic Hearing Docket (EHD) provides for the 
development and

[[Page 32837]]

access to an electronic version of the HLW licensing proceeding docket.
    The creation of the LSN (originally called the ``Licensing Support 
System'') was stimulated by the requirements of section 114(d) of the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA). This provision sets as a goal 
Commission issuance of a final decision approving or disapproving 
issuance of the construction authorization for a geologic repository 
for HLW within three years of the docketing of the DOE license 
application. The Commission anticipated that the HLW proceeding would 
involve substantial numbers and volumes of documents created by well-
informed parties on numerous and complex issues. The Commission 
believed that the LSN could facilitate the timely review of DOE's 
application by providing for electronic access to relevant documents 
via the LSN before the application is submitted, rather than the 
traditional, and potentially time-consuming, discovery process 
associated with the physical production of documents after an 
application is submitted. In addition, the Commission believed that 
early access to these documents in an electronically searchable form 
would allow for a thorough and comprehensive technical review of the 
license application by all parties and potential parties to the HLW 
licensing proceeding, resulting in better focused contentions in the 
proceeding.
    The current requirements in 10 CFR 2.1003(a) require the DOE to 
make its documentary material available in electronic form no later 
than six months in advance of DOE's submission of its application to 
the NRC. The NRC must make its documentary material available in 
electronic form no later than thirty days after the DOE certification 
of compliance. All other participants must make their documents 
available in electronic form no later than ninety days after the DOE 
certification of compliance. Originally, the LSN was conceived as a 
large, centralized information management system administered by what 
was then called the Licensing Support System Administrator (now the LSN 
Administrator). To take advantage of the advances in technology that 
occurred since the promulgation of the original rule, the Commission 
revised the rule to use the Internet to link geographically dispersed 
sites rather than rely on a complex and expensive centralized system 
(63 FR 71729; December 30, 1998).
    As noted, one of the objectives of the regulations in 10 CFR Part 
2, Subpart J is to provide for electronic submission of filings by the 
parties, as well as the orders and decisions of the ASLBP, during the 
proceeding. The purpose of this function is to reduce the time that it 
takes to serve filings by substituting electronic transmission for the 
physical mailing of filings that is typically used in NRC licensing 
proceedings. Shortening the amount of time for certain activities 
during the hearing process will support the NRC's efforts to meet the 
schedule in the NWPA. 10 CFR 2.1013(c)(1) requires that all filings in 
the HLW adjudicatory proceeding be ``transmitted electronically'' 
(emphasis added) by the submitter to the Presiding Officer, the 
parties, and the Secretary of the Commission. The Commission believes 
that the majority of these filings will consist of simple documents 
that can be readily transmitted by EIE. However, after further 
considering the nature of some of the documents that may be submitted 
by the parties during the proceeding, the Commission believes that it 
is necessary to specify requirements for submitting large and/or 
complex documents. This need was the reason the Commission initiated 
the proposed rulemaking that is the subject of this final rule. The 
proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on November 26, 
2003 (68 FR 66372).
    The proposed amendments addressed a number of aspects of the 
current rules:
     The requirements and standards for a party's submissions 
to the electronic docket for the HLW repository licensing proceeding;
     Those provisions that could result in the loading of 
duplicate documents on individual participant LSN document collection 
servers;
     The provisions related to the Secretary of the 
Commission's determination that the DOE license application is 
electronically accessible; .
     Those provisions related to the continuing obligation of 
LSN participants to update their documentary material; and
     Those provisions on material that may be excluded from the 
LSN.

II. Public Comments

    The Commission received nine comments on the proposed rule from the 
following entities:

(1) U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
(2) State of Nevada.
(3) Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI).
(4) Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, Incorporated.
(5) Nye County, Nevada.
(6) Lincoln County and the City of Caliente, Nevada.
(7) White Pine County, Nevada.
(8) Eureka County, Nevada.
(9) Progress Energy.

    These comments addressed the following categories of issues:

1. Rule or Guidance

    Two commenters (DOE, NEI) recommended that the technical standards 
in proposed section 2.1013(c)(1) be incorporated into a guidance 
document rather than in the NRC regulations. These commenters noted 
that the proposed standards in section 2.1013(c)(1) were useful 
clarifications, but it was not necessary to formalize them in a 
rulemaking. The rationale for this recommendation was that technical 
capabilities can change significantly over the period of time that the 
HLW licensing proceeding will take place and that any needed changes to 
reflect new technical capabilities could more efficiently be 
implemented by revising guidance rather than by initiating a new 
rulemaking. In addition, NEI was concerned about the need for stability 
in the LSN regulatory framework as the date for submission of the DOE 
license application draws closer. NEI also recommended that, if the NRC 
decides to proceed with the rulemaking, it be done as expeditiously as 
possible. NEI also requested that the NRC provide some assurance to LSN 
participants on the stability of the LSN regulatory framework in the 
interim period while a rule was being finalized. Finally, NEI urged the 
Commission to issue the final revision to NRC Regulatory Guide 3.69 on 
the Topical Guidelines that were issued for public comment in June, 
2002, See ``Draft Regulatory Guide DG-3022 (Proposed Revision 1 of 
Regulatory Guide 3.69).'' Another commenter, Progress Energy, expressed 
the same concerns as NEI.
Response
    The Commission has tried to balance the need for flexibility, 
informality, and responsiveness, i.e., using guidance for the technical 
standards, with the need to ensure that the fundamental compliance 
requirements for LSN participants are clear, i.e., using a rule. 
Accordingly, the Commission has expressed what it believes to be the 
most important technical standards in Section 2.1013(c)(1) of the final 
rule, while including the majority of the detailed technical 
specifications in a guidance document, ``Guidance for the Submission of 
Electronic Docket Materials Under 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J'', U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (Guidance Document). The Guidance 
Document is available on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov.
    The Guidance document can also be found in the Commission's 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management

[[Page 32838]]

System (ADAMS) at Accession Number ML041560341. The Guidance Document 
contains essential information in regard to the proper implementation 
of the requirements of this rule.
    In terms of providing an assurance of a stable regulatory 
framework, the Commission is not imposing any new requirements that 
would significantly alter the current regulatory framework. 
Furthermore, the Commission does not anticipate adding any additional 
requirements beyond those in this final rule before the repository 
license application is submitted. As explained by the NRC staff at the 
December 2003 meeting of the LSN Advisory Review Panel, the only 
revision to the scope of documents covered by the Topical Guidelines in 
Regulatory Guide 3.69, was a proposed new exclusion for ``congressional 
correspondence.'' Therefore, the Commission does not believe that the 
existing regulatory framework will in any way be ``destabilized.'' The 
final revision of the Topical Guidelines will be completed immediately 
after this rule is finalized.

2. Technical standards

    DOE had several comments on the technical standards for the 
submission of electronic filings to the adjudicatory proceeding.
A. Complex Documents
    Section 2.1013(c)(1)(iii) of the proposed rule would have required 
that those portions of ``complex documents'' that are amenable to being 
transmitted electronically as a filing in the HLW adjudicatory 
proceeding be transmitted electronically, while those parts of complex 
documents that were not amenable to electronic transmission be 
submitted on optical media. DOE, in its comment letter, questioned the 
advantage of electronically transmitting only some portions of a 
complex document. If a complex document is not amenable to submittal in 
its entirety via electronic transmission through the EIE, the advantage 
of submitting only portions of it is unclear because those portions may 
not be useful by themselves. DOE recommended that the entire document 
be submitted on optical storage media, with a transmittal letter 
submitted via the EIE providing notification of the submittal of that 
document.
Response
    The final rule maintains the approach of the proposed rule to the 
submission of complex documents. In terms of the usefulness of 
submitting portions of the document by electronic transmittal, the 
Commission believes that this would serve several useful purposes. 
First, it provides early notification that a complex document is coming 
in and consequently allows other parties to plan their review and 
possible response. Second, there often will be substantial benefit in 
receiving the text portion of a complex document via electronic 
transmission, notwithstanding the delay in receiving the additional 
attachments. Various Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards have been 
issuing orders for several years that use this practice. This has 
allowed the parties and the Boards to review the text portion, which 
contains the arguments of the parties, while awaiting the rest of the 
pleading. However, for purposes of the service requirements in section 
2.1013(c) or the computation of time requirements in section 2.1017, 
the filing of a complex document or a large document is not complete 
until all portions of the document have been submitted.
B. Image Resolution
    Section 2.1013(c)(1)(iv) of the proposed rule would have required 
that all electronic submissions to the EHD have 300 dots per inch (dpi) 
minimum resolution for bi-tonal, color, and grayscale. DOE noted the 
inconsistency between these EHD requirements and the requirements in 
section 2.1011(b)(2)(iv) for documents placed on individual LSN 
participant Web sites. The LSN participant Web site documents are 
required to have 300 dpi for bi-tonal but 150 dpi minimum resolution 
for grayscale and color. DOE recommended that the final rule on the EHD 
be consistent with the LSN participant Web site requirements to avoid 
having to convert the color and grayscale parts of existing documents 
from 150 dpi to 300 dpi. According to DOE, this would not be ``an 
efficient use of resources.'' The Commission interprets this latter 
phrase to mean that the conversion would be not only costly, but 
unnecessary because 150 dpi color and gray scale would be fully 
readable. DOE also noted that the Guidance Document states that there 
is flexibility with respect to the minimum resolution as long as the 
integrity and quality of the document result in readable copies. The 
DOE suggests that this flexibility should be added to the rule if the 
technical requirements are to be retained in the rule.
Response
    Records submitted to the NRC as part of the Electronic Hearing 
Docket are Federal ``official agency records.'' The National Archives 
and Records Administration (NARA) issued a standard that records 
scanned after December 23, 2002, must meet the minimum standard of 300 
dpi for bi-tonal, color, and grayscale documents. The NRC adopted this 
standard on January 1, 2004, the effective date for the NRC final rule 
on the electronic maintenance and submission of information to the NRC 
(68 FR 58792; October 10, 2003). The NRC has considered the DOE's 
concern with regard to the ``efficient use of resources.'' In response, 
the NRC has modified language in the rule to: (1) require submitters to 
use the 300 dpi standard for documents created after the January 1, 
2004 effective date of the electronic maintenance rule, except in 
limited circumstances in which (a) submitters may need to use an image 
scanned before January 1, 2004, in a document created after January 1, 
2004 or (b) the scanning process for a large, one-page image may not 
successfully complete at the 300 dpi standard resolution; and (2) 
require that documents created or scanned before January 1, 2004, (or 
for those documents in 1(a) or (b) above), meet the standards for 
documents placed on LSN participant Web sites in section 
2.1011(b)(2)(iv) which is 150 dpi for color and grayscale documents and 
300 dpi for bi-tonal documents. The Commission is also assuming that 
this document image resolution requirement for LSN participant Web 
sites would meet the criterion of ``readability.''
C. Image Format
    Section 2.1013(c)(1)(v) of the proposed rule would have required 
electronic submissions to be generated in Adobe Acrobat Portable 
Document Format (PDF). DOE noted that this PDF requirement was 
inconsistent with the requirement for LSN participant Web sites in 
section 2.1011(b)(2)(iv) that allows Tagged Image File Format (TIFF). 
DOE suggests that files on LSN participant Web sites that are submitted 
to the adjudicatory proceeding be allowed to be submitted in the TIFF 
format. Converting images in the LSN that are usable in TIFF format to 
PDF format for the EHD would again, according to DOE, ``not be an 
efficient use of resources.''
Response
    The electronic documentary material submitted to the EHD will be 
entered as official agency records in ADAMS. The PDF became the NRC 
standard for official agency records on January 1, 2004, the effective 
date for the NRC final rule on the electronic maintenance and 
submission of information to the NRC (68 FR 58792; October 10, 2003). 
The NRC has adopted PDF as the NRC

[[Page 32839]]

standard for this official agency records system based on the 
following:
     PDF represents a ``generic'' format that behaves 
consistently across multiple hardware and operating systems;
     When files are distributed in PDF, the information is 
``locked down'' for the general user, who can access the content 
through the use of PDF viewer software;
     The PDF standard, though it is proprietary to Adobe, has 
been published, is freely available, and the capability to create PDF 
documents has been integrated into many other software applications;
     PDF documents can be generated from any application that 
can generate Postscript printer files; thus anything that can be 
printed can be represented in PDF;
     PDF supports file generation options for text-oriented 
files produced on a word processing or publishing system;
     PDF supports file generation options for scanned image-
oriented files; and
     PDF supports file generation options for scanned text-
oriented files capable of full text search.
    In contrast, adherence to the PDF standards for NRC official agency 
records is not required for purposes of individual LSN participant Web 
sites and therefore, TIFF is acceptable under section 2.1011(b)(2)(iv). 
The Commission also believes that TIFFs can readily be converted to PDF 
using features inherent in PDF-authoring software. In those rare 
circumstances where technical reasons would prevent the successful 
conversion to PDF, DOE or any other LSN participant, can submit the 
image in TIFF and include a detailed statement of the technical reasons 
that prevent conversion to PDF, in a transmittal letter to accompany 
the filing.
D. Hyperlinks
    Section 2.1013(c)(1)(vi) of the proposed rule requires that 
documents be free of hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites other 
than within a single PDF file. DOE notes that some documents may have 
embedded hyperlinks that are difficult to remove. The DOE suggests that 
the requirement be revised to state that use of the document in the EHD 
should not depend on hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The 
Commission understands this comment to suggest that there should be no 
restriction in the rule on documents containing hyperlinks, but that 
the use of the document in the hearing may not depend on those 
hyperlinks.
Response
    The Commission has considered the DOE comments and has revised the 
final rule to allow hyperlinks to be contained in documents submitted 
to the EHD. The Commission believes that it will be difficult and 
costly to remove these hyperlinks. Instead of prohibiting a document 
from being submitted with hyperlinks, section 2.1013(c)(1)(vi) of the 
final rule would prohibit reliance on the hyperlinks for purposes of 
providing additional evidentiary material or completing a submittal. 
This would require the submitter to review all documents submitted to 
the EHD for hyperlinks to the Internet or other documents. Any 
necessary material would need to be included in the filing or as an 
attachment to the filing.
    However, the Commission is also concerned that hyperlinks in a 
filing that do not function, or that link a user to an external website 
that has changed or perhaps contains some type of offensive material, 
could create a negative perception of the integrity of the EHD 
database. Therefore, the final rule requires each electronic submission 
to contain a disclaimer that notifies the reader that the hyperlinks in 
the filing may not operate or may link the reader to material that is 
not intended to be necessary, or in some cases, even related, to the 
use of the filing in the proceeding. This disclaimer must either be in 
the transmittal memorandum required for filings over 50 MB or in the 
body of the pleading for filings under 50 MB. The single exception to 
the use of hyperlinks in a filing is when the hyperlink connects to 
another part of the same PDF file. The use of hyperlinks in this 
context is permissible. This also has implications for the minimum size 
of a file that is submitted to the EHD. The Commission encourages 
submitters to combine small files that are components of a larger 
document into one file to facilitate efficient distribution and use of 
the documentary material. For example, if a document consists of 15 
separate 2 MB files, those 15 files should be combined to result in one 
30 MB file. This will allow submitters to use hyperlinks in a larger 
file, i.e., a single electronic file up to 50 MB.
E. Definitions
    DOE noted that the definition of complex documents in section 
2.1001 of the proposed rule could be viewed as inconsistent with the 
definition in the Supplementary Information for the proposed rule. 
Proposed section 2.1001 states that a complex document has substantial 
portions that are neither textual nor image. However, the Supplementary 
Information (68 FR 66374) states that complex documents can also 
include a textual or graphic file that cannot be segmented into 50 
megabyte (MB) files. The DOE suggests that the description in the 
Supplementary Information be used as the definition in section 2.1001 
of the rule.
Response
    The Commission agrees and has revised the definition accordingly.

3. Docketing

    Section 2.1012(a) provides that the DOE license application cannot 
be docketed unless the Secretary of the Commission determines that the 
license application can be effectively accessed through ADAMS. DOE is 
concerned that this establishes a requirement on DOE that is beyond its 
control. Entering documents into ADAMS is strictly a NRC function and 
ADAMS is under the sole control of the NRC. Any accessibility problems 
resulting from entering the license application into ADAMS would be the 
responsibility of the NRC. DOE notes that, in preparing its electronic 
license application, the DOE is responsible for meeting the NRC 
requirements, as well as addressing any guidance that has been issued 
by the NRC, and transmitting the license application to the proper 
address and in the proper format(s) specified by the NRC for these 
actions. If the DOE meets clearly defined specifications for such 
transmittals, the NRC should be able to make the document available 
through ADAMS.
    The DOE recommends that section 2.1012(a) be revised to read: ``The 
Director may determine that the tendered application is not acceptable 
for docketing under this subpart if the application is not accompanied 
by an updated certification pursuant to section 2.1009(b) or if the 
application is not submitted on optical storage media in a format 
consistent with NRC regulations and guidance.''
Response
    The Commission agrees with this suggestion and has revised the 
final rule accordingly. However, in addition to the above two criteria, 
the Commission has also added a third criterion on non-compliance with 
any other requirements in Subpart J.

4. The Continuing Need to Supplement Individual LSN Participant Web 
Sites

    Proposed section 2.1003(e) would have required an LSN participant 
to

[[Page 32840]]

supplement its LSN Web site with any documentary material created after 
the time of initial certification. NEI was concerned that this 
requirement could continue indefinitely. It is NEI's opinion that the 
requirement to supplement ends when discovery, in the form of document 
production, is completed.
Response
    The Commission agrees and has revised section 2.1003(e) to specify 
that the requirement to supplement ends when discovery is complete. The 
Commission anticipates that discovery will be complete by the time set 
for the second Pre-Hearing Conference at which issues for hearing will 
be finalized and schedules for prefiled testimony and hearing will be 
set. See Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 2. However, it should be emphasized 
that the Board could extend discovery beyond this time period. 
Moreover, although there is no obligation on an LSN participant to add 
new documents to its site after discovery closes, an LSN participant 
does have an obligation to maintain its existing LSN collection intact 
and available for the balance of the construction authorization 
proceeding. Parties will have a continuing need to search LSN 
participant databases during the evidentiary hearing and throughout the 
NRC appellate process.

5. The Scope of the Congressional Exclusion

    Nye County, Nevada expressed the view that the exclusion for 
congressional correspondence in proposed section 2.1005(i) seems overly 
broad. The commenter believes that it is entirely conceivable that 
somewhere in correspondence with a member of Congress or with 
congressional staff, DOE, or any other party, may have made relevant 
and admissible statements about some technical issues affecting the 
licensibility of Yucca Mountain. To exclude all such correspondence 
categorically is unwarranted. According to Nye County, a better 
approach would be to limit the exclusion to correspondence involving 
such matters as budget, and program management.
Response
    The Commission appreciates the thoughtful comments of Nye County on 
this matter. However, the Commission continues to believe that this 
type of material will not have a significant bearing on repository 
licensing issues. Much of this material either relates to budgetary 
issues and schedules or is merely a summary of information in an agency 
primary document. It would normally not be the source of material that 
a party would rely on for its case in the hearing or a source of 
material that would be contrary to such reliance information. However, 
most, if not all, of the material directed to Federal entities of 
concern to Nye County, would still be available as part of the normal 
Federal recordkeeping requirements. If a particular item of 
Congressional correspondence does become relevant to a contention 
admitted in the HLW proceeding, it can be made available at that time. 
The Commission does not anticipate that any disputes over this clearly 
and narrowly defined exclusion will be brought before the Pre-license 
Application Presiding Officer (PAPO).

6. The Trigger for Participant Certification

    Three commenters, the Agency for Nuclear Projects in the State of 
Nevada's Governor's Office, the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, and 
Eureka County's Yucca Mountain Information Office, all raised concerns 
on the timing of LSN participant certification in relation to DOE's 
certification. The current requirements in 10 CFR 2.1003(a) require the 
DOE to make its documentary material available in electronic form no 
later than six months in advance of DOE's submission of its license 
application to the NRC. The NRC must make its documentary material 
available in electronic form no later than thirty days after the DOE 
certification of compliance. All other participants must make their 
documents available in electronic form no later than ninety days after 
the DOE certification of compliance. However, these commenters noted 
that although DOE may have all of its documentary material available on 
its LSN document server by the time required for certification, it is 
possible that the DOE collection would not yet have been indexed and 
audited by the LSN Administrator. Therefore, the entire DOE collection 
would not yet be ``available'' to the public. The commenters 
recommended that the Commission add an additional certification by the 
LSN Administrator that the DOE collection had been indexed and audited. 
This LSN Administrator certification would then become the tolling 
event for the certification by all other LSN participants, rather than 
the DOE certification.
Response
    At the outset, the Commission notes that an amendment such as that 
recommended by the commenters is outside the scope of this rulemaking. 
This issue was not raised in the proposed rule and was not intended to 
be part of this rulemaking effort. However, the Commission also 
recognizes the importance of this concern. The NRC is pursuing an 
approach with DOE to ensure that the DOE collection has been indexed 
and audited by the LSN Administrator in approximately the same time 
frame as the DOE certification. This should ensure that an indexed and 
baselined DOE collection will be available to other LSN participants 
well in advance of the point at which the NRC dockets an acceptable DOE 
license application.

7. Transportation Issues

    Lincoln County and the City of Caliente, in their comments on the 
proposed rule, urged the Commission to clarify the extent to which 
Yucca Mountain repository system transportation related information 
will be considered during licensing and, therefore, be required for 
inclusion within the LSN. The County and the City believe that the 
Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding should encompass all aspects of the 
Yucca Mountain repository transportation system.
Response
    The Commission recognizes that issues related to the transportation 
of High Level Waste (HLW) and Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) to the Yucca 
Mountain site in Nevada are of concern to members of the public. These 
issues are complicated by the multi-agency coordination that is 
required between DOE, the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the 
NRC. As a preliminary matter, it is important to distinguish the role 
of the NRC in matters related to transportation. The only role of the 
NRC in the licensing proceeding for Yucca Mountain with respect to 
transportation issues is to review the DOE Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS), for adoption to the extent practicable.
    The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 42 U.S.C. 10101, et seq., as 
amended (NWPA), provides the primary framework for issues related to 
the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, including transportation 
issues. Section 114(f) of the NWPA requires DOE to prepare an EIS, part 
of which may include an evaluation of transportation impacts. 
Additionally, section 114(f) mandates that the NRC, to the extent 
practicable, adopt the DOE EIS, including those parts of the EIS 
related to transportation. Such adoption shall be deemed to satisfy the 
responsibilities of the NRC under NEPA and ``no further consideration 
shall be required.'' See NWPA section 114(f)(4). The Topical

[[Page 32841]]

Guidelines in Regulatory Guide 3.69 specifically address those aspects 
of transportation that are included under documentary material for 
purposes of the LSN.

III. The Final Rule

Submissions to the Electronic Docket for the Hearing

    As noted, one of the objectives of the regulations in 10 CFR Part 
2, Subpart J is to provide for electronic submission of filings by the 
parties, as well as the orders and decisions of the Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board, during the proceeding. The purpose of this function is 
to reduce the time that it takes to serve filings by substituting 
electronic transmission for the physical mailing of filings that is 
typically used in NRC licensing proceedings. Shortening the amount of 
time for certain activities during the hearing process will support the 
NRC's efforts to meet the schedule in the NWPA. 10 CFR 2.1013(c)(1) 
requires that all filings in the HLW licensing proceeding be 
transmitted electronically (emphasis added) by the submitter to the 
Presiding Officer, the parties, and the Secretary of the Commission. 
The Commission believes that the majority of these filings will consist 
of simple documents that can be readily transmitted by EIE. However, 
after further considering the nature of some of the documents that may 
be submitted by the parties during the proceeding, the Commission 
believes that it is necessary to specify requirements for submitting 
large and/or complex documents.
    Large documents consist of electronic files that, because of their 
size, create challenges for both the NRC staff, potential parties and 
the public when transmitting, viewing, or downloading the document 
(e.g., significant delays in transmission, uploading, or downloading 
times). The Commission anticipates that the potential license 
application and some filings in the HLW repository adjudicatory 
proceeding will be of a size that will create transmission, viewing, or 
downloading challenges. In electronic format, some of these files could 
be up to several hundreds of megabytes (MB) in size. Examples of 
potential large documents are:
     DOE Site Characterization Plan
     DOE License Application and supporting materials
     DOE Environmental Impact Statement
     Some adjudicatory documents (e.g., motions, responses, 
transcripts, exhibits, and orders)
    Additionally, any or all of these types of documents could contain 
embedded photographs, charts, tables, and other graphics.
    Complex documents consist (entirely or in part) of electronic files 
having substantial portions that are neither textual nor image in 
nature, and graphic or other Binary Large Objects that exceed 50 MB and 
cannot be logically divided. For example, these types of specialized 
documents may include:
     Executable files, which can be opened (run) to execute a 
programmed series of instructions on a computer or network;
     Runtime executable software, which generally is 
operational upon demand without being installed on a computer or 
network;
     Viewer or printer executable software that causes images 
to be displayed on the computer monitor or pages to print on an 
attached printer;
     Files from a dynamic link library (.dll), which are a 
collection of small, bundled executable programs that each provide one 
or more distinctive functions used by application programs and 
operating systems and are available when needed by applications or 
operating systems;
     Large data sets associated with an executable; and
     Actual software code for analytical programs that a party 
may intend to introduce into the proceeding.
    As part of complex document submittals, the NRC anticipates 
receiving files that--
    (1) Due to their file size, may preclude easy transmission, 
retrieval, and use; or
    (2) May require specialized software and/or hardware for faithful 
display and subsequent use; and
    (3) May not be suitable for inclusion in a ``generic'' file format 
such as the Adobe'' Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF).

    Examples of files that could be part of a complex document are:

 Maps
 Databases
 Simulations
 Audio files
 Video files
 Executable programs

    There are several potential problems presented by the electronic 
transmission of these large or complex documents, including the ``time 
out'' problems when submitting very large documents via the Internet, 
difficulty of use in the hearing room, and Federal records management 
considerations. These potential problems are evaluated in more detail 
in the regulatory analysis for this final rule.
    In response to these potential problems, the Commission is revising 
the framework for the submission of filings during the HLW licensing 
proceeding. This revised framework is based on segmenting large 
documents using manageable file size units to reduce the potential for 
interruption or delay in transmission, uploading, or downloading. For 
example, large documents could be segmented into pieces, which 
correspond to the organization (chapters or sections) of the document, 
in order to address the transfer and retrieval performance problems 
discussed above. The author of the document would be in the best 
position to break up document files into usable segments without 
adversely impacting the organization or content of the document.
    The electronic submission of filings in the HLW repository 
proceeding must be made via the Internet using the NRC EIE, when 
practicable. The EIE is an electronic transfer mechanism being 
established by the NRC for electronic transmission of documents to the 
agency via the Internet. EIE provides for the transmission of documents 
in a verifiable and certifiable mode that includes digital signatures.
    The final amendments revise section 2.1001 to establish three 
categories of electronic filings for purposes of the HLW repository 
proceeding and would revise section 2.1013(c)(1) to specify the 
submission requirements for these three categories of electronic 
filings.
    ``Simple documents'' are textual or graphic oriented material that 
are less than 50 megabytes (MB) in size. These documents are 
transmitted electronically via EIE as contemplated by the current 10 
CFR 2.1011. Test results have demonstrated that 50 MB is a reasonable 
size for downloading files across wide area networks or from the 
Internet via phone lines.
    ``Large documents'' are those that have textual or graphic oriented 
material larger than 50 MB in size. Under revised section 
2.1013(c)(1)(ii), these documents must be submitted via the EIE in 
multiple transmissions of 50 MB or less each. The large document 
submission may also be supplemented with a courtesy copy on optical 
storage media to provide NRC staff, parties, and interested 
governmental participants in the HLW repository proceeding with a 
useful reference copy of the document. For purposes of the NRC staff 
review of the DOE license application, as opposed to an electronic 
submission to the adjudicatory docket, the requirements for DOE's 
submission of the license application are already specified in 10 CFR 
63.22 of the Commission's regulations. 10 CFR 63.22(a) specifies that 
the application, any amendments to

[[Page 32842]]

the application, and an accompanying environmental impact statement and 
any supplements, must be signed by the Secretary of Energy or the 
Secretary's representative and must be filed with the Director in 
triplicate on paper and optical storage media. In addition, 10 CFR 
63.22(b) requires that 30 additional copies of the license application 
be submitted on paper and optical storage media.
    ``Complex documents'' are any combination of the following:
     Textual or graphic-oriented electronic files
     Electronic files that cannot be segmented into 50 MB files
     Other electronic objects, such as computer programs, 
simulations, video, audio, data files, and files with special printing 
requirements.

    Under final section 2.1013(c)(1)(iii), those portions of complex 
documents that can be electronically submitted through the EIE, again 
in 50 MB or less segments, will be transmitted electronically. Those 
portions that are not amenable to electronic transmission will be 
delivered on optical storage media. The optical storage media must 
include the complete document, i.e., include the portions of the 
document that have been delivered via the EIE.
    In addition to these revisions, section 2.1013 (c)(1) is amended to 
require the following:

     Electronic submissions of files created after January 1, 
2004 must have 300 dots per inch (dpi) as the minimum resolution for 
bi-tonal, color, and grayscale, except in limited circumstances in 
which (a) submitters may need to use an image scanned before January 1, 
2004, in a document created after January 1, 2004, or (b) the scanning 
process for a large, one-page image may not successfully complete at 
the 300 dpi standard resolution.
     Electronic submissions of files created before January 1, 
2004, or electronic submissions created after January 1, 2004, which 
cannot meet the 300 dpi standard for color and grayscale, must meet the 
standard for documents placed on LSN participant Web sites (10 CFR Part 
2.1011(b)(2)(iv)) which is 150 dpi for color and grayscale documents 
and 300 dpi for bi-tonal documents.
     Electronic submissions must be in the appropriate PDF 
output format. These formats and their use are:
     PDF--Formatted Text and Graphics--use for textualdocuments 
converted from native applications
     PDF--Searchable Image (Exact)--use for textual documents 
converted from scanned documents
     PDF--Image Only--use for graphic-, image-, and forms-
oriented documents

Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) images and the results of spreadsheet 
applications will need to be converted to PDF, except in those rare 
instances, examples of which are described in the Guidance Document, 
where PDF conversion is not practicable. Spreadsheets may be submitted 
using Microsoft[reg] Excel, Corel[reg] Quattro Pro, or Lotus[reg] 123.
     Electronic submissions to the hearing docket cannot rely 
on the use of any hyperlinks to other electronic files or websites to 
generate additional documentary material. Any such documentary material 
must be submitted either as an attachment to the filing or as a 
separate filing. If a submittal contains hyperlinks, then it must 
include a disclaimer to the effect that the hyperlinks may be 
inoperable or are not essential to the use of the filing.
     Electronic submissions to the EHD may rely on the use of 
hyperlinks within the same PDF file.
     Electronic submissions must be free of any security 
restrictions imposed by the author (proposed section 
2.1013(c)(1)(vii)).
    Additional information on the submission of these filings will be 
provided in the Guidance Document, discussed earlier. The Guidance 
Document is available on the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). The NRC 
expects parties, interested governmental participants, and potential 
parties to use the detailed instructions in the Guidance Document to 
ensure that their electronic filings are effectively submitted. Areas 
covered by the Guidance Document address the need for and format of the 
transmittal letter for electronic filings, file naming conventions, 
copyrighted information, and instructions on sensitive or classified 
information.
Docketing
    The final revisions clarify the responsibility of the Secretary of 
the Commission, under section 2.1012(a), to determine whether the DOE 
license application for a HLW repository is in an electronic media form 
and format that is acceptable for docketing. Under section 2.1012(a), 
the DOE license application cannot be docketed unless the Secretary of 
the Commission determines that the DOE license application has been 
submitted on optical storage media in a format consistent with NRC 
regulations and guidance.
Documentary Material
    Section 2.1003 of the current LSN rule requires a party, a 
potential party, or an interested governmental participant (hereinafter 
``participant'') to make its documentary material available in 
electronic form. The definition of ``documentary material'' includes 
material prepared by an individual participant, for example, all 
reports or studies prepared by, or on behalf of, a participant. It also 
includes other material in the possession of the participant on which 
the participant intends to rely and/or cite in support of its position 
in the HLW repository proceeding or that doesn't support its position. 
This provision can be read to obligate a party who possesses a document 
prepared by another participant to make that document available on its 
LSN document collection server even though it is already available on 
the LSN document collection server of the party who had prepared the 
document. For example, under this interpretation a document prepared by 
DOE would not only need to be available through the centralized LSN Web 
site from the DOE LSN document collection server, but also from the LSN 
document collection server of other participants. Without compromising 
the objective of ensuring that all documentary material is available on 
the LSN, the Commission believes that it would be beneficial to 
eliminate or at least significantly reduce the loading of duplicate 
documents. Reducing duplication will not only alleviate burdens on the 
participants, but will also make search and retrieval of the LSN 
collection more efficient. Therefore, the final amendment to section 
2.1003(a)(1) allows an LSN participant to avoid loading a document 
created by another LSN participant if that document has already been 
made available by the LSN participant who created the document or on 
whose behalf the document was created.
    If, in the process of eliminating duplicate documents, an LSN 
participant identifies a document which the creator of that document 
has not included on its LSN document collection server, as a practical 
matter, the participant who identified the document should include it 
on its LSN document collection server, as well as notifying the creator 
of the document that it is taking that action. Moreover, in such 
circumstances, it is not apparent what purpose would be served by 
raising the issue before the PAPO unless the documentary material has 
some readily apparent significance as a Class 2 document (as delineated 
in the

[[Page 32843]]

discussion below) or a significant number of ``missing'' documents were 
identified with regard to a particular LSN participant, so as to raise 
the issue of a concerted, deliberate effort not to comply with the 
regulations.
    The Commission is also amending section 2.1003 by adding a new 
paragraph (e) to this section. Section 2.1003(e) requires LSN 
participants to supplement the documentary material provided under 
section 2.1003(a) in its initial certification with documentary 
material produced after that event. While much of an LSN participant's 
documentary material will be made available early, it is reasonable to 
expect that additional material will be created after the initial 
compliance period specified in section 2.1003(a). In addition, the 
ongoing performance confirmation program required of DOE by section 
63.131 of the Commission's regulations will generate additional 
documentary material after the license application is docketed. The 
Commission has revised section 2.1003(e) to specify that the 
requirement to supplement ends when discovery is completed. The 
schedule in Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 2 anticipates the close of 
discovery to occur near the time of the second pre-hearing conference 
held to finalize issues for hearing and schedules for prefiled 
testimony and hearing. However, during the proceeding, the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board can always direct that additional discovery 
or discovery supplementation must take place. Moreover, it should be 
added that while there is no obligation on an LSN participant to add 
new documents to its site after discovery closes, an LSN participant 
does have an obligation to maintain its existing LSN collection intact 
and available for the rest of the proceeding. Parties will have a 
continuing need to search LSN participant databases during the 
evidentiary hearing and throughout the NRC appellate process.
    Finally, the Commission is providing further information and a 
clarification on the responsibilities of LSN participants in regard to 
the three classes of documentary material in section 2.1001. These 
three classes are:
    1. Any information on which a party, potential party, or interested 
governmental participant intends to rely and/or cite in support of its 
position in the HLW repository proceeding;
    2. Any information that is known to, and in the possession of, or 
developed by the party that is relevant to, but does not support, that 
information noted in item 1 or that party's position; and
    3. All reports and studies prepared by or on behalf of a potential 
party, interested governmental participant, or party, including all 
related ``circulated drafts'' relevant to the application and the 
issues set forth in the Topical Guidelines, regardless of whether they 
will be relied upon or cited by a party.
    The first two classes of documentary material are tied to a 
``reliance'' criterion. Reliance is fundamentally related to a position 
that a party in the HLW repository proceeding will take in regard to 
compliance with the Commission regulations on the issuance of a 
construction authorization for the repository. These compliance issues 
take the form of ``contentions'' of law or fact that a party has 
successfully had admitted for litigation in the HLW repository 
proceeding under the rules of practice in 10 CFR Part 2. The third 
class of material, ``reports and studies prepared for or on behalf of 
the potential party'' has meaning independent of any contentions that 
might be offered. The material in this class must be available on the 
LSN regardless of whether it has any relation to a contention offered 
at the hearing. It is also a likely source of the material that a party 
would use to develop its contentions. ``Reports'' and ``studies'' will 
also include the basic documents relevant to licensing such as the DOE 
EIS, the NRC Yucca Mountain Review Plan, as well as other reports or 
studies prepared by a LSN participant or its contractor.
    To fall within the definition of ``documentary material'', reports 
or studies must have a nexus to both the license application (emphasis 
added) and the Topical Guidelines contained in NRC Regulatory Guide 
3.69. This dual requirement is designed to ensure that LSN participants 
do not have to identify, and include as documentary material, reports 
or studies that have no bearing on the DOE license application for a 
geologic repository at the Yucca Mountain site, such as reports or 
studies on other potential repository sites or on issues outside of the 
NRC licensing criteria. In addition, Sec.  63.21 of the Commission's 
regulations requires that the DOE Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
must accompany the license application. Therefore, reports and studies 
relevant to issues addressed by the DOE EIS must also be made available 
as Class 3 documentary material. This is also consistent with the 
coverage of the Topical Guidelines.
    To assist participants in identifying documentary material that may 
be relevant to the license application in the time period before it is 
submitted, the Commission is recommending that LSN participants use the 
NRC Yucca Mountain Review Plan (NUREG-1804, Rev. 2, July, 2003) as a 
guide. The Yucca Mountain Review Plan provides guidance to the NRC 
staff on evaluating the DOE license application. As such, it 
anticipates the form and substance of the DOE license application and 
can be used as a reliable guide for identifying documentary material.
    The Commission also notes that the history of the LSN and its 
predecessor, the Licensing Support System, makes it apparent it was the 
Commission's expectation that the LSN, among other things, would 
provide potential participants with the opportunity to frame focused 
and meaningful contentions and to avoid the delay potentially 
associated with document discovery, by requiring parties and potential 
parties to the proceeding to make all their Subpart J-defined 
documentary material available through the LSN prior to the submission 
of the DOE application. These objectives are still operational. 
Nonetheless, the Commission is clarifying that, because the full scope 
of coverage of the reliance concept will only become apparent after 
proffered contentions are admitted by the Presiding Officer in the 
proceeding, an LSN participant would not be expected to identify 
specifically documents that fall within either Class 1 or Class 2 
documentary material in the pre-license application phase.
    In this regard, the Commission still expects all participants to 
make a good faith effort to have made available all of the documentary 
material that may eventually be designated as Class 1 and Class 2 
documentary material by the date specified for initial compliance in 
section 2.1003(a) of the Commission's regulations. Thereafter, in 
conjunction with its license application submission, DOE would be 
required to supplement its Class 1 and Class 2 documents to the degree 
the application makes it apparent the scope of the DOE documentary 
material in those classes had changed, a process that might well be 
repeated by all parties following the admission of contentions. 
Finally, as part of the regular post-contention admission discovery 
process under section 2.1018, a party could be required to identify the 
specific documents that comprise its Class 1 and Class 2 documentary 
material. As a consequence, while it is not possible to say there are 
no special circumstances that would necessitate a ruling by the PAPO on 
the availability of a particular document in the pre-license 
application stage based on its Class 1 or Class 2 status, disputes over 
Class 1 and Class 2 documentary material generally would be of a type 
that would be more appropriately raised before the Presiding Officer 
designated

[[Page 32844]]

during the time following the admission of contentions when the NRC 
staffis working to complete the Safety Evaluation Report in its 
entirety.
Exclusions
    The Commission has reviewed its procedural rules for the HLW 
repository licensing proceeding, including the LSN requirements, to 
assess whether they appropriately reflect the evolution of the relevant 
technology, law, and policy since the rules were originally promulgated 
in 1987, being mindful of a recent report by the House Committee on 
Appropriations (Committee), issued July 2003, expressing concern on the 
extent of documentation that DOE may be required to provide as part of 
the LSN. The Committee encouraged the Commission to review its 
regulatory requirements regarding the LSN to ensure that they do not 
require the duplication of information otherwise easily obtainable, 
focus on information that is truly relevant to the substantive 
decisions that will have to be made, and establish a time frame in 
accord with the traditional conduct of an adjudicatory proceeding.\1\ 
Based on our review, the Commission has determined that the LSN rule 
could be further revised to address the Committee's concerns, while 
still maintaining the overall purpose and functionality of the LSN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ H.R. Rep. No. 108, 108th Cong. 1st Sess. (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is revising section 2.1005 of the rule to specify an 
additional category of documents, ``congressional correspondence,'' 
that may be excluded from the LSN. Section 2.1005 of the Commission's 
regulations establishes several categories of documents that do not 
have to be entered into the LSN, either under the documentary material 
requirements of section 2.1003, or under the derivative discovery 
provisions of section 2.1019. These include materials that are either 
widely available or do not have any significant relevance to the issues 
that might be litigated in the HLW licensing proceeding. The Commission 
is adding ``correspondence between a party, potential party, or 
interested governmental participant and the Congress of the United 
States' to these exclusions. This reflects the Commission's current 
judgment that this type of material will not have a significant bearing 
on repository licensing issues. Much of this material either relates to 
budgetary issues and schedules or is merely a summary of an entity's 
primary document. It would normally not be the source of material that 
a party would rely on for its case in the hearing or as a source of 
material that would be contrary to such reliance information. However, 
the correspondence generated by Federal entities will still be 
available as part of the normal Federal recordkeeping requirements. If 
a particular item of Congressional correspondence does become relevant 
to a contention admitted in the HLW proceeding, it can be made 
available at that time. The Commission does not anticipate that any 
disputes over this clearly and narrowly defined exclusion would be 
brought before the PAPO.

Plain Language

    The Presidential memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled, ``Plain 
Language in Government Writing,'' directed that the Government's 
writing be in plain language. This memorandum was published June 10, 
1998 (63 FR 31883). In light of this directive, editorial changes have 
been made in these proposed revisions to improve the organization and 
readability of the existing language of the paragraphs being revised. 
These types of changes are not discussed further in this document. The 
NRC requested comment on the proposed rule specifically with respect to 
the clarity of the language used. The Commission did not receive any 
comments on this aspect of the proposed rule.

Voluntary Consensus Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. 
L. 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that 
are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless 
using such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. This final rule would establish requirements and standards 
for the submission of filings to the electronic docket for the HLW 
licensing proceeding. Although the specific standards in the final rule 
are unique to the Commission's HLW repository proceeding, they are 
based on industry-wide standards such as Portable Document Format 
(PDF).

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion

    The NRC has determined that this final regulation is the type of 
action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). 
Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an 
environmental assessment has been prepared.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This final rule does not contain information collection 
requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Regulatory Analysis

    The Commission did not receive any specific comments on the 
regulatory analysis for the proposed rule. The regulatory analysis for 
the final rule has not been changed.
    The following regulatory analysis identifies several alternatives 
to the rule set forth in the final rule. Subpart J of 10 CFR Part 2 
establishes an electronic environment for the adjudicatory proceeding 
for consideration of a potential license application by the U.S. 
Department of Energy (DOE) for a proposed HLW repository at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada. The NRC expects to begin receiving and processing a 
significant volume of electronic documents associated with the 
adjudicatory proceeding in the near future. Some of these filings will 
consist of large or complex documents. Examples of material in these 
large electronic files include maps, charts, video presentations, 
computer modeling or simulation programs with their associated 
databases, and narrative reports with extensive embedded graphic 
objects. Consistent with 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J:
     The NRC has established the Licensing Support Network 
(LSN) so that all parties, potential parties, and participants in the 
proceeding will be able to make their documentary material 
electronically available to meet document discovery requirements.
     The NRC will direct all participants in the adjudicatory 
proceeding to use the agency's EIE capabilities to submit their filings 
electronically to the NRC when practicable.
     After processing, documents submitted in the HLW 
repository proceeding would be available in the Electronic Hearing 
Docket (EHD), which is accessible via the Internet; electronic objects 
that cannot be made directly accessible via the EHD Web site, such as 
computer simulation models, will be described in the EHD and made 
available on optical storage media.
    The assessment of existing and anticipated technology capabilities 
identified a number of potential issues that may make it difficult to 
meet the challenges of electronic submission of large documents as 
specified in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J. Those challenges are driven by 
the following fundamental issues:

[[Page 32845]]

     Technology limitations of current electronic document and 
records transmission and management systems.
     Maintaining document and object fidelity, integrity, and 
authenticity.
     Receiving source document formats in an acceptable 
resolution.
     Management of and access to non-textual information.
     Federal recordkeeping requirements.
     General usability of the electronic submittals.
     Potential limitations of information technology (hardware, 
software, or Internet service provider) used by the general public.
The Nature of the Documents
    Documents may be large, complex, or a combination of both, as 
follows:
     Large documents consist of electronic files that, because 
of their size, create challenges for both the NRC and the public when 
transmitting, viewing, or downloading the document (e.g., significant 
delays in transmission, uploading, or downloading times). The NRC 
anticipates that the potential license application and some filings in 
the HLW repository adjudicatory proceeding will be of a size that will 
create transmission, viewing, or downloading challenges. In electronic 
format, some of these files could contain several hundred megabytes.
     Complex documents consist (entirely or in part) of 
electronic files having substantial portions that are neither textual 
nor image in nature, and graphic or other Binary Large Objects that 
exceed 50 MB and cannot be logically divided. For example, specialized 
exhibits may include computer software programs and their operating 
components, large data files, and actual software code for analytical 
programs that a party may intend to introduce into the proceeding.
Articulation of the Issues
    Large and/or complex documents may pose challenges in any or all of 
the following general areas:

 Electronic Submission Process

    When submitted via the Internet, very large documents or files can 
cause ``time-out'' problems for computers at either end of the 
transfer, resulting in a failed or canceled transfer. Transmission 
times are dependent on the speed of the sender's communication device 
and the technology used by the Internet service provider. Very large 
documents or files require lengthy transmission times during which the 
potential for error conditions or other service interruptions increases 
in direct proportion to the time the communication link must be 
maintained. The time-out problems could affect each party who receives 
the documents as part of the service of a filing. The actual transfer 
times for very large documents or files may approach 24 hours using 
standard Internet File Transfer Protocol (FTP) routines. In terms of 
ensuring timeliness, this may not be a significant improvement over the 
use of an overnight courier to send the files on optical storage media 
(e.g.,CD-ROM).

 Access to Large, Complex Documents in the Electronic Hearing 
Docket (EHD)

    Keeping a large document together in one very large file may allow 
users to easily search for, retrieve, and analyze the document in its 
entirety, but may result in service interruption problems similar to 
those described above. This is particularly true if a user wants to 
download the image file of one of these large documents. Retrieval time 
will be unacceptably slow, or will result in a time-out problem with 
the user's Internet connection.
    Users of the EHD may encounter comparable download delays because 
of the file size of large or complex documents and, depending on the 
nature of the file, the file may not be executable on a user's desktop 
personal computer because of configuration, memory, display, or other 
technical problems.

 Use of Large, Complex Documents in a Hearing Room

    Large documents may be pre-filed as potential exhibits in the 
docket; however, in a hearing room, it is possible that only portions 
of such documents, e.g., specified chapters, pages, or paragraphs will 
be offered. In a dynamic and fast-paced hearing room environment, it 
would not be desirable to delay the proceeding to wait for a large file 
to load; navigate to the desired chapters, pages, or paragraphs; and 
then extract the appropriate selection for use in the proceeding. 
Complex documents may also require specialized hardware and/or software 
to execute software program files and access their associated data.

 Official Record and Federal Records Management Considerations

    For both large and complex documents, the NRC must consider the 
need to generate an official record of the proceeding for use in 
potential appellate environments, see 10 CFR 2.1013(a), and for 
generating an Official Agency Record (OAR) version of the docketed 
materials for retirement to the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). Each of these situations requires the ability to 
reassemble the record version of the documentary material (excluding 
software executables), independent of the media or software initially 
used to create it.
    Coupled with the project objectives and technical requirements 
(discussed in the next section), these issues represent the framework 
for potential solutions. The NRC analysis distilled and assessed the 
objectives, technical requirements, and issues and developed four 
designs.
Technical Requirements
    Given the anticipated size and complexity of individual documents, 
and the quantity of submittals, the need to transmit, manage, and 
retrieve electronic documents and objects challenges both the NRC's 
current processes and its information technology/information management 
(IT/IM) infrastructures, and the information technology (hardware, 
software, Internet service provider) in use by the general public. 
Examples of potential large documents are:
     The DOE Site Characterization Plan;
     The DOE License Application and supporting materials;
     The DOE Environmental Impact Statement;
     Adjudicatory documents (e.g., motions, responses, 
transcripts, exhibits, and orders).
    Any or all of these types of documents may contain embedded 
photographs, charts, tables, and other graphics that contribute to the 
understanding of the narrative.
    The NRC also anticipates receiving files that could be part of 
complex document submittals that:
    (1) Due to their file size, may preclude easy transmission, 
retrieval, and use; or
    (2) May require specialized software and/or hardware for faithful 
display and subsequent use; and
    (3) May not be suitable for inclusion in a ``generic'' file format 
such as PDF. The PDF standard, though it is proprietary to Adobe[reg], 
has been published and is available for use by software vendors. Users 
can access the content of a PDF format file through the use of the 
Adobe Reader[reg] viewer software.
    Examples of files that could be part of complex documents include 
maps, databases, simulations, audio files, video files, and executable 
programs.
    The analysis of the challenges of handling large documents in the 
NRC and public IT environments considered the following functional 
areas:

[[Page 32846]]

     Transmit activities entail sending a submittal from the 
submitter to the NRC, either via electronic format (through 
transmission or media) or as a physical object (e.g., video or audio).
     Capture relates to the receipt of electronic objects, with 
notifications provided according to an approved service list, 
preferably through e-mail. Upon receipt at the NRC, each submittal is 
staged for additional processing.
     Index & Cross-Reference are two distinct processes. Each 
submittal must be indexed based on prescribed profile templates. In 
addition, as part of the cataloging process, a submittal may be 
identified (or cross-referenced) as part of a package or compound 
document.
     Store manages the storage location of a submittal, i.e., 
within a folder or larger collection for electronic submittals, or the 
physical media location for submittals provided on optical storage 
media (e.g., CD-ROM) containing text, data, and objects. This process 
involves applying security and audit controls, as well as the 
appropriate retention schedule.
     Search & Retrieve operations involve querying the 
bibliographic header and content, displaying the pertinent object(s), 
and, if desired, printing all or part of the displayed object(s).
     Create & Revise activities facilitate the creation or 
revision of new documents using content that has been extracted (copied 
and pasted) from original submittals.
     Copy & Distribute activities involve maintaining 
distribution (service) lists and providing the means to copy or 
download an individual document or a collection of documents.
    These activities may also involve reproduction when the need arises 
to generate a hard copy of a submittal (e.g., ``8.5[sec]x``11[sec] 
paper'', drawings, etc.).
    Finally, there was an assessment of the existing NRC document and 
records management systems environment as well as requirements for 
enhancements to support the large document business requirements.
Assessment and Alternatives
    The NRC assessed a number of alternatives to the existing 
technology infrastructure, current and planned operating procedures for 
processing documents, and regulatory requirements to determine how the 
identified objectives, issues, and technical requirements can be 
addressed while ensuring that--
     Document fidelity and integrity is preserved (e.g. 
organization, accuracy, completeness);
     Documents are accessible to users via commonly used 
computer configurations;
     The information is available on reliable and controllable 
media; and
     Unique submittals with special software/hardware 
components can be handled.
    The assessment also considered that the NRC should provide guidance 
to participants in the proceeding well in advance of when large, 
complex filings are reasonably anticipated. The guidance, as well as 
the underlying technology and procedures, would address matters such as 
processes, file sizes, file formats, document organization overviews to 
facilitate reconstruction of the complete filing, labeling formats, and 
alternative transfer media.
    This section presents general concepts and four alternatives for 
handling large, complex electronic submittals in the HLW repository 
proceeding.
General Concept
    The overall information infrastructure for receiving and managing 
HLW-related documents involves several existing agency information 
systems. Participants in the proceeding will primarily send submittals 
to the NRC in the preferred PDF format via EIE, which provides a Web-
form (an entry form similar to that of an overnight express mail 
carrier shipping form) for the submitter to accurately identify what is 
being transmitted. Upon receipt, each submittal would be entered into 
the Agencywide Document and Management System (ADAMS). Once captured 
within ADAMS, the submittal would be available for internal use by 
agency staff, and the information would be made publicly available (as 
appropriate) via the EHD. Variations on this general process and issues 
associated with large, complex documents are described in the following 
sections.
Alternative 1
    Description: Documents, images, and other submittal components are 
submitted through the EIE as a single file, and the EIE Web-form serves 
as the transmittal letter. The NRC captures large files as single 
units, without the need for any manual manipulation, such as breaking a 
submission into workable pieces. Based on the service list, an e-mail 
is sent to provide notification of receipt and a link from the EIE 
server to the file for immediate access by parties and participants to 
the proceeding. In addition, the file is made available (as 
appropriate) to the EHD. Interested parties can search on the 
bibliographic header information, the content, or a combination of the 
two. Retrieval of a document is directly to the user's desktop.
    Positives: This alternative would satisfy the electronic 
transmission requirements of 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J. This alternative 
primarily benefits and is less restrictive to the submitter. That is, 
the submitter dictates the form and format of the content, and the 
submittal comes in as a single optimized PDF format file.
    Negatives: Submittal file size could be very large (potentially 
several hundred MB), particularly if graphics are widely used. The 
transmission may be problematic because of service interruptions or 
time-outs attributable to the very long transfer times required for 
large files. File sizes could also make this alternative unfeasible for 
subsequent users of a file, primarily because of download delays and 
time-outs. In addition, although any executables contained in the 
submittal could be stored in the EHD, they could not be indexed for 
search and retrieval or accessed online. The executable file would need 
to be downloaded and run locally.
Alternative 2
    Description: The only object transmitted through the EIE is the 
transmittal letter for the large, complex document, which notifies the 
NRC of an impending package submittal. All other electronic files 
pertaining to the submittal are sent on optical storage media (e.g., 
CD-ROM), which is delivered to the NRC via an overnight express mail 
carrier. Based on the service list, the NRC sends an e-mail containing 
links from the EIE server to the transmittal letter for immediate 
access by parties and participants to the proceeding. All text-based 
components (e.g., narrative with embedded graphics) are rendered as 
optimized PDF format files. The NRC extracts each file from the optical 
storage media (e.g., CD-ROM) and makes the files available (as 
appropriate) to the EHD as either individual objects or a compound 
document, depending on the document organization. The NRC also links a 
bibliographic header to the appropriate optical storage media (e.g., 
CD-ROM) for files or objects that are not candidates for extraction 
(because of some technical constraint). Interested parties can search 
the EHD on the bibliographic header, the content, or a combination of 
the two. Retrieval of a document or specified component(s) is directly 
to the user's desktop. Additionally, the NRC provides copies (upon 
request and for a fee) of the

[[Page 32847]]

optical storage media (e.g., CD-ROM) for public access.
    Positives: The NRC provides guidance to the submitter to facilitate 
processing and use within the agency. This alternative also avoids 
potential problems associated with submitting large files via the EIE.
    Negatives: This alternative does not meet the electronic service 
requirements of 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J. There may also be a delay in 
parties and participants receiving documents. As compared with 
Alternative 1, additional processing will be required to extract, 
profile, and store files in a timely manner. In addition, use of this 
alternative could adversely affect document fidelity and integrity 
(e.g. organization, accuracy, or completeness) which could affect the 
efficient conduct of an adjudication, as well as for agency 
recordkeeping and eventual turnover to NARA.
Alternative 3
    Description: Documents, images, and other components (including the 
transmittal letter and enhanced Web-form) are transmitted through the 
EIE as multiple segmented files (``chunks'') of a single submittal. All 
text-based components (e.g., narrative with embedded graphics) are 
rendered as optimized PDF format files. Based on the service list, the 
NRC sends an e-mail containing links from the EIE server to the 
transmittal letter and the various segmented files for immediate access 
by parties and participants to the proceeding. Upon receipt and 
subsequent processing, the NRC makes the segmented files available (as 
appropriate) to the EHD as a ``package'' or ``compound document.'' 
Interested parties can search on the bibliographic headers, or content, 
or a combination of both. Retrieval of selected components is direct to 
the user's computer.
    Positives: This alternative satisfies electronic transmission 
requirements of 10 CFR Part 2 and allows submission via the EIE. It 
also allows the NRC to provide guidance to have precisely defined 
segments and bibliographic header information associated with each 
segment. The segmentation facilitates later use and access.
    Negatives: This alternative requires the EIE to facilitate the 
transfer, segregate component content from bibliographic header 
information and the transmittal letter, and make that information 
available to the EHD. A possible fatal flaw is that some file types may 
not be able to be segmented into manageable sizes (e.g., graphic-
oriented materials showing subsurface geology in color or computer 
modeling information and/or software), and some materials may not be 
accessible via the EHD.
Alternative 4
    Description: All text-based components (e.g. narrative with 
embedded graphics) are rendered as optimized PDF files and transmitted 
in manageable segments. All non-text components that are not suitable 
for an optimized PDF file are submitted on optical storage media (e.g., 
CD-ROM). When necessary, due to the nature of the submittal, a 
submittal letter identifies all electronic files that comprise the 
submission, clearly indicating which components are submitted via EIE, 
and which are submitted on optical storage media (e.g., CD-ROM). The 
submittal letter, enhanced Web-forms, and all segmented text files are 
sent through the EIE. The optical storage media (e.g., CD-ROM) 
containing the complete submission (i.e., text-based segments submitted 
via EIE and any files submitted only on optical storage media) are 
delivered to the NRC and other parties via an overnight mail carrier or 
other overnight delivery service. The NRC links a bibliographic header 
to the optical storage media (e.g., CD-ROM) component of the 
submission.
    Based on the service list, the NRC sends an e-mail containing links 
from the EIE server to the transmittal letter and the various 
components submitted through the EIE for immediate access by parties 
and participants to the proceeding. The NRC indexes the text-based 
components sent via EIE and makes them available to the EHD as a 
``package'' or ``compound document.'' Additionally, the NRC provides 
copies (upon request and for a fee) of the optical storage media (e.g., 
CD-ROM) for the public. Interested parties can search on the 
bibliographic header information, content, or a combination of both. 
Retrieval of text-based components is directly to the user's computer, 
and non-text components are retrievable from the optical storage media 
(e.g., CD-ROM).
    Positives: This alternative combines the best features and 
advantages of Alternatives 2 and 3, including text-based component 
submission through the EIE and non-text component submissions via 
optical storage media (e.g., CD-ROM). This alternative provides several 
means to optimize a submission and allows the NRC to process the 
submission appropriately; provide access to end-users (i.e., 
adjudicatory proceeding participants and the general public); and 
prepare for the eventual transfer to NARA.
    Negatives: Processing will need to be closely coordinated to 
maintain the integrity of the various submittal components (segmented 
files stored in ADAMS with the bibliographic header records that point 
to optical storage media, such as a CD-ROM).
    Documentary material submitted on optical storage media and sent by 
overnight mail (or other expedited delivery services) would not meet 
the electronic transmission requirements of 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J. 
There may be a delay in parties and participants receiving document 
components contained only on the optical storage media (e.g., CD-ROM).
Planned Actions
    Alternative 4 is the recommended approach for the NRC to meet the 
identified objectives. The NRC believes that this alternative provides 
the best means for transferring the wide variety of file types and 
sizes received from parties and participants in the proceeding, as well 
as the most practical means for delivering electronic information to 
parties and participants in the HLW repository adjudicatory proceeding, 
the presiding officer, and the Office of the Secretary (SECY), under 
the requirements of 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J.
    Toward that end, the agency will take the following steps:
     Develop guidance for use in generating HLW proceeding 
submissions that specifies the size, file characteristics, and method 
(either EIE or optical storage media) for different submittal types 
(i.e. simple, large, or complex). This guidance will also provide 
direction concerning the information the agency requires to ensure 
proper identification of each segment.
     Implement enhancements to the agency's existing IT/IM 
systems (such as an improved EIE capability) in anticipation of 
storage, search, and retrieval needs, as they pertain to Alternative 4.
     Implement enhancements to the agency's current document 
processing work flows in anticipation of the receipt, indexing, and 
distribution of information, as they pertain to Alternative 4.
     Develop a rule change to implement the recommended 
alternative. The final rule reflects this approach.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), 
the Commission has evaluated the impact of the final rule on small 
entities. The NRC has established standards for

[[Page 32848]]

determining who qualifies as small entities (10 CFR 2.810). The 
Commission certifies that this final rule, if adopted, would not have a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 
The amendments would modify the NRC's rules of practice and procedure 
in regard to the HLW repository licensing proceeding. Parties to the 
HLW repository licensing proceeding will be required to submit their 
filings during the proceeding according to the standards in the 
proposed rule. Some of the participants affected by the final rule, for 
example, DOE, NRC, the State of Nevada, would not fall within the 
definition of ``small entity'' under the NRC's size standards. Other 
parties and potential parties may qualify as ``small entities'' under 
these size standards. However, the required standards will overall make 
it easier for those parties who are small entities to participate in 
the HLW repository licensing proceeding.

Backfit Analysis

    The NRC has determined that a backfit analysis is not required for 
this final rule because these amendments would not include any 
provisions that require backfits as defined in 10 CFR Chapter I.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct 
material, Classified information, Environmental protection, Nuclear 
materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Sex 
discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste 
treatment and disposal.


0
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 
1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 2.

PART 2--RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS AND 
ISSUANCE OF ORDERS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs.161, 181, 68 Stat. 948, 953, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec. 191, as amended, Pub. L. 87-615, 76 Stat. 
409 (42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
5841); 5 U.S.C. 552; sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 
note).
    Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, 63, 81, 103, 104, 
105, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135); sec. 114(f), Pub. 
L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2213, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10143(O)); sec. 102, 
Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 
88 Stat. 1248 (42 U.S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104, 2.105, 
2.321 also issued under secs. 102, 104, 105, 163, 183i, 189, 68 
Stat. 936, 937, 938, 954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 
2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Section 2.105 also issued under Pub. L. 97-
415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200-2.206 also 
issued under secs. 161 b, i, o, 182, 186, 234, 68 Stat. 948-951, 
955, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201 (b), (i), (o), 2236, 
2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5846). Section 2.205(j) 
also issued under Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 90, as amended by 
section 3100(s), Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-373 (28 U.S.C. 2461 
note). Subpart C also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 
2239). Sections 2.600-2.606 also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-
190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332). Section 2.700a also 
issued under 5 U.S.C. 554. Sections 2.343, 2.346, 2.754, 2.712 also 
issued under 5 U.S.C. 557. Section 2.764 also issued under secs. 
135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 
10161). Section 2.790 also issued under sec. 103, 68 Stat. 936, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 2133) and 5 U.S.C. 552. Sections 2.800 and 2.808 
also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809 also issued under 5 
U.S.C. 553, and sec. 29, Pub. L. 85-256, 71 Stat. 579, as amended 
(42 U.S.C. 2039). Subpart K also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 
(42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 
10154). Subpart L also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 
U.S.C. 2239). Subpart M also issued under sec. 184 (42 U.S.C. 2234) 
and sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Subpart N also issued 
under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Appendix A also 
issued under sec. 6, Pub. L. 91-550, 84 Stat. 1473 (42 U.S.C. 2135).


0
2. In Sec.  2.1001, definitions of ``Complex document,'' ``Large 
document,'' and ``Simple document'' are added in alphabetical order to 
read as follows:


Sec.  2.1001  Definitions.

* * * * *
    ``Complex document'' means a document that consists (entirely or in 
part) of electronic files having substantial portions that are neither 
textual nor image in nature, and graphic or other Binary Large Objects 
that exceed 50 megabytes and cannot logically be divided. For example, 
specialized submissions may include runtime executable software, viewer 
or printer executables, dynamic link library (.dll) files, large data 
sets associated with an executable, and actual software code for 
analytical programs that a party may intend to introduce into the 
proceeding.
* * * * *
    ``Large document'' means a document that consists of electronic 
files that are larger than 50 megabytes.
* * * * *
    ``Simple document'' means a document that consists of electronic 
files that are 50 megabytes or less.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec.  2.1003, the introductory text of paragraph (a) and 
paragraph (a)(1) are revised, and paragraph (e) is added, to read as 
follows:


Sec.  2.1003  Availability of material.

    (a) Subject to the exclusions in Sec.  2.1005 and paragraphs (b), 
(c), and (e) of this section, DOE shall make available, no later than 
six months in advance of submitting its license application for a 
geologic repository, the NRC shall make available no later than thirty 
days after the DOE certification of compliance under Sec.  2.1009(b), 
and each other potential party, interested governmental participant or 
party shall make available no later than ninety days after the DOE 
certification of compliance under Sec.  2.1009(b)--
    (1) An electronic file including bibliographic header for all 
documentary material (including circulated drafts but excluding 
preliminary drafts) generated by, or at the direction of, or acquired 
by, a potential party, interested governmental participant or party; 
provided, however, that an electronic file need not be provided for 
acquired documentary material that has already been made available by 
the potential party, interested governmental participant or party that 
originally created the documentary material. Concurrent with the 
production of the electronic files will be an authentication statement 
for posting on the LSN Web site that indicates where an authenticated 
image copy of the documents can be obtained.
* * * * *
    (e) Each potential party, interested governmental participant or 
party shall continue to supplement its documentary material made 
available to other participants via the LSN with any additional 
material created after the time of its initial certification in 
accordance with paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section until 
the discovery period in the proceeding has concluded.

0
4. In Sec.  2.1005, paragraph (i) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  2.1005  Exclusions.

* * * * *
    (i) Correspondence between a potential party, interested 
governmental participant, or party and the Congress of the United 
States.

0
5. In Sec.  2.1012, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 32849]]

Sec.  2.1012  Compliance.

    (a) If the Department of Energy fails to make its initial 
certification at least six months prior to tendering the application, 
upon receipt of the tendered application, notwithstanding the 
provisions of Sec.  2.101(f)(3), the Director of the NRC's Office of 
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards will not docket the application 
until at least six months have elapsed from the time of the 
certification. The Director may determine that the tendered application 
is not acceptable for docketing under this subpart if the application 
is not accompanied by an updated certification pursuant to Sec.  
2.1009(b), or if the Secretary of the Commission determines that the 
application is not submitted on optical storage media in a format 
consistent with NRC regulations and guidance, or for non-compliance 
with any other requirements identified in this subpart.
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  2.1013, paragraphs (a)(2) and (c)(1) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  2.1013  Use of the electronic docket during the proceeding.

    (a) * * *
    (2) The Secretary of the Commission will establish an electronic 
docket to contain the official record materials of the high-level 
radioactive waste repository licensing proceeding in searchable full 
text, or, for material that is not suitable for entry in searchable 
full text, by header and image, as appropriate.
* * * * *
    (c)(1) All filings in the adjudicatory proceeding on the 
application for a high-level radioactive waste geologic repository 
under part 60 or 63 of this chapter shall be transmitted by the 
submitter to the Presiding Officer, parties, and Secretary of the 
Commission, according to the following requirements--
    (i) ``Simple documents'' must be transmitted electronically via 
EIE;
    (ii) ``Large documents'' must be transmitted electronically in 
multiple transmissions of 50 megabytes or less each via EIE;
    (iii) ``Complex documents'':
    (A) Those portions that can be electronically submitted through the 
EIE, in 50 MB or less segments, must be transmitted electronically, 
along with a transmittal letter; and
    (B) Those portions that are not capable of being transmitted 
electronically must be submitted on optical storage media which must 
also include those portions of the document that had been or will be 
transmitted electronically.
    (iv) Electronic submissions must have the following resolution--
    (A) Electronic submissions of files created after January 1, 2004 
must have 300 dots per inch (dpi) as the minimum resolution for bi-
tonal, color, and grayscale, except in limited circumstances where 
submitters may need to use an image scanned before January 1, 2004, in 
a document created after January 1, 2004, or the scanning process for a 
large, one-page image may not successfully complete at the 300 dpi 
standard resolution.
    (B) Electronic submissions of files created before January 1, 2004, 
or electronic submissions created after January 1, 2004, which cannot 
meet the 300 dpi standard for color and grayscale, must meet the 
standard for documents placed on LSN participant Web sites in Sec.  
2.1011(b)(2)(iv) of this subpart, which is 150 dpi for color and 
grayscale documents and 300 dpi for bi-tonal documents.
    (v) Electronic submissions must be generated in the appropriate PDF 
output format by using:
    (A) PDF--Formatted Text and Graphics for textual documents 
converted from native applications;
    (B) PDF--Searchable Image (Exact) for textual documents converted 
from scanned documents; and
    (C) PDF--Image Only for graphic-, image-, and forms-oriented 
documents. In addition, Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) images and the 
results of spreadsheet applications must to be converted to PDF, except 
in those rare instances where PDF conversion is not practicable.
    (vi) Electronic submissions must not rely on hyperlinks to other 
documents or Web sites for completeness or access except for hyperlinks 
that link to material within the same PDF file. If the submittal 
contains hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites, then it must 
include a disclaimer to the effect that the hyperlinks may be 
inoperable or are not essential to the use of the filing. Information 
contained in hyperlinks to a Web site on the Internet or to another PDF 
file, that is necessary for the completeness of a filing, must be 
submitted in its entirety in the filing or as an attachment to the 
filing.
    (vii) All electronic submissions must be free of author-imposed 
security restrictions.
* * * * *

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of June, 2004.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-13113 Filed 6-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P