Overview
Title
Non-Substantive Amendments to Adjudicatory Proceeding Requirements
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The people who help keep us safe around things like nuclear power are making their rules clearer and more up-to-date to match new decisions and ways of doing things. They checked if anyone had big problems with these changes, and since nobody did, they will start using them soon.
Summary AI
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has confirmed that a new rule change regarding its regulations will come into effect on January 19, 2021. This rule, originally published on November 5, 2020, updates the NRC's procedures to align with current practices and legal decisions, aiming for greater consistency. The rule received no substantial opposing comments, allowing it to proceed as planned. The public can access more information and documents related to this rule through specified NRC resources and contacts.
Abstract
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is confirming the effective date of January 19, 2021, for the direct final rule that was published in the Federal Register on November 5, 2020. This direct final rule revised and clarified the agency's rules of practice and procedure to reflect current Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel practice, Commission case law, and a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and to enhance consistency within the NRC's regulations.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a confirmation of a rule change, set to take effect on January 19, 2021, as detailed in a document published in the Federal Register. This rule aims to update and clarify the NRC's procedural guidelines to better align with current practices and legal precedents, including a decision from the Supreme Court of the United States. By doing so, the NRC intends to enhance the consistency of its regulations.
General Summary
This finalized rule results from a direct final rule that was initially released on November 5, 2020, which did not attract significant adverse feedback. Consequently, the NRC is proceeding with the planned implementation. The goal of these amendments is to ensure that the agency's procedures are in sync with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel's existing practices and relevant Commission case law.
Significant Issues or Concerns
Upon reviewing the document, several notable issues come to light:
Technical Jargon: The document contains technical terms, such as "Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel practice," which may not be easily understood by someone without a background in nuclear regulation.
Complex Language: The language throughout the document is verbose and could be simplified to improve understanding for a lay audience.
Multiple Contact Points: Various sections provide contact information, which may lead to confusion. Streamlining these details could enhance clarity.
Assumption of Familiarity: It assumes the reader is already familiar with references like the "Federal Register" and the "Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)," which may not be the case for all public readers.
Public Impact
The confirmation of this rule is unlikely to have significant direct effects on the general public, as it pertains primarily to the procedural operations within the NRC. However, the rule's intent to improve consistency in regulatory processes could indirectly benefit the public by ensuring more predictable and transparent decision-making within the agency.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
NRC and Licensees: For the NRC and entities directly regulated by it, such as nuclear plant operators, these amendments could mean clearer and more predictable regulatory requirements. This clarity might reduce administrative burdens and the potential for disputes arising from ambiguous regulations.
Legal Professionals: Attorneys and organizations that interact with the NRC may welcome these changes for the improved procedural coherence and alignment with recent case law, providing a more reliable framework for legal proceedings.
Overall, while the document involves technical regulatory changes that might seem distant from everyday public concerns, its implementation strives to streamline NRC processes and ensure regulatory stability, which can have long-term benefits for the stakeholders involved and the public at large.
Issues
• The document does not contain any information on spending, thus no assessment of wasteful spending or favoritism is possible.
• The document text is verbose and could be condensed for clarity and brevity, particularly in the SUMMARY and ADDRESSES sections.
• The document uses some technical terminology (e.g., "Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel practice") that may not be immediately clear to all readers.
• The contact information is provided in multiple places, which could be streamlined.
• The document assumes familiarity with the 'Federal Register,' 'ADAMS,' and other regulatory references without providing sufficient explanation for a lay reader.