## Facts

- After a major fire at a nuclear plant, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) developed stricter, comprehensive fire-protection requirements for operating nuclear reactors to ensure safe shutdown capability.
- Before the rule, the NRC often evaluated plant fire-protection programs using internal technical guidance in plant-specific reviews.
- The NRC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking describing a broad fire-protection program, but it did not clearly state whether newly adopted requirements would apply to plants whose fire-protection programs had already been approved.
- The NRC’s final rule imposed more detailed and stringent requirements applicable to all operating plants, including those previously approved.
- The final rule included an exemption mechanism requiring the NRC to grant exemptions where a licensee showed a modification would not improve, or would reduce, overall plant safety.
- Nuclear utilities petitioned for direct review, arguing the NRC (1) failed to provide adequate notice of the scope of the final rule and (2) failed to give a sufficiently reasoned, technically supported explanation for particular requirements.

## Issues

1. Whether the NRC’s notice of proposed rulemaking satisfied APA § 553(b) by fairly apprising interested parties of the scope and effect of the final fire-protection requirements, including their application to previously approved plants.
2. Whether the NRC’s statement of basis and purpose and the administrative record satisfied APA § 553(c) and arbitrary-and-capricious review by providing a reasoned, record-supported explanation for technical requirements.
3. Whether reliance on internal technical materials required disclosure (or equivalent record presentation) sufficient to permit meaningful public comment.

## Decision

- The court granted the petition in part and denied it in part.
- The court largely upheld the fire-protection regulations and declined to vacate the rule as a whole.
- The court remanded limited aspects to the NRC to clarify the treatment of previously approved programs and to provide additional, record-based explanations where the agency’s rationale was insufficiently stated.
- The court accepted that final rules may differ from proposed rules if the changes are a logical outgrowth of the notice and commenters had a fair chance to address the relevant issues.
- The court recognized the NRC’s broad statutory safety mandate and deferred to technical judgments that were reasonably explained, while requiring procedural compliance with notice-and-comment obligations.

## Legal Principles

- APA notice must fairly apprise interested persons of the issues involved so they have a meaningful opportunity to comment.
- A final rule need not match the proposal in every detail, but it must be a logical outgrowth of the notice and comments.
- In technical rulemakings, meaningful comment may require disclosure in the record of key technical studies, data, assumptions, or analyses on which the agency relies.
- Agency expertise does not excuse gaps in the statement of basis and purpose; the agency must give a reasoned explanation tied to the record for material choices.
- An exemption mechanism can mitigate burdens and support rational tailoring, but it does not cure inadequate notice or an inadequate explanation of basic applicability and rationale.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit sustained most of the NRC’s comprehensive fire-protection rule for nuclear plants, but required the agency to clarify the rule’s reach as to previously approved programs and to supplement its explanations for certain technical requirements to satisfy APA notice-and-comment and reasoned decisionmaking standards.


Conn. Light & Power Co. v. Nuclear Regul. Comm'n, 673 F.2d 525 (D.C. Cir. 1982)