Zero-Based Regulating

The Colorado Mining Association (CMA) opposes the proposal to establish conditional sunset dates for regulations administering the Uranium Leading Program (ULP). They argue that sunsetting these provisions could compromise significant investments made by leaseholders and negatively impact the domestic supply of critical minerals.

The Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, and Natural Resources Defense Council submitted joint comments opposing the "Zero-Based Regulating" direct final rule. They argue the rule is unlawful because it fails to provide adequate notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act, lacks statutory authority for mass regulatory sunsetting, and is arbitrary and capricious.

Battelle Memorial Institute, the operator of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), opposes the proposed sunsetting of several Department of Energy regulations. They argue that removing these regulations would create uncertainty, increase liability, stifle research innovation, and lead to inconsistent standards and pricing across the DOE complex.

Tri-Valley CAREs, a nonprofit organization, opposes the "Zero-Based Regulating" rule because it could lead to the automatic expiration of critical safety, security, and whistleblower protection regulations. They argue that any changes or repeals of such rules should occur through a transparent, public process rather than an automatic sunset mechanism.

The Western Small Miners Association, a mining trade organization, opposes the proposed rule to "sunset" the Uranium Leasing Program (ULP). They argue that the rule unfairly terminates existing leaseholder rights without compensation and fails to provide a plan for maintaining the nation's strategic uranium reserves.

The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law opposes the Department of Energy's Sunset Rule, arguing that it is arbitrary, capricious, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. They contend that the rule bypasses meaningful public input, ignores statutory mandates, and fails to consider the costs, benefits, and security implications of sunsetting specific programs.

Premier American Uranium Inc. opposes the Direct Final Rule to sunset the Uranium Leasing Program, arguing that it extinguishes their valid lease rights without just compensation and contradicts U.S. policy to increase domestic uranium production. The company requests that the Department of Energy withdraw the rule or, at minimum, extend the comment period due to the short notice and errors in the notification.

Don Coram, President of Gold Eagle Mining, Inc., supports the "Zero-Based Regulatory" approach to streamline mining regulations and improve coordination between federal agencies. He advocates for the use of memoranda of understanding (MOUs) to reduce overlapping regulations and argues that the Department of Energy should prioritize "Unleashing American Energy" over jurisdictional boundaries.

The Committee to Bridge the Gap, a nuclear policy nonprofit, opposes the proposed rule, calling it morally reprehensible and illegal. They argue that the rule would lead to unacceptable pollution and harm the health of people and the environment, and they urge the DOE to withdraw it.

Persistence Analytics Group LLC supports the Department of Energy's Zero-Based Regulating initiative, provided it is conducted as a disciplined verification exercise rather than just a deregulatory one. The company argues that the DOE should evaluate rules based on their current public function, the validity of their underlying assumptions, and the specific risks associated with their removal or modification.