Comment on FR Doc # 2026-10727

To the U.S. Department of Energy: Tri-Valley CAREs is writing to oppose DOE’s proposed “Zero-Based Regulating” rule and the related direct final rule. We ask DOE to withdraw the direct final rule and not move forward with the proposal in its current form. Tri-Valley CAREs is a nonprofit organization based in Livermore, California. Since 1983, we have monitored nuclear weapons work, cleanup, worker safety, and environmental risks at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and across the DOE nuclear weapons complex. We are concerned that this proposal would place important regulations on a path toward automatic expiration, including rules related to contractor whistleblowers, nuclear security, radioactive waste, cleanup, and nuclear accident procedures. These rules should not disappear simply because DOE does not complete a review before a deadline. The proposal is not a minor administrative change. Once a regulation expires, it is no longer enforceable. That is effectively a repeal, even if DOE describes the process as a periodic review. DOE should review outdated or unnecessary regulations when there is a reason to do so. But any decision to change or repeal a rule should be made through a separate public process, with a clear explanation of what is being changed and why. We are especially concerned about the possible expiration of 10 CFR Part 708, which protects employees of DOE contractors from retaliation when they raise concerns about illegal conduct, unsafe conditions, fraud, waste, or abuse. At contractor-run sites such as Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, workers are often the first people to see safety problems, security weaknesses, falsified records, or dangerous practices. They need to be able to report those problems without fear of losing their jobs or facing retaliation. Allowing these protections to expire would send the wrong message to workers and could make serious problems less likely to come to light. We are also concerned about rules covering nuclear security, classified information, protective forces, worker reliability, and procedures following a nuclear accident. These are not areas where regulatory gaps or uncertainty should be created. The same is true for regulations involving radioactive waste and cleanup. Communities affected by nuclear weapons production and contamination have dealt with these risks for decades. Rules that affect cleanup obligations and waste disposal should only be changed after careful review and meaningful public participation. The proposed extension process does not solve the problem. It still assumes that a rule should expire unless DOE takes action to preserve it. The better approach is the opposite: existing health, safety, security, and worker protections should remain in place unless DOE completes a public, rule-specific process showing that a change is justified. Tri-Valley CAREs asks DOE to: Withdraw the direct final rule Not finalize the proposed rule in its current form Exclude rules related to whistleblower protections, nuclear safety and security, worker protection, cleanup, radioactive waste, and nuclear accident response from any automatic sunset process DOE can review its regulations without putting important protections at risk. Automatic expiration is not a responsible way to manage rules involving nuclear facilities, workers, surrounding communities, and the environment. Sincerely, Tri-Valley CAREs