Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations under 10 CFR part 52, after the Commission has made a finding under 52.103g, the frequency of reporting will be governed by the requirements in paragraph X.B.3.c.

these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC 10 CFR 2.810.

V. ABWR Final Design Approval On July 13, 1994, the NRC issued a final design approval for the U.S. ABWR
design under appendix O to 10 CFR part 52, Standardization of design: staff review of standard designs; the approval was published in the Federal Register on July 20, 1994 59 FR 37058.
The final design approval was scheduled to expire on July 13, 1999.
On November 23, 1994, the NRC issued a revised final design approval under appendix O to 10 CFR part 52, which expired on July 13, 2009. On December 1, 1994, the NRC published the revised final design approval for U.S. ABWR
standard design 59 FR 61647. On August 28, 2007, the NRC replaced appendix O of 10 CFR part 52 with Subpart E of 10 CFR part 52, Standard design approvals, thereby replacing a final design approval with a standard design approval 72 FR 49351. As discussed in the statements of consideration for the 2007 rulemaking, a renewal process was not specifically provided for either a final design approval or standard design approval.
The issued final design approval has expired, a renewal was neither requested nor available, nor is there a standard design approval being sought concurrent with this U.S. ABWR DC
renewal rule. Therefore, the U.S. ABWR
design does not have a current final design approval or standard design approval.

VIII. Regulatory Analysis The NRC has not prepared a regulatory analysis for this direct final rule. The NRC prepares regulatory analyses for rulemakings that establish generic regulatory requirements applicable to all licensees. Design certifications are not generic rulemakings in the sense that design certifications do not establish standards or requirements with which all licensees must comply. Rather, design certifications are NRC approvals of specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking, which then may be voluntarily referenced by applicants for combined licenses or construction permits. Furthermore, an applicant for a design certification, rather than the NRC, initiates design certification rulemakings. Preparation of a regulatory analysis in this circumstance would not be useful because the design to be certified is proposed by the applicant, rather than the NRC. For these reasons, the NRC concludes that preparation of a regulatory analysis is neither required nor appropriate.

VI. Section-by-Section Analysis The following paragraphs describe the specific changes in this direct final rule:

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Appendix A to Part 52Design Certification Rule for the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor This direct final rule amends appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 to incorporate the renewed U.S. ABWR
standard design into the NRCs regulations. Applicants or licensees intending to construct and operate a plant using the U.S. ABWR design may do so by referencing the DC rule.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 605b, the NRC certifies that this direct final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This direct final rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants. The companies that own
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:54 Jun 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

IX. Backfitting and Issue Finality The NRC has determined that this direct final rule does not constitute a backfit as defined in the backfit rule 50.109, and it is not inconsistent with any applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52.
This U.S. ABWR DC renewal rule does not constitute backfitting as defined in the backfit rule 50.109
because there are no existing operating licenses under 10 CFR part 50, or COLs or manufacturing licenses under 10 CFR
part 52 referencing this DC rule and because no current final design approval or standard design approval exists for the U.S. ABWR.
This U.S. ABWR DC renewal rule is not inconsistent with any applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52 because it does not impose new or changed requirements on existing DC
rules in appendices B through F to 10
CFR part 52 and there are no COLs or manufacturing licenses issued by the NRC that reference the original U.S.
ABWR DC rule. Conforming changes appear in appendix A to 10 CFR part 52
to reflect the renewed standard design in place of the original U.S. ABWR DC;
however, these changes do not impose any additional requirements.
For these reasons, neither a backfit analysis nor a discussion addressing the
PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

34915

issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52 was prepared for this rule.
X. Voluntary Consensus Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC certifies the renewal for the U.S.
ABWR standard design for use in nuclear power plant licensing under 10
CFR part 50 or 52. Design certifications are not generic rulemakings establishing a generally applicable standard with which all 10 CFR parts 50 and 52
nuclear power plant licensees must comply. Design certifications are Commission approvals of specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking. Furthermore, design certifications are initiated by an applicant for rulemaking, rather than by the NRC. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.
XI. Plain Writing The Plain Writing Act of 2010 Pub.
L. 111274 requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner that also follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and the intended audience. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, Plain Language in Government Writing, published June 10, 1998 63 FR 31883.
XII. Environmental Assessment and Final Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended NEPA, and the NRCs regulations in subpart A of 10
CFR part 51, that this direct final rule, if confirmed, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRCs generic determination in this regard, reflected in 51.32b1, is based upon the following considerations. A DC rule does not authorize the siting, construction, or operation of a facility referencing any particular design, but only codifies a standard design certification in a rule the U.S. ABWR
DC renewal in this case. The NRC will evaluate the environmental impacts and issue an environmental impact
E:FRFM01JYR1.SGM

01JYR1