This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

64729 

Vol. 83, No. 242 

Tuesday, December 18, 2018 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 72 

[NRC–2018–0220] 

RIN 3150–AK17 

List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage 

Casks: NAC International MultiPurpose Canister Storage System, 

Certificate of Compliance No. 1025, 

Amendment Nos. 7 and 8 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is amending its 

spent fuel storage regulations by 

revising the NAC International MultiPurpose Canister (NAC–MPC) Storage 

System listing within the ‘‘List of 

approved spent fuel storage casks’’ to 

include Amendment Nos. 7 and 8 to 

Certificate of Compliance No. 1025. 

Amendment No. 7 revises the technical 

specifications to eliminate the 

requirements for the heat removal 

system to be operable for La Crosse 

Boiling Water Reactor spent fuel stored 

in the NAC–MPC because convective 

cooling is not required, and to eliminate 

duplicative requirements. In addition, 

Amendment No. 8 removes duplicative 

surveillance requirements in the 

technical specifications because these 

requirements are already required by the 

revised Technical Specification A 3.1.6, 

‘‘CONCRETE CASK Heat Removal 

System.’’ 

DATES: This direct final rule is effective 

March 4, 2019, unless significant 

adverse comments are received by 

January 17, 2019. If this direct final rule 

is withdrawn as a result of such 

comments, timely notice of the 

withdrawal will be published in the 

Federal Register (FR). Comments 

received after this date will be 

considered if it is practical to do so, but 

the NRC is able to ensure consideration 

only for comments received on or before 

this date. Comments received on this 

direct final rule will also be considered 

to be comments on a companion 

proposed rule published in the 

Proposed Rules section of this issue of 

the FR. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2018–0220. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions contact the 

individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• Email comments to: 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you 

do not receive an automatic email reply 

confirming receipt, then contact us at 

301–415–1677. 

• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– 

415–1101. 

• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

• Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 

(Eastern Time) Federal workdays; 

telephone: 301–415–1677. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bernard H. White, Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards; 

telephone: 301–415–6577; email: 

Bernard.White@nrc.gov or Gregory R. 

Trussell, Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301– 

415–6244; email: Gregory.Trussell@

nrc.gov. Both are staff of the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting 

Comments 

II. Rulemaking Procedure 

III. Background 

IV. Discussion of Changes 

V. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

VI. Agreement State Compatibility 

VII. Plain Writing 

VIII. Environmental Assessment and Finding 

of No Significant Environmental Impact 

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

XI. Regulatory Analysis 

XII. Backfitting and Issue Finality 

XIII. Congressional Review Act 

XIV. Availability of Documents 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2018– 

0220 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 

action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2018–0220. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the 

convenience of the reader, instructions 

about obtaining materials referenced in 

this document are provided in the 

‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2018– 

0220 in your comment submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC will post all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as enter the 

comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
64730 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment into ADAMS. 

II. Rulemaking Procedure 

This direct final rule is limited to the 

changes contained in Amendment Nos. 

7 and 8 to Certificate of Compliance No. 

1025 and does not include other aspects 

of the NAC–MPC Storage System 

design. The NRC is using the ‘‘direct 

final rule procedure’’ to issue these 

amendments because they represent 

limited and routine changes to an 

existing certificate that are expected to 

be noncontroversial. Adequate 

protection of public health and safety 

continues to be ensured. The 

amendments to the rule will become 

effective on March 4, 2019. However, if 

the NRC receives significant adverse 

comments on this direct final rule by 

January 17, 2019, then the NRC will 

publish a document that withdraws this 

action and will subsequently address 

the comments received in a final rule as 

a response to the companion proposed 

rule published in the Proposed Rules 

section of this issue of the FR. Absent 

significant modifications to the 

proposed revisions requiring 

republication, the NRC will not initiate 

a second comment period on this action. 

A significant adverse comment is a 

comment where the commenter 

explains why the rule would be 

inappropriate, including challenges to 

the rule’s underlying premise or 

approach, or would be ineffective or 

unacceptable without a change. A 

comment is adverse and significant if: 

(1) The comment opposes the rule and 

provides a reason sufficient to require a 

substantive response in a notice-andcomment process. For example, a 

substantive response is required when: 

(a) The comment causes the NRC staff 

to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position 

or conduct additional analysis; 

(b) The comment raises an issue 

serious enough to warrant a substantive 

response to clarify or complete the 

record; or 

(c) The comment raises a relevant 

issue that was not previously addressed 

or considered by the NRC staff. 

(2) The comment proposes a change 

or an addition to the rule, and it is 

apparent that the rule would be 

ineffective or unacceptable without 

incorporation of the change or addition. 

(3) The comment causes the NRC staff 

to make a change (other than editorial) 

to the rule, Certificate of Compliance, or 

technical specifications. 

For detailed instructions on filing 

comments, please see the companion 

proposed rule published in the 

Proposed Rule section of this issue of 

the FR. 

III. Background 

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as 

amended, requires that ‘‘the Secretary 

[of the Department of Energy] shall 

establish a demonstration program, in 

cooperation with the private sector, for 

the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at 

civilian nuclear power reactor sites, 

with the objective of establishing one or 

more technologies that the [Nuclear 

Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, 

approve for use at the sites of civilian 

nuclear power reactors without, to the 

maximum extent practicable, the need 

for additional site-specific approvals by 

the Commission.’’ Section 133 of the 

NWPA states, in part, that ‘‘[the 

Commission] shall, by rule, establish 

procedures for the licensing of any 

technology approved by the 

Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 

218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian 

nuclear power reactor.’’ 

To implement this mandate, the 

Commission approved dry storage of 

spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved 

casks under a general license by 

publishing a final rule which added a 

new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) entitled ‘‘General License for 

Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor 

Sites’’ (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This 

rule also established a new subpart L in 

10 CFR part 72 entitled ‘‘Approval of 

Spent Fuel Storage Casks,’’ which 

contains procedures and criteria for 

obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel 

storage cask designs. The NRC 

subsequently issued a final rule on 

March 9, 2000 (65 FR 12444), that 

approved the NAC–MPC Cask System 

design and added it to the list of NRCapproved cask designs in § 72.214 as 

Certificate of Compliance No. 1025. 

IV. Discussion of Changes 

On November 14, 2017, as 

supplemented on February 12, 2018, 

NAC International submitted a request 

to the NRC to amend Certificate of 

Compliance No. 1025 by adding 

Amendment No. 7. On February 28, 

2018, NAC International also submitted 

a request to amend Certificate of 

Compliance No. 1025 by adding 

Amendment No. 8. These two requests 

are included in this rulemaking. 

Amendment No. 7 revises the 

technical specifications to: 

• Modify the definition for 

OPERABLE under Technical 

Specification A 1.1, ‘‘Definitions,’’ by 

deleting the reference to Multi Purpose 

Canister—La Crosse Boiling Water 

Reactor (MPC LACBWR). 

• Revise the note under ACTIONS of 

Technical Specification Limiting 

Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.1.6 

under Technical Specification A 3.1.6, 

‘‘CONCRETE CASK Heat Removal 

System,’’ to clarify that LCO 3.1.6 is not 

applicable to the MPC–LACBWR 

CANISTER. 

• Revise SURVEILLANCE under 

Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.1.6.1 

by deleting ‘‘and the MPC LACBWR 

CANISTER.’’ Further, add a footnote to 

SR 3.1.6.1 stating, ‘‘SR 3.1.6.1 is not 

applicable to the MPC LACBWR 

CANISTER. Convective cooling is not 

required for the MPC–LACBWR 

CANISTER.’’ 

• Revise Technical Specification A 

5.3 under A 5.0, ‘‘ADMINISTRATIVE 

CONTROLS AND PROGRAMS,’’ to 

delete the requirement for a response 

surveillance following off normal, 

accident, or natural phenomena events 

since the response surveillance is, in 

principle, covered by existing technical 

specification surveillance requirements 

and frequencies. 

This amendment also revises the 

technical specifications to ensure they 

are consistent with the applicant’s 

proposed change for the decay heat in 

its revised thermal evaluation, and 

makes an editorial change in Technical 

Specification 3.1.2 to ensure 

consistency. 

Amendment No. 8 revises the 

technical specifications to: 

• Revise Technical Specification No. 

A 3.1.6, ‘‘CONCRETE CASK Heat 

Removal System’’ to change Condition 

A from ‘‘LCO not met’’ to ‘‘CONCRETE 

CASK Heat Removal System 

inoperable.’’ 

• Add new LCO REQUIRED ACTION 

A.1 ‘‘Ensure adequate heat removal to 

prevent exceeding short-term 

temperature limits with an Immediate 

COMPLETION TIME,’’ and renumber 

old A.1 to A.2 ‘‘Restore CONCRETE 

CASK Heat Removal System to 

OPERABLE status.’’ 

• Revise renumbered LCO REQUIRED 

ACTION A.2 COMPLETION TIME from 

8 hours to 25 days under Technical 

Specification A 3.1.6. 

• Revise Technical Specification A 

3.1.6 CONDITION B from ‘‘Required 

Action and associated Completion Time 

not met’’ to ‘‘Required Action A.1 or A.2 

and associated Completion Time not 

met.’’ 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 64731 

• Delete Technical Specification A 

3.1.6 LCO REQUIRED ACTION B.1, 

‘‘Perform SR 3.1.6.1,’’ and renumber old 

B.2.1 and B.2.2 to B.1 and B.2, 

respectively. 

• Revise renumbered LCO REQUIRED 

ACTIONS B.1 and B.2 COMPLETION 

TIMES from 12 hours to 5 days under 

Technical Specification A 3.1.6. 

• Revise Technical Specification A 

3.2.2, ‘‘CONCRETE CASK Average 

Surface Dose Rates,’’ APPLICABILITY 

from ‘‘Prior to or at the beginning of 

STORAGE OPERATIONS’’ to ‘‘Prior to 

STORAGE OPERATIONS.’’ 

• Delete Technical Specification A 

5.3, ‘‘Surveillance After an Off-Normal, 

Accident, or Natural Phenomena 

Event,’’ in its entirety as response 

surveillance is, in principle, covered by 

existing technical specification 

surveillance requirements and 

frequencies. 

As documented in the preliminary 

safety evaluation reports, the NRC 

performed a safety review of each 

proposed Certificate of Compliance 

amendment request. For Amendment 

No. 7, with reduced heat load the 

convective heat flow in the annulus 

between the canister and concrete cask 

does not need to work in order for the 

storage cask and spent fuel to remain 

below their respective maximum 

operating temperatures. For 

Amendment No. 8, the surveillance 

requirements in Technical Specification 

A 5.3, ‘‘Surveillance After an OffNormal, Accident, or Natural 

Phenomena Event’’ can be deleted 

because these requirements can be 

achieved with the revised Technical 

Specification A 3.1.6, ‘‘CONCRETE 

CASK Heat Removal System’’ by 

ensuring the heat removal capability. 

There are no significant changes to cask 

design requirements in the proposed 

amendments. Considering the specific 

design requirements for each accident 

condition, the design of the cask would 

prevent loss of containment, shielding, 

and criticality control in the event of an 

accident. These amendments do not 

reflect a significant change in design or 

fabrication of the cask. In addition, any 

resulting occupational exposure or 

offsite dose rates from the 

implementation of Amendment Nos. 7 

and 8 would remain well within the 10 

CFR part 20 limits. There will be no 

significant change in the types or 

amounts of any effluent released, no 

significant increase in the individual or 

cumulative radiation exposure, and no 

significant increase in the potential for, 

or consequences from, radiological 

accidents. 

This direct final rule revises the 

NAC–MPC Storage System listing in 

§ 72.214 by adding Amendment Nos. 7 

and 8 to Certificate of Compliance No. 

1025. These amendments consist of the 

changes previously described, as set 

forth in the revised certificate and 

technical specifications. The revised 

technical specifications are identified in 

the preliminary safety evaluation 

reports. 

The amended NAC–MPC Storage 

System design, when used under the 

conditions specified in the Certificate of 

Compliance, technical specifications, 

and the NRC’s regulations, will meet the 

requirements of 10 CFR part 72; 

therefore, adequate protection of public 

health and safety will continue to be 

ensured. When this direct final rule 

becomes effective, persons who hold a 

general license under § 72.210 may load 

spent nuclear fuel into NAC–MPC 

Storage System casks that meet the 

criteria of Amendment Nos. 7 and 8 to 

Certificate of Compliance No. 1025 

under § 72.212. 

V. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–113) 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 will revise the NAC–MPC Storage 

System design listed in § 72.214, ‘‘List 

of approved spent fuel storage casks.’’ 

This action does not constitute the 

establishment of a standard that 

contains generally applicable 

requirements. 

VI. Agreement State Compatibility 

Under the ‘‘Policy Statement on 

Adequacy and Compatibility of 

Agreement State Programs’’ approved by 

the Commission on June 30, 1997, and 

published in the FR on September 3, 

1997 (62 FR 46517), this rule is 

classified as Compatibility Category 

‘‘NRC.’’ Compatibility is not required for 

Category ‘‘NRC’’ regulations. The NRC 

program elements in this category are 

those that relate directly to areas of 

regulation reserved to the NRC by the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 

or the provisions of 10 CFR. Although 

an Agreement State may not adopt 

program elements reserved to the NRC, 

and the Category ‘‘NRC’’ does not confer 

regulatory authority on the State, the 

State may wish to inform its licensees 

of certain requirements by means 

consistent with the particular State’s 

administrative procedure laws. 

VII. Plain Writing 

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. 

L. 111–274) requires Federal agencies to 

write documents in a clear, concise, and 

well-organized manner. 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). 

VIII. Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant 

Environmental Impact 

A. The Action 

The action is to amend § 72.214 to 

revise the NAC–MPC Storage System 

listing within the ‘‘List of approved 

spent fuel storage casks’’ to include 

Amendment Nos. 7 and 8 to Certificate 

of Compliance No. 1025. Amendment 

No. 7 revises the technical 

specifications to eliminate the 

requirements for the heat removal 

system to be operable for La Crosse 

Boiling Water Reactor spent fuel and to 

eliminate duplicative requirements. In 

addition, Amendment No. 8 removes 

surveillance requirements in the 

technical specifications because these 

requirements are already required by the 

revised Technical Specification A 3.1.6, 

‘‘CONCRETE CASK Heat Removal 

System.’’ 

B. The Need for the Action 

This direct final rule adds an 

amended Certificate of Compliance for 

the NAC–MPC Storage System design to 

the list of approved spent fuel storage 

casks that power reactor licensees can 

use to store spent fuel at reactor sites 

under a general license. Specifically, 

Amendment No. 7 revises the technical 

specifications to eliminate the 

requirements for the heat removal 

system to be operable for La Crosse 

Boiling Water Reactor spent fuel and to 

eliminate duplicative requirements as 

described in Section IV, ‘‘Discussion of 

Changes,’’ of this document. In addition, 

Amendment No. 8 removes surveillance 

requirements in the technical 

specifications because these 

requirements already are required by the 

revised Technical Specification A 3.1.6, 

‘‘CONCRETE CASK Heat Removal 

System.’’ 

C. Environmental Impacts of the Action 

On July 18,1990 (55 FR 29181), the 

NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR 

part 72 to provide for the storage of 

spent fuel under a general license in 

cask designs approved by the NRC. The 

potential environmental impact of using 

NRC-approved storage casks was 

initially analyzed in the environmental 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
64732 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

assessment for the 1990 final rule. The 

environmental assessment for 

Amendment Nos. 7 and 8 tier off of the 

environmental assessment for the July 

18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past 

environmental assessments is a standard 

process under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended. 

The NAC–MPC Storage Systems are 

designed to mitigate the effects of design 

basis accidents that could occur during 

storage. Design basis accidents account 

for human-induced events and the most 

severe natural phenomena reported for 

the site and surrounding area. 

Postulated accidents analyzed for an 

independent spent fuel storage 

installation, the type of facility at which 

a holder of a power reactor operating 

license would store spent fuel in casks 

in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, 

include tornado winds and tornadogenerated missiles, a design basis 

earthquake, a design basis flood, an 

accidental cask drop, lightning effects, 

fire, explosions, and other incidents. 

Considering the specific design 

requirements for each accident 

condition, the design of the cask would 

prevent loss of confinement, shielding, 

and criticality control in the event of an 

accident. If there is no loss of 

confinement, shielding, or criticality 

control, the environmental impacts 

resulting from an accident would be 

insignificant. This amendment does not 

reflect a significant change in design or 

fabrication of the cask. 

Because there are no significant 

design or process changes, any resulting 

occupational exposure or offsite dose 

rates from the implementation of 

Amendment Nos. 7 and 8 would remain 

well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. 

Therefore, the proposed changes will 

not result in any radiological or nonradiological environmental impacts that 

significantly differ from the 

environmental impacts evaluated in the 

environmental assessment supporting 

the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will 

be no significant change in the types or 

significant revisions in the amounts of 

any effluent released, no significant 

increase in the individual or cumulative 

radiation exposure, and no significant 

increase in the potential for or 

consequences from radiological 

accidents. The staff documented its 

safety findings in the preliminary safety 

evaluation reports. 

D. Alternative to the Action 

The alternative to this action is to 

deny approval of Amendment Nos. 7 

and 8 and end the direct final rule. 

Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 

general licensee that seeks to either load 

spent nuclear fuel into the NAC–MPC 

Storage System or utilize the technical 

specifications, which reduces the 

burden on surveillance for storage of La 

Crosse Boiling Water Reactor spent fuel 

and other general licensees, in 

accordance with the changes described 

in proposed Amendment Nos. 7 and 8 

would have to request an exemption 

from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 

72.214. Under this alternative, 

interested licensees would have to 

prepare, and the NRC would have to 

review, a separate exemption request, 

thereby increasing the administrative 

burden upon the NRC and the costs to 

each licensee. Therefore, the 

environmental impacts would be the 

same, or more likely greater than, the 

proposed action. 

E. Alternative Use of Resources 

Approval of Amendment Nos. 7 and 

8 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1025 

would result in no irreversible 

commitment of resources. 

F. Agencies and Persons Contacted 

No agencies or persons outside the 

NRC were contacted in connection with 

the preparation of this environmental 

assessment. 

G. Finding of No Significant Impact 

The environmental impacts of the 

action have been reviewed under the 

requirements in the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended, and the NRC’s regulations in 

subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, 

‘‘Environmental Protection Regulations 

for Domestic Licensing and Related 

Regulatory Functions.’’ Based on the 

foregoing environmental assessment, the 

NRC concludes that this direct final rule 

entitled ‘‘List of Approved Spent Fuel 

Storage Casks: NAC International MultiPurpose Canister Storage System, 

Certificate of Compliance No. 1025, 

Amendment Nos. 7 and 8,’’ will not 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. Therefore, the NRC has 

determined that an environmental 

impact statement is not necessary for 

this direct final rule. 

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Statement 

This direct final rule does not contain 

any new or amended collections of 

information subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). Existing collections of 

information were approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), approval number 3150–0132. 

Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a request for information or an 

information collection requirement 

unless the requesting document 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC 

certifies that this direct final rule will 

not, if issued, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This direct 

final rule affects only nuclear power 

plant licensees and NAC International. 

These entities 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 (§ 2.810). 

XI. Regulatory Analysis 

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the 

NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR 

part 72 to provide for the storage of 

spent nuclear fuel under a general 

license in cask designs approved by the 

NRC. Any nuclear power reactor 

licensee can use NRC-approved cask 

designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it 

notifies the NRC in advance, the spent 

fuel is stored under the conditions 

specified in the cask’s Certificate of 

Compliance, and the conditions of the 

general license are met. A list of NRCapproved cask designs is contained in 

§ 72.214. On March 9, 2000 (65 FR 

12444), the NRC issued an amendment 

to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the 

NAC–MPC Storage System design by 

adding it to the list of NRC-approved 

cask designs in § 72.214. 

On November 14, 2017, as 

supplemented on February 12, 2018, 

NAC International submitted a request 

to the NRC to amend Certificate of 

Compliance No. 1025 by adding 

Amendment No. 7. On February 28, 

2018, NAC International also submitted 

a request to amend Certificate of 

Compliance No. 1025 by adding 

Amendment No. 8. The NAC 

International submitted these 

applications to amend the NAC–MPC 

Storage System as described in Section 

IV, ‘‘Discussion of Changes,’’ of this 

document. 

The alternative to this action is to 

withhold approval of Amendment Nos. 

7 and 8 and to require any 10 CFR part 

72 general licensee seeking to load spent 

nuclear fuel into NAC–MPC Storage 

Systems under the changes described in 

Amendment Nos. 7 and 8 to request an 

exemption from the requirements of 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 64733 

§§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this 

alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 

72 licensee would have to prepare, and 

the NRC would have to review, a 

separate exemption request, thereby 

increasing the administrative burden 

upon the NRC and the costs to each 

licensee. 

Approval of this direct final rule is 

consistent with previous NRC actions. 

Further, as documented in the 

preliminary safety evaluation reports 

and environmental assessment, this 

direct final rule will have no adverse 

effect on public health and safety or the 

environment. This direct final rule has 

no significant identifiable impact or 

benefit on other Government agencies. 

Based on this regulatory analysis, the 

NRC concludes that the requirements of 

this direct final rule are commensurate 

with the NRC’s responsibilities for 

public health and safety and the 

common defense and security. No other 

available alternative is believed to be as 

satisfactory, and therefore, this action is 

recommended. 

XII. Backfitting and Issue Finality 

The NRC has determined that the 

backfit rule (10 CFR 72.62) does not 

apply to this direct final rule. Therefore, 

a backfit analysis is not required. This 

direct final rule revises Certificate of 

Compliance No. 1025 for the NAC–MPC 

Storage System, as currently listed in 

§ 72.214, ‘‘List of approved spent fuel 

storage casks.’’ The revision consists of 

Amendment Nos. 7 and 8, which revise 

the technical specifications to eliminate 

the requirements for the heat removal 

system to be operable for La Crosse 

Boiling Water Reactor spent fuel and to 

eliminate duplicative requirements and 

removes surveillance requirements in 

the technical specifications because 

these requirements are already required 

by the revised Technical Specification A 

3.1.6, ‘‘CONCRETE CASK Heat Removal 

System.’’ 

Amendment Nos. 7 and 8 to 

Certificate of Compliance No. 1025 for 

the NAC–MPC Storage System were 

initiated by NAC International and were 

not submitted in response to new NRC 

requirements, or an NRC request for 

amendment. Amendment Nos. 7 and 8 

apply only to new casks fabricated and 

used under Amendment Nos. 7 and 8. 

These changes do not affect existing 

users of the NAC–MPC Storage System, 

and the current Amendment No. 6 

continues to be effective for existing 

users. While current users of this storage 

system may comply with the new 

requirements in Amendment Nos. 7 and 

8, this would be a voluntary decision on 

the part of current users. 

For these reasons, Amendment Nos. 7 

and 8 to Certificate of Compliance No. 

1025 do not constitute backfitting under 

§ 72.62 or § 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise 

represent an inconsistency with the 

issue finality provisions applicable to 

combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. 

Accordingly, the NRC staff has not 

prepared a backfit analysis for this 

rulemaking. 

XIII. Congressional Review Act 

This direct final rule is not a rule as 

defined in the Congressional Review 

Act. 

XIV. Availability of Documents 

The documents identified in the 

following table are available to 

interested persons through one or more 

of the following methods, as indicated. 

Document 

ADAMS 

Accession No./ 

web link/ 

Federal Register 

citation 

Request to Amend Certificate of Compliance No. 1025 for the NAC–MPC Storage System, dated November 14, 2017 ....... ML17326A128 

Request to Amend Certificate of Compliance No. 1025 for the NAC–MPC Storage System, dated February 12, 2018 ......... ML18045A440

Request to Amend Certificate of Compliance No. 1025 for the NAC–MPC Storage System, dated February 28, 2018 ......... ML18059A784

Proposed Certificate of Compliance No. 1025, Amendment No. 7 ............................................................................................ ML18255A024 

Proposed Technical Specification Appendices A and B for Amendment No. 7 ......................................................................... ML18255A022 

Preliminary Safety Evaluation Report for Amendment No. 7 ..................................................................................................... ML18255A026 

Proposed Certificate of Compliance No. 1025, Amendment No. 8 ............................................................................................ ML18255A025 

Proposed Technical Specification Appendices A and B for Amendment No. 8 ......................................................................... ML18255A023 

Preliminary Safety Evaluation Report for Amendment No. 8 ..................................................................................................... ML18255A027 

The NRC may post materials related 

to this document, including public 

comments, on the Federal Rulemaking 

website at http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket ID NRC–2018–0220. The 

Federal Rulemaking website allows you 

to receive alerts when changes or 

additions occur in a docket folder. To 

subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket 

folder (NRC–2018–0220); (2) click the 

‘‘Sign up for Email Alerts’’ link; and (3) 

enter your email address and select how 

frequently you would like to receive 

emails (daily, weekly, or monthly). 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Hazardous waste, Indians, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear 

energy, Penalties, Radiation protection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Whistleblowing. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble and under the authority of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; 

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 

as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 

552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the 

following amendments to 10 CFR part 

72: 

PART 72—LICENSING 

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 

INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT 

NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL 

RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND 

REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN 

CLASS C WASTE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 72 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 

secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 

183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 

U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 

2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 

2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy 

Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 

206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 

141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
64734 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 

10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 

note. 

■ 2. In § 72.214, Certificate of 

Compliance 1025 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 72.214 List of approved spent fuel 

storage casks. 

* * * * * 

Certificate Number: 1025. 

Initial Certificate Effective Date: April 

10, 2000. 

Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: 

November 13, 2001. 

Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: 

May 29, 2002. 

Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: 

October 1, 2003. 

Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: 

October 27, 2004. 

Amendment Number 5 Effective Date: 

July 24, 2007. 

Amendment Number 6 Effective Date: 

October 4, 2010. 

Amendment Number 7 Effective Date: 

March 4, 2019. 

Amendment Number 8 Effective Date: 

March 4, 2019. 

SAR Submitted by: NAC 

International, Inc. 

SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis 

Report for the NAC Multi-Purpose 

Canister System (NAC–MPC System). 

Docket Number: 72–1025. 

Certificate Expiration Date: April 10, 

2020. 

Model Number: NAC–MPC. 

* * * * * 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day 

of December 2018. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Margaret M. Doane, 

Executive Director for Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27284 Filed 12–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0555; Product 

Identifier 2010–SW–047–AD; Amendment 

39–19529; AD 2014–05–06 R1] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Helicopters Deutschland GmbH 

Helicopters (Type Certificate 

Previously Held by Eurocopter 

Deutschland GmbH) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are revising Airworthiness 

Directive (AD) 2014–05–06 for 

Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model 

EC135 and MBB–BK 117C–2 

helicopters. AD 2014–05–06 required 

repetitive inspections of the flightcontrol bearings, replacing any loose 

bearings with airworthy flight-control 

bearings, and installing bushings and 

washers. This new AD retains the 

requirements of AD 2014–05–06 but 

removes the repetitive inspections. The 

actions of this AD are intended to 

correct an unsafe condition on these 

products. 

DATES: This AD is effective January 22, 

2019. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of April 14, 2014 (79 FR 13196, 

March 10, 2014). 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this final rule, contact 

Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum 

Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; 

telephone (972) 641–0000 or (800) 232– 

0323; fax (972) 641–3775; or at http://

www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/ 

en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html. You 

may view this referenced service 

information at the FAA, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 

10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N–321, 

Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is also 

available on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2013– 

0555. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FAA–2013–0555; or in person at Docket 

Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The AD docket contains this 

AD, the European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA) AD, any incorporatedby-reference information, the economic 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for 

Docket Operations (phone: 800–647– 

5527) is Docket Operations, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, 

Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft 

Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 

Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; 

telephone (817) 222–5110; email 

matthew.fuller@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to remove AD 2014–05–06, 

Amendment 39–17779 (79 FR 13196, 

March 10, 2014) (AD 2014–05–06) and 

add a new AD. AD 2014–05–06 applied 

to certain Eurocopter Deutschland 

GmbH Model EC135 and MBB–BK 

117C–2 helicopters. The NPRM was 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 1, 2018 (83 FR 25415). AD 2014– 

05–06 required repetitive inspections of 

the flight-control bearings, replacing any 

loose bearings with airworthy flightcontrol bearings, and installing bushings 

and washers. The NPRM proposed to 

retain the requirements of AD 2014–05– 

06 but remove the repetitive inspection 

requirements. 

AD 2014–05–06 was prompted by AD 

No. 2010–0058, dated March 30, 2010 

(EASA AD 2010–0058), issued by 

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for 

the Member States of the European 

Union, to correct an unsafe condition 

for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (now 

Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH) 

Model EC135, EC635, and MBB–BK 

117C–2 helicopters. EASA advises that 

during an inspection of an MBB–BK117 

C–2, ‘‘bearings were detected which had 

not been correctly fixed.’’ EASA advises 

that this condition, if not detected and 

corrected, may cause the affected 

control lever to shift in the axial 

direction and contact the helicopter 

structure, possibly resulting in reduced 

helicopter control. As some bearings on 

the EC135 and MBB–BK 117C–2 

helicopter are installed with the same 

procedure, they are equally affected by 

the possibility of the unsafe condition, 

EASA advises. 

Since we published AD 2014–05–06, 

EASA issued AD No. 2010–0058R1, 

dated April 7, 2017, to remove the 

repetitive inspections required by EASA 

AD 2010–0058. EASA advises that a 

review of data and feedback from inservice helicopters determined the 

Airbus Helicopters modification 

removes the need for repetitive 

inspections. We have made a similar 

determination and are issuing this AD to 

remove the repetitive inspections 

previously required by AD 2014–05–06. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD, but 

we received no comments on the NPRM. 

FAA’s Determination 

These helicopters have been approved 

by the aviation authority of Germany 

and are approved for operation in the 

United States. Pursuant to our bilateral 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES