3444 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

accordance with section 6 of Executive

Order 13132, it is determined that this

rule does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a federalism summary impact

statement.

Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice

Reform

This rule meets the applicable

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The information required on the

certificate for health care workers

showing that the alien possesses

proficiency in the skills that affect the

provision of health care services in the

United States (as provided in

§ 212.15(f)) is considered an information

collection that has been approved for

use by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under OMB control

number 1115–0226. It is estimated that

the number of respondents will increase

as a result of adding the five additional

health care occupations listed in

§ 212.15(c). Accordingly, the Service

will submit an adjustment form to OMB

increasing the total annual burden

hours.

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 212

Administrative practice and

procedures, Aliens, Immigration,

Passports and visas, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, part 212 of chapter I of

title 8 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 212—DOCUMENTARY

REQUIREMENTS: NONIMMIGRANTS;

WAIVERS; ADMISSION OF CERTAIN

INADMISSIBLE ALIENS; PAROLE

1. The authority citation for part 212

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182,

1184, 1187, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1252; 8

CFR part 2.

2. Section 212.15 is amended by:

a. Adding new paragraphs (c)(4)

through (c)(7);

b. Revising paragraph (e)(1);

c. Revising paragraph (g)(3)(i); and

d. Adding new paragraphs (g)(4)(iv)

and (g)(4)(v), to read as follows:

§ 212.15 Certificates for foreign health

care workers.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(4) Speech-Language Pathologists and

Audiologists.

(5) Medical Technologists (Clinical

Laboratory Scientists).

(6) Physician Assistants.

(7) Medical Technicians (Clinical

Laboratory Technicians).

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(1) The Commission on Graduates of

Foreign Nursing Schools may issue

certificates pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

1182(a)(5)(C), and section 212(a)(5)(C) of

the Act for the occupations of nurse

(licensed practical nurse, licensed

vocational nurse, and registered nurse),

physical therapist, occupational

therapist, speech-language pathologist

and audiologist, medical technologist

(clinical laboratory scientist), physician

assistant, and medical technician

(clinical laboratory technician).

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) Michigan English Language

Assessment Battery (MELAB). Effective

June 30, 2000, the MELAB Oral

Interview Speaking Test is no longer

being given overseas and is only being

administered in the United States and

Canada. Applicants may take MELAB

Parts 1, 2, and 3, plus the Test of

Spoken English offered by the

Educational Testing Service.

* * * * *

(4) * * *

(iv) Speech-language pathologists and

Audiologists, medical technologists

(clinical laboratory scientists), and

physician assistants. An alien coming to

the United States to perform labor as a

speech-language pathologist and

audiologist, a medical technologist

(clinical laboratory scientist), or a

physician assistant must have the

following scores to be issued a

certificate: ETS: TOEFL: Paper-Based

540, Computer-Based 207; TWE: 4.0;

TSE: 50; MELAB: Final Score 79; Oral

Interview: 3+.

(v) Medical technicians (clinical

laboratory technicians). An alien

coming to the United States to perform

labor as a medical technician (clinical

laboratory technician) must have the

following scores to be issued a

certificate: ETS: TOEFL: Paper-Based

530, Computer-Based 197; TWE: 4.0;

TSE: 50; MELAB: Final Score 77; Oral

Interview: 3+.

Dated: November 28, 2000.

Mary Ann Wyrsch,

Acting Commissioner, Immigration and

Naturalization Service.

[FR Doc. 01–1203 Filed 1–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–10–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 72

RIN 3150–AG54

List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage

Casks: FuelSolutions Addition

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is amending its

regulations to add the FuelSolutions

cask system to the list of approved spent

fuel storage casks. This amendment

allows the holders of power reactor

operating licenses to store spent fuel in

this approved cask system under a

general license.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective on February 15, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stan

Turel, telephone (301) 415–6234, e-mail

spt@nrc.gov of the Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste

Policy Act of 1982, as amended

(NWPA), requires that ‘‘[t]he Secretary

[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, ‘‘[t]he

Commission shall, by rule, establish

procedures for the licensing of any

technology approved by the

Commission under Section 218(a) for

use at the site of any civilian nuclear

power reactor.’’

To implement this mandate, the NRC

approved dry storage of spent nuclear

fuel in NRC-approved casks under a

general license, publishing a final rule

in 10 CFR part 72 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 within 10 CFR part 72

entitled, ‘‘Approval of Spent Fuel

Storage Casks,’’ containing procedures

and criteria for obtaining NRC approval

of dry storage cask designs.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 3445

Discussion

This rule will add the FuelSolutions

cask system to the list of approved spent

fuel storage casks in 10 CFR 72.214.

Following the procedures specified in

10 CFR 72.230 of subpart L, BNFL Fuel

Solutions submitted an application for

NRC approval with the Safety Analysis

Report (SAR) entitled, ‘‘Final Safety

Analysis Report for the FuelSolutions

Spent Fuel Management System.’’ The

NRC evaluated the BNFL Fuel Solutions

submittal and issued a preliminary

Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and a

proposed Certificate of Compliance

(CoC) for the FuelSolutions cask system.

The NRC published a proposed rule in

the Federal Register (65 FR 42647; July

11, 2000) to add the FuelSolutions cask

system to the listing in 10 CFR 72.214.

The comment period ended on

September 25, 2000. Two comment

letters were received on the proposed

rule.

Based on NRC review and analysis of

public comments, the NRC has

modified, as appropriate, the CoC, SER,

SAR, and the Technical Specifications

(TS) for the FuelSolutions cask system.

The NRC finds that the FuelSolutions

cask system, as designed and when

fabricated and used in accordance with

the conditions specified in its CoC,

meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part

72, Subpart L. Thus, use of the

FuelSolutions cask system as approved

by the NRC will provide adequate

protection of public health and safety

and the environment. With this final

rule, the NRC is approving the use of the

FuelSolutions cask system under the

general license in 10 CFR part 72,

Subpart K, by holders of power reactor

operating licenses under 10 CFR part 50.

Simultaneously, the NRC is issuing a

final SER and CoC that will be effective

on February 15, 2001. Single copies of

the final CoC and SER will be available

by January 30, 2001 for public

inspection and/or copying for a fee at

the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR),11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland 20852 and electronically at

http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.

Documents created or received at the

NRC after November 1, 1999, are also

available electronically at the NRC’s

Public Electronic Reading Room on the

Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/

ADAMS/index.html. The public can

gain entry from this site into the NRC’s

Agency wide Document Access and

Management System (ADAMS), which

provides text and image files of the

NRC’s public documents. An electronic

copy of the final CoC, Technical

Specifications, and SER for the

FuelSolutions cask system can be found

in ADAMS under Accession No.

ML003759247. However, because the

NRC must incorporate the date of

publication of this Federal Register

notice into the CoC, these documents

are not yet publicly available. The NRC

will make these documents publically

available by January 30, 2001. Contact

the NRC PDR reference staff for more

information. PDR reference staff may be

reached at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–

4737, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov.

Summary of Public Comments on the

Proposed Rule

The NRC received two comment

letters from one commenter within the

nuclear industry on the proposed rule.

Copies of the public comments are

available for review in the NRC Public

Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, MD 20852 and electronically

at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.

Comments on the FuelSolutions Cask

System

The comments and responses have

been grouped into four subject areas:

Safety Evaluation Report (SER),

Certificate of Compliance (CoC),

Technical Specifications (TS), and

Safety Analysis Report (SAR). The

NRC’s decision to list the FuelSolutions

cask system within 10 CFR 72.214, ‘‘List

of approved spent fuel storage casks,’’

has not been changed as a result of the

public comments. A review of the

comments and the NRC’s responses

follow:

A: Safety Evaluation Report

Comment A–1: The commenter

requested that within the Draft Safety

Evaluation Report, Section 4.1, under

BFS Methodology for Calculating

Maximum Allowable Cladding

Temperature, a clarifying statement be

added, stating that for PWR and BWR

fuel assemblies with burnups under

45,000 MWD/MTU cladding oxide

thickness measurement is not required.

The commenter remarked that the last

sentence in the sixth paragraph of this

section notes that the strain limit is

defendable for spent fuels having oxide

thicknesses less than 70 micrometers,

irrespective of burnup. The last

paragraph of this section states that for

fuel with burnups between 45,000 and

60,000 MWD/MTU the cladding

thickness must be measured. A

statement that this is not required for

fuels with burnups less than 45,000

MWD/MTU would clarify the

requirements for lower burnup fuels.

Response: The NRC agrees with the

proposed clarification, and the SER has

been revised to add a sentence stating

that oxide measurements are not

required for burnups below 45,000

MWD/MTU.

Comment A–2: The commenter

requested an editorial clarification

within the Draft Safety Evaluation

Report, Section 5.1.1, noting that in the

first sentence of the first paragraph, the

term ‘‘steel-lead-water-steel’’ includes a

redundant term ‘‘steel.’’ The composite

shielding of the transfer cask includes

the three materials listed (i.e., steel-leadwater).

Response: The NRC agrees with the

proposed clarification and the SER has

been revised accordingly.

Comment A–3: The commenter

requested an editorial clarification

within the Draft Safety Evaluation

Report, Section 5.3.1, where under

Adjoint Model, the word ‘‘discrete’’ is

misspelled.

Response: The misspelled word has

been corrected.

Comment A–4: The commenter stated

that within the Draft Safety Evaluation

Report, Section 8.1.4, the time values

listed in the fifth, sixth, and seventh

sentences are for the W21 canister. The

values for the W74 canister are seven

hours, four hours, and four hours,

respectively. The commenter requested

that the SER be revised either to clarify

that the values shown are for the W21

canister or to report the values for both

canisters explicitly.

Response: NRC agrees with the

comment. Section 8.1.4 of the SER has

been revised for clarity. Values for both

canisters have been stated explicitly.

Comment A–5: The commenter stated

that within the Draft Safety Evaluation

Report, Section 8.3, the general actions

for canister unloading listed in the

second sentence are not in the actual

sequence of operations as reported in

the WSNF–200 SAR, Section 8.2.3. The

commenter requested that to avoid

confusion, the sentence be revised to list

the actions in sequence, as follows:

(a) Move the action ‘‘lowering the

cask into the pool’’ to after the action

‘‘removing the canister lid.’’

(b) Change ‘‘removing the canister

lid’’ to ‘‘removing the canister lids’’

(note that there are two lids—inner and

outer).

(c) Add ‘‘removing the shield plug’’

before ‘‘and removing the fuel

assemblies from the storage basket.’’

Response: The NRC agrees with the

comment and the SER has been revised

to clarify the sequence of actions.

Comment A–6: The commenter

requested that within the Draft Safety

Evaluation Report, editorial

clarifications be made in Section 10.3.2,

third paragraph as follows:

(A) Fourth sentence—per WSNF–200

SAR Table 10.4–8, the dose rate listed

3446 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

is calculated for one year. The dose for

30 days would need to be factored from

the values presented as follows: Take

1⁄12 of the 64 cask accident direct and of

the 63 cask normal release, then add the

1 cask accident release (approx. 931

mrem for 30 days). This comment also

affects the conclusion statement in the

eighth sentence.

(B) Fifth sentence—per WSNF–200

SAR Section 10.4.3, the maximum

transfer cask loss of neutron shield

accident dose is 25.3 mrem per 24

hours, not per hour.

(C) Sixth sentence—delete the words

‘‘of the WSNF–200 SAR’’ from the end

of the sentence. The NRC staff’s review

is documented in the SER, not the

WSNF–200 SAR.

(D) Seventh sentence—the 751 mrem

dose was calculated for the bone, not

the lung.

Response: The NRC agrees with the

comments:

(A) The dose rate was calculated for

a one year period. The SER has been

revised to state that the maximum dose

at 100 meters is about 2900 mrem from

the storage cask array, assuming an

individual is present for a year, for

accident conditions. This sentence is

now in agreement with the eighth

sentence.

(B) The SER has been revised to state

that the maximum dose from the

transfer cask for a loss of neutron shield

accident is 25.3 mrem for a 24-hour

period.

(C) The SER has been revised to state

that the NRC staff’s review is discussed

in Section 7 of the SER.

(D) The SER has been revised to state

that the 751 mrem dose was calculated

for the bone.

B: Certificate of Compliance

Comment B–1: The commenter

requested that within the Draft

Certificate of Compliance, in 1.b, second

paragraph, that the statement ‘‘The ten

unfueled guide tube positions are

mechanically blocked to prevent

loading in these positions’’ be revised to

read ‘‘The ten unfueled cell locations

are mechanically blocked to prevent

loading in these positions.’’ The

commenter stated that this terminology

agrees with that in the previous

sentence, and reflects the fact that there

are no guide tubes in the unfueled cell

locations.

Response: The NRC agrees with the

comment and the CoC has been revised

to clarify the statement.

C: Technical Specifications

Comment C–1: The commenter

requested that LCO 3.3.2 (Storage Cask

Temperatures During Storage) for the

W21 Canister be revised to modify

REQUIRED ACTION B.2 to allow for the

use of alternative means to be developed

by the licensee to bring the CASK into

compliance with the LCO. Alternatively,

REQUIRED ACTION B.2 should be

deleted and replaced with a requirement

for the licensee to develop the means to

meet the LCO and notify NRC of the

action taken. The commenter’s logic was

that the specification of a specific

method to meet the LCO when there are

other alternatives available is overly

restrictive and may not be feasible in

some conditions. This will permit

decommissioning facilities to meet the

LCO in the absence of a spent fuel pool.

In addition, the additional flexibility

can better satisfy ALARA by mitigating

the personnel exposure associated with

the removal of spent fuel from the

CANISTER.

Response: The NRC disagrees with the

comment. Currently, no alternative

means of complying with the LCO have

been proposed by the licensee or

evaluated by the staff for acceptability.

Any alternative means to meet the LCO

shall be approved by the staff prior to

implementation.

Comment C–2: The commenter

requested that LCO 3.3.3 (Storage Cask

Temperatures During Horizontal

Transfer) for the W21 Canister be

revised to modify REQUIRED ACTION

C.1 to allow for the use of alternative

means to be developed by the licensee

to bring the CASK into compliance with

the LCO. Alternatively, REQUIRED

ACTION C.1 should be deleted and

replaced with a requirement for the

licensee to develop the means to meet

the LCO and notify NRC of the action

taken. The commenter’s logic was that

the specification of a specific method to

meet the LCO when there are other

alternatives available is overly

restrictive and may not be feasible in

some conditions. This will permit

decommissioning facilities to meet the

LCO in the absence of a spent fuel pool.

In addition, the additional flexibility

can better satisfy ALARA by mitigating

the personnel exposure associated with

the removal of spent fuel from the

CANISTER.

Response: The NRC disagrees with the

comment. Currently, no alternative

means of complying with the LCO have

been proposed by the licensee or

evaluated by the staff for acceptability.

Any alternative means to meet the LCO

shall be approved by the staff before

implementation.

Comment C–3: The commenter

requested that LCO 3.3.2 (Storage Cask

Temperatures During Storage) for the

W74 Canister be revised to modify

REQUIRED ACTION B.2 to allow for the

use of alternative means to be developed

by the licensee to bring the CASK into

compliance with the LCO. Alternatively,

REQUIRED ACTION B.2 should be

deleted and replaced with a requirement

for the licensee to develop the means to

meet the LCO and notify NRC of the

action taken. The commenter’s logic was

that the specification of a specific

method to meet the LCO when there are

other alternatives available is overly

restrictive and may not be feasible in

some conditions. This will permit

decommissioning facilities to meet the

LCO in the absence of a spent fuel pool.

In addition, the additional flexibility

can better satisfy ALARA by mitigating

the personnel exposure associated with

the removal of spent fuel from the

CANISTER.

Response: The NRC disagrees with the

comment. Currently, no alternative

means of complying with the LCO have

been proposed by the licensee or

evaluated by the staff for acceptability.

Any alternative means to meet the LCO

would be approved by the staff prior to

implementation.

Comment C–4: The commenter

requested that LCO 3.3.3 (Storage Cask

Temperatures During Horizontal

Transfer) for the W74 Canister be

revised to modify REQUIRED ACTION

C.1 to allow for the use of alternative

means to be developed by the licensee

to bring the cask into compliance with

the LCO. Alternatively, REQUIRED

ACTION C.1 should be deleted and

replaced with a requirement for the

licensee to develop the means to meet

the LCO and notify NRC of the action

taken. The commenter’s logic was that

the specification of a specific method to

meet the LCO when there are other

alternatives available is overly

restrictive and may not be feasible in

some conditions. This will permit

decommissioning facilities to meet the

LCO in the absence of a spent fuel pool.

In addition, the additional flexibility

can better satisfy ALARA by mitigating

the personnel exposure associated with

the removal of spent fuel from the

CANISTER.

Response: The NRC disagrees with the

comment. Currently, no alternative

means of complying with the LCO have

been proposed by the licensee or

evaluated by the staff for acceptability.

Any alternative means to meet the LCO

shall be approved by the staff prior to

implementation.

Comment C–5: The commenter

requested that the Technical

Specification for the FuelSolutions

Storage System, Section 4.2.2.1 (Storage

Cask), be revised to add a note clarifying

the requirements for site-specific pad

designs that have different values from

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 3447

those listed. The following is requested

to be added at the end of Section 4.2.2.1:

‘‘Any site-specific pad design with

parameters that differ from those listed

must be evaluated by the licensee to

confirm that the design basis

deceleration loads for the storage cask

and canister are not exceeded. This

evaluation must be performed using the

same methodology as described in

WSNF–200 SAR Section 3.7.3.1.’’

Response: The NRC agrees with the

comment. The Technical Specification

for the FuelSolutions Storage System,

Section 4.2.2.1 (Storage Cask) has been

revised accordingly.

Comment C–6: The commenter

requested that the Technical

Specification for the FuelSolutions

Storage System, Section 4.2.2.2

(Transfer Cask), be revised to add a note

clarifying the requirements for sitespecific pad designs that have different

values from those listed. The following

is requested to be added at the end of

Section 4.2.2.2: ‘‘Any site-specific pad

design with parameters that differ from

those listed must be evaluated by the

licensee to confirm that the design basis

deceleration loads for the transfer cask

and canister are not exceeded. This

evaluation must be performed using the

same methodology as described in

WSNF–200 SAR Section 3.7.5.1.’’

Response: The NRC agrees with the

comment. The Technical Specification

for the FuelSolutions Storage System,

Section 4.2.2.2 (Transfer Cask) has been

revised accordingly.

D: Safety Analysis Report

Comment D–1: The commenter

requested that editorially, within the

Safety Analysis Report in WSNF–200

SAR Table 12.1–1, the following

references to the Technical

Specifications be revised:

(a) Under Radiological Protection,

3.4.1 should be 5.3.5, and 3.6.1 should

be 3.5.1.

(b) Under Structural Integrity, 3.5.1

should be 3.4.1.

Response: The NRC agrees with the

comment. The editorial corrections were

made to Table 12.1–1.

Summary of Final Revisions

Based on the responses above, the

CoC, the TSs, the SAR, and the SER

have been modified as follows:

1. The SER has been revised

(Comments A–1 through and including

A–6).

2. The CoC has been revised

(Comment B–1).

3. The Technical Specification for the

FuelSolutions Storage System, Section

4.2.2.1 (Storage Cask) has been revised.

(Comment C–5).

4. The Technical Specification for the

FuelSolutions Storage System, Section

4.2.2.2 (Transfer Cask) has been revised

(Comment C–6).

5. Editorial corrections were made to

Table 12.1–1 of the SAR (Comment D–

1).

Agreement State Compatibility

Under the ‘‘Policy Statement on

Adequacy and Compatibility of

Agreement State Programs’’ approved by

the NRC on June 30, 1997, and

published in the Federal Register 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 (AEA), or the

provisions of Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations. Although an

Agreement State may not adopt program

elements reserved to NRC, it may wish

to inform its licensees of certain

requirements via a mechanism that is

consistent with the particular State’s

administrative procedure laws, but does

not confer regulatory authority on the

State.

Voluntary Consensus Standards

The National Technology Transfer 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 final rule,

th NRC is adding the FuelSolutions cask

system to the list of NRC-approved cask

systems for spent fuel storage in 10 CFR

72.214. This action does not constitute

the establishment of a standard that

establishes generally-applicable

requirements.

Finding of No Significant

Environmental Impact: Availability

Under the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the

Commission’s regulations in Subpart A

of 10 CFR part 51, the NRC has

determined that this rule is not a major

Federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment and

therefore, an environmental impact

statement is not required. This final rule

adds an additional cask to the list of

approved spent fuel storage casks that

power reactor licensees can use to store

spent fuel at reactor sites without

additional site-specific approvals from

the NRC. The environmental assessment

and finding of no significant impact on

which this determination is based are

available for inspection at the NRC

Public Document Room, 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852

and electronically at http://

ruleforum.llnl.gov. Single copies of the

environmental assessment and finding

of no significant impact are available

from Stan Turel, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301)

415–6234, e-mail spt@nrc.gov.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This final rule does not contain a new

or amended information collection

requirement subject to the Paperwork

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

et seq.). Existing requirements were

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget, approval number 3150–

0132.

Public Protection Notification

If a means used to impose an

information collection does not display

a currently valid OMB control number,

the NRC may not conduct or sponsor,

and a person is not required to respond

to, the information collection.

Regulatory Analysis

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

Commission issued an amendment to 10

CFR part 72. The amendment provided

for the storage of spent nuclear fuel in

cask systems with designs approved by

the NRC under a general license. Any

part 50 nuclear power reactor licensee

can use cask systems with designs

approved by the NRC 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

CoC, and the conditions of the general

license are met. In that rule, four spent

fuel storage casks were approved for use

at reactor sites and were listed in 10

CFR 72.214. That rule envisioned that

storage casks certified in the future

could be routinely added to the listing

in 10 CFR 72.214 through the

rulemaking process. Procedures and

criteria for obtaining NRC approval of

new spent fuel storage cask designs

were provided in 10 CFR part 72,

subpart L.

The alternative to this action is to

withhold approval of this new design

and issue a site-specific license to each

utility that proposes to use the casks.

This alternative would cost both the

NRC and utilities more time and money

for each site-specific license.

Conducting site-specific reviews would

ignore the procedures and criteria

currently in place for the addition of

new cask designs that can be used under

3448 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

a general license, and would be in

conflict with Nuclear Waste Policy Act

(NWPA) direction to the Commission to

approve technologies for the use of

spent fuel storage at the sites of civilian

nuclear power reactors without, to the

maximum extent practicable, the need

for additional site reviews. This

alternative also would tend to exclude

new vendors from the business market

without cause and would arbitrarily

limit the choice of cask designs

available to power reactor licensees.

This final rule will eliminate the above

problems and is consistent with

previous NRC actions. Further, the rule

will have no adverse effect on public

health and safety.

The benefit of this rule to nuclear

power reactor licensees is to make

available a greater choice of spent fuel

storage cask designs that can be used

under a general license. The new cask

vendors with casks to be listed in 10

CFR 72.214 benefit by having to obtain

NRC certificates only once for a design

that can then be used by more than one

power reactor licensee. The NRC also

benefits because it will need to certify

a cask design only once for use by

multiple licensees. Casks approved

through rulemaking are to be suitable

for use under a range of environmental

conditions sufficiently broad to

encompass multiple nuclear power

plants in the United States without the

need for further site-specific approval

by NRC. Vendors with cask designs

already listed may be adversely

impacted because power reactor

licensees may choose a newly listed

design over an existing one. However,

the NRC is required by its regulations

and NWPA direction to certify and list

approved casks. This rule has no

significant identifiable impact or benefit

on other Government agencies.

Based on the above discussion of the

benefits and impacts of the alternatives,

the NRC concludes that the

requirements of the final rule are

commensurate with the Commission’s

responsibilities for public health and

safety and the common defense and

security. No other available alternative

is believed to be as satisfactory, and

thus, this action is recommended.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

In accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)),

the NRC certifies that this rule will not,

if promulgated, have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This rule

affects only the licensing and operation

of nuclear power plants, independent

spent fuel storage facilities, and BNFL

Fuel Solutions. The companies that own

these plants do not fall within the scope

of the definition of ‘‘small entities’’ set

forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or

the Small Business Size Standards set

out in regulations issued by the Small

Business Administration at 13 CFR part

121.

Backfit Analysis

The NRC has determined that the

backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109 or 10 CFR

72.62) does not apply to this rule

because this amendment does not

involve any provisions that would

impose backfits as defined in the backfit

rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not

required.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

In accordance with the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has

determined that this action is not a

major rule and has verified this

determination with the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72

Criminal penalties, Manpower

training programs, Nuclear materials,

Occupational safety and health,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures, Spent

fuel.

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; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC

is proposing to adopt the following

amendments to 10 CFR part 72.

PART 72—LICENSING

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT

NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL

RADIOACTIVE WASTE

1. The authority citation for part 72

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69,

81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat.

929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954,

955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092,

2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233,

2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub.

L. 86–373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42

U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206,

88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42

U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95–601, sec.

10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L.

10d—48b, sec. 7902, 10b Stat. 31b3 (42

U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91–190, 83

Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132,

133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat.

2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L.

100–203, 101 Stat. 1330–235 (42 U.S.C.

10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161,

10168).

Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs.

142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100–203, 101

Stat. 1330–232, 1330–236 (42 U.S.C.

10162(b), 10168(c),(d)). Section 72.46 also

issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.

2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2230

(42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also

issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100–203,

101 Stat. 1330–235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)).

Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15),

2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat.

2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244, (42 U.S.C.

10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L

are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230

(42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat.

2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198).

2. In § 72.214, Certificate of

Compliance 1026 is added to read as

follows:

§ 72.214 List of approved spent fuel

storage casks.

* * * * *

Certificate Number: 1026.

SAR Submitted by: BFNL Fuel

Solutions.

SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis

Report for the FuelSolutions Spent Fuel

Management System.

Docket Number: 72–1026.

Certificate Expiration Date: March 19,

2021.

Model Number: WSNF–200, WSNF–

201, and WSNF–203 systems; W–150

storage cask; W–100 transfer cask; and

the W–21 and W–74 canisters

* * * * *

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of December 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John W. Craig,

Acting Executive Director for Operations.

[FR Doc. 01–1172 Filed 1–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NE–44–AD; Amendment

39–12071; AD 2001–01–01]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BMW RollsRoyce GmbH Models BR700–710A1–10

and BR700–710A2–20 Turbofan

Engines.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is