28112 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

1The requirements of the final aircraft impact 

rule may apply, in some contexts, to the designer 

who is responsible for, or seeks certification or 

regulatory approval of something less than a 

complete nuclear power plant (e.g., a nuclear 

reactor without site-specific elements such as the 

ultimate heat sink). For ease of discussion in the 

remainder of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, 

reference to a ‘‘nuclear power plant designer’’ or 

‘‘facility designer’’ is meant to include, in the 

appropriate context, a designer of something less 

than a complete nuclear power plant, but is at least 

as encompassing as a ‘‘nuclear reactor.’’ Similarly, 

a reference to the design of a ‘‘facility’’ also 

encompasses, in the appropriate context, the design 

of something less than a complete nuclear power 

plant (e.g., the design of a reactor). 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 

RIN 3150–AI19 

[NRC–2007–0009] 

Consideration of Aircraft Impacts for 

New Nuclear Power Reactors 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or the Commission) 

is amending its regulations to require 

applicants for new nuclear power 

reactors to perform a design-specific 

assessment of the effects of the impact 

of a large, commercial aircraft. The 

applicant is required to use realistic 

analyses to identify and incorporate 

design features and functional 

capabilities to show, with reduced use 

of operator actions, that either the 

reactor core remains cooled or the 

containment remains intact, and either 

spent fuel cooling or spent fuel pool 

integrity is maintained. These 

requirements apply to applicants for 

new construction permits; new 

operating licenses that reference a new 

construction permit; new standard 

design certifications; renewal of any of 

the four existing design certifications if 

the design has not previously been 

amended to comply with the rule; new 

standard design approvals; 

manufacturing licenses that don’t 

reference a standard design certification 

or standard design approval, or that 

reference a standard design certification 

issued before the effective date of the 

rule which has not been amended to 

comply with the rule; and combined 

licenses that don’t reference a standard 

design certification, standard design 

approval, or manufactured reactor, or 

that reference a standard design 

certification issued before the effective 

date of the rule which has not been 

amended to comply with the rule. In 

addition, these amendments contain 

requirements for control of changes to 

any design features or functional 

capabilities credited to show that the 

facility can withstand the effects of an 

aircraft impact. 

ADDRESSES: You can access publicly 

available documents related to this 

document using the following methods: 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

[NRC–2007–0009]. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Ms. Carol 

Gallagher 301–492–3668; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public 

File Area O1 F21, One White Flint 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC are available 

electronically at the NRC’s electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, 

the public can gain entry into ADAMS, 

which provides text and image files of 

NRC’s public documents. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s 

PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

DATES: The effective date is July 13, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Stewart Schneider, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone 301–415– 

4123; e-mail: 

Stewart.Schneider@nrc.gov or Ms. 

Nanette Gilles, Office of New Reactors, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone 

301–415–1180; e-mail: 

Nanette.Gilles@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

II. Currently Operating Power Reactors 

III. Currently Approved Standard Design 

Certifications and Combined Licenses 

Referencing These Certifications 

IV. Renewal of an Operating License, 

Standard Design Certification, Combined 

License, or Manufacturing License 

V. New Nuclear Power Reactors 

A. Introduction 

B. Description of Beyond-Design-Basis 

Aircraft Impact 

C. Aircraft Impact Assessment 

VI. Responses to Public Comments 

A. Overview of Public Comments 

B. Responses to Specific Requests for 

Comments 

C. Responses to Remaining Comments 

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis 

VIII. Guidance 

IX. Availability of Documents 

X. Agreement State Compatibility 

XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

XII. Finding of No Significant Environmental 

Impact: Availability 

XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

XIV. Regulatory Analysis 

XV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

XVI. Backfit Analysis 

XVII. Congressional Review Act 

I. Introduction 

The Commission believes that it is 

prudent for nuclear power plant 

designers to take into account the 

potential effects of the impact of a large, 

commercial aircraft. The Commission 

has determined that the impact of a 

large, commercial aircraft is a beyonddesign-basis event, and the NRC’s 

requirements that apply to the design, 

construction, testing, operation, and 

maintenance of design features and 

functional capabilities for design basis 

events will not apply to design features 

or functional capabilities selected by the 

applicant solely to meet the 

requirements of this final rule (aircraft 

impact rule). The NRC’s approach to 

aircraft impacts is consistent with its 

previous approach to beyond-designbasis events. The objective of this rule 

is to require nuclear power plant 1

designers to perform a rigorous 

assessment of the design to identify 

design features and functional 

capabilities that could provide 

additional inherent protection to 

withstand the effects of an aircraft 

impact (i.e., meet the rule’s acceptance 

criteria). This rule should result in new 

nuclear power reactor facilities being 

more inherently robust with regard to an 

aircraft impact than if they were 

designed in the absence of this final 

rule. This final rule provides an 

enhanced level of protection beyond 

that which is provided by the existing 

adequate protection requirements, 

which all operating power reactors are 

required to meet. 

The final rule requirement to perform 

a design-specific assessment to identify 

design features and functional 

capabilities applies to applicants for 

new construction permits; new 

operating licenses that reference a new 

construction permit; new standard 

design certifications; renewal of any of 

the four existing design certifications if 

the design has not previously been 

amended to comply with the final rule; 

new standard design approvals; 

manufacturing licenses that don’t 

reference a standard design certification 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28113 

or standard design approval, or that 

reference a standard design certification 

issued before the effective date of the 

rule which has not been amended to 

comply with the rule; and combined 

licenses that don’t reference a standard 

design certification, standard design 

approval, or manufactured reactor, or 

that reference a standard design 

certification issued before the effective 

date of the rule which has not been 

amended to comply with the rule. All of 

these applicants as a whole are referred 

to as ‘‘applicants for new nuclear power 

reactors’’ throughout the remainder of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for this 

final rule. These applicants are required 

to perform an assessment of the effects 

on the designed facility of the impact of 

a large, commercial aircraft. Using 

realistic analyses, applicants must 

identify and incorporate into the design 

those design features and functional 

capabilities to show, with reduced use 

of operator action, that the reactor core 

remains cooled or the containment 

remains intact and spent fuel cooling or 

spent fuel pool integrity is maintained 

(herein after referred to as the 

acceptance criteria). Applicants are 

required to describe how such design 

features and functional capabilities meet 

the acceptance criteria of the rule. 

Applicants and licensees are subject to 

requirements for the control of changes 

to the design features and functional 

capabilities identified as a result of 

complying with this final rule. 

The Commission-approved design 

basis threat (DBT) does not include an 

aircraft attack. The NRC published its 

final DBT rule in the Federal Register 

on March 19, 2007 (72 FR 12705) (Title 

10, § 73.1, ‘‘Purpose and scope,’’ of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 

73.1)). Two well-established bases 

support the exclusion of aircraft attacks 

from the DBT. First, it is not reasonable 

to expect a licensee with a private 

security force using weapons legally 

available to it to be able to defend 

against such an attack. Second, such an 

act is in the nature of an attack by an 

enemy of the United States (U.S.). 

Power reactor licensees are not required 

to design their facilities or otherwise 

provide measures to defend against such 

an attack, as provided by 10 CFR 50.13, 

‘‘Attacks and destructive acts by 

enemies of the United States; and 

defense activities.’’ 

The Commission has addressed 

aircraft attacks by regulatory means 

other than the DBT rule in 10 CFR 73.1. 

By order dated February 25, 2002 

(Interim Compensatory Measures (ICM) 

Order), the Commission required all 

operating power reactor licensees to 

develop and adopt mitigative strategies 

to cope with large fires and explosions 

from any cause, including beyonddesign-basis aircraft impacts (67 FR 

9792; March 4, 2002). The Commission 

first proposed incorporating the 

continuing requirement to provide for 

such mitigative measures in the NRC’s 

regulations in the proposed 10 CFR part 

73 power reactor security requirements 

(71 FR 62663; October 26, 2006), 

specifically, the proposed Appendix C 

to 10 CFR part 73, ‘‘Licensee Safeguards 

Contingency Plans.’’ During 

development of the power reactor 

security final rule, the NRC determined 

that several significant changes to the 

proposed rule language would be 

needed to adequately address 

stakeholder comments and associated 

implementation concerns. To address 

these comments and concerns, the NRC 

proposed to relocate the provisions from 

10 CFR part 73 to a new paragraph (hh) 

in 10 CFR 50.54, ‘‘Conditions of 

licenses,’’ in a supplement to the power 

reactor security requirements proposed 

rule (73 FR 19443; April 10, 2008). On 

March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13925), the 

Commission published a final rule 

amending existing security regulations 

and adding new security requirements 

pertaining to current and future nuclear 

power reactors that included the new 

provisions in 10 CFR 50.54(hh). All 

current and future power reactors are 

required to comply with the 

requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(hh), 

which were promulgated on the basis of 

adequate protection of public health and 

safety and common defense and 

security. 

The current requirements, in 

conjunction with the revisions to 10 

CFR 50.54 to address loss of large areas 

of the plant due to explosions or fires, 

will continue to provide adequate 

protection of the public health and 

safety and the common defense and 

security. Nevertheless, the Commission 

has decided to also require applicants 

for new nuclear power reactors to 

incorporate into their design additional 

features to show that the facility can 

withstand the effects of an aircraft 

impact. This final rule to address the 

capability of new nuclear power 

reactors relative to an aircraft impact is 

based both on enhanced public health 

and safety and enhanced common 

defense and security, but is not 

necessary for adequate protection. 

Rather, this rule’s goal is to enhance the 

facility’s inherent robustness at the 

design stage. 

Requiring applicants for new nuclear 

power reactors to perform a rigorous 

aircraft impact assessment and identify 

and incorporate into their design those 

design features and functional 

capabilities that address the effects of a 

beyond-design-basis aircraft impact is 

consistent with the NRC’s historic 

approach to beyond-design-basis events 

and with the NRC’s position in its 

‘‘Policy Statement on Severe Reactor 

Accidents Regarding Future Designs and 

Existing Plants’’ (50 FR 32138; August 8, 

1985). The policy statement notes, ‘‘The 

Commission expects that vendors 

engaged in designing new standard [or 

custom] plants will achieve a higher 

standard of severe accident safety 

performance than their prior designs.’’ 

The NRC reiterated that regulatory 

approach in its ‘‘Policy Statement on the 

Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Power 

Plants’’ (59 FR 35461; July 12, 1994), 

when it stated, ‘‘The Commission 

expects that advanced reactors would 

provide enhanced margins of safety 

and/or utilize simplified, inherent, 

passive, or other innovative means to 

accomplish their safety functions.’’ 

These concepts continue to be NRC 

policy as reflected in the NRC’s 2008 

‘‘Policy Statement on the Regulation of 

Advanced Reactors’’ (73 FR 60612; 

October 14, 2008). This regulatory 

approach has demonstrated its success, 

as all designs subsequently submitted to 

and certified by the Commission 

represent substantial improvement in 

safety for operational events and 

accidents. The final aircraft impact rule 

will further enhance the safety of new 

nuclear power plants for aircraft 

impacts and is consistent with these 

policy statements. 

The Commission considered the 

appropriate location for requirements on 

an aircraft impact assessment during its 

deliberations on the security assessment 

rulemaking (draft 10 CFR 73.62) 

proposed by the NRC staff in SECY–06– 

0204, ‘‘Proposed Rulemaking—Security 

Assessment Requirements for New 

Nuclear Power Reactor Designs (RIN 

3150–AH92),’’ dated September 26, 

2006. In its Staff Requirements 

Memorandum (SRM) on SECY–06– 

0204, dated April 24, 2007, the 

Commission disapproved the staff’s 

recommended rulemaking as described 

in SECY–06–0204. The Commission 

directed the NRC staff to include the 

aircraft impact assessment requirements 

in 10 CFR part 52, ‘‘Licenses, 

Approvals, and Certifications for 

Nuclear Power Plants,’’ to encourage 

reactor designers to incorporate 

practical measures at an early stage in 

the design process. 

As a result of the Commission’s SRM, 

the NRC published a proposed rule for 

comment in the Federal Register (72 FR 

56287; October 3, 2007). The proposed 

rule would have required applicants to 

assess the effects of the impact of a 

28114 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

large, commercial aircraft on the nuclear 

power facility. Based on the insights 

gained from the assessment, the 

applicant would have been required to 

include in its application a description 

and evaluation of design features, 

functional capabilities, and strategies to 

avoid or mitigate, to the extent 

practicable, the effects of the aircraft 

impact with reduced reliance on 

operator actions. The public comment 

period for the proposed rule closed on 

December 17, 2007. A public meeting 

was held during the public comment 

period to discuss the proposed rule and 

to address any questions on the 

proposed rule. The NRC received 32 

comment letters from industry 

representatives, public interest groups, 

and concerned citizens on the proposed 

rule. 

This final rule revises 10 CFR parts 

50, ‘‘Domestic Licensing of Production 

and Utilization Facilities,’’ and 52 to 

require applicants for new nuclear 

power reactors to perform a designspecific assessment of the effects of the 

impact of a large, commercial aircraft. 

The applicant is required to identify and 

incorporate into the design those design 

features and functional capabilities to 

show that the facility can withstand the 

effects of an aircraft impact with 

reduced use of operator actions. This 

aircraft impact rule, along with 

provisions in the NRC’s power reactor 

security rule, including the addition of 

the provisions in 10 CFR 50.54(hh), and 

voluntarily-submitted safeguards 

assessments, render as duplicative and, 

therefore, unnecessary the draft 

proposed rule (10 CFR 73.62) to require 

security assessments. The draft 

proposed security assessment rule 

would have required a security 

assessment which would include 

mitigation of large fires and explosions, 

a target set analysis, and design features 

to protect target sets against DBTs. The 

provisions of that draft proposed rule 

applicable to large fires and explosions 

from an aircraft impact are subsumed by 

this final aircraft impact rule and by the 

addition of the provisions in 10 CFR 

50.54(hh). Sufficient target set 

provisions are included in the NRC’s 

changes to 10 CFR 73.55, ‘‘Requirements 

for physical protection of licensed 

activities in nuclear power reactors 

against radiological sabotage,’’ which 

applicants for new facilities will have to 

satisfy. Designers of new nuclear power 

reactors are encouraged to account for 

the provisions for mitigation of large 

fires and explosions in the facility 

design so as to minimize more costly, 

post-design features to meet those 

requirements. Design certification and 

combined license applicants are 

voluntarily submitting security 

assessments that identify design features 

to protect target sets against DBTs. 

Accordingly, the draft proposed 10 CFR 

73.62 is not necessary. 

This new aircraft impact assessment 

rule complements the revisions to 10 

CFR 50.54(hh) to mitigate the effects of 

large fires and explosions. The 10 CFR 

50.54(hh) provisions on mitigating large 

fires and explosions codify the adequate 

protection requirement imposed on 

existing operating reactors by ICM 

Order, Item B.5.b. The 10 CFR 50.54(hh) 

provisions, therefore, are necessary for 

adequate protection and must remain in 

regulations that are applicable to all 

currently operating reactors and must be 

satisfied by all newly licensed power 

reactors. Current reactor licensees have 

already developed and implemented 

procedures to comply with the 10 CFR 

50.54(hh) requirements, and would not 

require any additional action to comply 

with those rule provisions. New 

applicants for and new holders of 

operating licenses under 10 CFR part 50 

and combined licenses under 10 CFR 

part 52 will be required to develop and 

implement procedures that will employ 

mitigating strategies similar to those 

now employed by current licensees to 

maintain or restore core cooling, 

containment, and spent fuel pool 

cooling capabilities under the 

circumstances associated with loss of 

large areas of the plant due to 

explosions or fire. The requirements in 

10 CFR 50.54(hh) relate to the 

development of procedures for 

addressing certain events that are the 

cause of large fires and explosions that 

affect a substantial portion of the 

nuclear power plant, and are not limited 

or directly linked to an aircraft impact. 

The rule contemplates that the initiating 

event for such large fires and explosions 

could be any number of DBT or beyondDBT events. In addition, the NRC 

regards 10 CFR 50.54(hh) as necessary 

for reasonable assurance of adequate 

protection to public health and safety 

and common defense and security. This 

is consistent with the NRC’s designation 

of the orders on which 10 CFR 50.54(hh) 

is based as being necessary for 

reasonable assurance of adequate 

protection. 

In contrast to the adequate protection 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(hh), this 

aircraft impact final rule will enhance 

safety and security by requiring an 

assessment of newly designed facilities 

to show that the facility can withstand 

the effects of an aircraft impact. New 

nuclear power reactor applicants will be 

subject to both the requirements of the 

aircraft impact rule and the 

requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(hh). The 

overall objective of these rules is to 

enhance a nuclear power plant’s 

capabilities to withstand the effects of a 

large fire or explosion, whether caused 

by an aircraft impact or other event, 

from the standpoints of both design and 

operation. The impact of a large aircraft 

on the nuclear power plant is regarded 

as a beyond-design-basis event. In light 

of the NRC’s view that effective 

mitigation of the effects of events 

causing large fires and explosions 

(including the impact of a large, 

commercial aircraft) can be provided 

through operational actions, the NRC 

believes that the mitigation of the effects 

of aircraft impacts through design 

should be regarded as a safety 

enhancement which is not necessary for 

adequate protection. Therefore, the 

aircraft impact rule—unlike 10 CFR 

50.54(hh)—is regarded as a safety 

enhancement, which is not necessary 

for adequate protection. 

The NRC regards the aircraft impact 

and 10 CFR 50.54(hh) rulemakings to be 

complementary in scope and objective. 

The aircraft impact rule focuses on 

enhancing the design of future nuclear 

power plants to withstand large, 

commercial aircraft impacts, with 

reduced use of operator actions. The 

provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(hh) focus on 

ensuring that the nuclear power plant’s 

licensees will be able to implement 

effective mitigation measures for large 

fires and explosions, including (but not 

explicitly limited to) those caused by 

the impact of a large, commercial 

aircraft. 

Consideration of a rule to require 

applicants for new nuclear power 

reactors to perform an aircraft impact 

assessment and describe design features 

and functional capabilities addressing 

such impacts, which are beyond-designbasis scenarios, is similar to the 

Commission’s consideration in the mid1980’s of new rules addressing 

accidents more severe than design basis 

accidents. The 1985 ‘‘Policy Statement 

on Severe Reactor Accidents’’ explained 

the Com mission’s conclusion that, 

although it was proposing criteria to 

show new reactor designs to be 

acceptable for severe accident concerns, 

then-existing plants posed no undue 

risk to public health and safety, and 

thus, there was no need for action on 

operating reactors based on severe 

accident risks. The Commission’s 

reasoning in the severe accident context 

supports its conclusion that although 

new nuclear power reactors should be 

assessed for aircraft impacts and 

designed to show that they can 

withstand the effects of an aircraft 

impact, existing reactors and designs 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28115 

provide adequate protection of the 

public health and safety and common 

defense and security. 

The NRC is making several changes 

from the proposed rule requirements in 

this final rule. First, based on 

consideration of public comments, the 

NRC is revising the criteria necessary to 

comply with the final rule. The 

proposed rule would have required 

applicants for new nuclear power 

reactors to perform a design-specific 

assessment of the effects of the impact 

of a large, commercial aircraft. Based 

upon the insights gained from the 

aircraft impact assessment, the 

applicant would have been required to 

include a description and evaluation of 

the design features, functional 

capabilities, and strategies to avoid or 

mitigate the effects of the applicable, 

beyond-design-basis aircraft impact and 

describe how such design features, 

functional capabilities, and strategies 

avoid or mitigate, to the extent 

practicable, the effects of the applicable 

aircraft impact with reduced reliance on 

operator actions. The evaluation of such 

design features, functional capabilities, 

and strategies would have been required 

to include core cooling capability, 

containment integrity, and spent fuel 

pool integrity. In the final rule, 

applicants continue to be required to 

perform a design-specific assessment of 

the effects of the impact of a large, 

commercial aircraft. In addition, the 

applicant is required to use realistic 

analyses to identify and incorporate into 

the design those design features and 

functional capabilities which show, 

with reduced use of operator action, that 

the reactor core remains cooled or the 

containment remains intact and spent 

fuel cooling or spent fuel pool integrity 

is maintained. The final rule removes 

references to considering the 

practicality of including the design 

features and functional capabilities 

identified as a result of the assessment. 

The acceptance criteria in the rule must 

be shown to be met to achieve 

compliance with the rule’s 

requirements. 

The Commission ultimately decided 

that the final rule should require 

applicants to show that, in the event of 

an aircraft impact at a nuclear power 

plant, the reactor core would remain 

cooled or the containment structure 

would remain intact and spent fuel 

cooling or spent fuel pool integrity 

would be maintained. With 

implementation of this final rule, 

applicants for new nuclear power 

reactors can use realistic analyses to 

assess their designs but cannot rely 

solely on operator actions to meet the 

acceptance criteria. The Commission 

continues to believe that subsequent 

generations of plants to be built in the 

U.S. will be inherently more capable of 

resisting beyond design basis events, 

including aircraft impacts, due to safety 

improvements previously incorporated 

into these designs. The addition of this 

rule, revised to include specific 

acceptance criteria, will provide 

additional assurance that all reasonable 

design measures were taken to add 

additional margin beyond the adequate 

protection standard that is being met 

through compliance with 10 CFR 

50.54(hh). The addition of specific 

acceptance criteria to this rule adds 

regulatory stability and predictability 

that is not achievable with criteria that 

must only be met ‘‘to the extent 

practical.’’ Acceptance criteria that are 

based on functional requirements 

provide a benchmark that can be 

assessed for the purpose of determining 

compliance with this rule, yet provide 

the distinction necessary to keep 

enhancements implemented for a 

beyond-design-basis event separate from 

design requirements necessary to meet 

10 CFR part 100, ‘‘Reactor site criteria.’’ 

The NRC is also expanding the class 

of applicants that are required to 

comply with this rule based on 

consideration of public comments and 

implementation issues. In one change, 

the NRC is applying the final rule to 10 

CFR part 50 license applicants as well 

as applicants under 10 CFR part 52. The 

final rule requires both new power 

reactor construction permit applicants 

and operating license applicants to 

perform the required assessment and 

include the description of the identified 

design features and functional 

capabilities in their applications. The 

NRC is applying the final rule to 

applicants at both the construction 

permit and operating license stages 

because it is not until the operating 

license stage that the applicant is 

required to provide the NRC with its 

final design. The NRC can issue a 

construction permit based on 

preliminary design information. 

Therefore, the NRC believes it is 

necessary to require applicants to 

perform the aircraft impact assessment 

at both stages and to include the 

required information in both 

applications based on the level of design 

information available at the time of each 

application. These changes are reflected 

in the addition of new paragraphs 

(a)(13) and (b)(12) in 10 CFR 50.34, 

‘‘Contents of construction permit and 

operating license applications; technical 

information,’’ requiring all applicants 

for a construction permit or operating 

license which are subject to 10 CFR 

50.150(a) (proposed 10 CFR 52.500) to 

submit the information required by 10 

CFR 50.150(b) as a part of their 

application. Paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 

50.150 has similarly been revised. 

In making these additions, the NRC is 

making it clear that the requirements are 

not meant to apply to current or future 

operating license applications for which 

construction permits were issued before 

the effective date of this final rule. This 

is because existing construction permits 

are likely to involve designs which are 

essentially complete and may involve 

sites where construction has already 

taken place. Applying the final rule to 

operating license applications for which 

there are existing construction permits 

could result in an unwarranted financial 

burden to change a design for a plant 

that is partially constructed. Such a 

financial burden is not justifiable in 

light of the fact that the NRC considers 

the events to which the aircraft impact 

rule is directed to be beyond-designbasis events and compliance with the 

rule is not needed for adequate 

protection to public health and safety or 

common defense and security. 

Moreover, such operating license 

applicants will be required to comply 

with the requirements in 10 CFR 

50.54(hh) to identify actions to mitigate 

the effects of large fires and explosions, 

including those caused by aircraft 

impacts. For these reasons, the NRC is 

not requiring operating license 

applicants with an existing construction 

permit to comply with the final rule. 

The NRC is also adding requirements 

in 10 CFR 50.150(c) (proposed 10 CFR 

52.502) for controlling changes to the 

information required by 10 CFR 

50.150(b) to be included in the 

preliminary safety analysis report 

(PSAR) by a construction permit 

applicant and the final safety analysis 

report (FSAR) by an operating license 

applicant. The NRC is applying the 

same change control requirements to 

construction permit and operating 

license holders as it is applying to 

combined license holders. If the permit 

holder or licensee changes the 

information required by 10 CFR 50.34 to 

be included in the PSAR or FSAR, then 

the permit holder or licensee must 

consider the effect of the changed 

feature or capability on the original 

assessment required by 10 CFR 

50.150(a) and amend the information 

required by 10 CFR 50.34 to be included 

in the PSAR or FSAR to describe how 

the modified design features and 

functional capabilities continue to meet 

the assessment requirements in 10 CFR 

50.150(a)(1). 

Because the final rule is applicable to 

applicants under both 10 CFR parts 50 

28116 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

and 52, the NRC is relocating the aircraft 

impact assessment requirements that 

were contained in proposed 10 CFR 

52.500 to a new section, 10 CFR 50.150. 

This change is also consistent with the 

recent revision to 10 CFR part 52, where 

the NRC took a comprehensive 

approach to reorganizing 10 CFR part 52 

and making conforming changes 

throughout 10 CFR Chapter I, ‘‘Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission,’’ to reflect the 

licensing and approval processes in 10 

CFR part 52. In making conforming 

changes involving 10 CFR part 50 

provisions in that rulemaking, the NRC 

adopted the general principle of keeping 

technical requirements in 10 CFR part 

50 and maintaining applicable 

procedural requirements in 10 CFR part 

52. For these reasons, the NRC is 

relocating the proposed aircraft impact 

requirements from proposed 10 CFR 

52.500 to 10 CFR 50.150. 

Based on public comments, the NRC 

is making the requirements in 10 CFR 

50.150 applicable to the four existing 

design certifications in 10 CFR part 52, 

appendices A through D, at their first 

renewal if the design has not previously 

been amended to comply with the final 

rule. This change is discussed in detail 

in Section IV, ‘‘Renewal of an Operating 

License, Standard Design Certification, 

Combined License, or Manufacturing 

License,’’ of this document. 

The NRC is also making several 

changes to the terminology that was 

used in the proposed rule. In the 

proposed rule, 10 CFR 52.500 stated that 

applicants for new nuclear power 

reactors were required to perform a 

design-specific assessment of the effects 

on the designed facility of the impact of 

a large, commercial aircraft. Based on 

the insights gained from that 

assessment, applicants would have been 

required to include a description and 

‘‘evaluation’’ of the design features, 

functional capabilities, and strategies to 

avoid or mitigate the effects of the 

applicable aircraft impact. Reference to 

such an ‘‘evaluation’’ was made 

throughout the Supplementary 

Information in the proposed rule. 

However, the NRC determined that the 

term ‘‘evaluation’’ was used in more 

than one context and concluded that 

such inconsistent use could cause 

confusion. In the final rule, the NRC has 

eliminated the use of the term 

‘‘evaluation’’ in the rule language. The 

new requirements governing what 

covered applicants are required to 

submit in their applications (10 CFR 

50.150(b)) states that applicants must 

submit a description of the design 

features and functional capabilities 

identified in the assessment and a 

description of how the identified design 

features and functional capabilities meet 

the assessment requirements. 

Another area where the NRC is 

changing the terminology used in the 

final aircraft impact rule is the 

elimination of the term, ‘‘strategies.’’ 

The proposed aircraft impact rule 

required the assessment to include a 

description of the design features, 

functional capabilities, and strategies to 

avoid or mitigate the effects of the 

applicable, beyond-design-basis aircraft 

impact (proposed 10 CFR 52.500(c)). 

Neither the proposed rule nor its 

Supplementary Information defined 

‘‘strategies.’’ Upon consideration, the 

NRC has decided to eliminate that term 

in the final rule. A ‘‘strategy’’ is 

typically associated with human action 

and may, therefore, appear to conflict 

with the direction in 10 CFR 

50.150(a)(1) of the final aircraft impact 

rule that there should be ‘‘reduced use 

of operator actions.’’ In addition, the 

aircraft impact rule is focused only on 

design, and was not intended to address 

or impose requirements on the 

operation of a facility. By using the 

term, ‘‘strategies’’ in the proposed 

aircraft impact rule, there is a real 

possibility that stakeholders may 

erroneously interpret the aircraft impact 

rule as requiring a designer to address 

as part of the aircraft impact rule the 

requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(hh) to 

mitigate the effects of large fires and 

explosions. This would be an 

unnecessary duplication of effort, and 

would require consideration of 

procedural and operational matters at an 

early stage, which is not the NRC’s 

intent and may not be the optimal time 

for consideration of operational matters. 

For these reasons, the NRC is dropping 

its use of the term ‘‘strategies’’ in the 

final rule. Thus, under 10 CFR 

50.150(b), the relevant applicants need 

only include in their applications a 

description of the relevant identified 

design features and functional 

capabilities, and need not address 

strategies. The elimination of the term 

‘‘strategies,’’ does not, however, relieve 

applicants from the responsibility to 

consider reducing use of operator 

actions in performance of the aircraft 

impact assessment and identification of 

design features and functional 

capabilities to comply with this final 

rule. 

In addition, the NRC’s decision to 

remove the need for the designer to 

identify design ‘‘strategies’’ does not 

obviate the need for the designer to 

determine, when considering potential 

design features and functional 

capabilities, whether there are 

responsive actions and strategies (e.g., 

firefighting) that the nuclear power 

plant licensee could take to mitigate the 

effects of the impact of a large, 

commercial aircraft that would be made 

possible, or whose effectiveness could 

be enhanced, by inclusion of such 

features and capabilities in the design. 

One objective of the final aircraft impact 

rule is that the designer identifies and 

includes in the design those features 

and capabilities to support the eventual 

development of effective response and 

mitigation actions and strategies at the 

facility licensing stage which make 

possible or enhance the capability of the 

plant licensee to respond to aircraft 

impacts. The NRC believes that it is 

reasonable for the designer to include 

appropriate design features and 

functional capabilities to support 

practical responsive actions and 

strategies that the plant licensee could 

implement. The plant licensee should 

not be precluded from using an effective 

responsive action and strategy, simply 

because the designer failed to include a 

well-placed design feature that is 

necessary for an effective responsive 

action (e.g., a wall, a water outlet, a 

control panel). 

Finally, the Commission is adding a 

requirement in the final rule that any 

changes to the detailed aircraft impact 

parameters set forth in guidance shall be 

approved by the Commission. 

II. Currently Operating Power Reactors 

The Commission has determined that 

the existing designs of currently 

operating nuclear power plants, together 

with the security program actions 

mandated by the NRC’s orders (some of 

which are codified in the NRC’s final 

DBT rulemaking and others of which are 

incorporated into other NRC 

regulations) provide an adequate level 

of protection to public health and safety 

and common defense and security 

against aircraft impacts. As a result of 

the events of September 11, 2001, the 

NRC has undertaken a series of actions 

to provide continued reasonable 

assurance of adequate protection to 

public health and safety and common 

defense and security at the U.S. 

commercial nuclear power facilities. 

The NRC has assessed the potential 

vulnerabilities of operating nuclear 

power reactors to aircraft impacts, and 

it has issued orders and provided 

associated guidance to licensees for 

implementing a range of mitigative 

strategies. The results of these aircraft 

impact assessments were derived from 

evaluation of plant damage mechanisms 

(e.g., structural failures, shock and 

vibration effects, and fire effects). The 

NRC ensured that implementation of the 

February 25, 2002, ICM Order included 

measures to mitigate such scenarios. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28117 

The Commission’s ICM Order, Item 

B.5.b, established the requirement for 

licensees to implement certain 

mitigation measures at existing power 

reactors for these beyond-design-basis 

events. This requirement was 

specifically intended to address ‘‘losses 

of large areas of a (reactor) plant due to 

fires and explosions.’’ The Commission 

has since incorporated this requirement 

into 10 CFR 50.54 in the power reactor 

security rulemaking. Under the 

provisions of 10 CFR 50.54, future 

license applicants must identify and 

implement mitigative measures similar 

to those required for currently operating 

nuclear power plants. 

On March 19, 2007 (72 FR 12705), the 

Commission published a final rule 

amending the DBT in 10 CFR 73.1. The 

DBT rule describes general attributes 

that nuclear power plant licensees must 

defend against with high assurance. 

This rulemaking enhanced the DBT by 

codifying generically applicable security 

requirements similar to those previously 

imposed by the Commission’s April 29, 

2003, DBT Orders. 

On the basis of the previous 

information, the NRC concludes that 

existing power reactors pose no undue 

risk to public health and safety or 

common defense and security from the 

effects of an aircraft impact based on the 

Commission’s specified aircraft impact 

characteristics. Therefore, the NRC is 

not applying this final rule to existing 

operating nuclear power plants. 

III. Currently Approved Standard 

Design Certifications and Combined 

Licenses Referencing These 

Certifications 

Based upon consideration of public 

comments, the NRC has decided that the 

designs of all newly designed and 

constructed nuclear power plants (i.e., 

those designed and constructed after 

July 13, 2009) must comply with the 

aircraft impact rule. The NRC agreed 

with the majority of commenters who 

stated that the underlying objectives of 

the aircraft impact rule would not be 

fully achieved if a subset of new nuclear 

power plant applicants—namely, those 

applicants who reference one of the four 

existing design certifications—is not 

required to comply with the aircraft 

impact rule. This decision stems from 

acknowledgement of the views 

expressed by a wide range of 

stakeholders in favor of requiring all 

new nuclear power plants to meet the 

requirements of the aircraft impact rule. 

Thus, the NRC is requiring that all new 

nuclear power plants in the U.S. be 

required to use designs that comply 

with the aircraft impact rule. 

In evaluating this change, the NRC 

considered regulatory approaches that 

could be used if a combined license 

application references one of the four 

currently approved standard design 

certifications in Appendices A through 

D of 10 CFR part 52 which has not been 

voluntarily amended to comply with the 

aircraft impact rule. The NRC 

considered whether the combined 

license applicant should be required to 

perform the assessment of aircraft 

impacts itself and use the design 

features and functional capabilities 

identified as the result of its assessment 

in the design of their plant, but with no 

obligation to modify the referenced 

design certification. A second approach 

considered by the NRC would require 

that the four currently approved design 

certifications be amended by the 

original design certification applicant to 

comply with the aircraft impact rule 

within a short time after issuance of the 

final aircraft impact rule. The NRC also 

considered a third approach, whereby 

the NRC would require that the four 

currently approved design certifications 

be amended to comply with the aircraft 

impact rule (without specifying who is 

responsible for prosecuting the 

amendment), but only if they are 

referenced in a combined license 

application. This approach would also 

restrict the NRC from issuing a 

combined license referencing one of the 

four currently approved design 

certifications, unless it had been 

amended to comply with the aircraft 

impact rule (again, without specifying 

who is responsible for prosecuting the 

amendment). The NRC has determined 

that the first approach should be 

adopted in the aircraft impact rule (i.e., 

the combined license applicant be 

required to perform the assessment of 

aircraft impacts and incorporate design 

features and functional capabilities into 

the design of the applicant’s facility 

with no concurrent obligation to modify 

the referenced design certification). The 

NRC believes that this approach will 

ensure that a nuclear power plant which 

is constructed using one of the currently 

approved design certifications will 

nonetheless meet the aircraft impact 

rule without unnecessary delays 

associated with amending the 

referenced design certification rule. The 

NRC recognizes that the first approach 

may result in less standardization of 

design features and functional 

capabilities addressing aircraft impact 

for nuclear power plants referencing one 

of the four currently approved design 

certifications. However, the NRC 

believes that, as a practical matter, given 

the likely small number of combined 

license applications referencing one of 

the four currently approved design 

certifications which has not been 

amended to comply with the rule, any 

reduction in standardization is likely to 

be minimal. 

However, the NRC has also decided 

that if any of the four currently 

approved design certifications are not 

amended to comply with the aircraft 

impact rule by the end of the initial 

period of effectiveness and an applicant 

seeks to renew the design certification, 

then the certified design must be 

amended to comply with the aircraft 

impact rule before the renewal is 

approved by the NRC under the 

provisions of 10 CFR 52.57 through 10 

CFR 52.61. The NRC’s determination in 

this regard is discussed in Section IV, 

‘‘Renewal of an Operating License, 

Standard Design Certification, 

Combined License, or Manufacturing 

License,’’ of this document. The NRC 

has concluded that it should use the 

same criteria for evaluating voluntary 

requests for amendments to existing 

design certifications as it uses for 

evaluating new applications for design 

certifications, to ensure consistency 

among all new reactor designs. 

IV. Renewal of an Operating License, 

Standard Design Certification, 

Combined License, or Manufacturing 

License 

This rulemaking does not require 

updating the assessment of aircraft 

impacts required by 10 CFR 50.150 as 

part of an application for either a 

renewed operating license under 10 CFR 

part 54, ‘‘Requirements for Renewal of 

Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power 

Plants,’’ a renewed design certification 

under 10 CFR 52.57, ‘‘Application for 

renewal,’’ a renewed combined license 

under 10 CFR 52.107, ‘‘Application for 

renewal,’’ and 10 CFR part 54, or a 

renewed manufacturing license under 

10 CFR 52.177, ‘‘Application for 

renewal.’’ The NRC’s requirement for 

assessment of large, commercial aircraft 

impacts is not an aging-related matter, 

nor is it based on time-limited 

considerations. Hence, aircraft impacts 

under the final rule are outside the 

scope of any operating license or 

combined license renewal proceeding 

under 10 CFR part 54, and neither 

operating nor combined license holders 

need to update the assessment required 

by 10 CFR 50.150(b) at the license 

renewal stage. 

With regard to design certifications 

and manufacturing licenses which 

comply with the aircraft impact rule 

upon initial issuance or upon 

amendment, the NRC believes that their 

renewal review should not include a 

28118 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

reassessment of aircraft impacts and 

possible changes to the design to 

include new design features and 

functional capabilities. In the NRC’s 

view, there will not be any significant 

benefit to requiring applicants for 

renewal to reassess the design’s 

vulnerability to aircraft impacts absent a 

Commission-approved change in the 

detailed parameters on aircraft impact 

characteristics set forth in guidance for 

use in the aircraft impact assessment. As 

discussed later in Section V.B, 

‘‘Description of Beyond-Design-Basis 

Aircraft Impact,’’ of the Supplementary 

Information for this final rule, the final 

rule requires that the design-specific 

impact assessment use the Commissionspecified aircraft impact characteristics 

as described in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(2) and 

changes to the detailed parameters on 

aircraft impact characteristics set forth 

in guidance shall be approved by the 

Commission. Because this final rule is 

intended to provide added protection 

against the effects of a beyond-designbasis event, the choice of aircraft impact 

characteristics and the scenario used for 

this assessment will not be linked to 

threat assessments or to any evolution of 

aircraft design. Therefore, there is no 

need to require a reassessment at the 

design certification or manufacturing 

license renewal stage. In addition, 

mandating a change to the design at the 

renewal stage would pose an undue 

burden on those licensees who have 

referenced the design certification in 

their license, or used the manufactured 

reactor at their facility. Under 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(3) and 10 CFR 52.171(a)(2), the 

NRC requires that any modification it 

imposes on a design certification rule or 

on the design of a manufactured reactor 

be applied to all plants referencing the 

certified design or reactor manufactured 

under the manufacturing license, except 

those to which the modification has 

been rendered technically irrelevant. If 

the NRC were to require reassessment of 

the design at renewal, this could cause 

licensees who have already designed 

and constructed their plants (or used a 

manufactured reactor) to modify their 

plants to come into conformance with 

the reassessed design. Such 

modifications are likely to be costly. 

Given the NRC’s determination that the 

impact of a large, commercial aircraft is 

a beyond-design-basis event, the 

imposition of such costs as the result of 

reassessment at design certification or 

manufacturing license renewal does not 

seem warranted. Moreover, once the 

design features and functional 

capabilities for addressing an aircraft 

impact have been incorporated into a 

nuclear power plant’s design, the goal of 

this final rule has been achieved in that 

consideration of aircraft impacts has 

been factored into the design. In any 

event, 10 CFR 52.59, which establishes 

limited finality control over the NRC’s 

renewal of design certifications, does 

permit the NRC to impose modifications 

to the design at design certification 

renewal under certain circumstances 

(see 10 CFR 52.59(b)(1) through (3)). 

Accordingly, given that future design 

certifications and manufacturing 

licenses must, under the final aircraft 

impact rule, meet the requirements of 

the rule upon initial issuance, the NRC 

has decided that these design 

certifications and manufacturing 

licenses need not be required by rule to 

update the aircraft impact assessment at 

the time of renewal. 

However, upon consideration of these 

factors in relation to the renewal of the 

four currently approved design 

certifications, the NRC has come to the 

conclusion that if any of these four 

design certifications have not been 

updated in the first 15-year duration of 

effectiveness, then the design must be 

amended to comply with the aircraft 

impact rule at the time of renewal under 

10 CFR 52.57 through 52.61. In this 

situation, the NRC believes that 

regulatory consistency, predictability, 

and efficiency all favor requiring any of 

the four current design certifications 

which have not been amended to meet 

the aircraft impact rule at the time of 

renewal of the design certification to 

comply with the aircraft impact rule as 

part of the renewal process. 

The NRC’s determination is reflected 

in the final rule as an amendment to 10 

CFR 52.59(a). As revised, paragraph (a) 

requires the NRC to find, at the first 

renewal of any of the four currently 

approved design certifications, that the 

renewed design (i.e., the design which 

is being approved for use in the 

renewed term of the design certification 

rule) complies with the requirements of 

the aircraft impact rule. 

The NRC has determined, consistent 

with the intent of 10 CFR 52.59(b), that 

requiring the renewed design to comply 

with the aircraft impact rule constitutes 

a substantial increase in protection to 

public health and safety. The reasons 

supporting this determination are set 

forth in Section XVI, ‘‘Backfit Analysis,’’ 

of the Supplementary Information for 

this final rule. The NRC wishes to 

emphasize that imposing this 

requirement on the renewal of the four 

currently approved design certifications 

does not represent any substantial 

decrease in the commercial interests of 

the original applicants for these design 

certifications (or their successors in 

interests). Accordingly, the NRC 

concludes that the four currently 

approved design certifications, if they 

have not already been amended to 

comply with the aircraft rule, must 

comply with the rule the first time any 

of those design certifications are 

renewed. 

The NRC notes that one of the 

consequences of the NRC’s 

determination that each of the four 

currently approved design certifications 

must comply with the aircraft impact 

rule if renewed, is that there may be 

increased public confidence in the 

safety of the renewed designs. The 

NRC’s view is based upon public 

comments from several stakeholders 

urging that the four design certifications 

be required to comply with the aircraft 

impact rule. 

V. New Nuclear Power Reactors 

A. Introduction 

Under this final rule, relevant 

applicants for new nuclear power 

reactors are required to: 

• Perform an assessment of the effects 

on the designed facility of a beyonddesign-basis aircraft impact. 

• Using realistic analyses, identify 

and incorporate into the design those 

design features and functional 

capabilities to show, with reduced use 

of operator action, that the facility can 

withstand the effects of an aircraft 

impact (i.e., that the rule’s acceptance 

criteria are met). 

• Describe how such design features 

and functional capabilities show, with 

reduced use of operator action, that the 

facility can withstand the effects of an 

aircraft impact. 

This final rule is based on the premise 

that it is desirable for newly-constructed 

power reactors to be designed to 

withstand the effects of an aircraft 

impact through design features or 

functional capabilities that reduce or 

eliminate the need for operator actions. 

Because this type of consideration is 

more effectively done during the 

development of the design itself, the 

NRC directs the requirements of this 

final rule at plant designers. 

The NRC does not expect plant 

designers to demonstrate that design 

features alone, without operator action 

or mitigative response activity as 

required under 10 CFR 50.54(hh), will 

completely address the effects of the 

aircraft impact. The NRC recognizes that 

the decision to rely on design features 

(as opposed to operator action or 

mitigative strategies required under 10 

CFR 50.54(hh)) is complex, and often 

involves a set of trade-offs between 

competing considerations. The NRC’s 

goal is to have the designer implement 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28119 

a rigorous assessment process to ensure 

that the design process constitutes a 

reasoned approach for assessing the 

plant design to identify design features 

and functional capabilities to show that 

the facility can withstand the effects of 

an aircraft impact. 

B. Description of Beyond-Design-Basis 

Aircraft Impact 

Since September 11, 2001, the 

Commission has used state-of-the art 

technology to assess the effects of 

aircraft impacts on nuclear power 

plants. As part of a comprehensive 

review of security for NRC-licensed 

facilities, the NRC conducted detailed, 

site-specific engineering studies of a 

limited number of nuclear power plants 

to assess potential vulnerabilities of 

deliberate attacks involving large, 

commercial aircraft. In conducting these 

studies, the NRC consulted national 

experts from several Department of 

Energy laboratories using state-of-the-art 

structural and fire analyses. The agency 

also used realistic predictions of 

accident progression and radiological 

consequences. 

This final rule presents a general 

description of the aircraft impact 

characteristics that are required to be 

used to perform the beyond-design-basis 

aircraft impact assessment. The 

assessment must be based on the 

beyond-design-basis impact of a large, 

commercial aircraft used for long 

distance flights in the U.S., with 

aviation fuel loading typically used in 

such flights, and an impact speed and 

angle of impact considering the ability 

of both experienced and inexperienced 

pilots to control large, commercial 

aircraft at the low altitude 

representative of a nuclear power 

plant’s low profile. 

Beyond these general characteristics, 

the NRC will specify for plant designers 

in a safeguards information (SGI) 

guidance document more detailed 

parameters describing the large, 

commercial aircraft impact that are 

considered appropriate for use in the 

required assessment. Although the 

detailed aircraft impact assessment 

parameters will be described in an SGI 

guidance document and will not be 

publicly available because of their 

potential value to terrorists, the 

following description of some of the 

factors used in selecting the parameters 

is offered to foster a better 

understanding of this final rulemaking. 

Changes to these detailed parameters on 

aircraft impact characteristics set forth 

in this guidance shall be approved by 

the Commission. 

1. The aircraft used by the terrorists 

on September 11, 2001. The NRC staff 

has reviewed the results of the 

September 11, 2001 attacks on the 

World Trade Center and the Pentagon. 

The NRC has used these reviews in 

previous studies for operating reactors. 

The NRC also used these reviews to 

make its decisions with respect to this 

final rulemaking. 

2. Communications with other U.S. 

Government agencies. Since September 

11, 2001, the NRC has worked closely 

with the Department of Homeland 

Security, the Department of Defense, 

and other agencies, both to understand 

their information on terrorist threats and 

to communicate the NRC’s study results. 

3. Communications with foreign 

governments. A number of foreign 

governments are considering the 

construction of new nuclear power 

plants. The NRC is communicating with 

the regulatory authorities in these 

countries to understand their 

requirements and to convey its own 

results and plans. 

4. Evaluations of commercial aircraft. 

The NRC has studied the types, 

numbers, and characteristics of 

commercial aircraft flown in U.S. 

airspace. 

Because this final rule is intended to 

provide added protection against the 

effects of a beyond-design-basis event, 

the choice of aircraft impact 

characteristics and the scenario used for 

this assessment will not be linked to 

threat assessments or to any evolution of 

aircraft design. The final rule requires 

that the design-specific impact 

assessment use the Commissionspecified aircraft impact characteristics 

as described in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(2) 

(proposed 10 CFR 52.500(b)). As stated 

previously, more specific details about 

the aircraft impact characteristics will 

be contained in a separate guidance 

document under SGI controls. Because 

this guidance document containing 

more detailed aircraft impact 

assessment parameters will be SGI, the 

document will only be made available 

to those individuals with a need-toknow and who are otherwise qualified 

to have access to SGI. Plant designers 

(including their employees and agents) 

who meet the Commission’s 

requirements for access to SGI will have 

access to the guidance document 

containing these more detailed 

parameters to perform the assessments 

required by this final rule. 

C. Aircraft Impact Assessment 

Technical Issues 

Because the aircraft impact is a 

beyond-design-basis event, the methods 

and acceptance criteria used should be 

based on realistic assumptions. The 

aircraft impact assessment is expected 

to include the items detailed in the 

following paragraphs: 

1. Consideration of aircraft impact 

characteristics. The assessment must 

consider the impact of a large, 

commercial aircraft of the type currently 

in use for long distance flights in the 

U.S. as described previously in this 

document and in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(2). 

More detailed aircraft impact 

assessment parameters that are 

considered appropriate for use in this 

assessment will be contained in a 

separate guidance document under SGI 

controls. 

2. Plant functions, structures, systems, 

components, and locations to be 

assessed. The critical functions required 

to be evaluated in the aircraft impact 

assessment include core cooling 

capability, containment, spent fuel 

cooling capability, and spent fuel pool 

integrity. Evaluation of the survivability 

of these critical functions should 

consider not only the key components, 

but also power supplies, cable runs, and 

other components that support these 

functions. The assessment may take 

credit for the availability of both safety 

and non-safety equipment. The 

assessment should evaluate whether the 

structures containing equipment that 

provides these critical functions are 

likely to be affected by the specified 

large, commercial aircraft impact. 

Factors to be considered in the 

assessment include the size and location 

of the structures and the presence of 

external impediments to impact. 

3. Damage mechanisms. The 

assessment should model the structural 

response, shock and vibration effects, 

and fire effects of the aircraft impact. 

a. Structural assessment. The 

structural assessment should be based 

on a detailed structural model of the 

plant taking into account the nonlinear 

materials and geometric behavior. The 

assessment should consider both local 

and global (plant-wide) behavior, as 

well as thermal effects resulting from 

fire. 

b. Shock assessment. The assessment 

should evaluate both the local and 

global (plant-wide) shock and vibration 

effects resulting from the aircraft 

impact. 

c. Fire assessment. The fire 

assessment should consider the extent 

of structural damage and aviation fuel 

deposition, if any, spread within the 

impacted buildings. The assessment 

should consider both short- and longterm fire effects. 

4. Consideration of potential 

responsive actions and strategies in 

identifying design features and 

functional capabilities. In determining 

28120 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

design features and functional 

capabilities, the designer is expected to 

consider the potential responsive 

actions and strategies in determining 

what design features and functional 

capabilities to adopt. After considering 

potential actions and strategies, the 

designer may identify design features 

and functional strategies that would 

facilitate the implementation and/or 

enhance the effectiveness of such 

responsive actions and strategies. An 

objective of the rule is to ensure that 

practical actions and strategies that the 

nuclear power plant licensee could use 

to respond to the effects of an aircraft 

impact are not precluded by the design 

and are available as effective options 

through inclusion of appropriate design 

features and functional capabilities. 

Regulatory Treatment of the Assessment 

The aircraft impact assessment will be 

subject to inspection by the NRC and, 

therefore, must be maintained by the 

applicant along with the rest of the 

information that forms the basis for the 

relevant application, consistent with 

paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 52.0, ‘‘Scope; 

applicability of 10 CFR Chapter I 

provisions,’’ 10 CFR 50.70, 

‘‘Inspections,’’ and 10 CFR 50.71, 

‘‘Maintenance of records, making of 

reports.’’ The applicant is not required 

to submit the aircraft impact 

assessment—as opposed to the 

‘‘description of the identified design 

features and functional capabilities’’ 

required by 10 CFR 50.150(b) (proposed 

10 CFR 52.500(c))—to the NRC in its 

application. 

Under the final rule, the NRC will 

confirm that the information required by 

10 CFR 50.150(b) is included in the 

applicant’s PSAR or FSAR, namely, the 

description of the design features and 

functional capabilities identified as a 

result of the assessment and a 

description of how those features and 

capabilities show, with reduced use of 

operator action, that the assessment 

requirements in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1) are 

met. The NRC will review the 

information contained in the 

application and reach conclusions as to 

whether the applicant has: (1) 

Adequately described design features 

and functional capabilities in 

accordance with the aircraft impact rule; 

and (2) conducted an assessment 

reasonably formulated to identify design 

features and functional capabilities to 

show, with reduced use of operator 

action, that the facility can withstand 

the effects of an aircraft impact. The 

NRC’s decision on an application 

subject to 10 CFR 50.150 will be 

separate from any NRC determination 

that may be made with respect to the 

adequacy of the impact assessment 

which the rule does not require be 

submitted to the NRC. Therefore, the 

adequacy of the impact assessment may 

not be the subject of a contention 

submitted as part of a petition to 

intervene under 10 CFR 2.309, ‘‘Hearing 

requests, petitions to intervene, 

requirements for standing, and 

contentions.’’ A person who seeks NRC 

rulemaking action with respect to a 

proposed standard design certification 

on the basis that the requirements of the 

rule with respect to the identification 

and description of design features and 

functional capabilities has not been met 

could submit comments in the notice 

and comment phase of that rulemaking. 

A person who seeks rulemaking action 

after the NRC has adopted a final design 

certification rule on the basis that the 

impact assessment performed for that 

design certification is inadequate could 

submit a petition for rulemaking under 

10 CFR 2.802, ‘‘Petition for 

rulemaking,’’ and 10 CFR 2.803, 

‘‘Determination of petition,’’ seeking to 

amend the standard design certification. 

A person who seeks agency 

enforcement-related action on a 

combined license or manufacturing 

license on the basis of an inadequate 

impact assessment could file a petition 

under 10 CFR 2.206, ‘‘Requests for 

action under this subpart.’’ 

Applicants are only required to 

submit a description of the identified 

design features and functional 

capabilities identified as a result of the 

assessment in their PSAR or FSAR, 

together with a description of how the 

identified design features and functional 

capabilities comply with the rule’s 

requirements. Applicants subject to the 

aircraft impact rule must make the 

complete aircraft impact assessment 

available for NRC inspection at the 

applicants’ offices or their contractors’ 

offices, upon NRC request in accordance 

with 10 CFR 50.70, 10 CFR 50.71, and 

Section 161.c of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended. The NRC expects 

that, generally, the information that it 

needs to perform its review of the 

application to assess the applicant’s 

compliance with 10 CFR 50.150 will be 

that information contained in the 

applicant’s FSAR. However, if the NRC 

believes, during the course of its review 

of the application, that the application 

contains incomplete or insufficient 

descriptions of the design features and 

functional capabilities included in the 

design, or insufficient discussions of 

how those features and capabilities 

show, with reduced use of operator 

action, that the facility can withstand 

the effects of an aircraft impact, then the 

NRC may request additional information 

or may review the assessment prior to 

issuance of the design certification, 

approval, or license, as applicable. 

The NRC will confirm that the impact 

assessment was performed consistent 

with the regulatory requirements, but, 

consistent with the previous discussion, 

the NRC’s confirmation will proceed 

independently of the NRC’s licensing or 

approval action on the relevant 

application. The NRC may take 

appropriate enforcement action for any 

violations of applicable NRC 

requirements, including, but not limited 

to, 10 CFR 50.150, ‘‘Aircraft impact 

assessment;’’ 10 CFR 50.5 and 10 CFR 

52.4, ‘‘Deliberate misconduct;’’ and 10 

CFR 50.9 and 10 CFR 52.6, 

‘‘Completeness and accuracy of 

information.’’ A failure to perform the 

assessment will be a violation of the 

rule. The NRC expects the assessment to 

be rigorous. Any assessment that is 

inadequate to reasonably assess the 

aircraft impact or to identify design 

features or functional capabilities could 

be considered a violation of the rule. 

For design certifications, design 

approvals, and manufacturing license 

which are subject to and/or have been 

determined by the NRC to be in 

compliance with the aircraft impact 

rule, issue resolution (in accordance 

with the applicable NRC regulations and 

law) will be accorded to the aircraft 

impact assessment, the descriptions of 

the design features and functional 

capabilities required to be included in 

the application, and the description of 

how the identified design features and 

functional capabilities meet the 

requirements of this final rule. 

Furthermore, the NRC has concluded in 

this final rulemaking that issue 

resolution also extends to the exclusion 

of design features and functional 

capabilities which have not been 

included in the facility design. This 

position represents a change from the 

NRC’s proposed position as presented in 

the proposed rule’s statement of 

consideration (see 72 FR 56292, third 

column (October 3, 2007)). The NRC’s 

changed position on this matter stems 

from a review of the issue resolution 

provision in design certification 

rulemaking. Under the ‘‘Issue 

Resolution’’ section for each of the four 

current design certifications, the NRC 

included the following statement: ‘‘A 

conclusion that a matter is resolved 

includes the finding that additional or 

alternative structures, systems, and 

components, design features, design 

criteria, testing, analyses, acceptance 

criteria or justification are not necessary 

for the [design which is certified].’’ 10 

CFR part 52, Appendices A through D, 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28121 

paragraph IV.A. There is nothing 

exceptional about the technical 

requirements in the aircraft impact rule 

which suggests that this provision on 

issue resolution should not also apply to 

matters addressed by the aircraft impact 

rule. Accordingly, as part of this final 

rulemaking the NRC adopts a different 

position on the scope of issue resolution 

with respect to excluded design features 

and functional capabilities. 

Once the applicant completes the 

impact assessment and identifies in the 

FSAR the design features and functional 

capabilities that it has incorporated into 

its design, the goal of this final rule has 

been achieved. Accordingly, the final 

rule does not require the impact 

assessment to be updated by either: (1) 

An operating license holder; (2) a design 

certification applicant following the 

NRC’s adoption of a final standard 

design certification rule; (3) a design 

approval holder; (4) a manufacturing 

license applicant or holder whose 

application references a design 

certification or design approval; (5) a 

combined license applicant or holder 

whose application references a design 

certification, design approval, or 

manufactured reactor; or (6) a combined 

license or manufacturing license holder 

who is required to prepare its own 

assessment. However, if a permit holder, 

licensee, approval holder, or design 

certification applicant makes a change 

to the information required to be 

included in their PSAR or FSAR, then 

they will be required to consider the 

effect of the change on the original 

assessment required by 10 CFR 

50.150(a) and amend the information 

required to be included in the PSAR or 

FSAR. These requirements are 

discussed in more detail later in this 

section. Also, a construction permit 

holder will need to update its initial 

assessment when it is preparing to 

submit its operating license application 

because it is only at the operating 

license stage that the applicant will be 

seeking NRC approval of its final design. 

No applicant or licensee will be 

required to update the assessment in an 

application for renewal under either 10 

CFR 52.57, 10 CFR 52.107, 10 CFR 

52.177 or 10 CFR part 54. An applicant 

for renewal of one of the currently 

approved design certifications which 

has not been amended to comply with 

the aircraft impact rule will have to 

perform an aircraft impact assessment 

before submitting its renewal 

application. 

Record Retention Requirements 

The provisions of 10 CFR 50.71(c) 

require that records that are required by 

the regulations in 10 CFR parts 50 or 52 

must be retained for the period specified 

by the appropriate regulation. If a 

retention period is not otherwise 

specified, the licensee must retain these 

records until the Commission 

terminates the facility license. Because 

10 CFR 50.150(a) (proposed 10 CFR 

52.500(b)) requires the performance of 

the aircraft impact assessment, it falls 

under the category of ‘‘records that are 

required by the regulations’’ and 

therefore, the licensee will be required 

to retain the assessment until the 

Commission terminates the facility 

license. The NRC also expects to add 

specific provisions to each standard 

design certification rule for a design 

covered by 10 CFR 50.150 governing 

retention of the aircraft impact 

assessment by both the applicant for the 

design certification (including an 

applicant after the Commission has 

adopted a final standard design 

certification rule) and a licensee who 

references that design certification. The 

NRC will require applicants and 

licensees to retain the assessment 

required by 10 CFR 50.150(a) 

throughout the pendency of the 

application and for the term of the 

certification or license (including any 

period of renewal). For all applicants, 

the supporting documentation retained 

onsite should describe the methodology 

used in performing the assessment, 

including the identification of potential 

design features and functional 

capabilities to show that the acceptance 

criteria in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1) will be 

met. 

Identification of Design Features and 

Functional Capabilities 

The final rule requires designers of 

new facilities to describe how the 

design features and functional 

capabilities identified in performance of 

the aircraft impact assessment show, 

with reduced use of operator action, that 

the facility can withstand the effects of 

an aircraft impact (i.e., that the rule’s 

acceptance criteria are met). Plant 

structures critical to maintaining facility 

safety functions should be designed 

such that an impact does not result in 

structural failure, and aircraft parts and 

jet fuel do not enter the structures. In 

circumstances in which an impact 

results in aircraft parts and jet fuel 

entering structures or affecting 

equipment, plant structures and layouts 

should be evaluated with respect to 

maintaining key safety functions (core 

cooling, containment, spent fuel 

cooling, and spent fuel pool integrity) 

by addressing equipment survivability 

following the entry of aircraft parts and 

jet fuel. Key safety functions should be 

accomplished notwithstanding the 

resulting internal damage from 

structural loads, shock and vibration, 

and fire. 

As discussed previously, the 

Commission has issued orders to 

operating plants requiring mitigation of 

the effects of losing large areas of the 

plant from fires and explosions. These 

requirements include some reliance on 

operator actions, such as realigning 

systems to ensure continued core 

cooling following the loss of a large 

area. Because this final rule applies to 

newly designed facilities before 

construction of the facility, the 

Commission expects that improvements 

can be made in the plant’s design that 

may be even more effective than 

operator actions credited in operating 

plants. Thus, these designs should have 

reduced reliance, relative to current 

operating plants, on operator actions. 

Nuclear power plants are inherently 

very robust, secure structures designed 

to withstand tornadoes, hurricanes, 

earthquakes, floods, and other severe 

events. They have redundant and 

diverse safety equipment so that if an 

active component becomes unavailable, 

another component or system will 

satisfy its function. The results of the 

Commission’s evaluation of postulated 

aircraft impacts on operating reactors 

reinforced the value of design features 

such as the following: 

• Reinforced concrete walls. 

• Redundancy and spatial separation 

of key systems, structures and 

components. 

• Diversity of power supplies. 

• Compartmentalization of interior 

structures with pressure resisting 

concrete walls and doors. 

The NRC expects the required 

assessment to consider such design 

features and functional capabilities and 

of possible improvements in these and 

other features and capabilities for 

addressing aircraft impacts. 

Control of PSAR or FSAR Information 

Design features or functional 

capabilities credited for showing that 

the facility can withstand the effects of 

an aircraft impact should be described 

in Chapter 19 of the FSAR, which 

addresses severe accidents. The design 

features may include structures or 

features unchanged from the plant 

design as it existed before the aircraft 

impact assessment (e.g., an existing wall 

is found to be effective), structures or 

features included in the plant design but 

enhanced to improve the response to an 

aircraft impact (e.g., an existing wall is 

made stronger), or new structures or 

features added solely to address aircraft 

impacts (e.g., a new wall). The 

regulatory treatment of the design 

28122 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

features (e.g., how changes to the 

features are controlled) depends on 

which of the previously mentioned 

categories apply. For example, a design 

feature added specifically to address the 

effects of an aircraft impact will be 

controlled only by requirements in 10 

CFR 50.150(c) (proposed 10 CFR 52.502) 

added in this final rule or requirements 

that the NRC expects to add to future 

design certifications that will be subject 

to 10 CFR 50.150 (proposed 10 CFR 

52.500). A safety-related structure 

credited in the aircraft impact 

assessment as a design feature will 

continue to be controlled by Appendix 

B to 10 CFR part 50, ‘‘Quality Assurance 

Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and 

Fuel Reprocessing Plants,’’ 10 CFR part 

21, ‘‘Reporting of Defects and 

Noncompliance,’’ and other regulations 

establishing technical and 

administrative requirements on the nonaircraft impact functions, in addition to 

the requirements for control of features 

to address aircraft impacts. 

For all applicants and licensees 

subject to 10 CFR 50.150, control of 

changes to any design features or 

functional capabilities credited for 

showing that the facility can withstand 

the effects of an aircraft impact will be 

governed by the requirements in a new 

paragraph (c), ‘‘Control of changes,’’ of 

10 CFR 50.150. For construction permits 

which are subject to 10 CFR 50.150, 

paragraph (c)(1) requires that, if the 

permit holder changes the information 

required by 10 CFR 50.34(a)(13) to be 

included in the PSAR, then the permit 

holder must consider the effect of the 

changed feature or capability on the 

original assessment required by 10 CFR 

50.150(a) and amend the information 

required by 10 CFR 50.34(a)(13) to be 

included in the PSAR to describe how 

the modified design features and 

functional capabilities continue to meet 

the assessment requirements in the 

aircraft impact rule. Because this final 

rule addresses a beyond-design-basis 

event, the NRC has determined that it is 

appropriate to apply the same standard 

to any licensee-proposed changes to 

features and capabilities that were 

applied during the original evaluation of 

those design features and functional 

capabilities. 

Paragraph (c)(2) of 10 CFR 50.150 

provides that, for operating licenses 

which are subject to the aircraft impact 

rule (i.e., operating licenses for which 

the underlying construction permits are 

issued after July 13, 2009), if the 

licensee changes the information 

required by 10 CFR 50.34(b)(12) to be 

included in the FSAR, then the licensee 

shall consider the effect of the changed 

feature or capability on the original 

assessment required by 10 CFR 

50.150(b) and amend the information 

required by 10 CFR 50.34(b)(12) to be 

included in FSAR to describe how the 

modified design features and functional 

capabilities continue to meet the 

assessment requirements in the aircraft 

impact rule. 

Paragraph (c)(3) of 10 CFR 50.150 

governs changes to a design feature or 

functional capability described in a 

standard design certification. Such 

changes may not be made generically 

except by notice and comment 

rulemaking (see 10 CFR 52.63, ‘‘Finality 

of standard design certifications,’’ 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)) and such a 

change must meet one of the criteria in 

10 CFR 52.63(a)(1). All referencing 

combined licenses must implement any 

generic change to a design certification 

rule, as required by 10 CFR 52.63(a)(3). 

The NRC acknowledges that the 

applicant for a standard design 

certification is not directly responsible 

for maintaining the FSAR information 

once a final design certification rule is 

adopted by the NRC. Nonetheless, the 

NRC continues to believe, for the 

reasons set forth in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for the first design 

certification rulemaking (see 62 FR 

25800; May 19, 1997, at 25813–25814, 

25826), that the original standard design 

certification applicant should be 

required to maintain the accuracy of the 

design certification information. 

Therefore, in future standard design 

certification rulemakings, the NRC 

expects to continue its practice of 

adopting a records management 

requirement analogous to Section X.A of 

the four existing standard design 

certification rules. In addition, any 

applicant for an amendment to a design 

certification is also subject to the 

records management requirement. In the 

case of amendment requests submitted 

by someone other than the original 

applicant, the NRC may need to develop 

appropriate rule language to reflect the 

record management responsibilities for 

information (including SGI and 

proprietary information) that was 

developed by applicants other than the 

original applicant. For combined license 

holders subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a) (i.e., 

a licensee whose application does not 

reference a standard design certification, 

standard design approval, or 

manufactured reactor, or that reference 

a standard design certification issued 

before the effective date of the rule 

which has not been amended to comply 

with the rule), 10 CFR 50.150(c)(4)(i) 

states that if the licensee changes the 

information required by 10 CFR 

52.79(a)(47) to be included in the FSAR, 

then the licensee shall consider the 

effect of the changed feature or 

capability on the original assessment 

required by 10 CFR 50.150(a) and 

amend the information required by 10 

CFR 52.79(a)(47) to be included in the 

FSAR to describe how the modified 

design features and functional 

capabilities continue to meet the 

acceptance criteria in the aircraft impact 

rule. 

Paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of 10 CFR 50.150 

governs combined license applicants or 

holders which are not subject to 10 CFR 

50.150(a) and states that proposed 

departures from the information 

required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be 

included in the FSAR for the referenced 

standard design certification are 

governed by the change control 

requirements in the applicable design 

certification rule. The NRC expects to 

add a new change control provision to 

future design certification rules subject 

to 10 CFR 50.150 (including 

amendments to any of the four existing 

design certifications) to govern 

combined license applicants and 

holders referencing the design 

certification that request a departure 

from the design features or functional 

capabilities in the referenced design 

certification. The new change control 

provision will require that, if the 

applicant or licensee changes the 

information required by 10 CFR 

52.47(a)(28) to be included in the FSAR 

for the standard design certification, 

then the applicant or licensee shall 

consider the effect of the changed 

feature or capability on the original 

assessment required by 10 CFR 

50.150(a). The applicant or licensee 

must also describe in a change to the 

FSAR (i.e., a plant-specific departure 

from the generic design control 

document), how the modified design 

features and functional capabilities 

continue to meet the assessment 

requirements in the aircraft impact rule. 

An applicant or licensee’s submittal of 

this updated information to the NRC 

will be governed by the reporting 

requirements in the applicable design 

certification rule. The NRC expects to 

continue, in future standard design 

certification rulemakings, its practice of 

adopting reporting requirements 

analogous to Section X.B of the four 

existing standard design certification 

rules. Licensees making changes to 

design features or capabilities included 

in the certified design may also need to 

develop alternate means to cope with 

the loss of large areas of the plant from 

explosions or fires to comply with the 

requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(hh). 

Paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of 10 CFR 50.150 

governs combined license applicants or 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28123 

holders which are not subject to 10 CFR 

50.150(a) but reference a manufactured 

reactor which is subject to 10 CFR 

50.150(a). For such applicants and 

licensees, proposed departures from the 

information required by 10 CFR 

52.157(f)(32) to be included in the FSAR 

for the manufacturing license are 

governed by the applicable 

requirements in 10 CFR 52.171(b)(2). 

Paragraph (b)(2) of 10 CFR 52.171 

allows an applicant or licensee who 

references or uses a nuclear power 

reactor manufactured under a 

manufacturing license under this 

subpart to request a departure from the 

design characteristics, site parameters, 

terms and conditions, or approved 

design of the manufactured reactor. The 

Commission may grant a request only if 

it determines that the departure will 

comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 

52.7 and that the special circumstances 

outweigh any decrease in safety that 

may result from the reduction in 

standardization caused by the 

departure. 

Generic changes for manufacturing 

licenses which are subject to 10 CFR 

51.150(a) are addressed in 10 CFR 

50.150(c)(5)(i), which states that generic 

changes to the information required by 

10 CFR 52.157(f)(32) to be included in 

the FSAR are governed by the 

applicable requirements of 10 CFR 

52.171. Under the provisions of 10 CFR 

52.171, ‘‘Finality of manufacturing 

licenses; Information requests,’’ the 

holder of a manufacturing license may 

not make changes to the design features 

or functional capabilities described in 

the FSAR without prior Commission 

approval. The request for a change to 

the design must be in the form of an 

application for a license amendment, 

and must meet the requirements of 10 

CFR 50.90, ‘‘Application for amendment 

of license, construction permit, or early 

site permit,’’ and 10 CFR 50.92, 

‘‘Issuance of amendment.’’ 

Paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of 10 CFR 50.150 

governs manufacturing licenses which 

are not subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a). 

Similar to a combined license 

application, in a manufacturing license 

application referencing a design 

certification, departures from the 

information required by 10 CFR 

52.47(a)(28) to be included in the FSAR 

for the referenced standard design 

certification are governed by the change 

control requirements in the applicable 

design certification rule. 

There are no provisions in 10 CFR 

50.150(c) governing changes to a 

standard design approval because a 

design feature or functional capability 

described in a standard design approval 

may not be changed generically except 

under an application for a new design 

approval. There are no provisions in 10 

CFR part 52 for making generic changes 

to a standard design approval. 

Paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 52.145, 

‘‘Finality of standard design approvals; 

information requests,’’ states that an 

approved design must be used by and 

relied upon by the NRC staff and the 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards in their review of any 

individual facility license application 

that incorporates by reference a 

standard design approval unless there 

exists significant new information that 

substantially affects the earlier 

determination or other good cause. 

Therefore, any changes to a design 

feature or functional capability 

described in a standard design approval 

will be subject to review by the NRC in 

any application that references the 

design approval. Note that 10 CFR 

52.131, ‘‘Scope of subpart,’’ states that 

an applicant may submit standard 

designs for a nuclear power reactor or 

major portions thereof. To the extent 

that a standard design approval is 

issued for only a portion of a nuclear 

power reactor, any applicant referencing 

that design approval will have to 

separately comply with the 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.150 for any 

portion of the design not addressed in 

the design approval issued by the NRC. 

VI. Responses to Public Comments 

A. Overview of Public Comments 

The public comment period for the 

proposed rule closed on December 17, 

2007. The NRC received 32 comment 

letters on the proposed rule. Of those 

comments, 31 commenters were in favor 

of requiring aircraft impact assessments 

on nuclear power plants; one 

commenter was against requiring an 

aircraft impact assessment. Several 

commenters also endorsed other 

commenters’ views, where some 

provided comments in addition to those 

they endorsed. No commenters 

supported the rule exactly as proposed. 

Due to the large number of comments 

received and the length of the responses 

provided, this section of the final rule 

only provides a summary of the 

categories of comments with a general 

description of the resolution of those 

comments. The detailed description of 

the comments and the NRC responses 

are available electronically at the NRC’s 

electronic Reading Room, ADAMS 

Accession No. ML090610124. 

The proposed aircraft impact rule was 

published in advance of publication of 

draft NRC guidance for implementing 

the rule. The NRC indicated in the 

proposed rule that commenters on the 

proposed rule need not await the 

publication of the draft guidance to 

comment meaningfully on the proposed 

rule (see 72 FR 56298; October 3, 2007). 

The NRC only received one comment 

suggesting that either the proposed rule 

language or information on the aircraft 

impact characteristics which was 

provided in the Supplementary 

Information for the proposed rule 

prevented or significantly impeded the 

commenter from understanding the 

proposed rule or commenting on it. 

Moreover, as described in the following 

discussion, the NRC received many 

comments effectively (if not explicitly) 

directed at one or more aspects of the 

aircraft impact characteristics. 

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that 

the NRC provided sufficient information 

on the proposed aircraft impact rule to 

allow the public a meaningful 

opportunity to comment on the 

proposed rule’s requirements. 

B. Responses to Specific Requests for 

Comments 

In Section VIII of the Supplementary 

Information for the proposed rule, the 

NRC posed eight questions for which it 

solicited stakeholder comments. In the 

following paragraphs, these questions 

are restated, comments received from 

stakeholders are summarized, and the 

NRC resolution of the public comments 

is presented. 

1. Inclusion of impact assessment in 

application. The proposed rule does not 

require that the assessment of aircraft 

impacts that would be mandated by 

proposed 10 CFR 52.500(b) be included 

in the FSAR or otherwise submitted as 

part of the application for a standard 

design certification, standard design 

approval, combined license, or 

manufacturing license. However, the 

NRC is proposing that a description of 

the design features, functional 

capabilities, and strategies credited by 

the applicant to avoid or mitigate the 

effects of the applicable, beyond-designbasis aircraft impact be included in the 

FSAR submitted with the relevant 

application. In addition, the FSAR must 

contain an evaluation of how such 

design features, functional capabilities, 

and strategies to avoid or mitigate, to the 

extent practicable, the effects of the 

applicable aircraft impact with reduced 

reliance on operator actions. The NRC is 

seeking specific comments on the 

desirability, or lack thereof, of requiring, 

in the final rule, that applicants include 

the aircraft impact assessment required 

by proposed 10 CFR 52.500(b) in the 

FSAR or another part of the application. 

Commenters’ Response: The three 

industry commenters who addressed 

this question (Nuclear Energy Institute 

28124 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(NEI), Morgan Lewis, and AREVA 

Nuclear Power (AREVA NP)) indicated 

that the impact assessment should not 

be included with the application. NEI 

indicated that a description [of the 

assessment] and the evaluation under 10 

CFR 52.500(c) need to be included. In a 

separate comment, NEI expressed its 

view that the submittal on aircraft 

impacts would be classified as a 

safeguards information document. 

NRC Response: The final rule does 

not require that the assessment of 

aircraft impacts be included in the 

PSAR or FSAR or otherwise submitted 

as part of the application for a 

construction permit, operating license, 

standard design certification, standard 

design approval, combined license, or 

manufacturing license. However, 10 

CFR 50.150(b) does require that a 

description of the design features and 

functional capabilities credited by the 

applicant to show that the facility can 

withstand the effects of the aircraft 

impact be included in the PSAR or 

FSAR submitted with the relevant 

application. In addition, the PSAR or 

FSAR must contain a description of how 

such design features and functional 

capabilities meet the acceptance criteria 

in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1). The aircraft 

impact assessment will be subject to 

inspection by the NRC and, therefore, 

must be maintained by the applicant 

along with the rest of the information 

that forms the basis for the relevant 

application. The NRC expects that, 

generally, the information that it needs 

to perform its review of the application 

to assess the applicant’s compliance 

with 10 CFR 50.150 will be that 

information contained in the applicant’s 

PSAR or FSAR. For these reasons, the 

final rule does not require applicants to 

submit the aircraft impact assessment to 

the NRC. 

2. Acceptance criteria. The 

acceptance criterion contained in 

proposed 10 CFR 52.500 by which the 

NRC may judge the required assessment 

and evaluation is the practicability 

criterion addressed in paragraph (c), 

that is, that the applicant must describe 

how the ‘‘design features, functional 

capabilities, and strategies avoid or 

mitigate, to the extent practicable, the 

effects of the applicable aircraft impact 

with reduced reliance on operator 

actions.’’ The NRC is considering 

adding an additional acceptance 

criterion to proposed 10 CFR 52.500 for 

judging the acceptability of the 

applicant’s aircraft impact assessment 

and evaluation. The NRC is seeking 

specific comments on the desirability, 

or lack thereof, of adding an additional 

acceptance criterion in the final rule 

beyond the proposed rule’s 

practicability criterion. Such an 

additional acceptance criterion could 

read, for example: 

The application must also describe how 

such design features, functional capabilities, 

and strategies will provide reasonable 

assurance that any release of radioactive 

materials to the environment will not 

produce public exposures exceeding 10 CFR 

part 100 guidelines. 

Commenters’ Response: Three 

industry commenters (NEI, Morgan 

Lewis, and AREVA NP) opposed the use 

of 10 CFR part 100 dose limits as 

acceptance criteria for the aircraft 

impact rule. NEI and Morgan Lewis 

asserted that the use of 10 CFR part 100 

dose limits would imply that the aircraft 

impact is a design basis event, inasmuch 

as 10 CFR part 100 dose limits are used 

to evaluate the acceptability of design 

features addressing design basis events. 

Use of 10 CFR part 100 dose limits, 

therefore, could be misinterpreted and 

result in unnecessary expenditure of 

industry and NRC resources. As an 

alternative, NEI suggested that the NRC 

adopt the following functional 

acceptance criteria: (1) Demonstrate that 

the reactor core remains cooled or the 

containment remains intact; and (2) 

demonstrate that spent fuel cooling or 

spent fuel pool integrity is maintained. 

NRC Response: The NRC agrees with 

the commenters’ recommendations for 

alternative acceptance criteria and 

agrees that 10 CFR part 100 dose limits 

should not be used for the purpose of 

this rule. The NRC decided not to adopt 

an additional acceptance criterion based 

on 10 CFR part 100 dose limits in the 

final rule for the reasons outlined by the 

commenters, namely, that the 10 CFR 

part 100 limits are limits that the NRC 

uses to judge compliance with design 

basis requirements. The NRC is revising 

the criteria necessary to comply with 

the final rule consistent with one 

commenter’s suggestion. In the final 

rule, applicants continue to be required 

to perform a design-specific assessment 

of the effects of the impact of a large, 

commercial aircraft. In addition, the 

final rule requires applicants to use 

realistic analyses to identify and 

incorporate into the design those design 

features and functional capabilities to 

show that, with reduced use of operator 

action: (1) The reactor core remains 

cooled or the containment remains 

intact, and (2) spent fuel cooling or 

spent fuel pool integrity is maintained. 

The final rule removes references to 

considering the practicality of including 

the design features and functional 

capabilities identified as a result of the 

assessment. The acceptance criteria in 

the rule must be shown to be met to 

achieve compliance with the rule’s 

requirements. 

3. Records retention. The proposed 

rule relies on the general record 

retention requirements in 10 CFR 

50.71(c) for retention of the assessment 

required by proposed 10 CFR 52.500 for 

combined license and manufacturing 

license applicants subject to proposed 

10 CFR 52.500. The NRC intends to 

similarly rely on a general design 

certification rule provisions for 

retention of the assessment required by 

proposed 10 CFR 52.500 for design 

certification applicants and combined 

license and manufacturing license 

holders that reference a design 

certification. The NRC is requesting 

specific comments on whether, in lieu 

of the specific design certification rule 

provisions or reliance on 10 CFR 

50.71(c), the NRC should adopt as part 

of the final 10 CFR 52.500 rulemaking 

a specific provision that would 

explicitly mandate the retention of the 

assessment. Such a provision would be 

included in an additional paragraph of 

final 10 CFR 52.500, and would set forth 

the proposed period of retention. 

Inclusion of a generic records retention 

requirement in final 10 CFR 52.500 

would preclude the need for the NRC to 

include a specific records retention 

provision in each standard design 

certification subject to final 10 CFR 

52.500. The NRC requests comments on 

whether such a provision should be 

included in final 10 CFR 52.500, 

together with specific reasons in 

support of the commenter’s position. 

The NRC also requests comments on 

the appropriate period for retention of 

the assessment, evaluation, and 

supporting documentation. The NRC is 

considering the following alternatives: 

• For a standard design certification, 

combined license, and manufacturing 

license the period of NRC review prior 

to NRC final action on the application. 

• For a standard design certification 

and manufacturing license, the duration 

of the design certification or 

manufacturing license (i.e., the period 

during which the design certification or 

manufactured reactor may be 

referenced, including any renewal). 

• For a standard design certification 

or manufacturing license, until the 

licensee of the final referencing license 

has submitted a certification under 10 

CFR 50.82(a), or the final referencing 

license has been terminated. 

• For a combined license, when the 

licensee has submitted a certification 

under 10 CFR 50.82(a), or the combined 

license has been terminated. 

Commenters’ Response: All the 

industry commenters (NEI, Morgan 

Lewis, and AREVA NP) who 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28125 

commented on this question stated that 

the existing NRC records retention 

requirements are sufficient. AREVA NP 

also stated that the records retention 

requirements should apply to design 

certification holders for the time that the 

design certification is in effect. 

NRC Response: The NRC agrees with 

the commenters. No changes were made 

to the proposed rule’s record retention 

requirements in the final rule. The final 

rule relies on the general record 

retention requirements in 10 CFR 

50.71(c) for retention of the assessment 

for combined license and manufacturing 

license holders subject to 10 CFR 

50.150. The NRC intends to similarly 

rely on general design certification rule 

provisions for retention of the 

assessment required by proposed 10 

CFR 50.150 for design certification 

applicants and combined license and 

manufacturing license holders that 

reference a design certification. 

4. Requests to amend existing 

standard design certifications to address 

aircraft impacts. The NRC has 

concluded that it does not need to apply 

the proposed rule to the four currently 

approved standard design certifications, 

as discussed in detail in Section III of 

the Supplementary Information of the 

proposed rule. Nonetheless, the original 

applicant (or another qualified entity) 

may request an amendment to the 

standard design certification to add 

design features, functional capabilities, 

or strategies in accordance with the 

requirements of 10 CFR 52.500. The 

NRC encourages such requests for 

amendment by the applicants for the 

four current standard design 

certifications because it will further 

enhance the already high levels of safety 

and security provided by these reactor 

designs. These design modifications 

may be implemented in different ways 

as described in Section III of the 

Supplementary Information of the 

proposed rule. However, under the 

proposed rule, there are no standards, 

other than those contained in 10 CFR 

52.63(a), for judging changes to the 

design to address the effects of an 

aircraft impact. The NRC requests 

specific comments on whether it should 

use the same criterion to judge 

amendments to an existing design 

certification as it would use on a new 

design certification applicant under the 

proposed 10 CFR 52.500. 

Commenters’ Response: One industry 

commenter (NEI) stated that voluntary 

requests to amend existing design 

certifications to address aircraft impacts 

should be held to the same standard as 

new design certification applications, 

because to do otherwise would 

introduce inconsistency into the 

regulatory process. One industry 

commenter (Morgan Lewis) agreed with 

the NEI position, adding that if the 

holder of an existing design certification 

does not voluntarily comply with the 

rule, then combined license applicants 

that reference that design certification 

will still be required to comply with the 

proposed 10 CFR 73.55 amendment, and 

these applicants would not receive the 

benefits of any design changes in 

response to the proposed rule on aircraft 

impacts. As encouraged by the proposed 

rule, some commenters noted that 

reactor vendors with existing design 

certifications may voluntarily request 

the NRC to amend the design 

certifications to address aircraft impacts. 

Some commenters stated that the NRC 

should use the same criteria for 

evaluating such requests for 

amendments to existing design 

certifications as it uses for evaluating 

new applications for design 

certifications. Some commenters also 

stated that combined license applicants 

that reference the amendment to a 

design certification that voluntarily 

complies with the aircraft impact rule 

should be treated the same as a 

combined license applicant that 

references a new design certification 

that is required to comply with the 

aircraft impact rule. 

NRC Response: The NRC agrees with 

the commenters that the NRC should 

use the same criteria for evaluating 

voluntary requests for amendments to 

currently approved design certifications 

as it uses for evaluating new 

applications for design certifications. To 

ensure consistency among all new 

reactor designs, the NRC must apply the 

same criteria to voluntary requests for 

amendments to existing design 

certifications as it uses for evaluating 

new applications for design 

certifications or applications for 

combined licenses that reference a 

design certification that has not been 

amended to address the aircraft impact 

rule. 

The NRC has determined, consistent 

with the proposed aircraft impact rule, 

that the four currently approved 

standard design certifications in 

Appendices A through D to 10 CFR part 

52 should not be required to comply 

with the final aircraft impact rule during 

the period of effectiveness of the initial 

certification period. However, an 

applicant for renewal of one of the 

currently approved design certifications 

that has not been previously amended to 

comply with the aircraft impact rule 

must comply with the rule during 

renewal. Therefore, the original 

applicants for the four existing design 

certifications (or their successors in 

interest) are not required to submit 

applications to recertify their designs as 

complying with the final aircraft impact 

rule, except at renewal if the 

certifications have not voluntarily been 

amended previously. However, based 

upon NRC’s consideration of public 

comments and its assessment of 

alternative regulatory approaches for 

ensuring that all newly designed and 

constructed nuclear power plants 

comply with the aircraft impact rule, the 

NRC has decided that the best 

regulatory approach is to require any 

combined license applicant referencing 

one of these four existing design 

certifications to comply with the aircraft 

impact rule, unless the referenced 

design certification has been amended 

to comply with the aircraft impact rule. 

The NRC’s decision on the regulatory 

approach for achieving the objective 

that all newly-designed and constructed 

nuclear power plants comply with the 

aircraft impact rule stems from: (1) 

NRC’s acknowledgement of the view— 

expressed by a wide range of 

stakeholders—that public confidence in 

future nuclear power reactors will be 

enhanced by requiring all newlyconstructed nuclear power plants, 

including those based upon one of the 

four currently approved design 

certifications, to meet the requirements 

of the aircraft impact rule; and (2) NRC’s 

assessment that there appears to be little 

or no commercial interest at this time by 

domestic U.S. entities in using certain 

design certifications. The NRC agrees 

with the view, expressed by many 

stakeholders across a wide spectrum of 

interests and background, that the 

underlying objectives of the aircraft 

impact rule would not be fully achieved 

if a subset of future nuclear power plant 

applicants—namely, those applicants 

who reference one of the four existing 

design certifications—are not required 

to comply with the aircraft impact rule. 

Thus, the NRC has decided that all 

future nuclear power plants to be 

constructed and operated in the U.S. 

should use designs which comply with 

the final aircraft impact rule. However, 

given that objective, the NRC believes 

that it should adopt a regulatory 

approach for achieving that objective in 

a manner that does not unduly affect the 

resource planning of potential combined 

license applicants considering 

referencing one of the currently 

approved design certifications. To adopt 

a regulatory approach which mandates 

a delay in NRC action on a combined 

license application referencing one of 

the four currently approved until that 

design certification is amended to 

comply with the aircraft impact rule 

28126 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

seems unduly restrictive, especially 

where the combined license applicant is 

ready and willing to comply with the 

aircraft impact rule. Accordingly, the 

NRC determined that it would adopt the 

regulatory approach reflected in the 

final rule. 

5. Applicability to future 10 CFR part 

50 license applicants. The NRC is 

proposing to apply the requirements in 

proposed 10 CFR 52.500 to 10 CFR part 

52 applicants only, specifically, to 

applicants for standard design 

certifications issued after the effective 

date of the final rule that do not 

reference a standard design approval; 

standard design approvals issued after 

the effective date of the final rule; 

combined licenses issued after the 

effective date of the final rule that do 

not reference a standard design 

certification, standard design approval, 

or manufactured reactor; and 

manufacturing licenses issued after the 

effective date of the final rule that do 

not reference a standard design 

certification or standard design 

approval. However, the NRC is 

considering extending the applicability 

of the proposed 10 CFR 52.500 

requirements to future applicants for 

construction permits under 10 CFR part 

50. The NRC requests specific 

comments on the desirability, or lack 

thereof, of extending, to future 10 CFR 

part 50 construction permit applicants, 

the applicability of the proposed 

requirements to perform an aircraft 

impact assessment and to evaluate the 

design features, functional capabilities, 

and strategies to avoid or mitigate, to the 

extent practicable, the effects of the 

applicable, beyond-design-basis aircraft 

impact. 

Commenters’ Response: One industry 

commenter (NEI) recommended that 

future applicants for new construction 

permits under 10 CFR part 50 should be 

required to meet the rule, but that 

current holders of construction permits, 

including those whose plants are 

essentially complete, should not be 

required to comply with the rule. The 

commenter suggested that plants with 

an existing construction permit and 

plants where construction is essentially 

complete should be subject to the same 

requirements as operating plants, which 

are required to have mitigation actions 

for large area fires and explosions. To 

require otherwise would be impractical 

and result in a financial burden in 

changing a design that is essentially 

built. 

NRC Response: The NRC agrees with 

the commenter that future applicants for 

new construction permits under 10 CFR 

part 50 should be required to meet the 

rule, but that current holders of 

construction permits should not be 

required to comply with the rule. The 

NRC is making the final rule applicable 

to 10 CFR part 50 license applicants as 

well as applicants under 10 CFR part 52 

to maintain consistency in the technical 

requirements that are applied to new 

applicants under 10 CFR parts 50 and 

52. The final rule requires both new 

power reactor construction permit 

applicants and operating license 

applicants to perform the required 

assessment and include the description 

of the identified design features and 

functional capabilities in their 

applications. The final rule is being 

applied to applicants at both 

construction permit and operating 

license stage because it is not until the 

operating license stage that the 

applicant is required to provide the NRC 

with its final design. The NRC can issue 

a construction permit based on 

preliminary design information. 

Therefore, the NRC believes it is 

necessary to require applicants to 

perform the aircraft impact assessment 

at both stages and to include the 

required information in both 

applications based on the level of design 

information available at the time of each 

application. 

In making these additions, the NRC is 

making it clear that the requirements are 

not meant to apply to operating license 

applications for which construction 

permits were issued before the effective 

date of this final rule. This is because 

existing construction permits are likely 

to involve designs which are essentially 

complete and may involve sites where 

construction has already taken place. 

Applying the final rule to operating 

license applications for which there are 

existing construction permits could 

result in an undue financial burden to 

change a design for a plant that is 

partially constructed. Such a financial 

burden is not justifiable in light of the 

fact that the NRC considers the events 

to which the aircraft impact rule is 

directed to be beyond-design-basis 

events and compliance with the rule is 

not needed for adequate protection to 

public health and safety or common 

defense and security. Moreover, such 

operating license applicants will be 

required to comply with the 

requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(hh) to 

identify actions to mitigate the effects of 

large fires and explosions, including 

those caused by aircraft impacts. For 

these reasons, the NRC is not requiring 

operating license applicants with an 

existing construction permit to comply 

with the final rule. 

6. Addition of technical requirements 

to 10 CFR part 52. In the recent revision 

to 10 CFR part 52, the NRC took a 

comprehensive approach to 

reorganizing 10 CFR part 52 and making 

conforming changes throughout 10 CFR 

Chapter I, ‘‘Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission,’’ to reflect the licensing 

and approval processes in 10 CFR part 

52. In that rulemaking, the NRC 

reviewed the existing regulations in 10 

CFR Chapter I to determine if the 

existing regulations needed to be 

modified to reflect the licensing and 

approval processes in 10 CFR part 52. In 

making conforming changes involving 

10 CFR part 50 provisions, the NRC 

adopted the general principle of keeping 

the technical requirements in 10 CFR 

part 50 and maintaining all applicable 

procedural requirements in 10 CFR part 

52. This proposed aircraft impact rule 

represents a departure from that general 

principle in that it proposes to include 

specific technical requirements in 10 

CFR part 52 and would create a separate 

subpart for inclusion of future, similar, 

technical requirements. The NRC is 

considering relocating the proposed 

aircraft impact requirements from 10 

CFR 52.500 to a new section in 10 CFR 

part 50 to maintain the general principle 

it established in the comprehensive 10 

CFR part 52 rulemaking. The NRC 

requests specific comments on the 

desirability, or lack thereof, of relocating 

the proposed aircraft impact 

requirements from 10 CFR 52.500 to a 

new section in 10 CFR part 50. 

Commenters’ Response: One industry 

commenter (NEI) stated that the 

requirements should be placed in 10 

CFR part 52 because the assessment 

relates to a beyond-design-basis event 

and is intended to apply to design 

certifications. One industry commenter 

(Morgan Lewis) generally agreed with 

NEI, but stated if the aircraft impact 

rule’s requirements are to be imposed 

on future 10 CFR part 50 construction 

permit applicants, then the 

requirements should be included in 10 

CFR part 50, consistent with the general 

principle established in the recent 10 

CFR part 52 rulemaking (72 FR 49352; 

August 28, 2007). 

NRC Response: The NRC is relocating 

the aircraft impact requirements from 10 

CFR 52.500 as proposed to new section 

10 CFR 50.150. Similarly, requirements 

for the control of changes to FSAR 

information is relocated from 10 CFR 

52.502 as proposed to 10 CFR 50.150(c). 

These sections were relocated to 

maintain the general principle that the 

NRC established in the comprehensive 

10 CFR part 52 rulemaking, that is, to 

maintain the technical requirements in 

10 CFR part 50 for plants licensed under 

10 CFR part 52. Furthermore, because 

the final rule is also applicable to 

applicants for new construction permits 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28127 

and operating licenses under 10 CFR 

part 50, the relocation of the aircraft 

impact assessment requirements to 10 

CFR part 50 is necessary. 

7. Applicability to design approvals 

and manufacturing licenses. The 

proposed rule would apply to future 

design approvals or manufacturing 

licenses. In the recent comprehensive 

rulemaking on 10 CFR part 52, the NRC 

strived for a high level of consistency in 

the requirements for design 

certifications, design approvals, and 

manufacturing licenses, given the 

similarity in the regulatory functions of 

these three processes. However, it is not 

clear that there will be future design 

approval applications, in light of the 

NRC’s recent determination to remove 

the design approval as a prerequisite for 

obtaining a design certification. 

Similarly, there does not appear to be 

any near-term interest in obtaining a 

manufacturing license for the 

manufacture of a nuclear power plant. 

Therefore, the NRC is considering 

eliminating the applicability of the 

proposed 10 CFR 52.500 requirements 

to future applicants for design approvals 

and manufacturing licenses. The NRC 

requests specific comments on the 

desirability, or lack thereof, of 

eliminating the applicability of the 

proposed 10 CFR 52.500 requirements 

to future applicants for design approvals 

and manufacturing licenses. 

Commenters’ Response: One industry 

commenter (NEI) stated that the 

proposed rule’s requirements should not 

be applied to future applicants for 

design approvals and manufacturing 

licenses, but provided no rationale for 

its recommendation. One industry 

commenter (Morgan Lewis) indicated 

that this issue is difficult to evaluate at 

this time, and it would be better to defer 

consideration of this issue, inasmuch as 

the NRC could later amend the rule as 

necessary. 

NRC Response: The NRC disagrees 

with the commenters because the scope 

of and reviews for design approvals and 

manufacturing licenses are essentially 

the same as for design certifications. 

The NRC sees no benefit in deferring the 

decision on applicability to design 

approvals and manufacturing licenses to 

a later time. Therefore, the final rule 

applies to future design approval or 

manufacturing license applicants. 

8. Scope of design evaluated. The 

proposed 10 CFR 52.500 would be 

applicable to all standard design 

certifications, standard design 

approvals, and manufacturing licenses 

issued after the effective date of the final 

rule and to all combined licenses issued 

after the effective date of the final rule 

that do not reference a standard design 

certification, standard design approval, 

or manufacturing license. However, the 

proposed rule does not address the 

difference in the scope of the facility 

design that would be considered by an 

applicant for a standard design 

certification, standard design approval, 

or manufacturing license and the scope 

of the design that would be considered 

by a combined license applicant. For a 

standard design certification, standard 

design approval, or manufacturing 

license, the applicant is required to 

address only a subset of the facility 

design that a combined license 

applicant is required to address. In 

general, a design certification, design 

approval, or manufacturing license 

applicant is required to address such 

items as the reactor core, reactor coolant 

system, instrumentation and control 

systems, electrical systems, containment 

system, other engineered safety features, 

auxiliary and emergency systems, power 

conversion systems, radioactive waste 

handling systems, and fuel handling 

systems. In contrast, a combined license 

applicant also must address site-specific 

design features, such as the ultimate 

heat sink. Combined license applicants 

that do not reference a design 

certification, design approval, or 

manufactured reactor could address 

such site-specific design features in 

their evaluation of design features, 

functional capabilities, and strategies to 

avoid or mitigate, to the extent 

practicable, the effects of the applicable 

aircraft impact with reduced reliance on 

operator actions. However, the proposed 

rule does not impose any requirements 

on a combined license applicant that 

references a design certification, design 

approval, or manufactured reactor with 

regard to addressing the potential effects 

of an aircraft impact on such sitespecific portions of the design. The 

proposed rule could, therefore, 

introduce an inconsistency in the 

treatment of combined license 

applicants that reference a design 

certification, design approval, or 

manufactured reactor and combined 

license applicants that submit a custom 

design. Therefore, to ensure consistent 

treatment of all combined license 

applicants, the NRC is considering an 

alternative approach in the final rule. 

One approach that the NRC is 

considering is to adopt additional 

requirements for combined license 

applicants that reference a design 

certification, design approval, or 

manufactured reactor that would require 

such applicants to evaluate that portion 

of the design excluded from the design 

certification, design approval, or 

manufactured reactor for additional 

design features, functional capabilities, 

or strategies to avoid or mitigate, to the 

extent practicable, the effects of the 

applicable aircraft impact with reduced 

reliance on operator actions. 

Alternatively, the NRC is considering 

limiting the scope of the evaluation for 

combined license applicants not 

referencing a design certification, design 

approval, or manufactured reactor to 

that portion of the design that would 

otherwise be covered in a design 

certification, design approval, or 

manufacturing license application, 

which would include the majority of the 

facility considered most vulnerable to 

an aircraft impact. The NRC requests 

specific comments on the desirability, 

or lack thereof, of adopting one of these 

alternative approaches in the final rule. 

Commenters’ Response: Two industry 

commenters (NEI and Morgan Lewis) 

argued that the scope of the aircraft 

impact assessment for combined license 

applicants should be the same scope as 

the assessment required for a new 

design certification. This would ensure 

consistency among all combined license 

applicants regardless of whether they 

reference or not reference a design 

certification, and would cover the 

majority of the portion of the plant 

design which is considered most 

vulnerable to an aircraft impact. 

NRC Response: The NRC disagrees 

with the commenters. The NRC believes 

that the greatest benefit from 

implementation of this final rule will be 

achieved by having each applicant 

consider as much of the facility design 

as possible when it is performing the 

aircraft impact assessment. Design 

certification, design approval, and 

manufactured reactor applicants will 

only logically be able to consider that 

part of the facility design within the 

scope of the certification, approval, or 

license. However, combined license 

applicants that do not reference a design 

certification, design approval, or 

manufactured reactor, or reference one 

of the four currently approved design 

certifications which has not been 

previously amended to comply with the 

aircraft impact rule, will have the entire 

facility design available for 

consideration. This means, as a practical 

matter, that the scope of the overall 

plant design which is subject to the 

aircraft impact rule’s requirements may 

be greater for a ‘‘custom’’ combined 

license applicant who does not 

reference a design certification, design 

approval, or manufactured reactor. The 

NRC believes it is preferable to benefit 

from this broader review for those 

combined license applicants that must 

perform the aircraft impact assessment 

than it is to limit their review to the 

28128 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

scope of the design that would 

otherwise be considered by, for 

example, a design certification 

applicant. The NRC believes its 

approach is preferable to that suggested 

by the commenters even though it 

results in combined license applicants 

that reference a certified design, design 

approval, or manufactured reactor 

assessing a different scope of the facility 

design than a ‘‘custom’’ combined 

license applicant. The NRC believes 

that, as a result of such an approach, 

combined license holders that reference 

a certified design, design approval, or 

manufactured reactor will likely need to 

do more work to comply with the 

proposed requirements for licensees to 

develop and adopt mitigative strategies 

to cope with large fires and explosions 

in 10 CFR 50.54(hh) than will a 

‘‘custom’’ combined license holder that 

has assessed the entire facility at the 

design stage in accordance with this 

final rule. For these reasons, the NRC 

has not made any changes to the 

assessment requirements for combined 

license applicants in the final rule. 

C. Responses to Remaining Comments 

The comments were separated into 11 

categories based on their relevance to 

particular topics. The comments and 

responses contained in the first category 

are summarized in Section VI.B of the 

Supplementary Information of this 

document. The comments and 

responses contained in the second 

through the eleventh category are 

summarized in the following 

paragraphs. 

The second category addresses the 

overall need to address aircraft impacts. 

Some commenters supported, while 

others opposed, requiring an aircraft 

impact assessment. No changes were 

made to the proposed rule as a result of 

these comments. The NRC believes that 

requiring new plant designers or 

combined license applicants to perform 

this assessment will result in new plants 

having additional inherent protection 

against the effects of an aircraft impact. 

The third category addresses the 

scope of applicants and licensees that 

the rule is applicable to. Some 

commenters suggested that the rule 

should also apply to all currently 

operating nuclear power reactors, 

reactors with spent fuel in onsite pool 

storage structures, combined license 

applicants (regardless of the design 

being referenced), and currently 

approved design certifications. Other 

commenters suggested not applying the 

rule to currently operating reactors. The 

final rule does not apply to currently 

operating reactors but does apply to all 

applicants for new nuclear power 

reactors. It also applies to the four 

currently approved design certifications, 

but only at renewal if they have not 

been voluntarily amended to comply 

with the aircraft impact rule. 

The fourth category addresses 

adequate protection and consideration 

of aircraft impacts as a beyond-designbasis event. Some commenters agreed 

that aircraft impacts should be treated as 

a beyond-design-basis event, while 

others opposed the treatment of aircraft 

impacts as a beyond-design-basis event. 

Others suggested that NRC does not 

have the statutory authority to require 

consideration of the effects of an action 

in the nature of an attack by an enemy 

of the U.S. The NRC did not make any 

change to the proposed rule’s treatment 

of these issues. The final rule continues 

to identify an aircraft impact as a 

beyond-design-basis event. 

The fifth category addresses the 

Commission’s specified aircraft 

characteristics. Some commenters 

suggested that the general description of 

aircraft characteristics is adequate, 

whereas others suggested that the 

proposed aircraft characteristics are not 

adequate. The description of the aircraft 

characteristics has not changed in the 

final rule. 

The sixth category addresses the 

aircraft impact assessment. Some 

commenters suggested that the 

assessment needs to consider all real 

consequences of the aircraft impact, 

while other commenters suggested that 

the assessment should use standardized 

and validated models and be based on 

practical and realistic criteria, 

assumptions, and methodologies. The 

assessment requirements are not 

changed from the proposed rule. The 

final rule requires the assessment to be 

rigorous and performed using realistic 

assumptions. 

The seventh category addresses the 

evaluation of design features, functional 

capabilities, and strategies as described 

in the proposed rule. Some commenters 

suggested providing acceptance criteria 

in the rule, clarifying the NRC’s intent 

in using the term ‘‘avoid,’’ requiring 

features which would prevent the 

impact from occurring, preventing the 

applicant from implementing design 

tradeoffs which would negatively 

impact safety, and providing additional 

guidance on the intent of the terms ‘‘to 

the extent practical’’ and ‘‘reduced 

reliance on operator actions.’’ The final 

rule does provide explicit acceptance 

criteria to judge the results of the 

assessment and eliminates the use of the 

phrases ‘‘avoid or mitigate’’ and ‘‘to the 

extent practical.’’ In addition, the final 

rule provides additional clarification on 

the intent of the term ‘‘reduced use of 

operator actions.’’ 

The eighth category addresses issue 

resolution and regulatory 

implementation issues. Some 

commenters suggested that the final rule 

should clarify that the assessment and 

evaluation are part of the design 

certification rulemaking and provide 

issue resolution for subsequent 

combined license applicants, and that 

contentions on their adequacy will not 

be entertained in individual combined 

license proceedings. Other commenters 

suggested that the aircraft impact 

assessment need not be updated as part 

of a license renewal application, and 

others suggested that the design features 

incorporated into the design under a 

design certification are not part of the 

plant’s physical security requirements 

and, therefore, not subject to review at 

the combined license stage. The final 

rule reflects that the NRC will review 

the information required to be 

submitted under 10 CFR 50.150(b) and 

will accord issue resolution. The NRC 

agreed, in general, with the comment 

that the aircraft impact assessment need 

not be updated as part of a license 

renewal application, with one 

exception. The NRC has added 

provisions in the final rule that have the 

effect of requiring each of the four 

currently approved design certifications 

to comply with the aircraft impact rule 

at the time of renewal, if that design has 

not been previously amended to comply 

with the aircraft impact rule. The NRC 

agrees that the design features selected 

by the designer and incorporated into a 

design certification are not subject to 

review at the combined license stage 

from the standpoint of compliance with 

the aircraft impact rule. However, the 

NRC disagrees with the view that design 

features incorporated into a design 

certification as a result of the aircraft 

impact rule would not be subject to a 

physical security review under 10 CFR 

part 73 during a combined license 

application proceeding where the 

design certification is referenced. 

The ninth category addresses 

protection of safeguards and other 

sensitive information. Some 

commenters suggested that the aircraft 

characteristics should not be provided 

in the rule nor should details of the 

design features that protect against 

aircraft impacts be described in 

licensing applications. One commenter 

suggested that the proposed rule’s 

failure to provide detailed aircraft 

parameters prevents meaningful 

involvement from the public and 

experts in industry and academia, and 

that the relevant September 11, 2001 

aircraft parameters have been previously 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28129 

published in publicly available 

government documents. The NRC 

maintains the position from the 

proposed rule that the general 

information on aircraft characteristics 

provided in the rule is sufficient for the 

purposes of public comment, and no 

changes were made to the final rule as 

a result of these comments. 

The tenth category addresses 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Some 

commenters suggested that the NRC 

should prepare an environmental 

impact statement because the rule is a 

major federal action significantly 

affecting the environment and should 

consider alternatives to the proposed 

rule. The final rule did not change as a 

result of these comments because the 

rulemaking does not constitute a ‘‘major 

federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment.’’ 

The eleventh category addresses other 

comments that did not logically fit into 

the other categories. Commenters 

suggested considering other threats, not 

permitting siting of new reactors within 

5 miles of an airport, and that the 

aircraft impact assessment is an agingrelated matter. The final rule did not 

change as a result of these comments. 

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Section 50.8 Information Collection 

Requirements: OMB Approval 

This section, which lists all 

information collections in 10 CFR part 

50 which have been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), is revised by adding a reference 

to 10 CFR 50.150, the aircraft impact 

rule. As discussed below, under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement, 

the OMB has approved the information 

collection and reporting requirements in 

the final aircraft impact rule. No specific 

requirement or prohibition is imposed 

on applicants or licensees in this 

section. 

Section 50.34 Contents of Construction 

Permit and Operating License 

Applications; Technical Information 

This section describes the technical 

information which must be provided in 

applications for construction permits 

and operating licenses subject to 10 CFR 

50.150. New paragraphs (a)(13) and 

(b)(12) require each application for a 

construction permit and operating 

license subject to the aircraft impact 

rule to include the information required 

to be submitted to the NRC by 10 CFR 

50.150. 

Section 50.150 Aircraft Impact 

Assessment 

The aircraft impact rule, § 50.150, is a 

new requirement applicable at the 

design stage for new nuclear power 

facilities. The aircraft impact rule 

requires a design-specific assessment of 

the effects on the facility of the impact 

of a large commercial aircraft, and 

incorporation of design features and 

functional capabilities to show (using 

realistic analyses), with reduced use of 

operator actions, that: (1) The reactor 

core remains cooled or the containment 

remains intact; and (2) spent fuel 

cooling or spent fuel pool integrity is 

maintained. The aircraft impact rule 

was included in 10 CFR part 52 and 

designated as 10 CFR 52.500 at the 

proposed rule stage, but is now 

included in 10 CFR part 50 and 

redesignated as 10 CFR 50.150. This is 

consistent with the NRC’s intention that 

this technical requirement applies to 

licenses under part 50 as well as 

licenses and regulatory approvals under 

part 52. 

Paragraph (a) Assessment Requirements 

Paragraph (a) sets forth the 

requirements for an assessment of 

aircraft impact to be applied to the 

design of new nuclear power facilities. 

Paragraph (a) also contains the key 

provisions relating to the nature of the 

aircraft impact characteristics to be 

utilized when performing the 

assessment. The requirements relating 

to the assessment are separated into two 

paragraphs, (a)(1) and (a)(2), to help 

readers distinguish between the 

assessment of aircraft impact, and the 

characteristics of the aircraft impact that 

must be used by the facility designer in 

performing the assessment. Finally, 

paragraph (a)(3) lists the licenses, 

certifications, and regulatory approvals 

involving nuclear power reactor design 

to which the assessment requirements 

in paragraph (a) apply. 

Paragraph (a)(1) Assessment 

Paragraph (a)(1) requires a designspecific assessment of the effects of an 

impact of a large commercial aircraft on 

a nuclear power reactor facility. As 

discussed in the section-by-section 

analysis for paragraph (a)(3), every new 

nuclear power plant will meet the 

aircraft impact rule, which is one of the 

NRC’s key objectives. 

Conceptually, the assessment required 

by the aircraft impact rule has two 

aspects. The first is consideration of the 

effects on the facility of the impact of a 

large commercial aircraft. The second 

aspect is a showing that design features 

and functional capabilities incorporated 

into the design meet, with reduced use 

of operator actions, the acceptance 

criteria in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii). 

The designer may perform both aspects 

of the assessment using realistic 

analyses (discussed in greater detail 

below). The aircraft impact 

characteristics that must be used by the 

designer in performing the assessment 

are defined in paragraph (a)(2) of the 

rule. In showing that the design features 

and functional capabilities incorporated 

into the design meet the requirements of 

paragraph (a), the designer should use a 

structured process requiring 

consideration of the insights gained 

when assessing the effects on the facility 

of the aircraft impact. The NRC 

recognizes that a designer’s approach for 

implementing the rule may differ, 

depending upon the stage of completion 

of the facility design when this final 

rule is adopted or the design process 

that the designer chooses to employ. For 

example, if a facility design is largely or 

entirely completed when this rule 

becomes effective—as in the case of the 

current design applications under 

review by the NRC—the designer may 

focus on features and capabilities 

already included in the design or on 

potential enhancements of such features 

and capabilities, and then identify any 

additional features and capabilities. By 

contrast, a designer who has not yet 

commenced detailed design activities 

may decide to use an iterative screening 

process for identifying features and 

capabilities. By setting forth 

performance-based objectives, the 

aircraft impact rule does not require the 

designer to use a specific methodology, 

process or approach for identifying 

design features and functional 

capabilities that meet the acceptance 

criteria in paragraph (a)(1)(i) and (ii) 

with reduced use of operator actions. 

The designer may choose any number of 

ways to meet these performance 

requirements. 

By a ‘‘design-specific’’ assessment, the 

NRC means that the impact assessment 

must address the specific design of the 

facility which is either the subject of a 

construction permit, operating license, 

standard design certification, standard 

design approval, combined license, or 

manufacturing license application. The 

aircraft impact rule uses the term 

‘‘facility,’’ for convenience, although the 

NRC recognizes that the scope of design 

addressed in a design approval, design 

certification, and manufactured reactor 

may be less than the complete facility 

and will be limited to non-site-specific 

portions of the facility. 

In performing the assessment, the 

aircraft rule specifies that ‘‘realistic 

analyses’’ be used. Analyses include 

28130 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

both quantitative methods and 

approaches, either deterministic or 

probabilistic, and qualitative methods 

and approaches, including the use of 

expert panels. An assessment may use 

quantitative and/or qualitative analyses. 

Regardless of the method or 

combination of methods employed by 

the designer, it must be reasonable and 

technically acceptable. This can be 

shown by demonstrating that the 

analytical techniques being used are 

generally accepted by the relevant 

professional/technical practitioners for 

performing best-estimate analysis for the 

given application. An analysis may not 

be rejected by the NRC in a licensing or 

rulemaking (design certification) 

proceeding (or otherwise challenged by 

an interested person in a hearing 

contention) on the basis that a more 

accurate analysis (i.e., one that more 

closely reflects actual data or more 

accurately models a known physical 

phenomenon) is possible. In this 

context, ‘‘realistic’’ is a relative term and 

is simply intended to avoid requiring 

the designer to utilize conservative or 

bounding assumptions in recognition of 

the NRC’s determination that the impact 

of a large commercial aircraft is a 

beyond-design-basis event. However, 

the designer is free to utilize bounding 

or more conservative approaches in 

order to account for uncertainties, or to 

reduce the cost of analysis at its option. 

The NRC may not require, and an 

interested person in a hearing 

contention or in a design certification 

rulemaking comment may not argue, 

that the designer must use a 

conservative, as opposed to a realistic, 

analysis, or vice versa. Rather, the 

NRC’s review should be focused on (and 

any interested person in a hearing 

contention may only raise an issue with 

respect to) whether the designer’s 

analyses are within the bounds of 

known data, known physical 

phenomena, and use professionallyaccepted approaches. 

‘‘Design features and functional 

capabilities’’ represent design 

alternatives that could be included in 

the design of a facility. Design features 

are structures, systems, and components 

(SSCs), including the physical 

arrangement of such SSCs. Examples of 

design features are major structures 

such as reinforced concrete walls and 

slabs; redundancy and spatial 

separation of key SSCs; and diversity of 

power supplies. Functional capabilities 

are key characteristics of such SSCs that 

result in their contribution to 

withstanding the effects of the aircraft 

impact. Examples of such functional 

capabilities are the flow capacity of a 

pump, the load carrying capacity of a 

wall, and the electrical capacity of 

power supplies. When identifying 

potential design features and functional 

capabilities for inclusion in the design, 

the designer is expected to consider 

whether these design features and 

functional capabilities would facilitate 

the implementation and/or enhance the 

effectiveness of practical responsive and 

mitigation actions that the nuclear 

power plant licensee could implement. 

For example, if the designer determines 

that a fire load due to the aircraft impact 

in a specific area could be extinguished 

or controlled through the placement of 

a standpipe and hose near the area, or 

that a fire affecting critical components 

with a limited time-temperature rating 

could be more quickly controlled with 

a larger amount of water delivered 

through a larger than normally-specified 

pipe, then the designer should consider 

the design feature of a new standpipe 

and hose, or the functional capability of 

a greater capacity (larger diameter) pipe. 

The aircraft impact rule establishes 

two sets of acceptance criteria in 

paragraph (a)(1), each containing two 

sub-criteria: 

(i) The reactor core remains cooled, or 

the containment remains intact; and 

(ii) Spent fuel cooling or spent fuel 

pool integrity is maintained. 

The acceptance criteria in both 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) must be met 

in order for the NRC to find that the 

requirements of the aircraft impact rule 

have been satisfied; it is not sufficient, 

for example, to satisfy the criterion of 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) but to fail the 

criterion of paragraph (a)(1)(ii). 

Each criterion is expressed in the 

form of an alternative: within each 

criterion, only one of the sub-criteria 

needs to be satisfied in order to show 

compliance with the aircraft impact 

rule. The order of the sub-criteria does 

not reflect any requirement with respect 

to the logical order in which the NRC 

expects a designer to determine if each 

criterion is satisfied. For the first 

criterion in paragraph (a)(1)(i), the NRC 

prefers that designers identify design 

features and functional capabilities to 

demonstrate that, with reduced use of 

operator actions, the reactor core 

remains cooled. If core cooling can be 

maintained with the identified design 

features and functional capabilities (and 

with reduced use of operator action), 

then the designer need not identify and 

incorporate design features and 

functional capabilities to show that the 

containment remains intact. Otherwise, 

the designer must identify design 

features and functional capabilities that 

show that the containment remains 

intact. Likewise, a designer is afforded 

the flexibility under the aircraft impact 

rule of truncating the analysis and 

simply demonstrating that the 

containment remains intact. 

For the second criterion in paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii), the NRC prefers that designers 

identify and incorporate design features 

and functional capabilities to 

demonstrate that, with reduced use of 

operator action, spent fuel pool integrity 

is maintained. If the applicant can show 

that spent fuel pool integrity can be 

maintained with the applicant’s 

identified design features and functional 

capabilities, then no further 

consideration of design features and 

functional capabilities to maintain spent 

fuel cooling is necessary. However, if 

spent fuel pool integrity cannot be 

shown to be maintained, then spent fuel 

cooling must be maintained. Likewise, 

the aircraft impact rule affords the 

designer the flexibility of simply 

showing that spent fuel cooling can be 

maintained without first considering 

spent fuel pool integrity. The NRC 

reiterates, however, that the aircraft 

impact assessment must consider the 

effects of the aircraft impact on all four 

key safety functions—core cooling, 

containment, spent fuel cooling, and 

spent fuel pool integrity. 

There are only two bases for either an 

NRC determination or an interested 

person’s contention that the acceptance 

criteria in paragraph (a)(1) have not 

been met. One is that the analyses 

utilized by the designer in showing that 

the acceptance criteria have been met 

are not technically acceptable. The other 

basis is that the design features and 

functional capabilities overall do not 

involve any reduced use of operator 

actions. The NRC does not expect each 

design feature and functional capability 

incorporated into the design to involve 

reduced use of operator actions; the 

overall reduction in use of operator 

actions must be judged for the complete 

set of design features and functional 

capabilities relied upon in the 

assessment to show that both 

acceptance criteria in paragraph (a)(1)(i) 

and (ii) have been met. However, as 

discussed below, the NRC does not 

intend that the use of operator actions 

be reduced without consideration of 

countervailing considerations. In 

addition, the NRC does not intend to 

require consideration—much less 

inclusion in its design—of a design 

feature or functional capability that 

could have adverse safety or security 

consequences under a different 

operational or accident scenario. 

The acceptance criteria in paragraph 

(a)(1) focus on the functions of core 

cooling capability, containment, spent 

fuel cooling capability, and spent fuel 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28131 

pool integrity following the aircraft 

impact. These four functions are 

applicable to light water reactors 

(LWRs), and each may not be applicable 

to non-LWR reactor designs, or may 

have to be supplemented by other key 

functions. When reviewing non-LWR 

designs, the NRC will evaluate the 

applicability of the acceptance criteria 

set forth in the aircraft impact rule and 

the possible need for other criteria. If 

necessary, the NRC will issue 

exemptions and impose supplemental 

criteria to be used in the aircraft impact 

assessment for such non-LWR designs. 

The NRC believes this regulatory 

approach is preferable to excluding nonLWRs from the applicability of the 

aircraft rule, because such an exclusion 

could be interpreted in an erroneous 

manner as reflecting the NRC’s belief 

that non-LWRs need not be designed 

against large, commercial aircraft 

impacts. 

The design features and functional 

capabilities selected by the designer 

must show that the acceptance criteria 

in the aircraft impact rule can be met 

with ‘‘reduced use of operator action.’’ 

In this context, ‘‘operator action’’ 

includes actions of operators in the 

control room or at alternative control 

panels or control areas to control the 

reactor and the nuclear facility. This 

means that active operator intervention 

and initiation of responsive action to 

maintain core cooling or an intact 

containment, and spent fuel cooling or 

spent fuel pool integrity should be 

reduced. The designer need not strive to 

achieve the absolute minimum in 

operator action. The NRC recognizes 

that there may be countervailing 

considerations that weigh against 

reducing to the absolute minimum the 

use of operator action to show that the 

acceptance criteria in the aircraft impact 

rule are met. The NRC expects the 

designer to identify and consider in a 

reasonable process the goal of 

incorporating design features and 

functional capabilities which achieve 

the acceptance criteria in paragraph 

(a)(1)(i) and (ii) with reduced use of 

operator action. 

Paragraph (a)(2) Aircraft Impact 

Characteristics 

The assessment required by paragraph 

(a) of the aircraft impact rule must be 

based on the aircraft impact 

characteristics specified in paragraph 

(a)(2). The characteristics of the aircraft 

impact must be that of a large, 

commercial aircraft used for long 

distance flights in the United States, 

with aviation fuel loading typically used 

for such flights. The rule refers to long 

distance flights ‘‘in the United States,’’ 

which means those which originate and 

terminate in the United States (i.e., 

domestic flights). 

The NRC’s guidance on the aircraft 

impact characteristics will be contained 

in guidance documents. The guidance 

will include the time-force curve, or 

loading function, that is derived from 

the aircraft impact characteristics for 

use in applicants’ assessment of the 

aircraft impact. In the case of a 

combined license applicant that is 

required to perform an aircraft impact 

assessment, the applicant could take 

credit for site-specific topographic 

features (e.g., mountains) and siting 

features (e.g., the existence of non-plant 

structures) to limit the directions from 

which the plant could experience an 

impact. 

Footnote 1 to paragraph (a)(2) states 

that changes to the detailed parameters 

on aircraft impact characteristics set 

forth in guidance shall be approved by 

the Commission. This footnote ensures 

that changes to the guidance on the 

aircraft characteristics will not be made 

without Commission consideration and 

approval. 

Paragraph (a)(3) Applicability 

As set forth in paragraph (a)(3), the 

assessment requirement for the aircraft 

impact rule applies to: (1) Construction 

permits under 10 CFR part 50 issued 

after July 13, 2009; (2) operating licenses 

for which the underlying construction 

permits were issued after July 13, 2009; 

(3) design certifications issued after July 

13, 2009; (4) the four currently approved 

design certifications in 10 CFR part 52, 

appendices A through D at the time of 

renewal, but only if they have not been 

amended to comply with the aircraft 

impact rule by that time; (5) standard 

design approvals issued after July 13, 

2009; (6) combined licenses issued 

under 10 CFR part 52 which either do 

not reference a standard design 

certification, standard design approval, 

or manufactured reactor, or reference 

one of the four currently approved 

design certifications if the referenced 

design has not been amended to comply 

with the aircraft impact rule; and (7) 

manufacturing licenses that do not 

reference a standard design approval or 

standard design certification meeting 

the requirements of this section. 

Applicants for operating licenses 

under part 50 whose underlying 

construction permits were issued before 

the aircraft impact rule need not (but 

may voluntarily choose to) comply with 

the aircraft impact rule. The NRC notes 

that the applicability of the aircraft 

impact rule is dependent upon the date 

of the NRC’s final action on an 

application, and not the date of filing of 

the application. Thus, a combined 

license issued after the effective date of 

the final 10 CFR 50.150 rule will be 

subject to the requirements of the rule, 

even if its application was filed before 

the effective date of the final 10 CFR 

50.150 rule. 

Combined licenses and manufacturing 

licenses which do not reference a 

standard design certification meeting 

the requirements of this rule are subject 

to the assessment requirement in 

paragraph (a)(1). However, combined 

license applicants that choose to 

reference a design for which a design 

certification application has been 

docketed but not granted need not 

perform the assessment required by 

paragraph (a), assuming that the 

combined license which is issued 

references a final design certification 

rule which complies with the aircraft 

impact rule. This is an 

acknowledgement that, under 10 CFR 

52.55(c), an applicant for a combined 

license may, at its own risk, reference in 

its application a design for which a 

design certification application has been 

docketed but not granted. 

Certain combined license applicants 

need not perform a plant-specific 

assessment to comply with the aircraft 

impact rule. If the combined license 

application references a design 

certification, design approval, or 

manufactured reactor which complies 

(or will comply, upon amendment of the 

design certification by the time of 

issuance of the combined license) with 

the assessment requirements of the 

aircraft impact rule, then the combined 

license applicant need not perform an 

assessment to comply with the aircraft 

impact rule. This means, as a practical 

matter, that the scope of the overall 

plant design which is subject to the 

aircraft impact rule’s requirements may 

be greater for a ‘‘custom’’ combined 

license applicant who does not 

reference a design certification, design 

approval, or manufactured reactor 

which complies (or will comply) with 

the aircraft impact rule. 

Analogous to the combined license 

applicant, a manufacturing license 

applicant who does not reference a 

standard design certification or standard 

design approval which has complied 

with the aircraft impact rule, must 

comply with the aircraft impact rule by 

performing the assessment required by 

10 CFR 50.150(a). The scope of the 

assessment is limited to the scope of the 

design of the reactor to be approved for 

manufacture. 

The four currently approved design 

certifications are not required to comply 

with the aircraft impact rule except 

upon renewal if the design certification 

28132 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

has not already been amended to 

comply with the aircraft impact rule. 

The original design certification 

applicant may, at any time, voluntarily 

request an amendment to the design 

certification rule to recertify the design 

certification as complying with the 

aircraft impact rule. The NRC notes that 

persons or entities other than the 

original design certification applicant 

may also request such an amendment of 

one of the four currently approved 

design certifications. However, such an 

application must provide the full set of 

information required by the aircraft 

impact rule, including, as necessary, 

information which substitutes for the 

proprietary and safeguards information 

provided in the original design 

certification proceeding, but which is 

not available for use in the design 

certification amendment proceeding. 

The amendment of the design 

certification to reflect compliance with 

the aircraft impact rule will be 

accomplished through rulemaking. 

As a result of these provisions, every 

newly constructed nuclear power plant 

will meet the aircraft impact rule, which 

is the NRC’s key objective in adopting 

this final aircraft impact rule. 

Paragraph (b) Content of Application 

Paragraph (b) requires the PSAR or 

FSAR for each license, certification, and 

regulatory approval application which 

is subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a) to include 

certain specified information related to 

compliance with the rule. This 

information consists of: (1) A 

description of the design features and 

functional capabilities which the 

applicant has selected (identified) for 

inclusion in the design to show that the 

facility can withstand the effects of the 

aircraft impact; and (2) a concise 

description of how the identified design 

features and functional capabilities meet 

the assessment requirements in 10 CFR 

50.150(a)(1). The application should 

summarize the bases for the applicant’s 

determination that the selected features 

and capabilities incorporated into the 

facility design show, with reduced use 

of operator actions, that the acceptance 

criteria in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1) are met. 

The 10 CFR 50.150(b) information must 

be included in the PSAR or FSAR in 

accordance with 10 CFR 50.34(a)(13), 10 

CFR 50.34(b)(12), 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28), 

10 CFR 52.79(a)(47), 10 CFR 

52.137(a)(26), or 10 CFR 52.157(f)(32) 

and should address only those features 

and capabilities selected by the 

applicant for inclusion in the plant 

design to address aircraft impacts. 

The description of the features and 

capabilities should be equivalent in 

detail to descriptions of other design 

features and functional capabilities 

addressing beyond-design-basis events 

or severe accidents which are required 

to be described in the license, 

certification, or approval application. 

Inclusion of any SGI in the 

information submitted in the FSAR as 

part of a relevant application must be in 

accordance with applicable 

requirements in 10 CFR part 73. The 

NRC will process and address requests 

for access to this information from the 

general public in accordance with the 

NRC’s existing regulations and 

procedures. 

The NRC reiterates that aircraft 

impact is not a design basis event. 

Therefore, the design and construction 

of features and capabilities designated 

by the designer as meeting the aircraft 

impact rule’s requirements need not 

meet the ‘‘special treatment’’ 

requirements applicable to safetyrelated and important to safety 

structures, systems, and components. 

Paragraph (c) Control of Changes 

Paragraph (c) clarifies the 

requirements governing changes to 

information in the PSAR or FSAR which 

reflects the results of compliance with 

the aircraft impact rule for each of the 

licensing or certification processes 

subject to the aircraft impact rule. In the 

proposed aircraft impact rule, the 

provisions governing changes to such 

information were in proposed 10 CFR 

52.502. 

The PSAR or FSAR information 

required by the aircraft impact rule 

which is subject to the change control 

requirement in paragraph (c) are the 

descriptions of the design features and 

functional capabilities incorporated into 

the final design of the nuclear power 

facility and the description of how the 

identified design features and functional 

capabilities meet the assessment 

requirements in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1). 

Not all of the actual change controls are 

presented in paragraph (c). Instead, 

most of the sections in paragraph (c) cite 

to an existing regulation presenting the 

FSAR change controls for that type of 

license or certification. Thus, in many 

cases, paragraph (c) is simply a 

‘‘pointer’’ to the already-existing change 

controls. However, in all cases, the 

objective of the change controls remains 

the same: To determine whether the 

design of the facility, as changed or 

modified, is shown to withstand the 

effects of the aircraft impact with 

reduced use of operator actions. In other 

words, the applicant or licensee must 

continue to show, with the modified 

design, that the acceptance criteria in 10 

CFR 50.150(a)(1) are met with reduced 

use of operator actions. The rule does 

not require an applicant or a licensee 

implementing a design change to redo 

the complete aircraft impact assessment 

to evaluate the effects of the change. The 

NRC believes it may be possible to 

demonstrate that a design change is 

bounded by the original design or that 

the change provides an equivalent level 

of protection, without redoing the 

original assessment. 

Paragraph (c)(1) provides that, for 

construction permits which are subject 

to the aircraft impact rule, if the permit 

holder changes the information required 

by 10 CFR 50.34(a)(13) to be included in 

the PSAR, then the permit holder shall 

consider the effect of the changed 

feature or capability on the original 

assessment required by 10 CFR 

50.150(a) and amend the information 

required by 10 CFR 50.34(a)(13) to be 

included in PSAR to describe how the 

modified design features and functional 

capabilities continue to meet the 

assessment requirements in 10 CFR 

50.150(a)(1). 

Paragraph (c)(2) provides that, for 

operating licenses which are subject to 

the aircraft impact rule (i.e., operating 

licenses for which the underlying 

construction permits are issued after 

July 13, 2009), if the licensee changes 

the information required by 10 CFR 

50.34(b)(12) to be included in the FSAR, 

then the licensee shall consider the 

effect of the changed feature or 

capability on the original assessment 

required by 10 CFR 50.150(a) and 

amend the information required by 10 

CFR 50.34(b)(12) to be included in the 

FSAR to describe how the modified 

design features and functional 

capabilities continue to meet the 

assessment requirements in 10 CFR 

50.150(a)(1). 

Paragraph (c)(3) provides that, for 

design certifications which are subject 

to the aircraft impact rule, generic 

changes to the information required by 

10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be included in 

the FSAR are governed by the 

applicable requirements of 10 CFR 

52.63. A design feature or functional 

capability described in a standard 

design certification may not be changed 

in the design certification except by 

notice and comment rulemaking (see 10 

CFR 52.63(a)(1) and (2)), and such a 

change must meet one of the criteria in 

10 CFR 52.63(a)(1). Any generic change 

to a design certification rule must be 

implemented by all referencing 

combined licenses, as required by 10 

CFR 52.63(a)(3). 

Paragraph (c)(4)(i) provides that, for 

combined licenses which are subject to 

10 CFR 50.150(a) (i.e., combined 

licenses that do not reference a design 

certification, design approval, or 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28133 

manufactured reactor that complies 

with the rule), if the licensee changes 

the information required by 10 CFR 

52.79(a)(47) to be included in the FSAR, 

then the licensee shall consider the 

effect of the changed feature or 

capability on the original assessment 

required by 10 CFR 50.150 and amend 

the information required by 10 CFR 

52.79(a)(47) to be included in the FSAR 

to describe how the modified design 

features and functional capabilities 

continue to meet the assessment 

requirements in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1). 

The NRC believes that, because this rule 

addresses a beyond-design-basis event, 

it is appropriate to apply the same 

standard that was applied during the 

original assessment of design features 

and functional capabilities to any 

licensee-proposed changes to such 

features and capabilities. 

Paragraph (c)(4)(ii) provides that, for 

combined license applicants or holders 

which are not subject to 10 CFR 

50.150(a), but reference a standard 

design certification which is subject to 

10 CFR 50.150(a), proposed departures 

from the information required by 10 

CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be included in the 

FSAR for the referenced standard design 

certification are governed by the change 

control requirements in the applicable 

design certification rule. The NRC 

expects to add a new change control 

provision to future design certification 

rules subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a) 

(including amendments to any of the 

four existing design certifications) to 

govern combined license applicants and 

holders referencing the design 

certification that request a departure 

from the design features or functional 

capabilities in the referenced design 

certification. The new change control 

provision will require that, if the 

applicant or licensee changes the 

information required by 10 CFR 

52.47(a)(28) to be included in the FSAR 

for the standard design certification, 

then the applicant or licensee shall 

consider the effect of the changed 

feature or capability on the original 

assessment required by 10 CFR 

50.150(a). The applicant or licensee 

must also describe in a change to the 

FSAR (i.e., a plant-specific departure 

from the generic design control 

document), how the modified design 

features and functional capabilities 

continue to meet the assessment 

requirements in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1). 

Paragraph (c)(4)(iii) provides that, for 

combined license applicants or holders 

which are not subject to 10 CFR 

50.150(a) but reference a manufactured 

reactor which is subject to 10 CFR 

50.150(a), proposed departures from the 

information required by 10 CFR 

52.157(f)(32) to be included in the FSAR 

for the manufacturing license are 

governed by the applicable 

requirements in 10 CFR 52.171(b)(2). 

Paragraph (b)(2) of 10 CFR 52.171 

allows an applicant or licensee who 

references or uses a nuclear power 

reactor manufactured under a 

manufacturing license under this 

subpart to request a departure from the 

design characteristics, site parameters, 

terms and conditions, or approved 

design of the manufactured reactor. The 

Commission may grant a request only if 

it determines that the departure will 

comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 

52.7 and that the special circumstances 

outweigh any decrease in safety that 

may result from the reduction in 

standardization caused by the 

departure. 

Paragraph (c)(5)(i) provides that, for 

manufacturing licenses which are 

subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a), generic 

changes to the information required by 

10 CFR 52.157(f)(32) to be included in 

the FSAR are governed by the 

applicable requirements of 10 CFR 

52.171. Paragraph (b)(1) of 10 CFR 

52.171 does not allow the holder of a 

manufacturing license to make changes 

to the design of the nuclear power 

reactor authorized to be manufactured 

without prior Commission approval. 

Any request for a change to the design 

must be in the form of an application for 

a license amendment, and must meet 

the requirements of 10 CFR 50.90 and 

10 CFR 50.92. 

Paragraph (c)(5)(ii) provides that, for 

manufacturing license applicants or 

holders which are subject to 10 CFR 

50.150(a), proposed departures from the 

information required by 10 CFR 

52.47(a)(28) to be included in the FSAR 

for the referenced standard design 

certification are governed by the change 

control requirements in the applicable 

design certification rule. 

Section 52.47 Contents of 

Applications; Technical Information 

Section 52.47 identifies the required 

technical information to be included in 

an application for a standard design 

certification. The final rule revises this 

section by adding a new paragraph 

(a)(28) requiring that the FSAR contain 

the information required by 10 CFR 

50.150, ‘‘Aircraft impact assessment.’’ 

This information, as contained in 

paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 50.150, is: 

1. A description of the design features 

and functional capabilities identified in 

10 CFR 50.150(a)(1); and 

2. A description of how such design 

features and functional capabilities meet 

the assessment requirements in 10 CFR 

50.150(a)(1). 

The 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) requirement 

applies only to those standard design 

certification applications which are 

subject to 10 CFR 50.150, that is, those 

design certifications issued after the 

effective date of the final rule (see 10 

CFR 50.150(a)). Thus, any standard 

design certification application that is 

docketed and under review by the NRC 

but has not yet been issued in final form 

as of the effective date of 10 CFR 50.150 

must amend its application to include 

the information required by 10 CFR 

50.150. 

Section 52.59 Criteria for Renewal 

Section 52.59 establishes the criteria 

which must be met in order for the NRC 

to renew a standard design certification. 

The final rule revises paragraph (a) by 

adding a requirement that the 

Commission shall, the first time one of 

the four existing design certifications is 

to be renewed, find that the renewed 

design complies with the applicable 

requirements of the aircraft impact rule 

if the design certification has not 

already been amended to comply with 

the aircraft impact rule. This finding 

would be in addition to the (implicit) 

findings which the Commission must 

make under paragraph (a). The findings 

need only be made the first time the 

design certification is renewed. Once 

the design certification has been 

amended or renewed to reflect 

compliance with the aircraft impact 

rule, there is no need for the NRC to 

remake the finding of compliance with 

the aircraft impact rule nor does the 

design or the assessment have to be 

upgraded for purposes of aircraft impact 

rule compliance in any subsequent 

amendment or renewal. 

Section 52.79 Contents of 

Applications; Technical Information in 

Final Safety Analysis Report 

Section 52.79 identifies the required 

technical information to be included in 

an FSAR submitted in a combined 

license application under 10 CFR part 

52, subpart C, Combined Licenses. The 

final rule revises this section by adding 

a new paragraph (a)(47) requiring that 

the FSAR contain the information 

required by 10 CFR 50.150. This is the 

same type of information that an 

applicant for a standard design 

certification will need to submit, 

namely, the following: 

1. A description of the design features 

and functional capabilities identified in 

10 CFR 50.150(a)(1); and 

2. A description of how such design 

features and functional capabilities meet 

the assessment requirements in 10 CFR 

50.150(a)(1). 

28134 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Only those combined licenses issued 

after the effective date of the final rule 

that do not reference a standard design 

certification, standard design approval, 

or manufactured reactor, or that 

reference a standard design certification 

issued before the effective date of the 

final rule which has not been amended 

to address the requirements of 10 CFR 

50.150, are subject to 10 CFR 

52.79(a)(47). Thus, a combined license 

application filed after the effective date 

of 10 CFR 50.150 and referencing a 

standard design certification, standard 

design approval, or manufactured 

reactor subject to the proposed rule, or 

referencing one of the four current 

standard design certifications (ABWR, 

System 80+, AP600, and AP1000) which 

has been amended to address the 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.150 will not 

have to separately include the 

information required by 10 CFR 50.150 

because it will be incorporated by 

reference to the standard design or 

manufactured reactor. This is consistent 

with the requirements of 10 CFR 

52.79(c), (d), and (e) which state that, if 

the combined license application 

references a standard design 

certification, standard design approval, 

or manufactured reactor, then the FSAR 

need not contain information or 

analyses submitted to the Commission 

in connection with the design 

certification, design approval, or 

manufacturing license, as applicable. By 

contrast, a combined license applicant 

not referencing a standard design 

certification, standard design approval, 

or manufactured reactor whose 

application is docketed and under 

review by the NRC but for which a 

license has not yet been issued as of the 

effective date of 10 CFR 50.150, must 

amend its application to include the 

information required by 10 CFR 50.150. 

Section 52.137 Contents of 

Applications; Technical Information 

Section 52.137 identifies the required 

technical information to be included in 

an application for a standard design 

approval. The final rule revises this 

section by adding a new paragraph 

(a)(26) requiring that the FSAR contain 

the information required by 10 CFR 

50.150. This information, as currently 

presented in paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 

50.150 is: 

1. A description of the design features 

and functional capabilities identified in 

10 CFR 50.150(a)(1); and 

2. A description of how such design 

features and functional capabilities meet 

the assessment requirements in 10 CFR 

50.150(a)(1). 

The 10 CFR 52.137(a)(26) requirement 

applies only to those standard design 

approval applications which are subject 

to 10 CFR 50.150, that is, those design 

approvals issued after the effective date 

of the final rule (see 10 CFR 50.150(a)). 

Thus, any standard design approval 

application that is docketed and under 

review by the NRC but has not yet been 

issued in final form as of the effective 

date of 10 CFR 50.150 must amend its 

application to include the information 

required by final 10 CFR 50.150. 

Section 52.157 Contents of 

Applications; Technical Information in 

Final Safety Analysis Report 

Section 52.157 identifies the required 

technical information to be included in 

an application for a manufacturing 

license. The final rule revises this 

section by adding a new paragraph 

(f)(32) requiring that the FSAR contain 

the information required by 10 CFR 

50.150. This information, as currently 

presented in paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 

50.150, is limited to the following: 

1. A description of the design features 

and functional capabilities identified in 

10 CFR 50.150(a)(1); and 

2. A description of how such design 

features and functional capabilities meet 

the assessment requirements in 10 CFR 

50.150(a)(1). 

The 10 CFR 52.157(f)(32) requirement 

applies only to those manufacturing 

license applications which are subject to 

10 CFR 50.150(a)(1), that is, those 

manufacturing licenses that do not 

reference a design certification or design 

approval complying with 10 CFR 

50.150. Thus, any manufacturing license 

application that is docketed and under 

review by the NRC but has not yet been 

issued in final form as of the effective 

date of 10 CFR 50.150 must amend its 

application to include the information 

required by 10 CFR 50.150. 

VIII. Guidance 

The NRC staff expects to issue new 

regulatory guidance on the requirements 

in 10 CFR 50.150 that will endorse 

guidance being prepared by NEI. This 

guidance is intended to provide an 

acceptable method by which relevant 

applicants can perform the assessment 

of aircraft impacts to meet the 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.150. The 

final rule requires that the designspecific impact assessment use the 

aircraft impact characteristics specified 

in the rule. A more detailed description 

of the aircraft impact parameters that are 

considered appropriate for use in the 

assessment will be presented in the 

NRC’s regulatory guidance. Any future 

changes to the detailed parameters on 

aircraft impact characteristics set forth 

in the guidance will be approved by the 

Commission. Because the portion of this 

regulatory guidance describing the 

detailed aircraft impact characteristics is 

likely to contain SGI, that portion of the 

document will only be made available 

to those individuals with a need-toknow, and who are otherwise qualified 

to have access to SGI. A version of the 

document without the SGI will be made 

publicly available. Publication of the 

draft regulatory guidance is planned to 

coincide with publication of the final 

rule. 

IX. Availability of Documents 

The NRC is making the following 

documents available to interested 

persons through one or more of the 

following methods as indicated. 

Public Document Room (PDR). The 

NRC PDR is located at 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Public File Area O1 F21, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852, e-mail 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Regulations.gov (Web). These 

documents may be viewed and 

downloaded electronically through the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov, Docket number 

NRC–2007–0009. 

NRC’s Electronic Reading Room 

(ERR). The NRC’s public electronic 

reading room is located at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. 

Document PDR Web ERR (ADAMS) 

SECY–06–0204, ‘‘Proposed Rulemaking—Security Assessment Requirements for New Nuclear Power Reactor Designs (RIN 3150–AH92)’’ (September 28, 2006).X X ML062300068 

Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY–06–0204 (April 24, 2007) ............................................................... X X ML071140119 

Regulatory History Index for the October 3, 2007 proposed rule .......................................................................... X X ML073511644 

Federal Register Notice .......................................................................................................................................... X X ML090220527 

Environmental Assessment .................................................................................................................................... X X ML090610123 

Response to Public Comments .............................................................................................................................. X X ML090610124 

SECY–08–0152, ‘‘Final Rule—Consideration of Aircraft Impacts for New Nuclear Power Reactors (RIN 3150– 

AI19)’’ (October 15, 2008).

X X ML082670873 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28135 

Document PDR Web ERR (ADAMS) 

Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY–08–0152 (February 17, 2009) ........................................................ X X ML090480610 

X. Agreement State Compatibility 

Under the ‘‘Policy Statement on 

Adequacy and Compatibility of 

Agreement States Programs,’’ approved 

by the Commission on June 20, 1997, 

and published in the Federal Register 

(62 FR 46517; September 3, 1997), this 

rule is classified as compatibility 

‘‘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 or the provisions of 

10 CFR. Although an Agreement State 

may not adopt program elements 

reserved to the 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. Category 

‘‘NRC’’ regulations do not confer 

regulatory authority on the State. 

XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act of 1995, Public 

Law 104–113, requires that Federal 

agencies use technical standards that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies unless 

using such a standard is inconsistent 

with applicable law or is otherwise 

impractical. In this final rule, the NRC 

is amending its regulations to require 

applicants for new nuclear power 

reactors to perform a design-specific 

assessment of the effects of the impact 

of a large, commercial aircraft. The 

applicant is required to use realistic 

analyses to identify and incorporate 

design features and functional 

capabilities to show, with reduced use 

of operator actions, that either the 

reactor core remains cooled or the 

containment remains intact, and either 

spent fuel cooling or spent fuel pool 

integrity is maintained. These 

requirements apply to applicants for 

new construction permits; new 

operating licenses that reference a new 

construction permit; new standard 

design certifications, renewal of any of 

the four existing design certifications if 

the design has not previously been 

amended to comply with the final rule; 

new standard design approvals; 

manufacturing licenses that do not 

reference a standard design certification 

or standard design approval, or that 

reference a standard design certification 

issued before the effective date of the 

rule which has not been amended to 

comply with the rule; and combined 

licenses that do not reference a standard 

design certification, standard design 

approval, or manufactured reactor, or 

that reference a standard design 

certification issued before the effective 

date of the rule which has not been 

amended to comply with the rule. In 

addition, these amendments contain 

requirements for control of changes to 

any design features or functional 

capabilities credited for showing that 

the facility can withstand the effects of 

an aircraft impact. This regulatory 

action does not establish standards with 

which all applicants must comply. For 

these reasons, the Commission 

concludes that this action does not 

constitute the establishment of a 

standard that contains generally 

applicable requirements. 

XII. Finding of No Significant 

Environmental Impact: Availability 

The Commission has determined 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the 

Commission’s regulations in subpart A 

to 10 CFR part 51, that this rule is not 

a major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment and, therefore, an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) is 

not required. As presented in the final 

environmental assessment, this action 

will not have a significant 

environmental impact because it applies 

only to applicants for new nuclear 

power reactors and requires them to use 

realistic analyses to identify and 

incorporate design features and 

functional capabilities to show, with 

reduced use of operator actions, that 

either the reactor core remains cooled or 

the containment remains intact, and 

either spent fuel cooling or spent fuel 

pool integrity is maintained, and 

because the standards and requirements 

applicable to radiological releases and 

effluents are not affected by this 

rulemaking. 

The NRC requested public comments 

on any aspect of the environmental 

assessment. Three public comments 

were received that discussed the need 

for the preparation of an EIS for the 

aircraft impact rulemaking. The NRC 

responded that because the adoption of 

this rule does not constitute a major 

Federal action significantly affecting the 

environment, an EIS was not prepared 

for this rulemaking. The NRC also 

requested the views of the States on the 

environmental assessment for this rule. 

No State comments were received. 

Availability of the final environmental 

assessment is provided in Section IX of 

this document. 

XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Statement 

The final rule contains new or 

amended information collection 

requirements contained in 10 CFR parts 

50 and 52 that are subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These requirements 

were approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget, approval 

numbers 3150–0011 and 3150–0151. 

The burden to the public for these 

information collections is estimated to 

average 2,186.7 hours per response. This 

includes the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the information collection. 

Send comments on any aspect of these 

information collections, including 

suggestions for reducing the burden, to 

the Records and FOIA/Privacy Services 

Branch (T–5 F53), U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, or by Internet 

electronic mail to 

INFOCOLLECTS.Resource@nrc.gov; and 

to the Desk Officer, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

NEOB–10202, (3150–0011), Office of 

Management and Budget, Washington, 

DC 20503. 

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. 

XIV. Regulatory Analysis 

The NRC has prepared a regulatory 

analysis on this final rule and has 

included it in this Federal Register 

document. The analysis examines the 

costs and benefits of the alternatives 

considered by the NRC. No public 

comments were received on the 

proposed regulatory analysis. 

1. Statement of the Problem and 

Objective 

This final rule amends 10 CFR part 50 

and 10 CFR part 52 to require applicants 

for new nuclear power reactors to 

28136 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

perform a design-specific assessment of 

the effects of the impact of a large, 

commercial aircraft. The applicant is 

required to use realistic analyses to 

identify and incorporate design features 

and functional capabilities to show, 

with reduced use of operator actions, 

that either the reactor core remains 

cooled or the containment remains 

intact, and either spent fuel cooling or 

spent fuel pool integrity is maintained. 

These requirements apply to applicants 

for new construction permits; new 

operating licenses that reference a new 

construction permit; new standard 

design certifications; renewal of any of 

the four existing design certifications if 

the design has not previously been 

amended to comply with the final rule; 

new standard design approvals; 

manufacturing licenses that do not 

reference a standard design certification 

or standard design approval, or that 

reference a standard design certification 

issued before the effective date of the 

rule which has not been amended to 

comply with the rule; and combined 

licenses that don’t reference a standard 

design certification, standard design 

approval, or manufactured reactor, or 

that reference a standard design 

certification issued before the effective 

date of the rule which has not been 

amended to comply with the rule. In 

addition, these amendments contain 

requirements for control of changes to 

any design features or functional 

capabilities credited for showing that 

the facility can withstand the effects of 

an aircraft impact. The objective of this 

rule is to require nuclear power plant 

designers to perform a rigorous 

assessment of the design to identify 

design features and functional 

capabilities that could provide 

additional inherent protection to show, 

with reduced use of operator actions, 

that either the reactor core remains 

cooled or the containment remains 

intact, and either spent fuel cooling or 

spent fuel pool integrity is maintained. 

2. Identification of Regulatory 

Alternatives 

The only alternative considered was 

to conduct a rulemaking to require 

applicants to perform an aircraft impact 

assessment on new nuclear power 

reactors because the Commission 

directed the NRC staff in a staff 

requirements memorandum dated April 

24, 2007, to revise the regulations. 

However, the NRC considers the noaction alternative as the baseline from 

which to measure the costs and benefits 

of the final rule. 

The regulations in 10 CFR part 50 and 

10 CFR part 52 are being amended for 

applicants for new nuclear power 

reactors to require these applicants to 

perform a design-specific assessment of 

the effects of the impact of a large, 

commercial aircraft. Applicants for new 

nuclear power reactors are required to 

use realistic analyses to identify and 

incorporate design features and 

functional capabilities to show, with 

reduced use of operator actions, that 

either the reactor core remains cooled or 

the containment remains intact, and 

either spent fuel cooling or spent fuel 

pool integrity is maintained. This rule 

should result in new nuclear power 

reactor facilities being more inherently 

robust with regard to an aircraft impact 

than if they were designed in the 

absence of this final rule. 

3. Analysis of Values and Impacts of 

Final Rulemaking 

3.1 Identification of Affected 

Attributes 

The NRC identified the attributes that 

the regulatory action could affect by 

using the list of potential attributes 

provided in Chapter 5 of NUREG/BR– 

0184, ‘‘Regulatory Analysis Technical 

Evaluation Handbook,’’ issued January 

1997. Affected attributes include the 

following: 

Public Health (Accident). The 

regulatory action will reduce the risk 

that public health will be affected by the 

release of radioactive materials to the 

environment from the impact of a large, 

commercial aircraft on a nuclear power 

plant. 

Occupational Health (Accident). The 

regulatory action will reduce the risk 

that occupational health will be affected 

by the release of radioactive materials to 

the environment from the impact of a 

large, commercial aircraft on a nuclear 

power plant. 

Offsite Property. The regulatory action 

will reduce the risk that offsite property 

will be affected by the release of 

radioactive materials to the environment 

from the impact of a large, commercial 

aircraft on a nuclear power plant. 

Onsite Property. The regulatory action 

will reduce the risk that onsite property 

will be affected by the release of 

radioactive materials to the environment 

from the impact of a large, commercial 

aircraft on a nuclear power plant. 

Industry Implementation. The 

regulatory action will require applicants 

for new nuclear power reactors to 

perform a design-specific assessment of 

the effects of the impact of a large, 

commercial aircraft. Applicants for new 

nuclear power reactors are required to 

use realistic analyses to identify and 

incorporate design features and 

functional capabilities to show, with 

reduced use of operator actions, that 

either the reactor core remains cooled or 

the containment remains intact, and 

either spent fuel cooling or spent fuel 

pool integrity is maintained. Applicants 

will incur costs to develop an SGI 

program, perform the assessment, and 

incorporate the results into the design. 

Industry Operation. The regulatory 

action will require applicants and 

licensees for new nuclear power 

reactors to retain the aircraft impact 

assessment throughout the pendency of 

the application and for the term of the 

certification or license (including any 

period of renewal). Applicants and 

licensees will incur costs to retain the 

assessment and supporting 

documentation. 

NRC Implementation. Under the 

regulatory action, the NRC will incur 

costs to develop guidance on performing 

an aircraft impact assessment and to 

review the actions taken by the 

applicant to comply with the aircraft 

impact rule. 

Improvements in Knowledge. The 

regulatory action will improve 

knowledge with regard to an aircraft 

impact by ensuring that nuclear power 

plant designers perform a rigorous 

assessment of the design to identify 

design features and functional 

capabilities that could provide 

additional inherent protection to 

withstand the effects of an aircraft 

impact. 

Safeguards and Security 

Considerations. The regulatory action to 

address the capability of new nuclear 

power reactors relative to an aircraft 

impact is based both on enhanced 

public health and safety and enhanced 

common defense and security, but is not 

necessary for adequate protection. 

Rather, this rule’s goal is to enhance the 

facility’s inherent robustness at the 

design stage. 

3.2 Methodology 

This section describes the process 

used to evaluate benefits and costs 

associated with the regulatory action. 

The benefits (values) come from any 

desirable changes in the affected 

attributes which are solely qualitative 

for the regulatory action; the costs 

(impacts or burdens) come from any 

undesirable changes in the affected 

attributes (e.g., monetary costs, 

increased exposures). As described in 

Section 3.1 of this regulatory analysis, 

the attributes expected to be affected 

include public health (accident), 

occupational health (accident), offsite 

property, onsite property, industry 

implementation, industry operation, 

NRC implementation, improvements in 

knowledge, and safeguards and security 

considerations. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28137 

When possible, a cost-benefit analysis 

quantifies the overall costs and benefits 

of the regulatory options relative to each 

of these attributes. This analysis relies 

on a qualitative evaluation of several of 

the affected attributes (public health, 

occupational health, offsite property, 

onsite property, improvements in 

knowledge, and safeguards and security 

considerations) because of the difficulty 

in quantifying the impact of this 

rulemaking. The regulatory action will 

affect these attributes through the 

associated reduction in the risks of 

aircraft impact damage to the plant 

resulting in the inability to maintain 

either reactor core cooling or an intact 

containment, and either spent fuel 

cooling or spent fuel pool integrity. 

The remaining attributes (industry 

implementation, industry operation, 

and NRC implementation) are evaluated 

quantitatively. Quantitative analysis 

requires a characterization of the 

universe, including factors such as the 

number of applicants and the scope of 

the aircraft impact assessment being 

performed. The NRC analyzed 

incremental costs and benefits of the 

regulatory action relative to the baseline 

(i.e., the no-action alternative described 

in Section 2 of this regulatory analysis). 

Under OMB guidance and NUREG/ 

BR–0058, Revision 4, ‘‘Regulatory 

Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission,’’ issued 

September 2004, the results of the cost 

analysis are presented as discounted 

flows of funds using 3- and 7-percent 

real discount rates. 

3.3 Data 

The NRC derived information from 

industry announcements on the 

estimated number of applications 

submitted for a new standard design 

certification, renewal of an existing 

design certification, and a combined 

license that references a currently 

approved standard design certification. 

Data used was obtained during 

September 2008. The NRC staff applied 

its professional judgment in this 

analysis given the uncertainty in the 

number of applications for a new 

construction permit; new operating 

license; new standard design approval; 

manufacturing license that does not 

reference a standard design certification 

or standard design approval, or that 

references a standard design 

certification issued before the effective 

date of the rule which has not been 

amended to comply with the rule; and 

combined license that does not 

reference a standard design certification, 

standard design approval, or 

manufactured reactor, or that references 

a standard design certification issued 

before the effective date of the rule 

which has not been amended to comply 

with the rule. 

3.4 Assumptions 

The regulatory action will apply only 

to applicants for new construction 

permits; new operating licenses that 

reference a new construction permit; 

new standard design certifications, 

renewal of any of the four existing 

design certifications if the design has 

not previously been amended to comply 

with the final rule; new standard design 

approvals; manufacturing licenses that 

don’t reference a standard design 

certification or standard design 

approval, or that reference a standard 

design certification issued before the 

effective date of the rule which has not 

been amended to comply with the rule; 

and combined licenses that don’t 

reference a standard design certification, 

standard design approval, or 

manufactured reactor, or that reference 

a standard design certification issued 

before the effective date of the rule 

which has not been amended to comply 

with the rule. It will not apply to a 

construction permit, operating license, 

standard design approval, or standard 

design certification (except at renewal) 

issued before the effective date of the 

final rule. 

3.5 Analysis 

For Sections 3.5.1 through 3.5.10, the 

cost-benefit analysis of the regulatory 

action is based on the assumed number 

of applicants in each category. In each 

case, industry will incur both 

implementation and operation costs. 

Furthermore, because all of the benefits 

are measured qualitatively in this 

analysis, only costs are included in 

these subsections. 

This analysis uses $100 and $105 per 

hour for NRC and industry staff rates, 

respectively. In the analysis done for the 

proposed rule, an NRC hourly staff rate 

of $105 was used. This value was 

recently revised to account for the 

changing composition of the NRC staff 

and re-baselining of estimates of hours 

for training, annual leave, etc. In 

addition, the NRC has reassessed the 

cost to purchase an appropriate SGI 

container and lock. This analysis uses 

$1,200, rather than the $2,500 used for 

the proposed rule analysis. 

The annual results are derived as 

present values using the 3- and 7- 

percent discount rates as described in 

Appendix B to NUREG/BR–0184. 

3.5.1 Construction Permit 

Applications 

Under the regulatory action, an 

applicant for a new construction permit 

will need to comply with the 

requirements for an aircraft impact 

assessment in 10 CFR 50.150. However, 

the NRC staff concludes that it is 

unlikely that a request for a new 

construction permit will be submitted to 

the NRC for approval during the next 20 

years. Therefore, no cost-benefit 

analysis is needed for a construction 

permit. 

3.5.2 Operating License Applications 

Under the regulatory action, an 

applicant for a new operating license 

will need to comply with the 

requirements for an aircraft impact 

assessment in 10 CFR 50.150. However, 

the NRC staff concludes that it is 

unlikely that a request for a new 

operating license will be submitted to 

the NRC for approval during the next 20 

years. Therefore, no cost-benefit 

analysis is needed for an operating 

license. 

3.5.3 Standard Design Certification 

Applications 

In implementing the regulatory 

action, standard design certification 

applicants will incur one-time costs to 

develop an SGI program; purchase an 

appropriate SGI storage container and 

lock; perform the aircraft impact 

assessment; and identify and 

incorporate into the design those design 

features and functional capabilities that 

show, with reduced use of operator 

action, that the facility can withstand 

the effects of an aircraft impact. The 

NRC estimates that each applicant will 

spend 120 hours to develop the SGI 

program. Using the assumed staff rate of 

$105 per hour, the one-time cost of 

developing the SGI program will be 

$13,000 per applicant (120 hours × 

$105/hour). The NRC also estimates it 

will cost $1,200 to purchase an 

appropriate SGI storage container and 

lock. Finally, the NRC estimates it will 

take an applicant 24 staff-months for a 

one-time cost of $400,000 (24 staffmonths × 4 weeks/month × 40 hours/ 

week × $105/hour) per application to 

complete the assessment and 

incorporate the results into the design. 

Thus, the one-time cost for an applicant 

to implement the regulatory action is 

estimated to be $415,000. 

For the standard design certification 

process, this analysis assumes that three 

applications will be affected by the final 

rule in the year that the rule is 

promulgated (i.e., year 0), and 

thereafter, one application will be 

submitted every 4 years at years 4, 8, 12, 

16, and 20. Table 1 shows the 

discounted flow of funds (using 3- and 

7-percent discount rates) of the total 

industry implementation costs for 

28138 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

standard design certification 

applications over a 20-year period. 

With respect to industry operational 

costs, there will be recordkeeping costs 

for retention of the assessment and 

supporting documentation. The NRC 

will require standard design 

certification applicants to retain these 

records throughout the pendency of the 

application and for the term of the 

certification (including any period of 

renewal). For this analysis, it is assumed 

that it takes 4 years for the Commission 

to adopt the application as a final 

standard design certification rule, after 

which the records are retained by the 

applicant for 15 years as required by the 

standard design certification rule. No 

renewal of the standard design 

certification rule is considered for this 

analysis. Thus, the records are retained 

for a total of 19 years. In addition, it is 

assumed that an applicant spends 3 

hours per year to maintain the records. 

The estimated annual cost for 

recordkeeping is $315 per applicant (3 

hours × $105/hour). Table 2 shows the 

discounted flow of funds of the 

recordkeeping costs (using 3- and 7- 

percent discount rates) for applications 

submitted over a 20-year period, using 

the schedule discussed previously. 

After a standard design certification is 

adopted by the NRC, any change to a 

design feature or functional capability 

credited for complying with the aircraft 

impact rule will require that the 

applicant or licensee consider the effect 

of the changed feature or capability on 

the original assessment. The applicant 

or licensee must amend the information 

included in the FSAR to describe how 

the modified design feature or 

functional capability continues to meet 

the assessment requirements in the 

aircraft impact rule. However, the NRC 

staff concludes that after a standard 

design certification is adopted, it is 

unlikely that any changes will be made 

to design features or functional 

capabilities credited for complying with 

the aircraft impact rule. Therefore, no 

industry cost analysis is needed for this 

portion of the regulatory action. 

Under the final rule, any combined 

license applicant referencing a design 

certification that complies with the 

requirements of this final rule will not 

have to perform an aircraft impact 

assessment. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF INDUSTRY IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATION APPLICANTS

Year 

Number of 

standard 

design certification 

applications 

Implementation costs 

Using 7-percent 

discount rate 

($1,000) 

Using 3-percent 

discount rate 

($1,000) 

0 ................................................................................................................................. 3 1,200 1,200 

4 ................................................................................................................................. 1 320 370 

8 ................................................................................................................................. 1 240 330 

12 ............................................................................................................................... 1 180 290 

16 ............................................................................................................................... 1 140 260 

20 ............................................................................................................................... 1 110 230 

Total .................................................................................................................... 8 2,190 2,680 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF INDUSTRY OPERATING COSTS FOR STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATION APPLICANTS

Year* 

Number of 

standard 

design certification 

applications 

Operating costs 

Using 7-percent 

discount rate 

($1,000) 

Using 3-percent 

discount rate 

($1,000) 

0 ............................................................................................................................. 3 9 .8 14 

4 ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 .5 4 

8 ............................................................................................................................. 1 1 .9 3 .6 

12 ........................................................................................................................... 1 1 .4 3 .2 

16 ........................................................................................................................... 1 1 .1 2 .8 

20 ........................................................................................................................... 1 0 .84 2 .5 

Total ................................................................................................................ 8 17 .54 30 .1 

* Analysis assumes that it takes 4 years for the Commission to adopt the application as a final standard design certification rule, after which 

the records are retained by the applicant for 15 years. 

3.5.4 Applications for Renewal of Any 

of the Four Existing Design 

Certifications if the Design Has Not 

Previously Been Amended To Comply 

With the Final Rule 

Under the regulatory action, an 

applicant for renewal of any of the four 

existing design certifications which has 

not previously been amended to comply 

with the final aircraft impact rule will 

need to comply with the requirements 

of an aircraft assessment in 10 CFR 

50.150. The NRC is expecting one 

application for renewal of one of the 

four existing design certifications that 

will be required to comply with the 

final rule to be submitted in the year 

after the rule is promulgated (i.e., year 

1). 

This analysis assumes that the 

applicant for renewal has an existing 

SGI program and an appropriate SGI 

storage container and lock; resulting in 

no related costs to implement the 

regulatory action. However, in 

implementing the regulatory action, the 

applicant will incur one-time costs to 

perform the aircraft impact assessment 

and identify and incorporate into the 

design those design features and 

functional capabilities to show, with 

reduced use of operator action, that the 

facility can withstand the effects of an 

aircraft impact. The NRC estimates it 

will take this applicant 24 staff-months 

for a one-time cost of $400,000 (24 staffmonths × 4 weeks/month × 40 hours/ 

week × $105/hour) to complete the 

assessment and incorporate the results 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28139 

into the design. No other costs 

associated with the application are 

considered for this analysis (i.e., overall 

costs to do the administrative work to 

prepare and submit other portions of the 

application). Thus the one-time cost for 

this applicant to implement the 

regulatory action is estimated to be 

$400,000. For one application submitted 

in the year after the rule is promulgated, 

the discounted flow of funds of the 

implementation costs are $390,000 and 

$370,000 using 3- and 7-percent 

discount rates respectively. 

With respect to industry operational 

costs, there will be recordkeeping costs 

for retention of the assessment and 

supporting documentation. The NRC 

will require applicants for renewal of an 

existing design certification to retain 

these records throughout the pendency 

of the application and for the term of the 

certification. For this analysis, it is 

assumed that it takes 3 years for the 

Commission to adopt the application for 

renewal as a final design certification 

rule, after which the records are 

retained by the applicant for 15 years as 

will be required by the standard design 

certification rule. No subsequent 

renewal of the standard design 

certification rule is considered for this 

analysis. Thus, the records are retained 

for a total of 18 years. In addition, it is 

assumed that an applicant spends 3 

hours per year to maintain the records. 

The estimated annual cost for 

recordkeeping is $315 per applicant (3 

hours × $105/hour). Thus, the 

discounted flow of funds of the 

recordkeeping costs for one application 

is $4,200 and $3,000 using 3- and 7- 

percent discount rates respectively. 

After a renewal of an existing design 

certification is adopted by the NRC, any 

change to a design feature or functional 

capability credited for complying with 

the aircraft impact rule will require that 

the applicant or licensee consider the 

effect of the changed feature or 

capability on the original assessment. 

The applicant must describe how the 

modified design feature or functional 

capability continues to meet the 

assessment requirements in the aircraft 

impact rule. However, the NRC staff 

concludes that after the renewal is 

adopted, it is unlikely that any changes 

will be made to design features or 

functional capabilities credited for 

complying with the aircraft impact rule. 

Therefore, no industry cost analysis is 

needed for this portion of the regulatory 

action. 

The total industry cost is the sum of 

the implementation and operation costs. 

The implementation cost is the present 

value of the assumed one application 

($400,000) which when discounted is 

$390,000 (using a 3-percent discount 

rate) and $370,000 (using a 7-percent 

discount rate). The operating costs are 

$4,200 and $3,000 using the 3- and 7- 

percent discount rates as shown above. 

Therefore, the total discounted industry 

costs are $394,200 and $373,200 using 

3- and 7-percent discount rates, 

respectively. 

3.5.5 Standard Design Approval 

Applications 

Under the regulatory action, an 

applicant for a new standard design 

approval will need to comply with the 

requirements for an aircraft impact 

assessment in 10 CFR 50.150. However, 

the NRC staff concludes that it is 

unlikely that a request for a new 

standard design will be submitted to the 

NRC for approval during the next 20 

years. Therefore, no cost-benefit 

analysis is needed for a standard design 

approval. 

3.5.6 Combined License Applications 

Not Referencing a Standard Design 

Certification, Standard Design 

Approval, or Manufactured Reactor 

Although the NRC concludes that 

there is a low probability of a combined 

license applicant not referencing a 

standard design certification, standard 

design approval, or manufactured 

reactor, this analysis assumes that one 

application will be submitted to the 

NRC in year 10 following promulgation 

of the rule. 

In implementing the regulatory 

action, combined license applicants will 

incur one-time costs to develop an SGI 

program; purchase an appropriate SGI 

storage container and lock; perform the 

aircraft impact assessment; and identify 

and incorporate into the design those 

design features and functional 

capabilities to show, with reduced use 

of operator action, that the facility can 

withstand the effects of an aircraft 

impact. The NRC estimates that each 

applicant will spend 120 hours to 

develop the SGI program. Assuming a 

staff rate of $105 per hour, the one-time 

cost of developing the SGI program will 

be $13,000 per applicant (120 hours × 

$105/hour). The NRC also estimates it 

will cost $1,200 to purchase an 

appropriate SGI storage container and 

lock. Finally, the NRC estimates it will 

take an applicant 24 staff-months for a 

one-time cost of $400,000 (24 staffmonths × 4 weeks/month × 40 hours/ 

week × $105/hour) per application to 

complete the assessment and 

incorporate the results into the design. 

Thus, the one-time cost for an applicant 

to implement the regulatory action is 

estimated to be $415,000. For one 

application submitted in year 10, 

following promulgation of the rule, the 

discounted flow of funds of the 

implementation costs are $310,000 and 

$210,000 using 3- and 7-percent 

discount rates, respectively. 

With respect to industry operational 

costs, there will be recordkeeping costs 

for retention of the assessment and 

supporting documentation. The NRC 

will require that these records be 

retained throughout the pendency of the 

application and for the term of the 

license (including any period of 

renewal). For this analysis, it is assumed 

that it takes 4 years for the Commission 

to approve the application, after which 

the records are retained by the licensee 

for 60 years (initial 40-year license 

period plus a 20-year renewal period), at 

which time the Commission terminates 

the facility license. The records are 

retained for a total of 64 years. In 

addition, it is assumed that an applicant 

spends 3 hours per year to maintain the 

records. The estimated annual cost for 

recordkeeping is $315 per applicant (3 

hours × $105/hour). Thus, the 

discounted flow of funds of the 

recordkeeping costs for one application 

is $6,000 and $2,200 using 3- and 7- 

percent discount rates, respectively. 

After a combined license application 

is approved by the NRC, any change to 

a design feature or functional capability 

credited for complying with the aircraft 

impact rule will require that the 

licensee consider the effect of the 

changed feature or capability on the 

original assessment. The applicant must 

describe how the modified design 

feature or functional capability 

continues to meet the assessment 

requirements in the aircraft impact rule. 

However, the NRC staff concludes that 

after a combined license is issued, it is 

unlikely that a licensee will make any 

changes to design features or functional 

capabilities credited at the application 

stage. Therefore, no industry cost 

analysis is needed for this portion of the 

regulatory action. 

The total industry cost is the sum of 

the implementation and operation costs. 

The implementation cost is the present 

value of the assumed one application 

($415,000) which when discounted is 

$310,000 (using a 3-percent discount 

rate) and $210,000 (using a 7-percent 

discount rate). The operating costs are 

$6,000 and $2,200 using the 3- and 7- 

percent discount rates as shown above. 

Therefore, the total discounted industry 

costs are $316,000 and $212,200 using 

3- and 7-percent discount rates, 

respectively. 

28140 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

3.5.7 Combined License Applications 

Referencing a Standard Design 

Certification Issued Before the Effective 

Date of the Rule Which Has Not Been 

Amended To Comply With the Rule 

Under the regulatory action, an 

applicant for a combined license that 

references one of the four currently 

approved design certifications must 

comply with the rule. At present, the 

NRC is aware of only two of the 

currently approved designs that are 

planned to be referenced in combined 

license applications. For one of these 

certified designs, the AP1000, the 

original applicant has voluntarily 

submitted to the NRC an amendment 

that it believes will comply with the 

requirements of the aircraft impact rule. 

If the NRC approves the amendment as 

meeting the aircraft impact rule, then 

any combined license applicants 

referencing the recertified design will 

not be required to perform an aircraft 

impact assessment. Furthermore, this 

analysis assumes that after the 

combined license application is 

approved, the licensee makes no 

changes to a design feature or functional 

capability credited by the design 

certification for complying with the 

aircraft impact rule. Therefore, no costbenefit analysis is needed for combined 

license applications that reference the 

recertified AP1000 design. 

Regarding the other currently 

approved design certification that is 

being referenced in at least one 

combined license application, the NRC 

is not aware of any plans by the original 

applicant to submit an application to 

amend the certification to comply with 

the requirements of the aircraft impact 

rule, prior to the renewal of the 

certification. The NRC has received one 

combined license application 

referencing this certified design, and it 

is expected that this final rule will be 

effective before the NRC makes a 

decision on the combined license 

application. Therefore, the combined 

license applicant will be required to 

amend their application to comply with 

the requirements of the aircraft impact 

rule if the referenced design 

certification is not amended to comply 

with the rule during the pendency of the 

combined license application. 

In implementing the regulatory 

action, the NRC is assuming that the 

combined license applicant will submit 

an amendment to their application to 

comply with the aircraft impact rule. In 

doing so, this combined license 

applicant will incur one-time costs to 

develop an SGI program; purchase an 

appropriate SGI storage container and 

lock; perform the aircraft impact 

assessment; and identify and 

incorporate into the design those design 

features and functional capabilities to 

show, with reduced use of operator 

action, that the facility can withstand 

the effects of an aircraft impact. The 

NRC estimates that this applicant will 

spend 120 hours to develop the SGI 

program. Assuming a staff rate of $105 

per hour, the one-time cost of 

developing the SGI program will be 

$13,000 (120 hours × $105/hour). The 

NRC also estimates it will cost $1,200 to 

purchase an appropriate SGI storage 

container and lock. Finally, the NRC 

estimates it will take this applicant 24 

staff-months for a one-time cost of 

$400,000 (24 staff-months × 4 weeks/ 

month × 40 hours/week × $105/hour) to 

complete the assessment and 

incorporate the results into the design. 

Thus, the one-time cost for this 

applicant to implement the regulatory 

action is estimated to be $415,000. This 

analysis assumes that the application 

will be affected by the final rule in the 

year that the rule is promulgated (i.e., 

year 0), and therefore, the discounted 

flow of funds of the implementation 

costs is $415,000 using either 3- or 7- 

percent discount rates. 

With respect to industry operational 

costs, there will be recordkeeping costs 

for retention of the assessment and 

supporting documentation. The NRC 

will require that these records be 

retained throughout the pendency of the 

application and for the term of the 

license (including any period of 

renewal). For this analysis, it is assumed 

that it takes 4 years for the Commission 

to approve the application, after which 

the records are retained by the licensee 

for 60 years (initial 40-year license 

period plus a 20-year renewal period), at 

which time the Commission terminates 

the facility license. The records are 

retained for a total of 64 years. In 

addition, it is assumed that an applicant 

spends 3 hours per year to maintain the 

records. The estimated annual cost for 

recordkeeping is $315 per applicant (3 

hours × $105/hour). Thus, the 

discounted flow of funds of the 

recordkeeping costs for one application 

is $8,100 and $4,300 using 3- and 7- 

percent discount rates, respectively. 

After a combined license application 

is approved by the NRC, any change to 

a design feature or functional capability 

credited for complying with the aircraft 

impact rule will require that the 

licensee consider the effect of the 

changed feature or capability on the 

original assessment. The applicant must 

describe how the modified design 

feature or functional capability 

continues to meet the assessment 

requirements in the aircraft impact rule. 

However, the NRC concludes that after 

a combined license is approved, it is 

unlikely that a licensee will make any 

changes to design features or functional 

capabilities credited in the design at the 

application stage. Therefore, no industry 

cost analysis is needed for this portion 

of the regulatory action. 

The total industry cost is the sum of 

the implementation and operation costs. 

The implementation cost is the present 

value of the assumed one application 

($415,000) which when discounted is 

$415,000 (using either 3-or 7-percent 

discount rates). The operating costs are 

$8,100 and $4,300 using the 3- and 7- 

percent discount rates as shown above. 

Therefore, the total discounted industry 

costs are $423,100 and $419,300 using 

3- and 7-percent discount rates, 

respectively. 

3.5.8 Manufacturing License 

Applications Not Referencing a 

Standard Design Certification or 

Standard Design Approval 

Although the NRC concludes that 

there is a low probability of a 

manufacturing license application not 

referencing a standard design 

certification or standard design 

approval, this analysis assumes that one 

application will be submitted to the 

NRC in year 10 following promulgation 

of the rule. 

In implementing the regulatory 

action, manufacturing license applicants 

will incur one-time costs to develop an 

SGI program; purchase an appropriate 

SGI storage container and lock; perform 

the aircraft impact assessment; and 

identify and incorporate into the design 

those design features and functional 

capabilities to show, with reduced use 

of operator action, that the facility can 

withstand the effects of an aircraft 

impact. The NRC estimates that each 

applicant will spend 120 hours to 

develop the SGI program. Assuming a 

staff rate of $105 per hour, the one-time 

cost of developing the SGI program will 

be $13,000 per applicant (120 hours × 

$105/hour). The NRC also estimates it 

will cost $1,200 to purchase an 

appropriate SGI storage container and 

lock. Finally, the NRC estimates it will 

take an applicant 24 staff-months for a 

one-time cost of $400,000 (24 staffmonths × 4 weeks/month × 40 hours/ 

week × $105/hour) per application to 

complete the assessment and 

incorporate the results into the design. 

Thus, the one-time cost for an applicant 

to implement the regulatory action is 

estimated to be $415,000. For one 

application submitted in year 10, 

following promulgation of the rule, the 

discounted flow of funds of the 

implementation costs are $310,000 and 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28141 

$210,000 using 3- and 7-percent 

discount rates, respectively. 

With respect to industry operational 

costs, there will be recordkeeping costs 

for retention of the assessment and 

supporting documentation. The NRC 

will require that these records be 

retained throughout the pendency of the 

application and for the term of the 

license (including any period of 

renewal). For this analysis, it is assumed 

that it takes 4 years for the Commission 

to approve the application, after which 

the records are retained by the licensee 

for 15 years, at which time the 

Commission terminates the facility 

license. The records are retained for a 

total of 19 years. In addition, it is 

assumed that an applicant spends 3 

hours per year to maintain the records. 

The estimated annual cost for 

recordkeeping is $315 per applicant (3 

hours × $105/hour). Thus, the 

discounted flow of funds of the 

recordkeeping costs for one application 

is $3,400 and $1,700 using 3- and 7- 

percent discount rates, respectively. 

After a manufacturing license 

application is approved by the NRC, any 

change to a design feature or functional 

capability credited for avoiding or 

mitigating the effects of an aircraft 

impact will require that the licensee 

consider the effect of the changed 

feature or capability on the original 

assessment. The applicant must 

describe how the modified design 

feature or functional capability 

continues to meet the assessment 

requirements in the aircraft impact rule. 

However, the NRC staff concludes that 

after a manufacturing license is 

approved, it is unlikely that a licensee 

will make any changes to design 

features or functional capabilities 

credited in the design at the application 

stage. Therefore, no industry cost 

analysis is needed for this portion of the 

regulatory action. 

The total industry cost is the sum of 

the implementation and operation costs. 

The implementation cost is the present 

value of the assumed one application 

($415,000) which when discounted is 

$310,000 (using a 3-percent discount 

rate) and $210,000 (using a 7-percent 

discount rate). The operating costs are 

$3,400 and $1,700 using the 3- and 7- 

percent discount rates as shown 

previously. Therefore, the total 

discounted industry costs are $313,400 

and $211,700 using 3- and 7-percent 

discount rates, respectively. 

3.5.9 Manufacturing License 

Applications Referencing a Standard 

Design Certification Issued Before the 

Effective Date of the Rule Which Has 

Not Been Amended To Comply With the 

Rule 

Under the regulatory action, an 

applicant for a manufacturing license 

who references one of the four currently 

approved design certifications will need 

to comply with the requirements for an 

aircraft impact assessment in 10 CFR 

50.150. However, the NRC staff 

concludes that it is unlikely that a 

request for a manufacturing license 

referencing one of these four design 

certifications will be submitted to the 

NRC for approval during the next 20 

years. Therefore, no cost-benefit 

analysis is needed for this type of 

manufacturing license application. 

3.5.10 NRC Implementation 

Cost to Review the Applicant’s 

Results. The NRC will incur costs to 

review the actions taken by the 

applicant to comply with the aircraft 

impact rule. The one-time cost for NRC 

verification of compliance with the rule, 

consisting of reviewing the information 

submitted by each applicant and onsite 

inspection of the assessment, is 

estimated to be $125,000 (7.8 staffmonths × 4 weeks/month × 40 hours/ 

week × $100/hour). As an example, the 

total NRC cost in the year that the rule 

is promulgated (i.e., year 0), is the 

present value of the costs to review the 

actions taken and assessments for three 

applications for a standard design 

certification. The NRC staff estimates 

the cost to be $375,000 for the three 

applications. Table 3 shows the 

discounted flow of funds (using 3- and 

7-percent discount rates) of the NRC 

implementation costs over 20 years to 

review the applications for a standard 

design certification; renewal of an 

existing standard design certification; 

combined license that does not 

reference a standard design certification, 

standard design approval, or 

manufactured reactor; combined license 

that references a standard design 

certification issued before the effective 

date of the rule which has not been 

amended to comply with the rule; and 

manufacturing license that does not 

reference a standard design certification. 

Cost to Renew an Existing Design 

Certification. The costs to the NRC to 

conduct a rulemaking to adopt the 

renewal of an existing design 

certification are not included in this 

analysis because they are not an impact 

of this rule. 

Cost to Develop Guidance. The NRC 

assumes that it will take about 3.0 fulltime staff years to develop guidance to 

support implementation of the 

regulatory action. The cost to develop 

guidance is estimated to be $500,000. 

Cost to Provide Training. The NRC 

will incur costs to develop a training 

course to instruct NRC staff on the 

changes to 10 CFR parts 50 and 52. 

Assuming that it will take 20 staff-hours 

to develop the training course, the cost 

is estimated to be $2,000 (20 staff-hours 

× $100/hour). The cost to train 20 

people for 2 hours, plus the instructor’s 

time of 2 hours is estimated to be $4,200 

(21 people × 2 hours × $100/hour). The 

total cost to the NRC to provide training 

for the regulatory action is estimated to 

be $6,000. 

Table 3 shows the discounted flow of 

funds of the total NRC implementation 

costs for the regulatory action over 20 

years. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF NRC IMPLEMENTATION COSTS

Year 

Application Implementation costs 

Number reviewed Category * 

Using 7-percent 

discount rate 

($1,000) 

Using 3-percent 

discount rate 

($1,000) 

0 ........................................ 3 DC ............................................................................... 375 375 

0 ........................................ 1 COL ............................................................................. 125 125 

1 ........................................ 1 DC (renewal) ............................................................... 115 120 

4 ........................................ 1 DC ............................................................................... 95 110 

8 ........................................ 1 DC ............................................................................... 75 100 

10 ...................................... 1 COL ............................................................................. 65 95

10 ...................................... 1 ML ............................................................................... 65 95 

12 ...................................... 1 DC ............................................................................... 55 90 

16 ...................................... 1 DC ............................................................................... 40 80 

28142 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF NRC IMPLEMENTATION COSTS—Continued 

Year 

Application Implementation costs 

Number reviewed Category * 

Using 7-percent 

discount rate 

($1,000) 

Using 3-percent 

discount rate 

($1,000) 

20 ...................................... 1 DC ............................................................................... 30 70 

Cost to Review All Applications ................................................................................................................... 1,040 1,260 

Cost to Develop Guidance .......................................................................................................................... 500 500 

Cost to Provide Training .............................................................................................................................. 6 6 

Total (rounded) ..................................................................................................................................... 1,500 1,800 

* DC = design certification. COL = combined license application. ML = manufacturing license application. 

3.5.11 Impacts to Other Stakeholders 

The NRC staff has not identified any 

impacts to other stakeholders or the 

Agreement States. However, the action 

is expected to lead to an increase in 

public confidence because nuclear 

power plant designers will perform a 

rigorous assessment of design features 

and functional capabilities that could 

provide additional inherent protection 

to withstand the effects of an aircraft 

impact. 

3.5.12 Qualitative Benefits of the 

Action 

The benefits of the final rule can be 

evaluated only on a qualitative basis. 

The analysis estimates that the action 

will result in qualitative benefits in 

public health (accidental), occupational 

health (accidental), offsite property, 

onsite property, improvements in 

knowledge, and safeguards and security 

considerations. 

Specifically, the benefits will include 

improvements in knowledge because 

applicants for new nuclear power 

reactors will need to perform a designspecific assessment of the effects of the 

impact of a large, commercial aircraft. If 

the effects of an aircraft impact are not 

assessed by nuclear power plant 

designers at the design stage, it will be 

more difficult at a later time to enhance 

the facility’s inherent robustness to 

show that it can withstand the effects of 

an aircraft impact. Furthermore, 

applicants will need to use realistic 

analyses to identify and incorporate 

design features and functional 

capabilities to show, with reduced use 

of operator actions, that either the 

reactor core remains cooled or the 

containment remains intact, and either 

spent fuel cooling or spent fuel pool 

integrity is maintained. In this manner, 

this rule should result in new nuclear 

power reactor facilities being more 

inherently robust with regard to an 

aircraft impact than if they were 

designed in the absence of this rule. 

In addition, because the impact of a 

large, commercial aircraft is a beyonddesign-basis event, this rule provides an 

enhanced level of protection beyond 

that which is provided by the existing 

adequate protection requirements, 

which all operating power reactors are 

required to meet. 

4. Presentation of Results 

Table 4 summarizes the results of the 

cost analysis for industry. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF TOTAL INDUSTRY COSTS FOR ACTION

Category of application* 

Using 7-percent 

discount rate 

($1,000) 

Using 3-percent 

discount rate 

($1,000) 

Implementation costs 

DC ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,190 2,680 

DC (renewal) ................................................................................................................................................ 370 390 

COL .............................................................................................................................................................. 625 725 

ML ................................................................................................................................................................ 210 310 

Operating costs 

DC ................................................................................................................................................................ 17.54 30.1 

DC (renewal) ................................................................................................................................................ 3.0 4.2 

COL .............................................................................................................................................................. 6.5 14.1 

ML ................................................................................................................................................................ 1.7 3.4 

Total (rounded) ..................................................................................................................................... 3,400 4,200 

* DC = design certification. COL = combined license application. ML = manufacturing license application. 

Table 5 shows the total costs of the 

regulatory action. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28143 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF INDUSTRY AND NRC COSTS

Using 7-percent 

discount rate 

($1,000) 

Using 3-percent 

discount rate 

($1,000) 

Industry ........................................................................................................................................................ 3,400 4,200 

NRC ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,500 1,800 

Total (rounded) ..................................................................................................................................... 4,900 6,000 

5. Decision Rationale 

The total present-valued costs of this 

action are $6.0 million and $4.9 million 

for 3- and 7-percent discount rates, 

respectively. The benefits are expressed 

only qualitatively and are discussed in 

Section 3.5.11 of this regulatory 

analysis. As noted previously, the key 

benefit is improvement in knowledge 

because the final rule requires 

applicants for new nuclear power 

reactors to perform a design-specific 

assessment of the effects of the impact 

of a large, commercial aircraft. The 

applicant is required to use realistic 

analyses to identify and incorporate 

design features and functional 

capabilities to show, with reduced use 

of operator actions, that either the 

reactor core remains cooled or the 

containment remains intact, and either 

spent fuel cooling or spent fuel pool 

integrity is maintained. 

6. Implementation Schedule 

The final rule will become effective 

30 days after publication in the Federal 

Register. 

XV. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

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

Commission certifies that this rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. This final rule affects only the 

licensing of nuclear power plants. The 

companies that will apply for an 

approval, certification, permit, or 

license in accordance with the 

regulations affected by this rule 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). 

XVI. Backfit Analysis 

The NRC has determined that, except 

in one respect, the backfit rule, 10 CFR 

50.109, and comparable provisions in 10 

CFR part 52, do not apply to this final 

rule and, therefore, a backfit analysis is 

not required, because the final rule— 

with one exception—does not contain 

any provisions which either impose 

backfitting as defined in the backfit rule 

or is otherwise inconsistent with any of 

the comparable backfitting and finality 

provisions in part 52. The aircraft 

impact assessment requirements apply 

to new construction permits; new 

operating licenses that reference a new 

construction permit; new standard 

design certifications; new standard 

design approvals; manufacturing 

licenses that don’t reference a standard 

design certification or standard design 

approval, or that reference a design 

certification issued before the effective 

date of the rule which has not been 

amended to comply with the rule; and 

combined licenses that don’t reference a 

standard design certification, standard 

design approval, or manufactured 

reactor, or that reference a standard 

design certification issued before the 

effective date of the rule which has not 

been amended to comply with the rule. 

They also apply to renewal of the four 

existing design certifications in 10 CFR 

part 52, appendices A through D, if the 

design has not previously been 

amended to comply with the aircraft 

impact rule. However, combined license 

applicants referencing one of the four 

currently approved design certifications 

must comply with the rule. The 

backfitting issues for each of these 

licenses, certifications, and regulatory 

approvals are discussed below. 

Construction Permits and Operating 

Licenses 

The aircraft impact rule applies to 

construction permits issued after July 

13, 2009, the effective date of the rule. 

To the extent that the aircraft impact 

rule revises the requirements for future 

construction permits, the requirements 

do not constitute backfitting, because 

the requirements in the final aircraft 

impact rule are prospective in nature 

and effect. The backfit rule was not 

intended to apply to every NRC action 

which substantially changes the 

expectations of future applicants under 

10 CFR part 50. The final rule also does 

not apply to current holders of 

construction permits. Hence, there is no 

backfitting of current holders of 

construction permits. The final aircraft 

impact rule also does not apply to 

applicants for operating licenses whose 

underlying construction permits are 

issued before July 13, 2009. Inasmuch as 

the aircraft impact rule is not imposed 

as a requirement on operating license 

applicants whose underlying 

construction permits were issued before 

July 13, 2009, there is no backfitting 

associated with such existing operating 

licenses. However, future applicants for 

operating licenses whose underlying 

construction permits were also issued 

after July 13, 2009 are required to 

comply with the aircraft impact rule. To 

the extent that the rule revises the 

requirements for future operating 

license applicants whose construction 

permits are issued after July 13, 2009, 

the requirements do not constitute 

backfitting, because the requirements in 

the final aircraft impact rule are 

prospective in nature and effect. The 

backfit rule was not intended to apply 

to every NRC action which substantially 

changes the expectations of future 

applicants under 10 CFR part 50. 

New Design Certifications and New 

Design Approvals 

The aircraft impact rule applies to 

new standard design certifications and 

new standard design approvals. To the 

extent that the aircraft impact rule 

revises the requirements for future 

design certifications and design 

approvals issued after July 13, 2009, the 

requirements do not constitute 

backfitting, because the requirements in 

the aircraft impact rule are prospective 

in nature and effect. The backfit rule 

was not intended to apply to every NRC 

action which substantially changes the 

expectations of future applicants under 

10 CFR part 52. 

Four Currently-Approved Design 

Certifications 

The aircraft impact rule does not 

directly change any of the four currently 

approved design certifications in 10 

CFR part 52, appendices A through D, 

because the rule does not require that 

the aircraft impact assessment be 

performed for those four design 

certifications during their current terms, 

nor does the rule require that they be 

modified to include any design features 

28144 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

or functional capabilities that meet the 

criteria in the rule. However, the aircraft 

impact rule requires a combined license 

applicant referencing one of the four 

currently approved design certifications 

to perform the assessment required by 

the aircraft impact rule. In addition, the 

rule requires that if any of the four 

design certifications are renewed, then 

the renewed design must meet the 

requirements of the rule. Both situations 

raise backfitting concerns, which are 

addressed separately below. 

1. Effect During Current Term of Design 

Certification 

The aircraft impact rule requires a 

combined license applicant referencing 

one of the four currently approved 

design certifications to perform the 

assessment required by the rule. As 

such, the aircraft impact rule changes 

the circumstances under which an 

applicant for combined license may 

reference one of the four currently 

approved design certifications. In 

addition, by requiring the combined 

license applicant to perform the 

assessment, and describe plant design 

features and functional capabilities that 

are within the scope of the certified 

design, the aircraft impact rule may be 

viewed as effectively constituting a 

change to the design certification. Each 

of the four currently approved design 

certification rules contains several 

provisions generally addressing the 

referencing of the design certification. 

None of these provisions require a 

referencing combined license applicant 

to, in effect, modify the referenced 

design to address aircraft impacts. 

Moreover, Section VI, ‘‘Issue 

Resolution,’’ of each currently approved 

design certification states that the NRC’s 

safety finding on the design ‘‘includes 

the finding that additional or alternative 

structures, systems, components, design 

features, * * * acceptance criteria, or 

justifications are not necessary * * *.’’ 

In light of these provisions, the NRC 

believes that the final aircraft impact 

rule requirements effectively constitute 

a change to these design certifications, 

and the applicable criteria of Section VI 

of each design certification rule and 10 

CFR 52.63(a)(1) must be met by the 

aircraft impact rule. 

However, the NRC does not believe 

that these criteria can be satisfied. 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

decided to administratively exempt the 

aircraft impact rule from these finality 

and issue resolution provisions in 10 

CFR part 52. The Commission’s decision 

is grounded on the following 

considerations. First, the Commission 

believes that performance of the 

assessment required by the rule and 

incorporation of design features and 

functional capabilities identified by the 

assessment constitutes a substantial 

increase in overall protection of public 

health and safety and common defense 

and security of the design and operation 

of a nuclear power plant constructed in 

accordance with the referenced design 

certification, and that direct and 

indirect implementation costs of 

compliance with the aircraft impact rule 

are justified in view of the increased 

safety and security. Performing the 

assessment itself provides a substantial 

safety benefit in reducing licensee and 

regulatory uncertainty regarding the 

capability (and vulnerability) of the 

design to the impact of a large, 

commercial aircraft. Although it is 

difficult to quantify the safety 

enhancement gained through 

implementation of the aircraft impact 

rule, the NRC nevertheless believes that 

the cost of performing the assessment 

and incorporating the results into the 

design, as outlined in Section XIV, 

‘‘Regulatory Analysis,’’ of the 

Supplementary Information of this 

document, is justified in view of the 

increased safety provided by 

implementation of the aircraft impact 

rule. 

Second, all of the four currently 

approved certified designs contain one 

or more advanced reactor attributes 

described in the Commission’s ‘‘Policy 

Statement on Regulation of Advanced 

Reactors,’’ (73 FR 60612; October 14, 

2008). These attributes include the use 

of highly reliable and less complex 

shutdown and decay heat removal 

systems, longer time constants and 

sufficient instrumentation to allow for 

more diagnosis and management before 

reaching safety system challenge and/or 

exposure of vital equipment to adverse 

conditions, and designs that minimize 

the potential for severe accidents and 

their consequences by providing 

sufficient inherent safety, reliability, 

redundancy, diversity and 

independence in safety systems. 

Incorporation of design features and 

functional capabilities identified as part 

of the assessment required by the 

aircraft impact rule will serve to further 

enhance the availability, capability and 

effectiveness of those advanced reactor 

attributes included in each of the 

currently approved certified designs. 

It also appears that a broad range of 

stakeholders supported the overarching 

concept that all newly-constructed 

nuclear power plants should be required 

to meet the aircraft impact rule. All of 

the commenters representing nongovernmental organizations unaffiliated 

with the nuclear industry supported the 

application of the aircraft impact rule to 

all newly-constructed reactors— 

including those referencing currently 

approved design certifications—and to 

all of the currently approved design 

certifications regardless of whether they 

have been referenced in a combined 

license application. NEI—the industry 

organization representing, in part, the 

companies who are most likely to be 

combined license applicants and, 

therefore, most likely to be adversely 

affected by a NRC decision to impose 

the aircraft impact rule on such 

applicants—supported the extension of 

the aircraft impact rule to all future 

combined license applicants. The 

original applicants for three of the four 

existing design certifications supported 

application of the aircraft impact rule to 

combined license applications 

referencing one of the four currently 

approved designs. The NRC is aware 

that Westinghouse Electric Company, 

LLC, which was the original applicant 

for the AP1000 design certification, is 

seeking an amendment to the design 

certification to address the (anticipated 

final) aircraft impact rule. The NRC 

notes that any adverse backfitting 

impact is limited inasmuch as: (i) No 

combined license referencing any of the 

four existing design certifications has 

been issued, (ii) combined license 

applications referencing one of the four 

existing design certifications are still in 

the early stages of NRC review, and (iii) 

the detailed aircraft impact parameters 

were made available to design 

certification applicants and affected 

combined license applicants in early 

2008. 

Finally, the Commission emphasizes 

that this is a highly exceptional action 

limited to the specific circumstances of 

this rulemaking. The Commission has 

only once before taken action to 

administratively exempt a rulemaking 

from applicable backfitting or issue 

finality provisions, and in that one 

instance (involving revisions to 10 CFR 

part 26, fitness for duty requirements) 

the NRC ultimately withdrew the 

rulemaking, see SRM on SECY–99–141 

(June 24, 1999). Although the 

Commission cannot, as a categorical 

matter, rule out the possibility of its 

taking administrative exemptions in the 

future, the Commission emphasizes that 

administrative exemptions will 

continue to be an extremely rare action 

to be taken only if regulatory 

considerations strongly favor taking 

such administrative exemption. 

2. Effect at Renewal 

The aircraft impact rule requires that 

if any of the four design certifications be 

renewed, then the renewed design meet 

the requirements of the rule. The NRC 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28145 

evaluated whether 10 CFR 

50.150(a)(3)(iii)(B) and the conforming 

revision to 10 CFR 52.59(a), which 

implement this requirement governing 

the renewal of these four design 

certifications, together represent a 

violation of the finality protection 

provided by 10 CFR 52.59(b). The NRC 

concludes that these requirements do 

not violate the finality protection 

accorded by those regulatory provisions. 

The finality protections accorded by 10 

CFR 52.59(b) requirements do not 

absolutely preclude the NRC from 

applying new or modified requirements 

to the design certification at the renewal 

stage. To impose a new or modified 

requirement at renewal, the NRC need 

only find that the requirement is either 

necessary for adequate protection, 

necessary for compliance with 

requirements in effect at the time of 

initial certification, or provides a 

substantial increase in protection to 

public health and safety or common 

defense and security that justifies the 

cost of implementing the new 

requirements. 

As part of this rulemaking, the NRC 

makes the finding that the aircraft 

impact rule, when imposed upon any 

one of the four design certifications at 

the time of renewal, constitutes a 

substantial increase in protection to 

public health and safety. The reasons for 

the NRC’s finding are set forth in the 

discussion above in ‘‘Effect during 

current term of design certification’’ and 

in the overall discussion in this 

statement of considerations of the 

reasons underlying the adoption of this 

rule. Accordingly, the NRC has decided 

to impose by rule a requirement that 

each of the four currently approved 

design certification, if renewed, meet 

the requirements of the aircraft impact 

rule if they have not been previously 

amended to comply with the rule. 

Inasmuch as the NRC has made a 

generic finding that the rule constitutes 

a substantial increase in protection to 

public health and safety and thereby 

meets the criteria for design certification 

renewal in 10 CFR 52.59(b), the NRC 

does not intend to make an additional 

finding on the same subject in any 

renewal proceeding for one of the 

currently approved design certifications. 

Combined Licenses 

The final aircraft impact rule applies 

to all combined licenses which do not 

reference a standard design certification, 

standard design approval or 

manufactured reactor. There are no 

existing combined licenses protected by 

the backfitting restrictions in 10 CFR 

50.109 or the finality provisions in 10 

CFR part 52. To the extent that the final 

rule revises the requirements for future 

combined licenses, including combined 

license applications which are currently 

pending before the NRC, the 

requirements do not constitute 

backfitting nor are they otherwise 

inconsistent with the finality provisions 

in 10 CFR part 52, because the 

requirements in the final aircraft impact 

rule are prospective in nature and effect. 

Neither the backfit rule nor the finality 

provisions in 10 CFR part 52 were 

intended to apply to every NRC action 

which substantially changes the 

expectations of future applicants under 

10 CFR part 52. 

Manufacturing Licenses 

The final aircraft impact rule applies 

to all manufacturing licenses which do 

not reference a standard design 

certification or standard design 

approval. There are no existing 

manufacturing licenses protected by the 

backfitting restrictions in 10 CFR 50.109 

or the finality provisions in 10 CFR part 

52. To the extent that the final rule 

revises the requirements for future 

manufacturing licenses, the 

requirements do not constitute 

backfitting nor are they otherwise 

inconsistent with the finality provisions 

in 10 CFR part 52, because the 

requirements in the final aircraft impact 

rule are prospective in nature and effect. 

Neither the backfit rule nor the finality 

provisions in 10 CFR part 52 were 

intended to apply to every NRC action 

which substantially changes the 

expectations of future applicants under 

10 CFR part 52. 

XVII. Congressional Review Act 

Under the Congressional Review 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 of the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 50 

Antitrust, Classified information, 

Criminal penalties, Fire protection, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear 

power plants and reactors, Radiation 

protection, Reactor siting criteria, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

10 CFR Part 52 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting, 

Combined license, Early site permit, 

Emergency planning, Fees, Inspection, 

Limited work authorization, Nuclear 

power plants and reactors, Probabilistic 

risk assessment, Prototype, Reactor 

siting criteria, Redress of site, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Standard design, Standard design 

certification. 

■ 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. 552 and 553, 

the NRC is adopting the following 

amendments to 10 CFR parts 50 and 52. 

PART 50—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF 

PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 

FACILITIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 50 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 161, 182, 

183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 

953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 

Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 

2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 

2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 

Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 

5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 

(44 U.S.C. 3504 note); sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 

109–58, 119 Stat. 806–810 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 

2021, 2021b, 2111). Section 50.7 also issued 

under Pub. L. 95–601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 

(42 U.S.C. 5841). Section 50.10 also issued 

under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 955, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, 

Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). 

Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also 

issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). 

Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also 

issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 

2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix 

Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91–190, 

83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 

and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 

1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, 

and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97–415, 

96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 

also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 

U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80–50.81 also 

issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also 

issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 

2237). 

■ 2. In § 50.8, paragraph (b) is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 50.8 Information collection 

requirements: OMB approval. 

* * * * * 

(b) The approved information 

collection requirements contained in 

this part appear in §§ 50.30, 50.33, 

50.34, 50.34a, 50.35, 50.36, 50.36a, 

50.36b, 50.44, 50.46, 50.47, 50.48, 50.49, 

50.54, 50.55, 50.55a, 50.59, 50.60, 50.61, 

50.62, 50.63, 50.64, 50.65, 50.66, 50.68, 

50.69, 50.70, 50.71, 50.72, 50.74, 50.75, 

50.80, 50.82, 50.90, 50.91, 50.120, 

50.150, and appendices A, B, E, G, H, 

I, J, K, M, N,O, Q, R, and S to this part. 

* * * * * 

28146 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

1Changes to the detailed parameters on aircraft 

impact characteristics set forth in guidance shall be 

approved by the Commission. 

■ 3. In § 50.34, paragraphs (a)(13) and 

(b)(12) are added to read as follows: 

§ 50.34 Contents of applications; technical 

information. 

(a) * * * 

(13) On or after July 13, 2009, 

stationary power reactor applicants who 

apply for a construction permit shall 

submit the information required by 10 

CFR 50.150(b) as a part of their 

preliminary safety analysis report. 

(b) * * * 

(12) On or after July 13, 2009, 

stationary power reactor applicants who 

apply for an operating license which is 

subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a) shall submit 

the information required by 10 CFR 

50.150(b) as a part of their final safety 

analysis report. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. A new undesignated center heading 

is added before § 50.120 to read as 

follows: 

Additional Standards for Licenses, 

Certifications, and Regulatory 

Approvals 

■ 5. A new § 50.150 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 50.150 Aircraft impact assessment. 

(a) Assessment requirements. (1) 

Assessment. Each applicant listed in 

paragraph (a)(3) shall perform a designspecific assessment of the effects on the 

facility of the impact of a large, 

commercial aircraft. Using realistic 

analyses, the applicant shall identify 

and incorporate into the design those 

design features and functional 

capabilities to show that, with reduced 

use of operator actions: 

(i) The reactor core remains cooled, or 

the containment remains intact; and 

(ii) spent fuel cooling or spent fuel 

pool integrity is maintained. 

(2) Aircraft impact characteristics.1

The assessment must be based on the 

beyond-design-basis impact of a large, 

commercial aircraft used for long 

distance flights in the United States, 

with aviation fuel loading typically used 

in such flights, and an impact speed and 

angle of impact considering the ability 

of both experienced and inexperienced 

pilots to control large, commercial 

aircraft at the low altitude 

representative of a nuclear power 

plant’s low profile. 

(3) Applicability. The requirements of 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this 

section apply to applicants for: 

(i) Construction permits for nuclear 

power reactors issued under this part 

after July 13, 2009; 

(ii) Operating licenses for nuclear 

power reactors issued under this part for 

which a construction permit was issued 

after July 13, 2009; 

(iii)(A) Standard design certifications 

issued under part 52 of this chapter after 

July 13, 2009; 

(B) Renewal of standard design 

certifications in effect on July 13, 2009 

which have not been amended to 

comply with the requirements of this 

section by the time of application for 

renewal; 

(iv) Standard design approvals issued 

under part 52 of this chapter after July 

13, 2009; 

(v) Combined licenses issued under 

part 52 of this chapter that: 

(A) Do not reference a standard design 

certification, standard design approval, 

or manufactured reactor; or 

(B) Reference a standard design 

certification issued before July 13, 2009 

which has not been amended to address 

the requirements of this section; and 

(vi) Manufacturing licenses issued 

under part 52 of this chapter that: 

(A) Do not reference a standard design 

certification or standard design 

approval; or 

(B) Reference a standard design 

certification issued before July 13, 2009 

which has not been amended to address 

the requirements of this section. 

(b) Content of application. For 

applicants identified in paragraph (a)(3) 

of this section, the preliminary or final 

safety analysis report, as applicable, 

must include a description of: 

(1) The design features and functional 

capabilities identified in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section; and 

(2) How the design features and 

functional capabilities identified in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section meet the 

assessment requirements in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section. 

(c) Control of changes. (1) For 

construction permits which are subject 

to paragraph (a) of this section, if the 

permit holder changes the information 

required by 10 CFR 50.34(a)(13) to be 

included in the preliminary safety 

analysis report, then the permit holder 

shall consider the effect of the changed 

feature or capability on the original 

assessment required by 10 CFR 

50.150(a) and amend the information 

required by 10 CFR 50.34(a)(13) to be 

included in the preliminary safety 

analysis report to describe how the 

modified design features and functional 

capabilities continue to meet the 

assessment requirements in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section. 

(2) For operating licenses which are 

subject to paragraph (a) of this section, 

if the licensee changes the information 

required by 10 CFR 50.34(b)(12) to be 

included in the final safety analysis 

report, then the licensee shall consider 

the effect of the changed feature or 

capability on the original assessment 

required by 10 CFR 50.150(a) and 

amend the information required by 10 

CFR 50.34(b)(12) to be included in the 

final safety analysis report to describe 

how the modified design features and 

functional capabilities continue to meet 

the assessment requirements in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 

(3) For standard design certifications 

which are subject to paragraph (a) of 

this section, generic changes to the 

information required by 10 CFR 

52.47(a)(28) to be included in the final 

safety analysis report are governed by 

the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 

52.63. 

(4)(i) For combined licenses which are 

subject to paragraph (a) of this section, 

if the licensee changes the information 

required by 10 CFR 52.79(a)(47) to be 

included in the final safety analysis 

report, then the licensee shall consider 

the effect of the changed feature or 

capability on the original assessment 

required by 10 CFR 50.150(a) and 

amend the information required by 10 

CFR 52.79(a)(47) to be included in the 

final safety analysis report to describe 

how the modified design features and 

functional capabilities continue to meet 

the assessment requirements in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 

(ii) For combined licenses which are 

not subject to paragraph (a) of this 

section but reference a standard design 

certification which is subject to 

paragraph (a) of this section, proposed 

departures from the information 

required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be 

included in the final safety analysis 

report for the referenced standard 

design certification are governed by the 

change control requirements in the 

applicable design certification rule. 

(iii) For combined licenses which are 

not subject to paragraph (a) of this 

section but reference a manufactured 

reactor which is subject to paragraph (a) 

of this section, proposed departures 

from the information required by 10 

CFR 52.157(f)(32) to be included in the 

final safety analysis report for the 

manufacturing license are governed by 

the applicable requirements in 10 CFR 

52.171(b)(2). 

(5)(i) For manufacturing licenses 

which are subject to paragraph (a) of 

this section, generic changes to the 

information required by 10 CFR 

52.157(f)(32) to be included in the final 

safety analysis report are governed by 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28147 

the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 

52.171. 

(ii) For manufacturing licenses which 

are not subject to paragraph (a) of this 

section but reference a standard design 

certification which is subject to 

paragraph (a) of this section, proposed 

departures from the information 

required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be 

included in the final safety analysis 

report for the referenced standard 

design certification are governed by the 

change control requirements in the 

applicable design certification rule. 

PART 52—LICENSES, 

CERTIFICATIONS, AND APPROVALS 

FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, 

186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 948, 953, 954, 955, 

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

amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2201, 2232, 2233, 

2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 

Stat. 1242, 1244, 1246, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 

(44 U.S.C. 3504 note). 

■ 7. In § 52.47, paragraph (a)(28) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 52.47 Contents of applications; technical 

information. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(28) For applications for standard 

design certifications which are subject 

to 10 CFR 50.150(a), the information 

required by 10 CFR 50.150(b). 

* * * * * 

■ 8. In § 52.59, paragraph (a) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.59 Criteria for renewal. 

(a) The Commission shall issue a rule 

granting the renewal if the design, either 

as originally certified or as modified 

during the rulemaking on the renewal, 

complies with the Atomic Energy Act 

and the Commission’s regulations 

applicable and in effect at the time the 

certification was issued, provided, 

however, that the first time the 

Commission issues a rule granting the 

renewal for a standard design 

certification in effect on July 13, 2009, 

the Commission shall, in addition, find 

that the renewed design complies with 

the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 

50.150. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. In § 52.79, paragraph (a)(47) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 52.79 Contents of applications; technical 

information in final safety analysis report. 

(a) * * * 

(47) For applications for combined 

licenses which are subject to 10 CFR 

50.150(a), the information required by 

10 CFR 50.150(b). 

* * * * * 

■ 10. In § 52.137, paragraph (a)(26) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 52.137 Contents of applications; 

technical information. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(26) For applications for standard 

design approvals which are subject to 10 

CFR 50.150(a), the information required 

by 10 CFR 50.150(b). 

* * * * * 

■ 11. In § 52.157, paragraph (f)(32) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 52.157 Contents of applications; 

technical information in final safety analysis 

report. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(32) For applications for 

manufacturing licenses which are 

subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a), the 

information required by 10 CFR 

50.150(b). 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day 

of June 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–13582 Filed 6–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P