Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA) authorizes the NRC to issue licenses to operate commercial nuclear power plants for up to 40 years. The AEA and the NRC's regulations allow for the renewal of these licenses for up to an additional 20 years for each renewal term, which could either be an initial license renewal (initial LR) or subsequent license renewal (SLR). There are no limitations in the AEA or the NRC's regulations restricting the number of times a license may be renewed. The NRC's review of a license renewal application proceeds along two independent regulatory tracks: one for safety issues and another for environmental issues. The NRC's regulations for the license renewal safety review are set forth in part 54 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” The NRC's environmental protection regulations are set forth in 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

The license renewal application includes both general and technical information that demonstrates that an applicant is in compliance with the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 54. During the safety review, the license renewal applicant must demonstrate that the effects of aging will be adequately managed so that the intended function(s) will be maintained consistent with the current licensing basis for the period of extended operation. Information in the application must be sufficiently detailed to permit the NRC staff to complete its review and develop the safety finding.

Separate from the safety analysis, the applicant prepares an evaluation of the potential impacts to the environment of facility operation for an additional 20 years, which the NRC uses to inform its environmental analysis. Under the NRC's environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR part 51, which implements the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). To support the preparation of these EISs, the NRC issued a rule in 1996 (61 FR 28467) and a supporting analysis in NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants” (LR GEIS). The LR GEIS defines which impacts would essentially be the same at all nuclear power plants or a subset of plants ( i.e., generic or Category 1 issues) and which impacts could be different at different plants and would require a plant-specific analysis to determine the impacts (Category 2 issues). The determinations are codified in Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,” of appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 (hereafter referred to as “Table B-1”). 1 For each license renewal application, those impacts that require a plant-specific analysis must be analyzed by the applicant in its environmental report and by the NRC in a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) to NUREG-1437. The 1996 rule was amended in 2013 (78 FR 37281) by the issuance of an updated rule and publication of LR GEIS, Revision 1. In 2014, the NRC issued a final rule that addressed the generic determination of the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond a reactor's licensed life for operation (79 FR 56238). That rule amended 10 CFR part 51 by revising the findings of two environmental issues listed in Table B-1.

This proposed rule would further redefine the number and scope of the environmental issues that must be addressed by the NRC and applicants during license renewal environmental reviews. These changes are based primarily on the lessons learned and knowledge gained from initial LR and SLR reviews performed by the NRC since development of the 2013 LR GEIS. The changes also address Commission direction in Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM)-SECY-22-0024, “Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses—Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32, NRC-2018-0296),” by thoroughly evaluating SLR in this review and update. In addition, new scientific research, public comments, changes in environmental regulations and impacts methodology, and other new information were considered in evaluating the significance of impacts associated with license renewal.

In the 2013 rule, there were 78 environmental issues, 17 of which required a plant-specific analysis (Category 2 issues) during license renewal environmental reviews. In this proposed rule, there are 80 environmental issues, 20 of which require a plant-specific analysis. The following points summarize the primary proposed changes to the NRC's requirements in part 51:

1. Several issues were consolidated, including some issues that were combined with other related Category 1 or Category 2 issues.

2. One new Category 1 issue was added: “Greenhouse gas impacts on climate change.”

3. One issue was changed from Category 2 to Category 1: “Severe accidents.”

4. Two new Category 2 issues were added: “Climate change impacts on environmental resources” and “National Marine Sanctuaries Act: sanctuary resources.”

5. One Category 2 issue was divided into three separate Category 2 issues: “Endangered Species Act: federally listed species and critical habitats under U.S. Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction,” “Endangered Species Act: federally listed species and critical habitats under National Marine Fisheries Service jurisdiction,” and “Magnuson-Stevens Act: essential fish habitat.”

The NRC prepared a draft regulatory analysis to determine the expected quantitative and qualitative costs and benefits of the proposed rule and associated guidance. The draft regulatory analysis concluded that the proposed rule and associated guidance would result in undiscounted total net savings of $91.4 million to the industry and $31.7 million to the NRC.

The draft regulatory analysis also reflected qualitative factors to be considered in the NRC's rulemaking decision. Qualitative factors include regulatory stability, predictability, and clarity in the licensing process. The proposed rule would reduce the cost to the industry of preparing environmental reports for license renewal applications by focusing resources on plant-specific analyses. The NRC would also recognize similar reductions in cost and be able to better focus its resources on plant-specific environmental issues during reviews of reactor license renewal applications.

For more information, see the draft regulatory analysis (available as indicated in Section XV, Availability of Documents, of this document).

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0296 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0296.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

• NRC's PDR : You may examine and purchase copies of public documents, by appointment, at the NRC's PDR, Room P1 B35, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. To make an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. eastern time (ET), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

• Technical Library : The Technical Library, which is located at Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, is open by appointment only. Interested parties may make appointments to examine documents by contacting the NRC Technical Library by email at Library.Resource@nrc.gov between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website ( https:// www.regulations.gov ). Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0296 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,” (LR GEIS) is intended to streamline the NRC's license renewal environmental review by documenting a systematic approach that the NRC uses to evaluate the environmental impacts of renewing the operating licenses of commercial nuclear power plants. The LR GEIS also provides the technical basis for Table B-1, in appendix B to subpart A, and the Commission's other license renewal regulations in 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” This Background section provides an overview of the environmental review process and the rulemaking history related to the license renewal process under which a power reactor licensee may apply for a renewal of its operating license.

As a Federal agency, the NRC must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by assessing the potential environmental effects of a proposed agency action before approving or disapproving that proposed action. The regulations implementing the NRC's NEPA review are found in 10 CFR part 51.

Under NEPA, Federal agencies prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for any major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. In addition, the Commission has identified at § 51.20 certain categories of NRC proposed actions that require the preparation of an EIS, including the renewal of a license to operate a nuclear power reactor. 2 For each plant-specific review, the NRC prepares a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) to the LR GEIS.

The NRC's provisions at § 51.53(c) require an applicant for renewal of a nuclear power plant license to submit with its application a separate document entitled “Applicant's Environmental Report—Operating License Renewal Stage” that describes in detail the affected environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant effluents and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the report must address the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters described in § 51.45, which include the following: (1) the impact of the proposed action on the environment, (2) any adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided, (3) alternatives to the proposed action, (4) the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (5) any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources. Within its environmental report, the applicant is required to include analyses of the environmental impacts of the proposed action, including the impacts of refurbishment activities, if any, associated with license renewal and the impacts of operation during the renewal term, for those issues identified as Category 2 issues in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51. Additionally, the applicant is required to provide any new and significant information of which it is aware in its environmental report. If there is no new and significant information for a Category 1 issue, the applicant can rely on that Category 1 generic finding and analyses in the LR GEIS. The applicant's environmental report informs the NRC's independent evaluation.

Before making a decision on a renewed license application for a nuclear power plant, the NRC is required to prepare and distribute, for public comment, a draft SEIS. The draft SEIS assesses the potential environmental impacts that may result from continued nuclear power plant operation and any proposed refurbishment activities during the renewal term (initial license renewal (initial LR) or subsequent license renewal (SLR). In preparing the draft SEIS, the NRC staff will rely on the findings in Table B-1 for Category 1 issues and analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action (license renewal) on the affected environment and specific environmental resources ( e.g., groundwater) for Category 2 issues. Additionally, the NRC will consider any potentially new and significant information for Category 1 issues and for uncategorized issues. An environmental issue may remain uncategorized where the impact level remains unknown or uncertain, such as any activity or aspect associated with the nuclear power plant operations that can act upon the environment in a manner or an intensity not previously recognized or quantified. Within each environmental resource area, the NRC staff will analyze issues that correspond to specific, potential environmental impacts at the specific site ( e.g., within the groundwater resource area, groundwater quality degradation resulting from water withdrawals). In the draft SEIS, the NRC staff also will evaluate alternatives to the proposed action.

After analyzing the potential environmental impacts for each issue, the NRC assigns one of the following three significance levels to describe its evaluation of those impacts on that issue in either the LR GEIS or a plant-specific SEIS:

SMALL—The environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the Commission's regulations are considered SMALL.

MODERATE—The environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

LARGE—The environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

In assessing the significance of environmental impacts for some environmental resources ( e.g., federally protected ecological resources and historic properties that require interagency consultation with Federal agencies or Indian Tribes  3 ), the NRC assigns the appropriate impact level (other than SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) in accordance with the terminology used in the relevant statutes and their implementing regulations.

The NRC will document its environmental review and analysis through the preparation of a draft SEIS that will be published for public comment in the Federal Register , with a minimum 45-day comment period, in accordance with § 51.73. Further, as provided in § 51.74, the NRC will distribute the draft SEIS to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), other Federal agencies that have a special expertise or jurisdiction with respect to any potential environmental impact that may be relevant to the proposed action, the applicant, and appropriate State, Tribal, and local agencies and clearinghouses.

Following the public comment period, the NRC will analyze any comments received, revise its environmental analyses as appropriate, and then prepare the final

SEIS in accordance with the requirements of § 51.91. Under § 51.93, the NRC will distribute the final SEIS to many of the same entities as the draft SEIS and to each commenter. The NRC also will publish a notice of availability for the final SEIS in the Federal Register . As set forth in § 51.102 and following the preparation and distribution of the final SEIS, the NRC will prepare and issue the record of decision, which is a concise, publicly available statement that documents the agency's decision, as informed by the final SEIS and final safety evaluation report. The requirements for a record of decision are described in § 51.103, and include stating the NRC's decision ( e.g., the approval or disapproval of the license renewal application), identifying the alternatives (including the proposed action) considered by the agency, and a statement as to whether the NRC has taken all practicable measures within its jurisdiction to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected and if not, to explain why those measures were not adopted. Further, the record of the decision will include a determination by the NRC as to whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable, which is the purpose and need of license renewal.

In 1986, the NRC initiated a program to develop license renewal regulations and associated regulatory guidance in anticipation of receiving applications for the renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses. In 1996, the NRC published a final rule that amended the environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR part 51 to include provisions for applicants seeking to renew an operating license for up to an additional 20 years (61 FR 28467; June 5, 1996). The 1996 final rule was based upon the analyses and findings of a May 1996 NRC environmental impact statement, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,” NUREG-1437 (the “1996 LR GEIS”).

Based upon the findings of the 1996 LR GEIS, the 1996 final rule identified those license renewal environmental issues for which a generic analysis had been determined to be appropriate (Category 1 issues). Similarly, based upon the findings of the 1996 LR GEIS, the 1996 final rule identified those environmental impacts for which a site- or plant-specific analysis was required, both by the applicant in its environmental report and by the NRC in its SEIS (Category 2 issues). The 1996 final rule, among other amendments to 10 CFR part 51, added appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant.” Appendix B included Table B-1 which summarized and codified the findings of the 1996 LR GEIS.

In preparing the 1996 LR GEIS, the Commission based its generic assessment on the following factors:

(1) License renewal will involve nuclear power plants for which the environmental impacts of operation are well understood as a result of lessons learned and knowledge gained from operating experience and completed license renewals.

(2) Activities associated with license renewal are expected to be within this range of operating experience; thus, environmental impacts can be reasonably predicted.

(3) Changes in the environment around nuclear power plants are gradual and predictable.

The 1996 LR GEIS improved the efficiency of the license renewal process in the following ways: (1) providing an evaluation of the types of environmental impacts that may occur from renewing commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses, (2) identifying and assessing impacts that are expected to be generic ( i.e., the same or similar) at all nuclear power plants or plants with specified plant or site characteristics, and (3) defining the number and scope of environmental impacts that need to be addressed in plant-specific SEISs to the 1996 LR GEIS.

As identified in the 1996 final rule, a Category 1 issue is an issue that meets the following criteria: (1) the environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristic; (2) a single significance level ( i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except for certain issues discussed below in more detail); and (3) mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. A Category 2 issue is defined as an issue where one or more of Category 1 criteria cannot be met, and therefore, additional plant-specific review is required.

As stated in the 1996 final rule, the NRC recognized that environmental issues might change over time and that additional issues may need to be considered. As further stated in the introductory text to Table B-1, the NRC indicated that it intended to review the material in Table B-1 on a 10-year basis.

On December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66537), the NRC amended the 1996 final rule to incorporate minor clarifying and conforming changes and to add language omitted from Table B-1.

In 1999, the NRC amended 10 CFR part 51, including Table B-1, to expand the generic findings pertaining to the environmental impacts resulting from transportation of fuel and waste to and from a single nuclear power plant (64 FR 48496; September 3, 1999). This final rule also incorporated rule text consistent with the 1996 LR GEIS to address local traffic impacts attributable to the continued operations of a nuclear power plant during the license renewal term.

In 2013, the NRC completed the first 10-year review and update of the 1996 LR GEIS and published a final rule (78 FR 37281; June 20, 2013) that amended Table B-1 by updating the Commission's 1996 findings on the environmental impacts related to the renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses and other NRC environmental protection regulations ( e.g., 10 CFR 51.53, which sets forth the contents of the applicant's environmental report, 10 CFR 51.75, and 10 CFR 51.95). The 2013 final rule redefined the number and scope of the environmental issues that must be addressed by the NRC and applicants during license renewal environmental reviews. These changes were primarily based on lessons learned and knowledge gained from license renewal environmental reviews conducted by the NRC since 1996. Together with the final rule, the NRC issued a revised LR GEIS, NUREG-1437 Revision 1 (the “2013 LR GEIS”), as well as Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications,” and Revision 1 to NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, “Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants: Operating License Renewal.”

On July 31, 2013 (78 FR 46255), the NRC amended the 2013 final rule to incorporate minor clarifying and conforming changes and revise the statutory authority that was cited in the authority citation for the final rule.

In 2014, the NRC published a final rule titled “Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel” that revised the generic determination regarding the environmental impacts of the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond a reactor's licensed life for operation and prior to ultimate disposal (79 FR 56238; September 14, 2014). The continued storage final rule also made conforming amendments to the determinations of environmental effects of renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant. These changes addressed issues related to the onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel, both for the license renewal term and for the period after the licensed life for reactor operations, and offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal. Specifically, the continued storage final rule revised two environmental issues in Table B-1: (1) “Onsite storage of spent fuel” and (2) “Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal.”

In August 2020, the NRC issued a notice of intent to review and potentially update the 2013 LR GEIS  4 ( i.e., the scoping notice) in the Federal Register (85 FR 47252; August 4, 2020). The comment period began in August 2020 and ended in November 2020. The scoping notice provided the public with an opportunity to submit comments and participate in the environmental scoping process, as defined in § 51.26. Specifically, the NRC invited the public to review the results of the NRC staff's preliminary review of the LR GEIS, including a proposal to address SLR in the LR GEIS, and asked the public to provide comments and suggestions for other areas that should be updated. The NRC conducted four webinars where the staff received comments from the public. All comments provided during the 2020 scoping period were considered in preparing the draft revised LR GEIS and are publicly available. The official transcripts and the scoping summary report are available as indicated in the “Availability of Documents” section of this proposed rule.

In July 2021, the staff submitted SECY-21-0066, “Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses—Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296),” to request Commission approval to initiate a rulemaking to amend Table B-1 and update the 2013 LR GEIS and associated guidance. The rulemaking plan also proposed to remove the word “initial” from § 51.53(c)(3), which, as described above, governs license renewal applicant's environmental reports; this change would have included applicants for SLR in the section's scope. The plan would have also made corresponding changes to the LR GEIS and the associated guidance.

In February 2022, the Commission issued SRM-SECY-21-0066, “Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses—Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296).” The Commission disapproved the staff's recommendation and directed the staff to develop a rulemaking plan that aligned with the Commission Order CLI-22-03, and recent decisions in Turkey Point, CLI-22-02, and Peach Bottom, CLI-22-04, regarding the NEPA analysis of SLR applications. These orders concluded that the staff did not conduct an adequate NEPA analysis for the SLR period and further stated that the staff cannot exclusively rely on the LR GEIS for Category 1 issues in SLR environmental reviews. The SRM also directed the staff to include in the rulemaking plan a proposal to remove the word “initial” from § 51.53(c)(3) and to revise the LR GEIS and Table B-1 and associated guidance to fully account for one term of SLR. The SRM also directed the staff to provide options for a future rulemaking effort regarding the 10-year regulatory update.

In March 2022, the staff submitted SECY-22-0024, “Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses—Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296),” to request Commission approval to initiate a rulemaking that would align with the Commission Order CLI-22-03 and recent decisions in Orders CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-04 regarding the NEPA analysis of SLR applications, as well as to remove the word “initial” from § 51.53(c)(3) and to revise the LR GEIS and Table B-1 and associated guidance to fully account for one term of SLR. The staff also proposed to update the LR GEIS to consider new technical data from completed environmental reviews, changes to environmental laws and regulations, and other information.

In April 2022, the Commission issued SRM-SECY-22-0024, “Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses—Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296),” approving the staff's recommendation to proceed with rulemaking.

In April 2022, the staff submitted SECY-22-0036, “Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses—10-Year Environmental Regulatory Update (NRC-2022-0087)” that provided options for a future rulemaking effort to incorporate further changes to the LR GEIS as part of the 10-year regulatory update to amend Table B-1. Because the current rulemaking would address all necessary issues, the staff recommended that a future rulemaking for updating the LR GEIS and Table B-1 be deferred, to begin no sooner than FY 2031. The staff further recommended that the current update to the LR GEIS constitute the update for this review cycle.

In June 2022, the Commission issued SRM-SECY-22-0036 approving the staff's recommendation.

The proposed amendments to 10 CFR part 51 would revise the existing requirements for environmental reviews of applications for a license renewal of operating nuclear power plants. The proposed amendments would codify the updated generic conclusions of the draft revised LR GEIS for those issues for which a generic conclusion regarding the potential environmental impacts of issuing an initial or subsequent renewed license for a nuclear power plant can be reached. These conclusions have been updated to specifically account for one term of SLR as well as initial LR and other new information since the last LR GEIS update. These issues are identified as Category 1 issues in the draft revised LR GEIS. The Category 1 issues identified and described in the draft revised LR GEIS may be applied to any initial LR or SLR application for operating nuclear power plants covered by the LR GEIS and have been determined to have a SMALL impact for all plants or a subset of plants. Table B-1 in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 summarizes and codifies the Commission's findings for all Category 1 issues. The revisions to Table B-1 account for one term of SLR; reflect lessons learned, knowledge gained, and experience from license renewal environmental reviews performed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS; consider changes to applicable laws and regulations; and factor in new scientific data and methodology with respect to the assessment of potential environmental impacts of nuclear power plant license renewal. In addition, the proposed amendments include conforming changes to the provisions of § 51.53(c)(3) and § 51.95. These proposed changes are intended to maintain the accuracy of the LR GEIS and ensure that future environmental reviews meet the “hard look” standard to fully account for the environmental impacts of initial LR and SLR, as documented in the draft revised LR GEIS.

In the draft revised LR GEIS, the NRC reevaluated the Category 1 generic findings and determined that many of the environmental impacts of continued nuclear power plant operations and refurbishment during the renewal term (initial LR or SLR) would be SMALL. However, license renewal applicants in their environmental reports and the NRC staff in the SEIS would still need to evaluate whether new and significant information exists that would require a plant-specific analysis for that issue. See Section III.C of this document for a more detailed discussion of the process used in the draft revised LR GEIS.

In the draft revised LR GEIS, the NRC identified a total of 80 environmental issues that may be associated with operation and refurbishment during the renewal term. Chapter 4 of the draft revised LR GEIS describes the impact findings and impact significance level of SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE, or a range where applicable, for each Category 1 and Category 2 issue. Of the 80 issues, the NRC identified 59 environmental issues as Category 1 issues. Applicants and the NRC staff would be required to rely on the generic finding for each Category 1 issue as supported by the analysis in the draft revised LR GEIS, which would be codified in the proposed Table B-1.

The draft revised LR GEIS identifies 20 environmental issues as Category 2 issues. These issues cannot be evaluated generically and must be evaluated by the applicant, in its environmental report, and the NRC staff, in the draft SEIS, using plant-specific information. For example, for the issue, “Surface water use conflicts (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river),” the staff found in the draft revised LR GEIS that impacts could be of small or moderate significance based on site-specific factors that exacerbate consumptive water use by a nuclear power plant. The factors include increased water demand due to population growth; changes in water demand by industrial, agricultural, or other users of the same water source; drought and river low-flow conditions, and reduced water availability over time due to climate change. Therefore, the potential for water use conflicts must be addressed on a plant-specific basis.

For one environmental issue, “Electromagnetic fields (EMF),” the draft revised LR GEIS identified the category as “N/A” (not applicable). Studies of 60-Hz EMFs have not uncovered consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures. Because the state of the science is currently inadequate, no generic conclusion on human health impacts is possible. If, in the future, the Commission finds that a general agreement has been reached by appropriate Federal health agencies that there are adverse health effects from EMFs, the Commission will then treat this issue in a manner similar to a Category 2 issue and require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews of these health effects in their environmental report. Until such time, applicants are not required to submit information on this issue.

This revision evaluates the environmental issues and findings of the 2013 LR GEIS and updates the analysis and assumptions to fully account for both initial LR and SLR. Lessons learned, knowledge gained, and experience from license renewal environmental reviews performed by the NRC since development of the 2013 LR GEIS provided a significant source of new information for this assessment. This review included an examination of previous site-specific considerations of potential new and significant information for Category 1 issues. In addition, new scientific research, changes in environmental regulations and impact methodology, and other new information were considered in evaluating the significance of impacts associated with initial LR and SLR. Public comments on previous plant-specific license renewal reviews were analyzed to assess the existing environmental issues and identify new ones. The purpose of this evaluation was to review the findings presented in the 2013 LR GEIS and to ensure that the analysis and assumptions support SLR environmental reviews. In doing so, the NRC considered the need to modify, add to, or delete any of the 78 environmental issues in the 2013 LR GEIS and codified in Table B-1. After this evaluation, the staff identified 80 impact issues for detailed consideration in this draft LR GEIS revision. No environmental issues identified in Table B-1 and evaluated in the 2013 LR GEIS were eliminated, but certain issues were consolidated, and one issue was subdivided into three separate issues. Two new Category 2 issues and one new Category 1 issue were added.

Environmental issues in the draft revised LR GEIS are arranged by resource area in the same manner as the 2013 LR GEIS. In the draft revised LR GEIS, the environmental impacts of continued nuclear power plant operations during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) and associated refurbishment activities are addressed in each resource area. This analysis provides the technical basis for the 80 identified environmental issues. Additionally, the NRC staff also considered a range of replacement energy alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) as described in the draft revised LR GEIS. This discussion of potential alternatives will inform the site-specific alternatives analyses in the SEISs. The draft revised LR GEIS considers and evaluates the 80 environmental issues within the context of the following environmental resource ( i.e., subject matter) areas: (1) land use and visual resources, (2) air quality and noise, (3) geologic environment, (4) water resources (surface water and groundwater resources), (5) ecological resources (terrestrial resources, aquatic resources, and federally protected ecological resources), (6) historic and cultural resources, (7) socioeconomics, (8) human health (radiological and nonradiological hazards and postulated accidents), (9) environmental justice, (10) waste management and pollution prevention (radioactive and nonradioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel), (11) greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, (12) cumulative effects, and (13) impacts common to all alternatives (uranium fuel cycle and termination of nuclear power plant operations and decommissioning). The proposed rule revises Table B-1 in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 to reflect the changes in the draft revised LR GEIS.

In the draft revised LR GEIS, the general analytical approach used by the NRC staff to evaluate potential environmental impacts was to: (1) describe the nuclear power plant activity or aspect of plant operations or refurbishment that could affect a resource; (2) identify the resource that is affected; (3) evaluate past license renewal reviews and other available information; (4) assess the nature and magnitude of the potential environmental impact on the affected resource for both initial LR and SLR; (5) characterize the significance of the effects; (6) determine whether the results of the analysis apply to all nuclear power plants or to a specific subset of plants, or whether a plant-specific analysis is required— i.e., whether the impact issue is Category 1 (generic) or Category 2 (plant-specific); and (7) consider additional mitigation measures for adverse impacts. Identification of environmental impacts (or issues) was conducted in an iterative rather than a stepwise manner. For example, after information was collected and level of significance was reviewed, the staff reexamined impacts to determine if any issues should be removed, added, consolidated, or divided.

The Commission would like to emphasize that in complying with the NRC's environmental regulations under § 51.53(c)(3)(iv), as required by NEPA, applicants are required to provide any new and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which the applicant is aware, including for Category 1 issues and for uncategorized issues. The proposed amendments would not change this requirement.

The draft revised LR GEIS retains the 2013 LR GEIS definitions for Category 1 and Category 2 issues. The draft revised LR GEIS discusses six major types of changes to the categorization of issues:

(1) New Category 1 Issue: This would be a Category 1 issue not previously listed in the 2013 LR GEIS. The applicant would not need to assess this issue in its environmental report. Under § 51.53(c)(3)(iv), however, the applicant is responsible for disclosing in the environmental report any “new and significant information” of which the applicant is aware. The NRC has addressed the environmental impacts of these Category 1 issues generically for all plants in the draft revised LR GEIS.

(2) New Category 2 Issue: This would be a Category 2 issue not previously listed in the 2013 LR GEIS. For the new Category 2 issue, the applicant would have to conduct an analysis of the potential environmental impacts related to that issue and include it in the environmental report. The analysis must include a discussion of (i) the possible actions to mitigate any adverse impacts associated with license renewal and (ii) the environmental impacts of alternatives to license renewal.

(3) Existing Issue Category Change from Category 2 to Category 1: This would be an issue that was considered as Category 2 in the 2013 LR GEIS and would now be considered as Category 1 in the draft revised LR GEIS. An applicant would no longer be required to conduct a plant-specific analysis on the environmental impacts associated with this issue. Consistent with the requirements of § 51.53(c)(3)(iv), an applicant would only be required to describe in its environmental report any “new and significant information” of which it is aware.

(4) Consolidation of an Existing Category 1 Issue into an Existing Category 2 issue: This would be an issue where an existing Category 1 issue in the 2013 LR GEIS has a similar scope as an existing Category 2 issue and has been consolidated into the Category 2 issue. Therefore, for the new, consolidated Category 2 issue, the applicant would have to conduct a plant-specific analysis of the potential environmental impacts related to that issue and include it in the environmental report. The analysis must include a discussion of (i) the possible actions to mitigate any adverse impacts associated with license renewal and (ii) the environmental impacts of alternatives to license renewal.

(5) Consolidation of One or More Existing Category 1 Issues into an Existing Category 1 Issue: This would be an issue that was considered Category 1 in the 2013 LR GEIS and would remain so. The issue has been revised by consolidating similar aspects of one or more Category 1 issues, in whole or in part, into the existing Category 1 issue and which affect the same environmental resources. Consistent with the requirements of § 51.53(c)(3)(iv), an applicant would only be required to describe in its environmental report any “new and significant information” of which it is aware.

(6) Subdividing an Existing Category 2 Issue into Multiple Category 2 Issues: This would be an existing Category 2 issue in the 2013 LR GEIS that has been divided into multiple, new Category 2 issues in order to more clearly address specific categories of environmental resource impacts. For the new, separate Category 2 issues, the applicant would have to conduct analyses of the potential environmental impacts related to each separate issue, as applicable, and include it in the environmental report. The analyses must include a discussion of (i) the possible actions to mitigate any adverse impacts associated with license renewal and (ii) the environmental impacts of alternatives to license renewal.

This proposed rule revises the introductory paragraph in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, to indicate the applicability to initial LR and one term of SLR and to update the findings on environmental issues with the data supported by the analyses in the proposed NUREG-1437, Revision 2.

The proposed rule would also modify the language of the introductory paragraph to clarify that Table B-1 is applicable to nuclear power plant licensees holding an operating license, construction permit, or combined license as of June 30, 1995

The proposed rule renames the title of Table B-1, “Summary of NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,” as “Summary of Findings on Environmental Issues for Initial and One Term of Subsequent License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,” to spell out the applicability to initial LR and SLR environmental reviews.

The draft revised LR GEIS, which is being concurrently issued for public comment, provides a summary change table comparing the 78 environmental issues in the 2013 LR GEIS with the 80 environmental issues in the draft revised LR GEIS. The proposed rule amends Table B-1 to reflect the changes made in the draft revised LR GEIS. As documented in the draft revised LR GEIS, for each of the 80 environmental issues, the scope has been expanded to fully account for the impacts of continued nuclear power plant operations and any refurbishment encompassing the initial LR or SLR term. The changes to Table B-1 are described below:

(1) Onsite Land Use, (2) Offsite Land Use, and (3) Offsite Land Use in Transmission Line Right-of-Ways (ROWs)— “Onsite land use,” “Offsite land use,” and “Offsite Land Use in Transmission Line Right-of-Ways (ROWs)” are Category 1 issues. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for these issues.

(4) Aesthetic Impacts —“Aesthetic impacts” is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(5) Air Quality Impacts —The proposed rule would rename “Air quality impacts (all plants)” as “Air quality impacts”; it is a Category 1 issue. The proposed rule makes minor clarifying changes and revisions to the order of the topics discussed in the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(6) Air Quality Effects of Transmission Lines —“Air Quality Effects of Transmission Lines” is a Category 1 issue. The proposed rule would make minor clarifying changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(7) Noise Impacts —“Noise impacts” is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(8) Geology and Soils —“Geology and Soils” is a Category 1 issue. The proposed rule would make minor clarifying changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(9) Surface Water Use and Quality (Non-Cooling System Impacts), (10) Altered Current Patterns at Intake and Discharge Structures, (11) Altered Salinity Gradients, (12) Altered Thermal Stratification of Lakes, (13) Scouring Caused by Discharged Cooling Water, (14) Discharge of Metals in Cooling System Effluent, (15) Discharge of Biocides, Sanitary Wastes, and Minor Chemical Spills, and (16) Surface Water Use Conflicts (Plants with Once-Through Cooling Systems) —“Surface water use and quality (non-cooling system impacts),” “Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures,” “Altered salinity gradients,” “Altered thermal stratification of lakes,” “Scouring caused by discharged cooling water,” “Discharge of metals in cooling system effluent,” Discharge of biocides, sanitary wastes, and minor chemical spills,” and “Surface water use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems)” are Category 1 issues. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for these issues.

(17) Surface Water Use Conflicts (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water from a River)— “Surface water use conflicts (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river)” is a Category 2 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(18) Effects of Dredging on Surface Water Quality —“Effects of dredging on surface water quality” is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(19) Temperature Effects on Sediment Transport Capacity —“Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity” is a Category 1 issue. The proposed rule would make minor clarifying changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(20) Groundwater Contamination and Use (Non-Cooling System Impacts) —“Groundwater contamination and use (non-cooling system impacts)” is a Category 1 issue. The proposed rule would make minor clarifying changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(21) Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants That Withdraw Less than 100 Gallons per Minute [gpm]) —“Groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw less than 100 gallons per minute [gpm])” is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(22) Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants That Withdraw More than 100 Gallons per Minute [gpm]) and (23) Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants with Closed-Cycle Cooling Systems That Withdraw Makeup Water from a River) —“Groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw more than 100 gallons per minute [gpm])” and “Groundwater use conflicts (plants with closed-cycle cooling systems that withdraw makeup water from a river)” are Category 2 issues. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for these issues.

(24) Groundwater Quality Degradation Resulting from Water Withdrawals —“Groundwater quality degradation resulting from water withdrawals” is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(25) Groundwater Quality Degradation (Plants with Cooling Ponds) —The proposed rule would combine a Category 1 issue, “Groundwater quality degradation (cooling ponds in salt marshes),” and a Category 2 issue, “Groundwater quality degradation (cooling ponds at inland sites),” and name it “Groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds).” The combined issue is a Category 2 issue. The two issues are combined because both issues consider the possibility of groundwater quality and beneficial use becoming degraded as a result of the migration of contaminants discharged to cooling ponds. Also, for the first issue, “Groundwater quality degradation (cooling ponds in salt marshes),” the NRC staff found that the issue was relevant to only two nuclear power plants. The combined issue reflects lessons learned and knowledge gained and new and significant information from the Turkey Point SLR review that showed that cooling ponds can impact groundwater and surface water in ways not previously considered. This combined issue also considers the environmental effects of saltwater intrusion and encroachment on adjacent surface water and groundwater quality.

As described in the draft revised LR GEIS, the NRC staff had previously determined that plants relying on cooling ponds in salt marsh settings were expected to have a small impact on groundwater quality. However, new information indicates that the impacts of groundwater quality degradation for plants using cooling ponds in either coastal (salt marsh) settings or at inland sites could be greater than small ( i.e., small or moderate), depending on site-specific differences in the cooling pond's construction and operation; water quality; site hydrogeologic conditions (including the interaction of surface water and groundwater); and the location, depth, and pump rate of any water supply wells contributing to or impacted by outflow or seepage from a cooling pond. Therefore, the combined issue is a Category 2 issue. The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 accordingly.

(26) Radionuclides Released to Groundwater —“Radionuclides released to groundwater” is a Category 2 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(27) Non-Cooling System Impacts on Terrestrial Resources —The proposed rule would rename “Effects on terrestrial resources (non-cooling system impacts)” as “Non-cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources.” The issue is a Category 2 issue. The proposed rule makes clarifying changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to more precisely describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resources ( e.g., aquatic and terrestrial) issues.

(28) Exposure of Terrestrial Organisms to Radionuclides —“Exposure of terrestrial organisms to radionuclides” is a Category 1 issue. The proposed rule would make minor clarifying changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(29) Cooling System Impacts on Terrestrial Resources (Plants with Once-Through Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds) —“Cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds)” is a Category 1 issue. This issue concerns the potential impacts of once-through cooling systems and cooling ponds at nuclear power plants on terrestrial resources during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). Cooling system operation can alter the ecological environment in a manner that affects terrestrial resources. Such alterations may include thermal effluent additions to receiving water bodies; chemical effluent additions to surface water or groundwater; impingement of waterfowl; disturbance of terrestrial plants and wetlands associated with maintenance dredging; disposal of dredged material; and erosion of shoreline habitat.

Thermal effluents discharged from once-through cooling systems and cooling ponds can contribute to localized elevated water temperatures in receiving bodies that may affect the distributions of some terrestrial plants and animals in adjacent riparian or wetland habitats. Thermal effluents to waters of the United States are regulated through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to limit the effects of such discharges on the ecological environment. In addition, wetland and riparian plant communities present near nuclear power plants have been influenced by many years of facility operation, and these communities have acclimated to local conditions.

Along with thermal effluents, nonradiological chemical contaminants may be present in cooling system discharges. The NPDES permits also limit the allowable concentrations of contaminants in liquid effluent to minimize impacts on the ecological environment.

Groundwater quality can be degraded by nonradiological contaminants present in cooling ponds and cooling canals. The NRC staff found that this issue was identified only at one operating nuclear power plant, where the movement of hypersaline water did not have discernable ecological impacts.

The impingement of waterfowl at cooling water intakes has been observed at some nuclear power plants. These plants have changed operational procedures, such as periodically cleaning zebra mussels off intake structures, or have changed intake structure designs to minimize impacts on waterfowl.

Maintenance dredging near cooling system intakes or outfalls physically disturb or alter wetland or riparian habitats. Dredging and disposal of dredged material would likely require the nuclear power plant operator to obtain a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; best management practices and conditions associated with these permits would minimize impacts on the ecological environment.

The NRC determined that the effects of once-through cooling systems and cooling ponds on terrestrial resources would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of populations of plants or animals during the initial LR or SLR term. The proposed rule would revise the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resource issues.

(30) Cooling Tower Impacts on Terrestrial Plants —The proposed rule would rename “Cooling tower impacts on vegetation (plants with cooling towers)” as “Cooling tower impacts on terrestrial plants”; it is a Category 1 issue. This issue concerns the potential impacts of cooling tower operation on terrestrial plants during the license renewal term. Terrestrial habitats near cooling towers can be exposed to particulates, such as salt, and can experience increased humidity, which can deposit water droplets or ice on vegetation; these effects can lead to structural damage and changes in plant communities.

The NRC determined that the effects of cooling towers on terrestrial plants would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of plant populations during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). The proposed rule would revise the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resource issues.

(31) Bird Collisions with Plant Structures and Transmission Lines —“Bird collisions with plant structures and transmission lines” is a Category 1 issue. This issue concerns the risk of birds colliding with plant structures and transmission lines during the license renewal term. Tall structures on nuclear power plant sites, such as cooling towers, meteorological towers, and transmission lines, create collision hazards for birds that can result in injury or death.

The NRC determined that the risk of bird collisions with site structures would remain the same for a given nuclear power plant during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). Because the number of associated bird mortalities is small for any species, it is unlikely that losses would threaten the stability of local or migratory bird populations or result in a noticeable impairment of the function of a species within the ecosystem. The proposed rule would revise the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resource issues.

(32) Water Use Conflicts with Terrestrial Resources (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water from a River) —“Water use conflicts with terrestrial resources (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river)” is a Category 2 issue. This issue concerns water use conflicts that may arise at nuclear power plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers that withdraw makeup water from a river and how those conflicts could affect terrestrial resources during the license renewal term.

Nuclear power plant cooling systems may compete with other users relying on surface water resources, including downstream municipal, agricultural, or industrial users. For plants using cooling towers, while the volume of surface water withdrawn is substantially less than once-through systems for a similarly sized nuclear power plant, the makeup water needed to replenish the consumptive loss of water to evaporation can be significant. Cooling ponds also require makeup water. Water use conflicts with terrestrial resources, especially riparian communities, could occur when water that supports these resources is diminished by a combination of anthropogenic uses.

The NRC identified water use conflicts with terrestrial resources at only one nuclear power plant. That nuclear power plant operator developed and implemented a water level management plan, which effectively mitigated the effects that downstream riparian communities might experience from the plant's cooling water withdrawals.

The NRC determined that water use conflicts during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting of the plant; the consumptive use of other municipal, agricultural, or industrial water users; and the plants and animals present in the area. Water use conflicts with terrestrial resources would be small at most nuclear power plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers that withdraw makeup from a river but may be moderate or large at some plants.

The proposed rule would revise the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resource issues.

(33) Transmission Line Right-Of-Way (ROW) Management Impacts on Terrestrial Resources —“Transmission line right-of-way (ROW) management impacts on terrestrial resources” is a Category 1 issue. This issue concerns the effects of transmission line ROW management on terrestrial plants and animals during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR).

Utilities maintain transmission line ROWs so that the ground cover is composed of low-growing herbaceous or shrubby vegetation and grasses. Noise and general human disturbance during ROW management can temporarily disturb wildlife and affect their behaviors. Most nuclear power plants maintain procedures to minimize or mitigate the potential impacts of ROW management. The scope of transmission lines relevant to license renewal include only the lines that connect the nuclear power plant to the first substation that feeds into the regional power distribution system. Typically, the first substation is located on the nuclear power plant property within the primary industrial-use area or other developed portion of the plant site. Therefore, effects on terrestrial plants and animals are generally negligible.

The proposed rule would revise the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resource issues.

(34) Electromagnetic Field Effects on Terrestrial Plants and Animals —The proposed rule would rename “Electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, honeybees, wildlife, livestock)” as “Electromagnetic field effects on terrestrial plants and animals” for clarity; it is a Category 1 issue. This issue concerns the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) generated by electric transmission lines at nuclear power plants on terrestrial plants and animals, including agricultural crops, honeybees, wildlife, and livestock, during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). Studies investigating the effects of EMFs produced by operating transmission lines up to 1,100 kV have generally not detected any ecologically significant impact on terrestrial plants and animals. Plants and animals near transmission lines have been exposed to many years of transmission line operation and associated EMFs. The scope of transmission lines relevant to license renewal include only the lines that connect the nuclear power plant to the first substation that feeds into the regional power distribution system. Therefore, the effects of EMFs on terrestrial plants and animals are generally negligible.

The proposed rule would revise the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resource issues.

(35) Impingement Mortality and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Once-Through Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds) —The proposed rule would combine a Category 2 issue, “Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds)” and the impingement component of a Category 1 issue, “Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses,” into one Category 2 issue, “Impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds).” This issue pertains to impingement mortality and entrainment of finfish and shellfish at nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems and cooling ponds during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). This includes plants with helper cooling towers that are seasonally operated to reduce thermal load to the receiving water body, reduce entrainment during peak spawning periods, or reduce consumptive water use during periods of low river flow.

In the draft revised LR GEIS, the NRC renamed the issue to include impingement mortality, rather than simply impingement. This change is consistent with the EPA's 2014 CWA Section 316(b) regulations and the EPA's assessment that impingement reduction technology is available, feasible, and has been demonstrated to be effective. Additionally, the EPA's 2014 CWA Section 316(b) regulations establish best technology available (BTA) standards for impingement mortality based on the fact that survival is a more appropriate metric for determining environmental impact than simply looking at total impingement. Therefore, the draft revised LR GEIS also consolidates the impingement component of the “Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses” issue, for plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds, into this issue.

As a result of the 2014 CWA Section 316(b) regulations, nuclear power plants must submit detailed information about their cooling water intake systems as part of NPDES permit renewal applications to inform the permitting authority's BTA determination. Some nuclear power plants have received final BTA determinations under the 2013 CWA Section 316(b) regulations. Many others have submitted the required information and are awaiting final determinations. The NRC expects that most operating nuclear power plants will have final BTA determinations within the next several years.

When available, the NRC relies on the expertise and authority of the NPDES permitting authority with respect to the impacts of impingement mortality and entrainment. Therefore, if the NPDES permitting authority has made BTA determinations for a nuclear power plant pursuant to CWA Section 316(b) and that plant has implemented any associated requirements or those requirements would be implemented before the license renewal period, then the NRC assumes that adverse impacts on the aquatic environment would be minimized. In such cases, the NRC concludes that the impacts of either impingement mortality, entrainment, or both would generally be small over the course of the initial LR or SLR term. In cases where the NPDES permitting authority has not made BTA determinations, the NRC analyzes the potential impacts of impingement mortality, entrainment, or both using a weight-of-evidence approach and determines the level of impact (small, moderate, or large) that the aquatic environment is likely to experience over the course of the license renewal term.

The potential effects of impingement mortality and entrainment during the license renewal term depend on numerous plant-specific factors, including the ecological setting of the plant; the characteristics of the cooling system; and the characteristics of the fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms present in the area ( e.g., life history, distribution, population trends, management objectives, etc.). Additionally, whether the NPDES permitting authority has made BTA determinations pursuant to CWA Section 316(b) and whether the nuclear power plant operator has implemented any associated requirements is also a relevant factor.

(36) Impingement Mortality and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Cooling Towers) —The proposed rule would combine a Category 1 issue, “Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers),” and the impingement component of a Category 1 issue, “Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses,” into one Category 1 issue, “Impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers).” The issue pertains to impingement mortality and entrainment of finfish and shellfish at nuclear power plants with cooling towers that operate on a fully closed-cycle mode.

In the draft revised LR GEIS, the NRC changed the title of this issue to include impingement mortality, rather than simply impingement. This change is consistent with the EPA's 2014 CWA Section 316(b) regulations and because assessing survival of impinged organisms is a more appropriate metric for determining environmental impact than simply looking at total impingement. Therefore, this draft revised LR GEIS also consolidates into this issue the impingement component of the issue of “Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses,” for plants with cooling towers.

In the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC found that that impingement and entrainment of finfish and shellfish at plants with cooling towers operated in a fully closed-cycle mode did not result in noticeable effects on finfish or shellfish populations within source water bodies, and this impact was not expected to be an issue during the license renewal term. This finding is further supported by the EPA's 2014 CWA Section 316(b) regulations for existing facilities, which state that the operation of a closed-cycle recirculating system is an essentially preapproved technology for achieving impingement mortality BTA.

The 2013 LR GEIS considered that impingement may result in sublethal effects that could increase the susceptibility of fish or finfish to predation, disease, or parasitism. However, only once-through cooling systems were anticipated to be of concern for this issue as the lower volume of water required by nuclear power plants with cooling towers that operate in a fully closed-cycle mode would minimize this potential effect. The NRC does not expect secondary effects of impingement to be of concern during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) at nuclear power plants with cooling towers, and sublethal effects of entrainment do not apply.

In considering the effects of impingement mortality and entrainment of closed-cycle cooling systems on aquatic ecology, the NRC evaluated the same issues that were evaluated for nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds. No significant impacts on aquatic populations have been reported at any existing nuclear power plants with cooling towers operating in a closed-cycle mode. As part of obtaining BTA determinations under CWA 316(b), permitting authorities may require some nuclear power plant licensees to implement additional plant-specific controls to reduce impingement mortality and entrainment. Implementation of such controls would further reduce or mitigate impingement mortality and entrainment during the license renewal term. The NRC determined that the impacts of impingement mortality and entrainment on aquatic organisms during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) would be small for nuclear power plants with cooling towers operated in a fully closed-cycle mode. Therefore, the combined issue is a Category 1 issue. The proposed rule would revise the finding column of Table B-1 accordingly.

(37) Entrainment of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton —The proposed rule would rename “Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton (all plants)” as “Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton”; it is a Category 1 issue. The NRC found that the effects of entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of populations of these organisms in source water bodies during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) of any nuclear power plants. As part of obtaining the BTA entrainment determinations under Section 316(b) of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ), permitting authorities may require some nuclear power plants to implement additional site-specific controls to reduce entrainment. Implementation of such controls would further reduce or mitigate entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton.

The proposed rule would revise the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to clarify the scope of issues and resources considered and indicate that the entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton would be mitigated through adherence to NPDES permit conditions established pursuant to CWA Section 316(b).

(38) Effects of Thermal Effluents on Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Once-Through Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds) —The proposed rule would rename “Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds)” as “Effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds)” for clarity and consistency with other ecological resource titles; it is a Category 2 issue.

This issue pertains to acute, sublethal, and community-level effects of thermal effluents on finfish and shellfish from operation of nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems and cooling ponds during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). The NRC determined that the effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms would be small at many nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems or ponds, but that these impacts could be moderate or large at some plants. The potential effects of thermal effluent discharges depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting of the plant, the characteristics of the cooling system and effluent discharges, and the characteristics of the fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms present in the area. Additionally, whether the NPDES permitting authority has granted a CWA Section 316(a) variance is also a relevant factor.

The proposed rule would revise the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to clarify the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resources issues.

(39) Effects of Thermal Effluents on Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Cooling Towers)— The proposed rule would rename “Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers)” as “Effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers)” for clarity and consistency with other ecological resource issue titles; it is a Category 1 issue.

This issue pertains to acute, sublethal, and community-level effects of thermal effluents on finfish and shellfish from operation of nuclear power plants with cooling towers operated in a fully closed-cycle mode. The NRC found that the effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms at plants with cooling towers would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attributes of aquatic populations in receiving water bodies. As part of obtaining a variance under CWA Section 316(a), permitting authorities may impose conditions concerning thermal effluent discharges at some nuclear power plants. Implementation of such conditions would further reduce or mitigate thermal impacts during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR).

The proposed rule would revise the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to clarify the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resources issues.

(40) Infrequently Reported Effects of Thermal Effluents —The proposed rule would combine two Category 1 issues, “Infrequently reported thermal impacts (all plants)” and “Effects of cooling water discharge on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and eutrophication,” with the thermal effluent component of a Category 1 issue, “Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses,” into one Category 1 issue, “Infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents.” This issue pertains to interrelated and infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents, to include cold shock, thermal migration barriers, accelerated maturation of aquatic insects, and proliferated growth of aquatic nuisance species, as well as the effects of thermal effluents on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and eutrophication. This issue also considers sublethal stresses associated with thermal effluents that can increase the susceptibility of exposed organisms to predation, parasitism, or disease. As discussed below, these effects are not a concern for license renewal (initial LR or SLR).

At nuclear power plants, cold shock can occur during refueling outages, reductions in power generation level, or other situations that would quickly reduce the amount of cooling capacity required at the plant. The 1996 LR GEIS reported that cold shock events have only rarely occurred at nuclear power plants. No cold shock events have been reported since the events described in the 1996 LR GEIS occurred, and no noticeable or detectable impacts on aquatic populations have been reported at any existing nuclear power plants.

Thermal effluents have the potential to create migration barriers if the thermal plume covers an extensive cross-sectional area of a river and temperatures within the plume exceed a species' physiological tolerance limit. This impact has been examined at several nuclear power plants, but it has not been determined to result in observable effects.

The 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs determined that the heated effluents of nuclear power plants could accelerate the maturation of aquatic insects in freshwater systems and cause premature emergence. The maturation and emergence of aquatic insects are often closely associated with water temperature regimes. To date, thermal effluents of nuclear power plants have resulted in no noticeable or detectable impacts on the life cycles of aquatic insects.

The 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs also determined that heated effluents could proliferate the growth of aquatic nuisance organisms. Aquatic nuisance species are organisms that disrupt the ecological stability of infested inland ( e.g., rivers and lakes), estuarine, or marine waters. No noticeable or detectable impacts on aquatic populations have been reported at any existing nuclear power plants related to this issue. The NRC has identified no other concerns about nuisance aquatic organisms associated with nuclear power plant thermal effluents.

Aerobic organisms, such as fish, require oxygen, and the concentration of dissolved oxygen in a water body is one of the most important ecological water quality parameters. The thermal effluent discharges of nuclear power plants have the potential to stress aquatic organisms by simultaneously increasing these organisms' need for oxygen and decreasing oxygen availability. Although the thermal effluents of nuclear power plants may contribute to reduced dissolved oxygen in the immediate vicinity of the discharge point, as the effluent disperses, diffusion and aeration from turbulent movement introduces additional oxygen into the water. No noticeable or detectable impacts on aquatic populations have been reported at any existing nuclear power plants related to oxygen availability.

Rapid heating of cooling water can also affect the solubility and saturation point of other dissolved gases, including nitrogen, resulting in a state where condenser cooling water becomes supersaturated with gases. Once the supersaturated water is discharged in the receiving water body, dissolved gas levels equilibrate as the effluent cools and mixes with ambient water. This process is of concern if aquatic organisms remain in the supersaturated effluent for a long enough period to become equilibrated to the increased pressure associated with the effluent. If these organisms then move into water of lower pressure too quickly when, for example, swimming out of the thermal effluent or diving to depths, the dissolved gases within the affected tissues may come out of solution and form embolisms (bubbles). The resulting condition is known as gas bubble disease, and fish mortality from gas bubble disease has been observed at one nuclear power plant. That nuclear power plant operator installed a barrier net to prevent fish from entering the discharge canal, and no such events occurred again following implementation of this mitigation. No noticeable or detectable impacts on aquatic populations have been reported at any other nuclear power plants related to gas supersaturation.

An early concern about nuclear power plant discharges was that thermal effluents would cause or speed eutrophication by stimulating biological productivity in receiving water bodies. Several nuclear power plants that conducted long-term monitoring to investigate this potential effect did not detect any evidence of eutrophication.

Fish and shellfish that are exposed to the thermal effluent of a nuclear power plant may experience stunning, disorientation, or injury. These sublethal effects can subsequently affect an organism's susceptibility to predation, parasitism, or disease. Since the publication of the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC has determined that thermal effects on aquatic organisms at four nuclear power plants could be small to moderate during the license renewal term. At three of the four plants ( i.e., Braidwood, LaSalle, and Turkey Point), these impacts were limited to species confined to cooling pond environments. In the fourth example (Peach Bottom), the adverse effects were found to be confined to a narrow band of shallow water habitat downstream of the discharge canal during the summer months. However, increased susceptibility to predation, parasitism, or disease or predation resulting from exposure to thermal effluent was not found to be responsible for these small to moderate findings. Rather, these effects were attributed to other acute ( i.e., heat shock) or community-level effects ( i.e., reduced habitat availability or quality and reduced species diversity over time) of thermal effluents evaluated as part of the former Category 2 issue, “Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds),” which would be renamed in this proposed rule.

As described in the draft revised LR GEIS, the NRC determined that the infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of aquatic populations in receiving water bodies of any nuclear power plants during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). As part of obtaining a variance under CWA Section 316(a), permitting authorities may impose conditions through the NPDES permit process concerning thermal effluent discharges at some nuclear power plants. Implementation of such conditions would further reduce or mitigate thermal impacts during the license renewal term. The NRC concluded that infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents during the license renewal term would be small for all nuclear power plants. Therefore, the combined issue is a Category 1 issue. The proposed rule would revise the finding column of Table B-1 accordingly.

(41) Effects of Nonradiological Contaminants on Aquatic Organisms —“Effects of nonradiological contaminants on aquatic organisms” is a Category 1 issue. This issue concerns the potential effects of nonradiological contaminants on aquatic organisms that could occur as a result of nuclear power plant operations during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). This issue was originally of concern because some nuclear power plants used heavy metals in condenser tubing that could leach from the tubing and expose aquatic organisms to these contaminants. Heavy metals have not been found to be of concern other than a few instances of copper contamination, and in all cases, the nuclear power plants eliminated leaching by replacing the affected piping.

In addition to heavy metals, nuclear power plants often add biocides to cooling water to kill algae, bacteria, macroinvertebrates, and other organisms that could cause buildup in plant systems and structures. Nuclear power plants typically maintain site procedures that specify when and how to treat the cooling water system with such chemicals and best management practices to minimize impacts on the ecological environment. The NPDES permits mitigate potential effects of chemical effluents by limiting the allowable concentrations in effluent discharges to ensure the protection of the aquatic community within the receiving water body.

The NRC determined that the effects of nonradiological contaminants on aquatic organisms would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of populations of these organisms in source water bodies during license renewal terms of any nuclear power plants. Continued adherence of nuclear power plants to chemical effluent limitations established in NPDES permits would minimize the potential impacts of nonradiological contaminants on the aquatic environment. The proposed rule would revise the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue, to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resources issues.

(42) Exposure of Aquatic Organisms to Radionuclides— “Exposure of aquatic organisms to radionuclides” is a Category 1 issue. The proposed rule would make minor clarifying changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(43) Effects of Dredging on Aquatic Resources —The proposed rule would rename “Effects of dredging on aquatic organisms” as “Effects of dredging on aquatic resources”; it is a Category 1 issue. This issue concerns the effects of dredging on aquatic resources conducted to maintain the function or reliability of plant cooling systems during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR).

Any dredging performed would be infrequent and would require the nuclear power plant operators to obtain permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under CWA Section 404. Best management practices and conditions associated with these permits would minimize impacts on the ecological environment.

The NRC determined that the effects of dredging on aquatic resources would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the aquatic environment during license renewal term at any nuclear power plant. The NRC assumes that nuclear power plant operators would continue to implement site environmental procedures and would obtain any necessary permits for dredging activities. Implementation of such controls would further reduce or mitigate potential effects. The proposed rule would revise the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue, to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resources issues.

(44) Water Use Conflicts with Aquatic Resources (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water from a River) —“Water use conflicts with aquatic resources (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river)” is a Category 2 issue. This issue concerns water use conflicts that may arise at nuclear power plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers that use makeup water from a river and how those conflicts could affect aquatic resources during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). This issue also applies to nuclear power plants with hybrid cooling systems.

Nuclear power plant cooling systems may compete with other users relying on surface water resources, including downstream municipal, agricultural, or industrial users. Water use conflicts with aquatic resources could occur when water that supports these resources is diminished by a combination of anthropogenic uses. To date, the NRC has identified water use conflicts with aquatic resources at only one nuclear power plant. The NRC concluded that water use conflicts would be small to moderate for this nuclear power plant. The plant operator developed and implemented a water level management plan which successfully mitigated water use conflicts. The NRC has identified no concerns about water use conflicts with aquatic resources at any other nuclear power plant with cooling ponds or cooling towers. The NRC concluded that water use conflicts with aquatic resources would be small at most nuclear power plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers that withdraw makeup water from a river but may be moderate at some plants.

Water use conflicts during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) would depend on numerous site-specific factors including the ecological setting of the nuclear power plant; the consumptive use of other municipal, agricultural, or industrial water users; and the aquatic resources present in the area. The proposed rule would revise the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue, to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resources issues.

(45) Non-Cooling System Impacts on Aquatic Resources —The proposed rule would rename “Effects on aquatic resources (non-cooling system impacts)” as “Non-cooling system impacts on aquatic resources”; it is a Category 1 issue. This issue concerns the effects of nuclear power plant operations on aquatic resources that are unrelated to the operation of the cooling system. Such activities include landscape and grounds maintenance, stormwater management, and ground-disturbing activities that could directly disturb aquatic habitat or cause runoff or sedimentation.

Many nuclear power plant operators have developed site or fleet-wide environmental review procedures that help workers identify and avoid impacts on the ecological environment when performing site activities. These procedures generally include checklists to help identify potential effects and required permits and best management practices to minimize the affected area. Proper implementation of environmental procedures and BMPs would minimize or mitigate potential effects on aquatic resources during the license renewal term. Many activities that could affect aquatic habitats would also require nuclear power plants to obtain Federal permits under CWA Section 404, which would include conditions to minimize or mitigate impacts on affected waterways.

The NRC determined that the effects of site activities unrelated to cooling system operation would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the aquatic environment during the license renewal term of any nuclear power plants. The NRC assumes that nuclear power plants would continue to implement site environmental procedures and would obtain any necessary permits for activities that could affect waterways or aquatic features. The proposed rule would revise the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue, to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resources issues.

(46) Impacts of Transmission Line Right-Of-Way (ROW) Management on Aquatic Resources —“Impacts of transmission line right-of-way (ROW) management on aquatic resources” is a Category 1 issue. This issue concerns the effects of transmission line ROW management on aquatic plants and animals during the license renewal term.

The transmission lines relevant to license renewal include only the lines that connect the nuclear power plant to the first substation that feeds into the regional power distribution system. Typically, the first substation is located on the nuclear power plant property within the primary industrial-use area and the in-scope transmission lines for license renewal tend to occupy only industrial-use or other developed portions of nuclear power plant sites. Therefore, effects on aquatic plants and animals are generally negligible.

Most nuclear power plants maintain procedures to minimize or mitigate the potential impacts of ROW management. The NRC determined that the transmission line ROW maintenance impacts on aquatic resources during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) would be small for all nuclear power plants. The proposed rule would revise the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue, to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resources issues.

(47) Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitats Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction —The proposed rule would divide a Category 2 issue, “Threatened, endangered, and protected species, critical habitat and essential fish habitat,” into three separate Category 2 issues, for clarity and consistency with the separate Federal statues and interagency consultation requirements that the NRC must consider with respect to Federally protected ecological resources. When combined, the scope of the three issues is the same as the scope of the former “Threatened, endangered, and protected species, critical habitat and essential fish habitat” issue discussed in the 2013 LR GEIS.

The first of the three issues, “Endangered Species Act: federally listed species and critical habitats under U.S. Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction,” concerns the potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and any refurbishment during the license renewal term on federally listed species and critical habitats protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

Under the ESA, the FWS is responsible for listing and managing terrestrial and freshwater species and designating critical habitat for these species. Continued operation of a nuclear power plant during the license renewal term could affect these species and their habitat. Listed species are likely to occur near all operating nuclear power plants. However, the potential for a given species to occur in the action area of a specific nuclear power plant depends on the life history, habitat requirements, and distribution of the species and the ecological environment present on or near the plant site.

The NRC may be required to consult with FWS under ESA Section 7(a)(2); such consultations are required for license renewal actions that “may affect” federally listed species and critical habitats and to ensure that the actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of those species or destroy or adversely modify those habitats.

The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and any refurbishment during the license renewal term depends upon numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting of the plant; the listed species and critical habitats present in the action area; and the plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and refurbishment and other ground-disturbing activities. Listing status is not static, and FWS frequently issues new rules to list or delist species and designate or remove critical habitats. Therefore, a generic determination of potential impacts on listed species and critical habitats under FWS jurisdiction during a nuclear power plant's license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) is not possible. The NRC would perform a plant-specific impact assessment for each license renewal environmental review to determine the potential effects on these resources and consult with the FWS, as appropriate. Consequently, this is a Category 2 issue.

(48) Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitats Under National Marine Fisheries Service Jurisdiction —The second of the three issues from the prior Category 2 issue on federally protected species, “Endangered Species Act: federally listed specifies and critical habitats under National Marine Fisheries Service jurisdiction,” concerns the potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and any refurbishment during the license renewal term on federally listed species and critical habitats protected under the ESA and under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

Under the ESA, NMFS is responsible for listing and managing marine and anadromous species and designating critical habitat of these species. Continued operation of a nuclear power plant and any refurbishment during the license renewal term could affect these species and their habitat. The potential for a given species to occur in the action area of a specific nuclear power plant depends on the life history, habitat requirements, and distribution of that species and the ecological environment present on or near the power plant site. In general, listed species and critical habitats under NMFS jurisdiction are only of concern at nuclear power plants that withdraw or discharge from estuarine or marine waters. However, anadromous listed species under NMFS jurisdiction may be seasonally present in the action area of plants located within freshwater reaches of rivers well upstream of the saltwater interface.

The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and any refurbishment during the license renewal term depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting of the plant; the listed species and critical habitats present in the action area; and plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and refurbishment and other ground-disturbing activities. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies consult with NMFS for actions that “may affect” federally listed species and critical habitats. Additionally, listing status is not static, and NMFS frequently issue new rules to list or delist species and designate or remove critical habitats. Therefore, a generic determination of potential impacts on listed species and critical habitats under NMFS jurisdiction during a nuclear power plant's license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) is not possible. The NRC would perform a plant-specific impact assessment for each license renewal environmental review to determine the potential effects on these resources and consult with NMFS, as appropriate. Consequently, this is a Category 2 issue.

(49) Magnuson-Stevens Act: Essential Fish Habitat —The last of the three issues from the prior Category 2 issue on federally protected species, “Magnuson-Stevens Act: essential fish habitat,” concerns the potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and any refurbishment during the license renewal term on essential fish habitat (EFH) protected under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ( i.e., Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA)).

Under the MSA, the Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NMFS, designate areas of EFH and manage marine resources within those areas. Within EFH, habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs) may be designated if the area meets certain additional criteria. Continued operation of a nuclear power plant and any refurbishment during the license renewal term could affect EFH, including HAPCs. The NRC may be required to consult with NMFS under MSA Section 305(b). In cases where adverse effects on EFH are possible, the NRC has engaged NMFS in EFH consultation as part of the plant-specific license renewal environmental review and obtained EFH conservation recommendations.

The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and any refurbishment during the license renewal term depends upon numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting of the plant; the EFH present in the action area, including HAPCs; and plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and any other activities that may affect aquatic habitats during the license renewal term. Section 305(b) of the MSA requires that Federal agencies consult with NMFS for actions that may adversely affect EFH. Additionally, EFH status is not static. The NMFS and the Fishery Management Councils frequently update management plans for EFH species and issue new rules to designate or modify EFH and HAPCs. Therefore, a generic determination of potential impacts on EFH during a nuclear power plant's license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) is not possible. The NRC would perform a plant-specific impact assessment as part of each license renewal environmental review to determine the potential effects on these resources and consult with NMFS, as appropriate. Consequently, this is a Category 2 issue.

(50) National Marine Sanctuaries Act: Sanctuary Resources —The proposed rule would add this as a new Category 2 issue, “National Marine Sanctuaries Act: sanctuary resources,” to evaluate the concerns of the potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and any refurbishment during the license renewal term on sanctuary resources protected under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA).

Under the NMSA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) designates and manages the National Marine Sanctuary System. Marine sanctuaries may occur near nuclear power plants located on or near marine waters as well as the Great Lakes. Currently, five operating nuclear power plants are located near designated or proposed national marine sanctuaries.

The potential impacts on marine sanctuaries are broad-ranging because such resources include any living or nonliving resource of a national marine sanctuary. With respect to ecological sanctuary resources, potential effects of particular concern include the following: (1) impingement (including entrapment) and entrainment, (2) thermal effects, (3) exposure to radionuclides and other contaminants, (4) reduction in available food resources due to impingement mortality and entrainment or thermal effects on prey species, and (5) effects associated with maintenance dredging. Additionally, the magnitude and significance of such impacts can be greater for sanctuary resources because—by virtue of being part of a national marine sanctuary—these resources are more sensitive to environmental stressors. Based on the foregoing, a generic determination of potential impacts on sanctuary resources during a nuclear power plant's license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) is not possible.

Depending on the NRC's effect determinations, the NRC may be required to consult with ONMS under NMSA Section 304(d). The NMSA consultation is required when a Federal agency determines that an action “is likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure” a sanctuary resource. Federal actions subject to consultation may be inside or outside the boundary of a national marine sanctuary.

In summary, the potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation during the license renewal term depends upon numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting of the plant; the sanctuary resources present in the action area; and plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and any other activities that may affect sanctuary resources during the license renewal term. Section 304(d) of the NMSA requires that Federal agencies consult with the ONMS for actions that may injure sanctuary resources. Additionally, national marine sanctuary status is not static. The geographic extent of existing sanctuaries may change or expand in the future, and NOAA is likely to designate new sanctuaries as additional areas of conservation need are identified and assessed. Therefore, a generic determination of potential impacts on sanctuary resources during a nuclear power plant's license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) is not possible. The NRC would perform a site-specific impact assessment as part of each license renewal environmental review to determine the potential effects on these resources and consult with NMFS, as appropriate. Consequently, this new issue is being established as a plant-specific, or Category 2, issue.

(51) Historic and Cultural Resources —“Historic and cultural resources” is a Category 2 issue. The proposed rule would revise the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to make clarifying changes and include a discussion of impacts on cultural resources that are not eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places that would also need to be considered during plant-specific license renewal environmental reviews.

(52) Employment and Income, Recreation and Tourism —“Employment and income, recreation and tourism” is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(53) Tax Revenue —The proposed rule would rename “Tax revenues” as “Tax revenue”; it is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(54) Community Services and Education, (55) Population and Housing, and (56) Transportation —“Community services and education,” “Population and housing,” and “Transportation” are Category 1 issues. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for these issues.

(57) Radiation Exposures to Plant Workers and (58) Radiation Exposures to the Public —“Radiation exposures to plant workers” and “Radiation exposures to the public” are Category 1 issues. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for these issues.

(59) Chemical Hazards —The proposed rule would rename “Human health impact from chemicals” as “Chemical hazards” for clarity and to reflect the fact that chemicals can have environmental effects beyond human health. Chemical hazards can have immediate human health effects as well as potential environmental impacts from nuclear power plant discharges and chemical spills. This issue is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(60) Microbiological Hazards to Plant Workers —“Microbiological hazards to plant workers” is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(61) Microbiological Hazards to the Public —The proposed rule would rename “Microbiological hazards to the public (plants with cooling ponds or canals or cooling towers that discharge to a river)” as “Microbiological hazards to the public” because this issue is a concern wherever receiving waters are accessible to the public and as changes in microbial populations and in the public use of water bodies might occur over time. Specifically, members of the public could be exposed to microorganisms in thermal effluents at nuclear power plants that use cooling ponds, lakes, or canals and discharge to any waters of the United States accessible to the public. This issue is a Category 2 issue. The proposed rule would revise the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue for clarity and to indicate that thermophilic microorganisms are a concern wherever waters receiving thermal effluents are accessible to the public.

(62) Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) —The proposed rule would rename “Chronic effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs)” as “Electromagnetic fields (EMFs)” for clarity because this issue considers effects beyond those that are chronic in nature. This issue is an uncategorized issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(63) Physical Occupational Hazards —“Physical occupational hazards” is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(64) Electric Shock Hazards —“Electric shock hazards” is a Category 2 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(65) Design-Basis Accidents —“Design-basis accidents” is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(66) Severe Accidents —The proposed rule would reclassify the Category 2 “Severe accidents” issue as a Category 1 issue. In the 2013 LR GEIS, the issue of severe accidents was classified as a Category 2 issue to the extent that only alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all nuclear power plants where the licensee had not previously performed a severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis for the plant. In the draft revised LR GEIS, the NRC notes that this issue will be resolved generically for the vast majority, if not all, expected license renewal applicants because the applicants who will likely reference the LR GEIS have previously completed a SAMA analysis. The NRC provides a technical basis further supporting this conclusion in Appendix E of the draft revised LR GEIS. Although the NRC does not anticipate any license renewal applications for nuclear power plants for which a previous severe accident mitigation design alternative or SAMA analysis has not been performed, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives and would be the functional equivalent of a Category 2 issue requiring site-specific analysis.

In license renewal applications, both internal and external events were considered for impacts from reactor accidents at full power when assessing SAMAs. The impacts of all new information in the draft revised LR GEIS were found to not contribute sufficiently to the environmental impacts to warrant further SAMA analysis because the likelihood of finding cost-effective significant plant improvements is small. This further analysis confirms the Commission's expectation that further SAMA analysis would not be necessary for plants that have already completed one.

With regard to the severe accident impact finding, the NRC reviewed information from SEISs for both initial LR and SLR reviews completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would result in different impacts for this issue. The NRC's review of new information determined that the overall risk posed by severe accidents is less than originally stated in the 1996 LR GEIS by a significant margin. Therefore, the NRC concluded that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents during the initial LR or SLR terms are small. The proposed rule revises the finding column in Table B-1 for this issue to reflect the fact that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents remain small.

(67) Impacts on Minority Populations, Low-Income Populations, and Indian Tribes —The proposed rule would rename “Minority and low-income populations” as “Impacts on minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes”  5 to reflect the scope of environmental justice concerns addressed in this issue. Continued reactor operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment activities at a nuclear power plant could affect land, air, water, and ecological resources, which could result in human health or environmental effects. Consequently, minority and low-income populations and Indian Tribes could be disproportionately affected. The environmental justice impact analysis determines whether human health or environmental effects from continued reactor operations and refurbishment activities at a nuclear power plant would disproportionately affect a minority population, low-income population, or Indian Tribe and whether these effects may be high and adverse.

The NRC determined that environmental justice impacts during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) are unique to each nuclear power plant. Therefore, the issue is a Category 2 issue. The proposed rule would revise the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to add Indian Tribes and subsistence consumption to the scope of the finding and to make other minor clarifications.

(68) Low-Level Waste Storage and Disposal, (69) Onsite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, (70) Offsite Radiological Impacts of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste Disposal, (71) Mixed-Waste Storage and Disposal, and (72) Nonradioactive Waste Storage and Disposal —“Low-level waste storage and disposal,” “Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel,” “Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal,” “Mixed-waste storage and disposal,” and “Nonradioactive waste storage and disposal” are Category 1 issues. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for these issues.

(73) Greenhouse Gas Impacts on Climate Change —The proposed rule would add a new Category 1 issue, “Greenhouse gas impacts on climate change,” that evaluates the greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts on climate change associated with continued operation and refurbishment. The issue of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change was not considered in the 2013 LR GEIS and is not listed in the current Table B-1. At the time of publication of the 2013 LR GEIS, insufficient data existed to support a classification of the contribution of nuclear power plant GHG emissions on climate change, either as a generic or site-specific issue. The 2013 LR GEIS, however, included a discussion summarizing the life cycle impacts of nuclear power plant GHG emissions and climate change. Furthermore, following the issuance of Commission Order CLI-09-21, the NRC began to evaluate the direct and cumulative effects of GHG emissions and their contribution to climate change in environmental reviews for license renewal applications.

Nuclear power plants, by their very nature, do not combust fossil fuels to generate electricity and, therefore, have inherently low GHG emissions. However, nuclear power plant operations do have some GHG emission sources including diesel generators, pumps, diesel engines, boilers, refrigeration systems, electrical transmission and distribution systems, as well as mobile sources ( e.g., worker vehicles and delivery vehicles). Any refurbishment activities undertaken at the nuclear power plant site could also produce GHGs due to emissions from motorized equipment, construction vehicles, and worker vehicles. Collectively, these GHG emissions when compared to different GHG emission inventories for other facilities, are minor.

The NRC concluded that the impacts of GHG emissions on climate change from continued operation during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) and any refurbishment activities would be small for all nuclear power plants. Therefore, this is a new Category 1 issue.

(74) Climate Change Impacts on Environmental Resources —The proposed rule would add this new Category 2 issue, “Climate change impacts on environmental resources,” that evaluates the impacts of climate change on environmental resources that are affected by continued nuclear power plant operations and any refurbishment during the license renewal term. Climate change is an environmental trend ( i.e., reflected in changes in climate indicators, such as precipitation, air and water temperature, sea level rise over time) that could result in changes in the affected environment, irrespective of license renewal. The issue of climate change impacts was not identified as either a generic or site-specific issue in the 2013 LR GEIS. However, the 2013 LR GEIS briefly described the environmental impacts that could occur on resources areas (land use, air quality, water resources, etc.) that may also be affected by license renewal. In site-specific initial LR and SLR SEISs prepared since development of the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC considered climate change impacts for those resources that could be incrementally affected by license renewal as part of the cumulative impact analysis.

As part of a comprehensive environmental review to meet its obligations under NEPA, the NRC must consider the impacts of climate change on environmental resource conditions that could also be affected by continued nuclear power plant operation and any refurbishment as a result of the proposed action (license renewal). License renewal environmental reviews conducted by the NRC have found that climate change effects on affected resources ( e.g., water availability, sea level rise) can be equal to or greater than any direct effects associated with continued nuclear power plant operations during the license renewal term. Observed climate change has not been uniform across the United States. The accrued effects of climate change on environmental resource conditions can vary greatly based on site-specific conditions and thus are plant-specific rather than generic in nature. In support of safe plant operation and in conformance with environmental permitting requirements, nuclear power plant licensees maintain systems and collect meteorological, water temperature, and other data that can inform the NRC's environmental review with respect to the impacts of climate change on environmental resource conditions.

The impacts of climate change on environmental resources that are affected by continued nuclear power plant operations and refurbishment during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) are location-specific and cannot be evaluated generically. The effects of climate change can vary regionally and climate change information at the regional and local scale is necessary to assess the impacts on the human environment for a specific location. The NRC would need to perform a site-specific impact assessment as part of each license renewal environmental review. Therefore, this is a new Category 2 issue that cuts across multiple resource areas, similar to the cumulative effects issue, which is currently in Table B-1.

(75) Cumulative Effects —The proposed rule would rename “Cumulative impacts” as “Cumulative effects”; it is a Category 2 issue. The proposed rule would make minor editorial and clarification changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to be consistent with the definition of cumulative effects as provided in the Council on Environmental Quality's revised regulation at 40 CFR 1508.1(g)(3).

(76) Offsite Radiological Impacts—Individual Impacts from Other than the Disposal of Spent Fuel and High-Level Waste, (77) Offsite Radiological Impacts—Collective Impacts from Other than the Disposal of Spent Fuel and High-Level Waste, (78) Nonradiological Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, and (79) Transportation —“Offsite radiological impacts—individual impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste,” “Offsite radiological impacts—collective impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste,” “Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle,” and “Transportation” are Category 1 issues. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for these issues.

(80) Termination of Plant Operations and Decommissioning —“Termination of plant operations and decommissioning” is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

The proposed rule would also revise the footnotes to Table B-1 as follows:

Footnote 1 would be revised to update the reference to the current revision of the LR GEIS.

Footnote 2 would be revised to indicate that for the “Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal” issue, there is no single significance level to the impact.

Footnote 7 would be added to indicate that for the “Severe accidents” issue, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not already considered such alternatives and would be the functional equivalent of a Category 2 issue.

The proposed rule would revise the introductory paragraph of Section 51.53(c)(3) to replace the words “an initial renewed license” with the words “a license renewal covered by Table B-1” to reflect that the regulation governing postconstruction environmental reports for license renewal applies to applicants seeking either an initial or subsequent renewed license following this update to the LR GEIS. Additionally, the proposed rule would revise the phrase “and holding an operating license, construction permit, or combined license as of June 30, 1995” to read “for a nuclear power plant for which an operating license, construction permit, or combined license was issued as of June 30, 1995,” in order to clarify that Watts Bar Nuclear Units 1 and 2, for which construction permits were issued by that date but are no longer held by the licensee, are within the scope of the LR GEIS and Table B-1. The revised phrasing more clearly indicates that holders of renewed licenses for nuclear power plants that previously held operating licenses, construction permits, or combined licenses within the scope of the LR GEIS remain within its scope during the license renewal term.

The proposed rule would revise Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) for clarity and consistency with the methodology in CWA Sections 316(a) and (b), including the 2014 CWA Section 316(b) regulations which establish the BTA criteria based on impingement mortality, rather than total impingement.

The proposed rule would revise Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D) to delete the words “is located at an inland site and,” to reflect the consolidation of two issues from the 2013 LR GEIS: “Groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds in salt marshes),” a Category 1 issue, and “Groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds at inland sites),” a Category 2 issue. The consolidated Category 2 issue in the draft revised LR GEIS, “Groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds)” reflects new information that cooling ponds can impact water quality at both inland and at coastal sites as a result of the migration of contaminants discharged to cooling ponds.

The proposed rule would revise Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E) for clarity and consistency with the proposed changes related to Federally protected ecological resources in Table B-1 and the draft revised LR GEIS. The changes in this paragraph correspond to the changes in Table B-1 where a Category 2 issue, “Threatened, endangered, and protected species, critical habitat and essential fish habitat” was divided into three issues, for clarity and consistency with the separate Federal statues and interagency consultation requirements that the NRC must consider with respect to Federally protected ecological resources. Also included is a change reflecting the addition of a new Category 2 issue, “National Marine Sanctuaries Act: sanctuary resources,” which addresses the NRC consultation requirements under the Act.

The proposed rule would revise Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G) for consistency with proposed changes to the Category 2 issue, “Microbiological hazards to the public.” The updated finding for this issue states that public health is a concern wherever receiving waters associated with nuclear power plant thermal effluents are accessible to the public.

The proposed rule would revise Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K) for clarity and consistency with the specific requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA, including the reference to NEPA, to reflect the requirement that Federal agencies must consider the potential effects of their actions on the affected human environment, which includes aesthetic, historic, and cultural resources.

The proposed rule would revise Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(N) for clarity and consistency with the proposed changes in Table B-1 and the draft revised LR GEIS by adding consideration of Indian Tribes and revises the terminology to refine the scope of environmental justice concerns.

The proposed rule would revise Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O) for consistency with the revised terminology for “cumulative effects” provided by the Council on Environmental Quality.

The proposed rule would add a new Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(Q), for consistency with the proposed changes in Table B-1 and the draft revised LR GEIS which includes the addition of a new Category 2 issue, “Climate change impacts on environmental resources.” The proposed change addresses the assessment of the effects of changes in climate on environmental resources areas and any mitigation measures implemented by the nuclear power plant operator to address climate change impacts. The new issue was identified to improve the efficiency of reviews, address lessons learned from plant-specific reviews and information provided in public comments, and to reflect analyses already being performed by the NRC staff in environmental reviews, consistent with the Commission direction provided in CLI-09-21.

The proposed rule would revise Section 51.95(c), “Operating license renewal stage,” to remove the date of issuance of NUREG-1437. This change is made for clarity and to ensure that the regulation refers to the latest revision of the LR GEIS.

The NRC is seeking advice and recommendations from the public on this proposed rule. We are particularly interested in comments and supporting rationale from the public on the following:

The NRC is issuing for comment two revised draft guidance documents, draft regulatory guide (DG), DG-4027, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications,”  6 and draft NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2, “Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal,” to support implementation of the requirements in this proposed rule. The guidance documents are available as indicated in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document. You may submit comments on the draft regulatory guidance by the methods outlined in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

The DG-4027 has been prepared as a revision to Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” The DG-4027 provides general procedures for the preparation of environmental reports that are submitted as part of an application for the renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license, including SLR, in accordance with 10 CFR part 54, “Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,” including subsequent license renewals. The revision updates the content for environmental reports. The revision also updates the regulatory and technical bases and the criteria for required plant-specific analyses for Category 2 issues and other matters to be addressed in the environmental report, as specified in the proposed amendments to § 51.53(c)(3).

The draft revision of NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2, provides guidance for the NRC staff when performing a 10 CFR part 51 environmental review of an application for the renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license, including SLR. The changes in the draft revision to the Standard Review Plan parallel the revisions in DG-4027. The primary purpose of the Standard Review Plan is to ensure that these reviews are focused on the significant environmental concerns associated with license renewal as described in 10 CFR part 51. Specifically, the Standard Review Plan provides guidance to the NRC staff about environmental issues that should be reviewed and provides acceptance criteria to help the reviewer evaluate the information submitted as part of the license renewal application. It is also the intent of this draft Standard Review Plan to make information about the regulatory process available and to improve communication between the NRC, interested members of the public, and the nuclear industry, thereby increasing understanding of the review process.

The proposed rule would extend the applicability of the LR GEIS to one term of SLR. The NRC is seeking comment on whether the proposed rule should be expanded beyond two license renewal terms. Please provide the rationale for your response.

The following paragraphs describe the specific changes proposed by this rulemaking.

In § 51.53(c)(3), this proposed rule would remove the words “an initial renewed license” and add in its place the words “a license renewal covered by Table B-1”, to indicate applicability to initial LR and SLR. Additionally, the proposed rule would revise the phrase “and holding an operating license, construction permit, or combined license as of June 30, 1995” to read “for a nuclear power plant for which an operating license, construction permit, or combined license was issued as of June 30, 1995,” in order to clarify that Watts Bar Nuclear Units 1 and 2, for which construction permits were issued by that date but are no longer held by the licensee, are within the scope of the LR GEIS and Table B-1. The revised phrasing more clearly indicates that holders of renewed licenses for nuclear power plants that previously held operating licenses, construction permits, or combined licenses within the scope of the LR GEIS remain within its scope during the license renewal term.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B) for clarity and consistency with the methodology in Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections 316(a) and (b).

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(D) to remove the words “is located at an inland site and”, for consistency with proposed consolidation of two issues related to groundwater quality degradation and corresponding updates in Table B-1.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(E) for clarity and consistency with proposed revisions to Table B-1.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(G) for consistency with proposed revisions to Table B-1 related to the “Microbiological hazards to the public” issue.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(K) for clarity and consistency with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and NEPA.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(N) for clarity and consistency with proposed revisions to Table B-1 related to the scope of environmental justice concerns.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(O) for consistency with the revised terminology for “cumulative effects” provided by the Council on Environmental Quality.

This proposed rule would add new paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(Q) to include an assessment of the effects of climate change in postconstruction environmental reports.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (c) to remove the date “(June 2013)”, to clarify the reference to the current revision of NUREG-1437.

This proposed rule would revise appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, to indicate the applicability to initial LR and one term of SLR and to update the findings on environmental issues with the data supported by the analyses in the proposed NUREG-1437, Revision 2.

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would only affect nuclear power plant licensees filing for license renewal applications. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of “small entities” set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).

The NRC has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the NRC. The NRC requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis. The regulatory analysis is available as indicated in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES caption of this document.

The proposed rule would codify in 10 CFR part 51 certain environmental issues identified in the draft revised LR GEIS. The proposed rule would also revise § 51.53(c)(3) to remove the word “initial.” The NRC has determined that the backfitting rule in § 50.109 and the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52 do not apply to this proposed rule because this amendment does not involve any provision that would either constitute backfitting as that term is defined in 10 CFR chapter I or affect the issue finality of any approval issued under 10 CFR part 52.

The NRC is following its cumulative effects of regulation (CER) process by engaging with external stakeholders throughout the rulemaking and related regulatory activities. Public involvement has included (1) the publication of notice announcing information gathering through the public scoping process to support the review to determine whether to update the LR GEIS on August 4, 2020 (85 FR 47252); and (2) four public meetings conducted on August 19, 2020, and August 27, 2020 (two meetings on each day), to receive comments on the scope of the LR GEIS.

The NRC is issuing draft guidance along with this proposed rule to support more informed external stakeholder understanding and feedback. The draft guidance is available as indicated in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document. Further, the NRC will continue to hold public meetings throughout the rulemaking process.

In addition to the question on the implementation of this proposed rule presented in the “Availability of Guidance for Comment and Specific Requests for Comment” section of this document, the NRC is requesting CER feedback on the following questions:

1. If CER challenges currently exist or are expected, what should be done to address them? Please explain your response.

2. Do other (NRC or other agency) regulatory actions ( e.g., orders, generic communications, license amendment requests, inspection findings of a generic nature) influence the implementation of the proposed rule's requirements? Please explain your response.

3. Are there unintended consequences? Does the proposed rule create conditions that would be contrary to the proposed rule's purpose and objectives? If so, what are the unintended consequences, and how should they be addressed? Please explain your response.

4. Please comment on the NRC's cost and benefit estimates in the draft regulatory analysis that supports the proposed rule. The regulatory analysis is available as indicated in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document.

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC requests comment on this document with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used.

In support of the proposed revisions to 10 CFR part 51 concerning initial LR and SLRs, the NRC prepared draft Revision 2 to NUREG-1437, which is published for comment concurrent with this proposed rule. With regard to the corresponding changes in requirements for applications for initial LR or SLR, the NRC has determined that this is the type of action described in § 51.22(c)(3), an NRC categorical exclusion. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement has been prepared for this aspect of the proposed rule, as it is procedural in nature and pertains to the type of environmental information to be reviewed.

This proposed rule contains new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C 3501 et seq ). This proposed rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the information collections.

Type of submission: Revision.

The title of the information collection: 10 CFR part 51, Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses—Environmental Review.

The form number if applicable: Not applicable.

How often the information is required or requestion: On occasion. Environmental Reports are required upon submittal of an application for an operating license renewal.

Who will be required or asked to respond: Applicants for renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses.

An estimate of the number of annual responses: 8.3.

An estimated number of annual respondents: 8.3 (5 applicants for future subsequent license renewals and 3.3 applicants for near-term and submitted applications, and issued subsequent license renewals).

An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 71,067 hours.

Abstract: The NRC is proposing to amend the regulations that govern the NRC's environmental reviews of operating license renewal applications. The NRC's regulations in § 51.53(c) require each applicant for renewal of a license to operate a nuclear power plant under 10 CFR part 54 to submit an environmental report which includes, among other things, a description of the proposed action, including the applicant's plans to modify the facility or its administrative controls. This proposed rulemaking would codify the generic findings of the LR GEIS, which presents impact analyses for the environmental issues common to many or most of license renewal applications that can be addressed generically, thereby eliminating the need to repeatedly reproduce the same analyses each time a license renewal application is submitted. The NRC's regulations in § 51.53(c) require each applicant to prepare and submit a report entitled “Applicant's Environmental Report—Operating License Renewal Stage,” with the applicant's license renewal application. The information provided by the applicant in the environmental report helps the NRC meet its regulatory obligations consistent with Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. The proposed rule would increase burden on an applicant because several proposed changes to Table B-1 ( e.g., new Category 1 and 2 issues, consolidation of Category 1 issues into Category 2 issues, and dividing an existing Category 2 issue into multiple Category 2 issues) would require the applicant to evaluate such issues on a site-specific basis and provide this information in the environmental report.

The NRC is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the information collection contained in this proposed rule and on the following issues:

1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the information will have practical utility? Please explain your response.

2. Is the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection accurate? Please explain your response.

3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? Please explain your response.

4. How can the burden of the proposed information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? Please explain your response.

A copy of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance package and proposed rule is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML22208A002 or may be obtained free of charge by contacting the NRC's Public Document Room reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. You may obtain information and comment submissions related to the OMB clearance package by searching on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2018-0296.

You may submit comments on any aspect of these proposed information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden and on the above issues, by the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0296.

• Mail comments to: FOIA, Library, and Information Collections Branch, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Mail Stop: T6-A10M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 or to the OMB reviewer at OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0021), Attn: Desk Officer for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; email: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.

Submit comments by April 3, 2023. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

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 the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. This proposed rule, which amends various provisions of 10 CFR part 51, does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

The NRC plans to hold public meetings to promote a full understanding of the proposed rule, the draft revised LR GEIS, and associated guidance documents, and to receive public comments.

The NRC will publish a notice of the location, time, and agenda of the meetings in the Federal Register , on Regulations.gov , and on the NRC's public meeting website within at least 10 calendar days before the meeting. Stakeholders should monitor the NRC's public meeting website for information about the public meeting at: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm.

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.

The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2018-0296. In addition, the Federal rulemaking website allows members of the public to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. The following actions are needed to subscribe: (1) navigate to the docket folder NRC-2018-0296, (2) click the “Subscribe” link, and (3) enter an email address and click on the “Subscribe” link.

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 proposing to amend 10 CFR part 51 as follows:

The revisions and additions read as follows:

Table of Contents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments II. Background; Statutory Authority III. Discussion IV. Regulatory Flexibility Certification V. Regulatory Analysis VI. Backfitting and Issue Finality VII. Plain Writing VIII. National Environmental Policy Act IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Public Protection Notification X. Voluntary Consensus Standards XI. Availability of Guidance XII. Public Meeting XIII. Availability of Documents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0024 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2021-0024.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document.

• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents, by appointment, at the NRC's PDR, Room P1 B35, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. To make an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415- 4737, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (ET), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The NRC encourages electronic submission of comments through the Federal rulemaking website ( https://www.regulations.gov ). Please include Docket ID NRC-2021-0024 in your comment.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment. The NRC will post all comments at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comments into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comments to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comments. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comments to remove such information before making the comments available to the public or entering the comments into ADAMS.

The NRC's fee regulations are primarily governed by two laws: (1) the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1952 (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701), and (2) the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA) (42 U.S.C. 2215). The IOAA authorizes and encourages Federal agencies to recover, to the fullest extent possible, costs attributable to services provided to identifiable recipients. Under NEIMA, the NRC must recover, to the maximum extent practicable, approximately 100 percent of its annual budget, less the budget authority for excluded activities. Under section 102(b)(1)(B) of NEIMA, “excluded activities” include any fee-relief activity as identified by the Commission, generic homeland security activities, waste incidental to reprocessing activities, Nuclear Waste Fund activities, advanced reactor regulatory infrastructure activities, Inspector General services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, research and development at universities in areas relevant to the NRC's mission, and a nuclear science and engineering grant program. In fiscal year (FY) 2023, the fee-relief activities identified by the Commission are consistent with prior fee rules, which are listed in Table 1—Excluded Activities.

Under NEIMA, the NRC must use its IOAA authority first to collect service fees for NRC work that provides specific benefits to identifiable recipients (such as licensing work, inspections, and special projects). The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 170, “Fees for Facilities, Materials, Import and Export Licenses, and Other Regulatory Services Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended,” explain how the agency collects service fees from specific beneficiaries. Because the NRC's fee recovery under the IOAA (10 CFR part 170) will not equal 100 percent of the agency's total budget authority for the fiscal year (less the budget authority for excluded activities), the NRC also assesses “annual fees” under 10 CFR part 171, “Annual Fees for Reactor Licenses and Fuel Cycle Licenses and Materials Licenses, Including Holders of Certificates of Compliance, Registrations, and Quality Assurance Program Approvals and Government Agencies Licensed by the NRC,” to recover the remaining amount necessary to comply with NEIMA.

The NRC is issuing this FY 2023 proposed fee rule based on the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (the enacted budget). The proposed fee rule reflects a total budget authority in the amount of $927.2 million, which is an increase of $39.5 million from FY 2022. As explained previously, certain portions of the NRC's total budget authority for the fiscal year are excluded from NEIMA's fee-recovery requirement under section 102(b)(1)(B) of NEIMA. Based on the FY 2023 enacted budget, these exclusions total $137.0 million, which is an increase of $6.0 million from FY 2022. These excluded activities consist of $97.1 million for fee-relief activities, $23.8 million for advanced reactor regulatory infrastructure activities, $13.4 million for generic homeland security activities, $1.2 million for waste incidental to reprocessing activities, and $1.5 million for Inspector General services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. Table I summarizes the excluded activities for the FY 2023 proposed fee rule. The FY 2022 amounts are provided for comparison purposes.

On December 12, 2022, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) proposing changes to regulations regarding the use of campaign funds by a candidate's principal campaign committee to pay compensation to the candidate. 1 The deadline for comments on the NPRM was February 10, 2023. In the NPRM, the Commission stated that it may hold a public hearing and, if so, it would publish notification in the Federal Register announcing the date and time.

Accordingly, the Commission is announcing that it will hold a hybrid public hearing on Wednesday, March 22, 2023 (see DATES and ADDRESSES above). Witnesses will include those who indicated in their timely written comments on the NPRM that they wished to testify at the hearing. The Commission may also invite witnesses to testify. The Commission will make transcripts of the hearing available on its website after the hearing. Individuals who plan to attend in person and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Laura E. Sinram, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.

Comments Invited

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2023-0422; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01067-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Jiwan Karunatilake, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; email 9-avs-nyaco-cos@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2022-43, dated August 9, 2022 (Transport Canada AD CF-2022-43) (also referred to after this as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states that new airworthiness limitations have been developed.

The FAA is proposing this AD to address an unannunciated loss or low quantity of fire extinguishing agent in the engine and auxiliary power unit (APU) fire extinguishing bottles. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the inability to extinguish and suppress an engine or APU fire.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0422.

The FAA reviewed Task 26-20-00-101, “Visual Check of the Engine Fire Extinguishing bottle pressure gauge” and Task 26-20-00-102, “Visual Check of the APU Fire Extinguishing bottle pressure gauge,” of Section 1, “Certification Maintenance Requirements,” Subject 1-26, “Fire Protection,” of the MHI RJ Model CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, CL-600-2D24, and CL-600-2E25 Series 550/700/705/900/1000 Airworthiness Limitations, Maintenance Requirements Manual—Part 2, Volume 1, CSP B-053, Revision 26, dated March 25, 2022. This service information specifies new airworthiness limitations for certification maintenance requirements.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new airworthiness limitations.

This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions ( e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (i)(1) of this proposed AD.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 606 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA has determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

I. Background

On August 22, 2022, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes to codify its longstanding interpretation that it is an unfair business practice for a U.S. air carrier, a foreign air carrier, or a ticket agent to refuse to provide requested refunds to consumers when a carrier has cancelled or made a significant change to a scheduled flight to, from, or within the United States, and consumers found the alternative transportation offered by the carrier or the ticket agent to be unacceptable (87 FR 51550). The NPRM proposes to define, for the first time, the terms significant change and cancellation. It would also require U.S. and foreign airlines and ticket agents inform consumers that they are entitled to a refund if that is the case before making an offer for travel credits, vouchers, or other compensation in lieu of refunds. The Department further proposes to require that U.S. and foreign air carriers and ticket agents provide non-expiring travel vouchers or credits to consumers holding non-refundable tickets for scheduled flights to, from, or within the United States who are unable to travel as scheduled in certain circumstances related to a serious communicable disease. If the carrier or ticket agent received significant financial assistance from the government because of a public health emergency, the Department proposes to require U.S. and foreign air carriers and ticket agents provide refunds, in lieu of non-expiring travel vouchers or credits. The NPRM proposes to allow carriers and ticket agents to require consumers provide evidence to support their assertion of entitlement to a travel voucher, credit, or refund. The comment period for the NPRM closed on December 16, 2022.

On December 16, 2022, Airlines for America (A4A) and International Air Transport Association (IATA) (collectively “Petitioners”) filed a petition to request a public hearing on the NPRM pursuant to the Department's regulation on rulemakings relating to unfair and deceptive practices, 14 CFR 399.75. 1 The Petitioners specifically raise three issues regarding the NPRM and request that these issues be addressed in the hearing. For each issue, Petitioners argue that it meets the threshold set forth in section 399.75 for granting a public hearing because the underlying proposed rule depends on conclusions concerning one or more specific scientific, technical, economic, or other factual issues that are genuinely in dispute; because the ordinary public comment process is unlikely to provide an adequate examination of the issue to permit a fully informed judgement; because the resolution of the disputed factual issues would likely have a material effect on the costs and benefits of the proposed rule; because the requested hearing on the issue would advance the consideration of the proposed rule and the General Counsel's ability to make the rulemaking determinations required by the Department's regulation; and because granting the petition would not unduly delay the rulemaking.

The Department has carefully considered the petition for a public hearing consistent with 14 CFR 399.75 and is granting a public hearing to afford Petitioners and other stakeholders an opportunity, in addition to the public comment process afforded by the NPRM, to present factual issues that they believe are pertinent to the Department's decision on the rulemaking. The scope of the hearing is limited to the factual issues specified in this notice.

The Department's proposals are set forth in the August 2022 NPRM. The three issues identified by Petitioners concerning the Department's NPRM and on which they request a hearing are discussed in more detail in their petition for rehearing. The information the Department is requesting during the hearing on these issues is summarized below.

The Department requests interested parties to provide the following information to the extent it has not been provided in any written comments already submitted to the Docket:

• Information on airlines' and ticket agents' current practice in handling consumers' requests for the cancellation or postponement of travel due to contracting a serious communicable disease, including a description of the procedure to review the requests, information on the evidentiary documentation required, if any, and the accommodations provided in response to legitimate claims ( e.g., refunds, credits, rebooking);

• Data on the volume of such requests, both pre- and during the COVID-19 public health emergency;

• Information on the volume and percentage of requests from consumers that are considered fraudulent;

• Information on the volume and percentage of requests received that are not considered fraudulent but nonetheless rejected due to being based on “unreasonable self-determination;”

• Data on the costs to airlines and ticket agents to verify consumers' claims regarding contracting a serious communicable disease;

• Information on the type of diseases claimed by consumers as a “serious communicable disease” based on which the consumers are requesting to cancel or postpone travel; and

• Any other information pertinent to the Department's determination on this proposal.

The Department welcomes the following information during the hearing, to the extent it has not been provided in any written comments already submitted to the Docket:

• Information on whether medical attestations currently provided to airlines from consumers seeking to cancel or postpone travel are primarily based on consumers' self-assessments, the medical professionals' assessments, or a combination of both;

• Information on the types of medical professionals who are currently providing the attestations that are accepted by airlines and ticket agents;

• Information on the types of public health authority-issued guidance that are currently affecting air travel;

• Information on airlines' validation of medical attestations, including the procedures, the volume, and the costs associated with the validation; and

• Any other information pertinent to the Department's determination on this proposal.

The Department requests that interested parties provide information on whether there are certain types of amenity changes that should be considered “significant” changes that would entitle a consumer to a refund and if so, whether the determination should be made categorically or by airlines on a case-by-case basis. The Department also requests information on how different airline operational and pricing models affect onboard amenities and travel experiences, and subsequently affect consumer expectations. In addition, the Department welcomes any other new information pertinent to the Department's determination on this proposal.

During the March 14, 2023, hearing, the Department will hear information from the public on the three subjects described above. The Department's tentative positions on these subjects are articulated in the NPRM. The Department does not expect to provide further summary or explanation on its positions at the hearing.

The Department is appointing Blane Workie, Assistant General Counsel, Office of Aviation Consumer Protection, as the Hearing Officer presiding over the hearing. The Department's regulations at 14 CFR 399.75 specify that the General Counsel shall arrange for a hearing officer to preside over the hearing. The regulations further provide that after the hearing process is complete, the General Counsel must consider the record of the hearing and make a reasoned determination whether to terminate the rulemaking, proceed with the rulemaking as proposed, or modify the proposed rule. The regulations further require the General Counsel to explain, in an appropriate rulemaking document published in the Federal Register , the rationale for the post-hearing decision made by the General Counsel. The rationale for the post-hearing decision made by the General Counsel will be explained in any final rule or other appropriate rulemaking document issued by the Department for this action.

The March 14, 2023, hearing will begin at 1:00 p.m. EDT, and the Department will provide time for opening remarks by the Hearing Officer. The meeting will then transition to public comments and presentations. Any oral comments presented should be limited to the subjects described in this Notice and be brief so all participants will have an opportunity to speak. Depending on the volume of requests for oral comments that we receive and the time available, we may be able to accommodate additional comments and/or presentations that speakers wish to add. Individual members of the public who wish to present oral comments must notify the Department of Transportation, no later than Thursday, March 9 via email at clereece.kroha@dot.gov that they wish to present oral comments. The email should (1) identify specific subject(s) on which you wish to provide comments; and (2) state the organization or entity you are representing or that you are speaking as a member of the public. All written materials ( e.g., PowerPoint presentations) presented at the hearing will be made part of the meeting's record.

Consistent with the requirement of 14 CFR 399.75, the Department plans to reopen the comment period for this rulemaking on March 14, 2023, the date of the hearing, and the comment period will remain open for seven (7) days, closing on March 21, 2023. Interested parties who wish to file statements or comments that are specifically related to the subject(s) discussed at the hearing may submit their written comments electronically to the NPRM Docket (DOT-OST-2022-0089).

After the hearing and after the record of the hearing is closed, the hearing officer will place on the rulemaking docket minutes of the hearing reflecting the evidence and arguments presented on the issues.

Documents associated with the NPRM on Airline Ticket Refunds and Consumer Protections may be accessed in the rulemaking Docket (DOT-OST-2022-0089). Dockets may be accessed at https://www.regulations.gov. After entering the relevant docket number click the link to “Open Docket Folder” and choose the document to review.

I. Background

On October 20, 2022, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed several disclosure requirements to enhance the transparency of ancillary service fees so consumers know the true cost of air travel early in the purchasing process. (87 FR 63718). In the NPRM, the Department proposed to require U.S. air carriers, foreign air carriers, and ticket agents to clearly disclose passenger-specific or itinerary-specific baggage fees, change fees, and cancellation fees to consumers whenever fare and schedule information is provided to consumers for flights to, within, and from the United States. The Department also proposed requiring similar disclosures for fees for a child 13 or under to be seated adjacent to an accompanying adult, as well as the transactability of such seating fees. To ensure ticket agents could provide the proposed disclosures, the NPRM proposed requiring carriers to provide useable, current, and accurate information regarding fees to ticket agents that sell or display the carrier's fare and schedule information. The NPRM also proposed an implementation and compliance period of six months from the date of a potential final rule.

The NPRM provided for a comment period of 60 days after publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register , i.e., December 19, 2022. In response to a request for additional opportunity to comment, the Department extended the comment period for an additional 35 days to January 23, 2023. 1 The Department subsequently received a request to further extend the comment period on the basis that the requestor was not able to view the January 12, 2023 meeting of the Aviation Consumer Protection Advisory Committee meeting when it occurred and that as of the time the request for extension was submitted, the meeting materials had not been posted to the docket. The Department declined to extend the comment period based on that request. (88 FR 4923 (Jan. 26, 2023)). The Department received another request for additional time to provide comments on the NPRM, based primarily on technological and interface issues identified by the petitioner. The Department is considering whether to grant that request and will publish its determination in the Federal Register . (See https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/AncillaryFeeNPRM-Procedural-Information-January23-2023. )

On January 23, 2023, multiple commenters petitioned the Department for a public hearing on the NPRM pursuant to the Department's regulation on rulemakings relating to unfair and deceptive practices, 14 CFR 399.75. 2 Airlines for America raised two questions in its petition: whether consumers are or are likely to be substantially injured or are misled by airlines' current disclosures of ancillary service fees; and whether disclosures of itinerary-specific ancillary fees at the time of first search will result in the display of incomplete or inapplicable ancillary fee information, cause consumer confusion, and distort the marketplace. The Travel Technology Association (Travel Tech) states in its petition that there is a fundamental disputed factual issue as to whether the proposed display requirements would benefit or harm consumers. Travel Tech also believes that the proposed disclosures are technically infeasible and has requested a hearing to discuss these concerns as well as the Department's proposed time frame for compliance. In its comment on the NPRM, Google LLC also requested a hearing based on its assertion that the Department's analysis was flawed and that it was deficient in providing its complaint-based evidence justifying the rulemaking. In arguing that a hearing is in the public interest pursuant to 14 CFR 399.75, Airlines for America and Travel Tech assert that the underlying proposed rule depends on conclusions concerning one or more specific scientific, technical, economic, or other factual issues that are genuinely in dispute; the ordinary public comment process is unlikely to provide an adequate examination of the issue to permit a fully informed judgement; the resolution of the disputed factual issues would likely have a material effect on the costs and benefits of the proposed rule; the requested hearing on the issue would advance the consideration of the proposed rule and the General Counsel's ability to make the rulemaking determinations required by the Department's regulation; and a hearing will not unreasonably delay completion of this rulemaking.

The Department has carefully considered the petitions for a public hearing consistent with 14 CFR 399.75 and is granting a public hearing to afford Petitioners and other stakeholders an opportunity, in addition to the public comment process, to present factual issues that they believe are pertinent to the Department's decision on the rulemaking. 3 The scope of the hearing is limited to the factual issues specified in this notice.

The Department's proposals are set forth in the October 2022 NPRM. The issues identified by Petitioners concerning the Department's NPRM and on which they request a hearing are discussed in more detail in their petitions for rehearing. The information the Department is requesting during the hearing on these issues is summarized below.

The Department welcomes information during the hearing on the following topics, to the extent it has not been provided in any written comments already submitted to the Docket:

• Information from consumers and others about instances in which they searched for and/or purchased tickets for air travel and were confused or surprised by the baggage fees that they would need to pay.

• Statistical information from carriers and ticket agents about the number of complaints they receive from consumers expressing confusion or surprise at the baggage fees they were asked or made to pay.

• Information from consumers and others about instances in which they searched for and/or purchased tickets for air travel and were confused or surprised by the ticket change or cancellation fees that they would need to pay.

• Statistical information from carriers and ticket agents about the number of complaints they receive from consumers expressing confusion or surprise at the ticket change or cancellation fees they were asked or made to pay.

• Information from consumers and others about instances in which they searched for and/or purchased tickets for air travel and were confused or surprised that they would need to pay a fee for a child age 13 or under to be seated next to an accompanying adult.

• Statistical information from carriers and ticket agents about the number of complaints they receive from consumers expressing confusion or surprise that they were asked or made to pay a fee for a child age 13 or under to be seated next to an accompanying adult.

• Data on the frequency with which consumers view ancillary fee pages on airline websites.

• Data on the frequency with which consumers using ticket agent websites click on links to airline ancillary fee policies (whether external or internal links).

• Data on the frequency with which consumers conduct itinerary searches on airline websites and on ticket agent websites.

• Data and information regarding whether the Department's proposals would require significant changes to product displays and how such changes could impact consumers.

• Any other factual information that is pertinent to the Department's determination on this proposal.

The Department welcomes the following information during the hearing to the extent it has not been provided in any written comments already submitted to the Docket:

• Information on whether and how ancillary fee information is currently displayed to consumers as they use airline or ticket agent online booking systems to purchase tickets.

• Information or data on the proportion of airlines and ticket agents that employ online booking systems that do not display specific ancillary fees on the itinerary search results page of the booking process but do display specific ancillary fees on other pages of the booking process prior to the consumer executing a purchase or reservation.

• Data or information on whether and to what extent the lack of ancillary fee information at the time of itinerary and fare selection results in higher total trip costs to consumers compared to alternatives or higher time spent on the ticket purchase process.

• Information from consumers and others about the time spent searching for ancillary fee information on an airline or ticket agent website.

• Information from consumers and others about the added time spent, if any, from restarting an itinerary search due to a lack of ancillary fee information being displayed upfront.

• Information from consumers and others about added costs and/or time spent on searching airline and/or ticket agent websites to find fees for baggage, changes and cancellations, and family seating.

• Information from consumers and others about added costs and/or time spent on calculating the total price of a ticket to include baggage fees and family seating fees.

• Data and information regarding any potential for consumer confusion from overcrowded displays or information overload that could result from the Department's proposal, particularly on mobile or other devices with smaller displays.

• Any other information that is pertinent to the Department's determination on this proposal.

The Department welcomes the following information during the hearing to the extent it has not been provided in any written comments already submitted to the Docket:

• Factual information or data on the proportion of consumers that search for and/or purchase tickets for air travel using mobile devices ( e.g., mobile phones and tablets), and the proportion of ticket searches and/or purchases that are conducted using each type of mobile device.

• Factual information or data on the impact of additional disclosure requirements on web page and booking engine load times.

• Factual or demonstrative information on alternatives to the proposed disclosure requirements, as well as how the proposed disclosure requirements would be represented and used on mobile displays.

• Information on whether additional time for compliance with the proposal would mitigate the above concerns.

During the March 16, 2023, hearing, the Department will hear information from the public on the three subjects described above. The Department's tentative positions on these subjects are articulated in the NPRM. The Department does not expect to provide further summary or explanation on its positions.

The Department is appointing Blane Workie, Assistant General Counsel, Office of Aviation Consumer Protection, as the Hearing Officer presiding over the hearing. The Department's regulations at 14 CFR 399.75 specify that the General Counsel shall arrange for a hearing officer to preside over the hearing. The regulations further provide that after the hearing process is complete, the General Counsel must consider the record of the hearing and make a reasoned determination whether to terminate the rulemaking, proceed with the rulemaking as proposed, or modify the proposed rule. The regulations further require the General Counsel to explain, in an appropriate rulemaking document published in the Federal Register , the rationale for the post-hearing decision made by the General Counsel. The rationale for the post-hearing decision made by the General Counsel will be explained in any final rule or other appropriate rulemaking document issued by the Department for this action.

The March 16, 2023, hearing will begin at 10:00 a.m. ET, and the Department will provide time for opening remarks by the Hearing Officer. The meeting will then transition to public comments and presentations. Any oral comments presented should be limited to the subjects described in this Notice and be brief so all participants will have an opportunity to speak. Depending on the volume of request for oral comments that we receive and the time available, we may be able to accommodate additional comments and/or presentations that speakers wish to add. Individual members of the public who wish to present oral comments must notify the Department of Transportation, no later than Monday, March 13 via email at Ryan.Patanaphan@dot.gov that they wish to present oral comments. The email should (1) identify specific subject(s) on which you wish to provide comments; and (2) state the organization or entity you are representing or that you are speaking as a member of the public. All written materials ( e.g., PowerPoint presentations) presented at the hearing will be made part of the meeting's record.

Consistent with the requirement of 14 CFR 399.75, the Department plans to reopen the comment period for this rulemaking on March 16, 2023, the date of the hearing, and the comment period will remain open for seven (7) days, closing on March 23, 2023. Interested parties who wish to file statements or comments that are specifically related to the subject(s) discussed at the hearing may submit their written comments electronically to the NPRM Docket (DOT-OST-2022-0109).

After the hearing and after the record of the hearing is closed, the hearing officer will place on the rulemaking docket minutes of the hearing reflecting the evidence and arguments presented on the issues.

Documents associated with the NPRM on Enhancing Transparency of Airline Ancillary Service Fees may be accessed in the rulemaking Docket (DOT-OST-2022-0109). Dockets may be accessed at https://www.regulations.gov. After entering the relevant docket number click the link to “Open Docket Folder” and choose the document to review.

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.

On October 26, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.070 parts per million (ppm). 1 In accordance with section 107(d) of the CAA, the EPA must designate an area “nonattainment” if it is violating the NAAQS or if it is contributing to a violation of the NAAQS in a nearby area.

The EPA designated 21 areas in California as nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS on June 4, 2018, effective August 3, 2018. 2 Amador County, Calaveras County, Butte County, Imperial County, Mariposa County, 3 San Francisco Bay Area, San Luis Obispo (Eastern part), Sutter Buttes, Tuolumne County, and Tuscan Buttes NAAs were classified as Marginal nonattainment. Kern County (Eastern Kern), Nevada County (Western part), Sacramento Metro, 4 and San Diego County  5 NAAs were classified as Moderate nonattainment. The EPA classified the Ventura County NAA as Serious nonattainment. The EPA classified the Los Angeles-San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave Desert) and Riverside County (Coachella Valley) NAAs as Severe nonattainment. The EPA classified both the San Joaquin Valley and the South Coast NAAs as Extreme nonattainment. The EPA designated the lands of the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation  6 and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians as separate NAAs and classified them as Marginal and Serious nonattainment, respectively. The State of California does not have regulatory authority on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction.

Sections 182(c)(4)  7 and 246 of the CAA provide that SIPs for Serious, Severe, and Extreme ozone nonattainment areas with 1980 populations greater than 250,000 must require at least a specified percentage of all new covered fleet vehicles in model year 1998 and thereafter, purchased by each covered fleet operator in each covered area, to be clean-fuel vehicles and use clean alternative fuels when operating in the covered area. 8 Sections 182(c)(4) and 246 of the CAA also require states to submit to the EPA a plan revision addressing this requirement within 42 months after the effective date of the designation and classification.

On February 3, 2022, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted SIP revisions to the EPA for multiple nonattainment areas to fulfill requirements under section 182(c)(4) and section 246 of the CAA requiring clean fuels for fleets in nonattainment areas. In this action, we are evaluating and proposing action on the submittal for CFF for six nonattainment areas with 1980 populations greater than 250,000 in California, and that are classified as Serious, Severe, or Extreme—the Coachella Valley, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, South Coast, Ventura County, and West Mojave Desert NAAs. 9

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102 require states to provide reasonable opportunity for a public hearing prior to adoption of SIP revisions. Section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. Any plan that the EPA does not affirmatively determine to be complete or incomplete will become complete six months after the day of submittal by operation of law. A finding of completeness does not approve the submittal as part of the SIP, nor does it indicate that the submittal is approvable. It does start a 12-month clock for the EPA to act on the SIP submittal (see CAA section 110(k)(2)).

As described in section I of this document, CAA section 182(c)(4) and 246 provide that SIPs for Serious, Severe, and Extreme nonattainment areas with 1980 populations greater than 250,000 require that at least a specified percentage of all new covered fleet vehicles in model year 1998 and thereafter, purchased by each covered fleet operator in each covered area, be clean-fuel vehicles and use clean alternative fuels when operating in the covered area.

Additional guidance on this requirement is provided in CAA section 182(c)(4)(B). According to CAA section 182(c)(4)(B), any revision to the relevant applicable implementation plan that in the Administrator's judgment will achieve long-term reductions in ozone-producing and toxic air emissions equal to those achieved under section 246 of the CAA, or the percentage thereof attributable to the portion of the clean-fuel vehicle program for which the revision is to substitute, can substitute for all or a portion of the clean-fuel vehicle program described under part C of title II of the Act.

According to the EPA's “Guidance for Fulfilling the Clean Fuels for Fleets Requirement of the Clean Air Act,”  10 the substitute measure(s) must achieve long-term reductions in ozone precursor emissions equal to those achieved through the CFF Program. A state could submit a SIP revision implementing substitute measures that achieve emissions reductions that are equal or greater than those achieved by implementing a CFF Program, with the understanding that any new light- or heavy-duty vehicle purchased by a fleet owner is deemed to also meet the CAA emissions standards for ultra-low emission CFF vehicles.

The submittal package (“2022 CARB SIP submittal”) contains the Clean Fuels for Fleets Certification, a multi-district certification that the existing CFF programs in the Coachella Valley, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, South Coast, Ventura County, and West Mojave Desert NAAs meet the CFF requirements under the 2015 ozone standard. 11 The 2022 CARB SIP submittal includes a cover letter to the EPA dated February 3, 2022;  12 signed Resolution 22-1, dated January 27, 2022, 13 demonstrating that CARB adopted the certification; a copy of the notice of public hearing held on January 27, 2022, 14 consistent with 40 CFR part 51.102; and a SIP completeness checklist. 15

In the Clean Fuels for Fleets Certification, CARB states that in 1994, it submitted a SIP revision to the EPA to opt out of the CFF Program. The Clean Fuels for Fleets Certification includes a demonstration that California's Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) program achieved emissions reductions at least equivalent to the reductions that would be achieved by the EPA's CFF Program. CARB also states that California's LEV program established regulations that created tiers of exhaust emissions standards for increasingly more stringent categories of LEVs, a mechanism requiring each auto manufacturer to phase-in a progressively cleaner mix of vehicles from year to year with the option of credit banking and trading, and a requirement that a specified percentage of passenger cars and light-duty trucks be zero-emission vehicles with no exhaust or evaporative emissions. The Clean Fuels for Fleets Certification also indicates that the EPA approved the California SIP revision to opt out of the CFF Program effective September 27, 1999. 16

CARB also stated in the submittal that the State has continued to strengthen emissions requirements in its LEV program, adopting LEV II  17 standards in 1998 and LEV III  18 standards in 2012. CARB also certified in its Clean Fuels for Fleets Certification that California's LEV program qualifies as a substitute for the EPA program and satisfies Sections 182(c)(4) and 246 of the Act for the 0.070 ppm ozone standard for the Coachella Valley, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, South Coast, Ventura County, and West Mojave Desert NAAs.

I. Background

Under Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also called the good neighbor provision, states are required to address the interstate transport of air pollution. Specifically, the good neighbor provision requires that each state's implementation plan contain adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the state that will significantly contribute to nonattainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), or that will interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS, in any other state.

On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA finalized the “Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone” (NO X SIP Call). The NO X SIP Call required eastern states, including Tennessee, to submit SIPs limiting emissions of ozone season NO X by implementing statewide emissions budgets. The NO X SIP Call addressed the good neighbor provision for the 1979 ozone NAAQS and was designed to mitigate the impact of transported NO X emissions, one of the precursors of ozone. 1 EPA developed the NO X Budget Trading Program, an allowance trading program that states could adopt to meet their obligations under the NO X SIP Call. This trading program allowed the following sources to participate in a regional cap and trade program: generally, electricity generating units (EGUs) with capacity greater than 25 megawatts (MW); and large industrial non-EGUs, such as boilers and combustion turbines, with a rated heat input greater than 250 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr). The NO X SIP Call also identified potential reductions from cement kilns and stationary internal combustion engines.

To comply with the NO X SIP Call requirements, in 2000 and 2001, TDEC submitted a revision to add new rule sections to the SIP-approved version of Chapter 1200-3-27, Nitrogen Oxides, of the Tennessee Rules. EPA approved the revision as compliant with Phase I of the NO X SIP Call in 2004. See 69 FR 3015 (January 22, 2004). The approved revision required EGUs and large non-EGUs in the State to participate in the NO X Budget Trading Program beginning in 2004. In 2005, Tennessee submitted, and EPA approved, a SIP revision to address additional emissions reductions required for the NO X SIP Call under Phase II. See 70 FR 76408 (December 27, 2005).

In 2005, EPA published the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which required several eastern states, including Tennessee, to submit SIPs that prohibited emissions consistent with revised ozone season NO X budgets (as well as annual budgets for NO X and sulfur dioxide). See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005); see also 71 FR 25328 (April 28, 2006). CAIR addressed the good neighbor provision for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and 1997 fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) NAAQS and was designed to mitigate the impact of transported NO X emissions with respect to ozone and PM 2.5. CAIR established several trading programs that EPA implemented through federal implementation plans (FIPs) for EGUs greater than 25 MW in each affected state, but not large non-EGUs; states could submit SIPs to replace the FIPs that achieved the required emission reductions from EGUs and/or other types of sources. 2 When the CAIR trading program for ozone season NO X was implemented beginning in 2009, EPA discontinued administration of the NO X Budget Trading Program; however, the requirements of the NO X SIP Call continued to apply.

On November 25, 2009 (74 FR 61535), EPA approved revisions to Tennessee's SIP that incorporated requirements for CAIR. Consistent with CAIR's requirements, EPA approved a SIP revision in which Tennessee regulations: (1) Terminated its NO X Budget Trading Program requirements, and (2) incorporated CAIR annual and ozone season NO X state trading programs. See 74 FR 61535. Participation of EGUs in the CAIR ozone season NO X trading program addressed the State's obligation under the NO X SIP Call for those units, and Tennessee also chose to require non-EGUs subject to the NO X SIP Call to participate in the same CAIR trading program. In this manner, Tennessee's CAIR rules incorporated into the SIP addressed the State's obligations under the NO X SIP Call with respect to both EGUs and non-EGUs.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008, but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, modified on rehearing, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The ruling allowed CAIR to remain in effect temporarily until a replacement rule consistent with the court's opinion was developed. While EPA worked on developing a replacement rule, the CAIR program continued to be implemented with the NO X annual and ozone season trading programs beginning in 2009 and the SO 2 annual trading program beginning in 2010.

Following the D.C. Circuit's remand of CAIR, EPA promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR and address good neighbor obligations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). Through FIPs, CSAPR required EGUs in eastern states, including Tennessee, to meet annual and ozone season NO X emission budgets and annual SO 2 emission budgets implemented through new trading programs. Implementation of CSAPR began on January 1, 2015. 3 CSAPR also contained provisions that would sunset CAIR-related obligations on a schedule coordinated with the implementation of the CSAPR compliance requirements. Participation by a state's EGUs in the CSAPR trading program for ozone season NO X generally addressed the state's obligation under the NO X SIP Call for EGUs. CSAPR did not initially contain provisions allowing states to incorporate large non-EGUs into that trading program to meet the requirements of the NO X SIP Call for non-EGUs. EPA also stopped administering CAIR trading programs with respect to emissions occurring after December 31, 2014. 4

Even though the CAIR programs have not been implemented in Tennessee since 2014, ozone season NO X emissions have remained well below the NO X SIP Call budget levels. Through a letter to EPA dated February 27, 2017, 5 Tennessee provided a SIP revision to incorporate a new provision—TACPR 1200-03-27-.12, “NO X SIP Call Requirements for Stationary Boilers and Combustion Turbines” (TN 2017 NO X SIP Call Rule)—into the SIP. The TN 2017 NO X SIP Call Rule established a state control program for sources that are subject to the NO X SIP Call but not covered under CSAPR or the CSAPR Update (background regarding the CSAPR Update is provided later in this notice). The TN 2017 NO X SIP Call Rule contains several subsections that together comprise a non-EGU control program under which Tennessee will allocate a specified budget of allowances to affected sources. Subsequently, on May 11, 2018, and October 11, 2018, Tennessee submitted letters requesting conditional approval  6 of the TN 2017 NO X SIP Call Rule and committing to provide a SIP revision to EPA by December 31, 2019, to address a deficiency by revising the definition of “affected unit” to remove the unqualified exclusion for any unit that serves a generator that produces power for sale. Based on the State's commitment to submit a SIP revision addressing the identified deficiency, EPA conditionally approved the February 27, 2017, submission. In the same action, EPA approved removal of the State's NO X Budget Trading Program and CAIR rules from Tennessee's SIP. See 84 FR 7998 (March 6, 2019).

Tennessee submitted a SIP revision on December 19, 2019, which revised Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulation (TAPCR) 1200-03-27-.12, “NO X SIP Call Requirements for Stationary Boilers and Combustion Turbines,” to correct the definition of “affected unit” and to clarify requirements related to stationary boilers and combustion turbines. On March 2, 2021 (86 FR 12092), EPA published a final rule which corrected the definition of “affected unit” and clarified requirements related to stationary boilers and combustion turbines. EPA also converted the conditional approval of the TN 2017 NO X SIP Call Rule to a full approval. See EPA's March 2, 2021 (86 FR 12092), final rule for further detail on these changes and EPA's rationale for approving them.

After litigation that reached the Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit generally upheld CSAPR but remanded several state budgets to EPA for reconsideration. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 129-30 (D.C. Cir. 2015). EPA addressed the remanded ozone season NO X budgets in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update), which also partially addressed eastern states' good neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The air quality modeling for the CSAPR Update demonstrated that Tennessee contributes significantly to nonattainment and/or interferes with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. The CSAPR Update reestablished an option for most states to meet their ongoing obligations for non-EGUs under the NO X SIP Call by including the units in the CSAPR Update trading program.

The CSAPR Update trading program replaced the original CSAPR trading program for ozone season NO X for most covered states. Tennessee's EGUs participate in the CSAPR Update trading program, which generally also addresses the State's obligations under the NO X SIP Call for EGUs. However, Tennessee elected not to include its large non-EGUs in the CSAPR Update ozone season trading program. Because Tennessee's large non-EGUs do not participate in any CSAPR or CSAPR Update trading program for ozone season NO X emissions, the NO X SIP Call regulations at 40 CFR 51.121(r)(2), as well as anti-backsliding provisions at 40 CFR 51.905(f) and 40 CFR 51.1105(e), require these non-EGUs to maintain compliance with NO X SIP Call requirements in some other way.

Under 40 CFR 51.121(f)(2) of the NO X SIP Call regulations, where a state's implementation plan contains control measures for EGUs and large non-EGU boilers and combustion turbines, the SIP must contain enforceable limits on the ozone season NO X mass emissions from these sources. In addition, under 40 CFR 51.121(i)(4) of the NO X SIP Call regulations as originally promulgated, the SIP also had to require these sources to monitor emissions according to the provisions of 40 CFR part 75, which generally entails the use of continuous emission monitoring systems. Tennessee triggered these requirements by including control measures in its SIP for these types of sources, and the requirements have remained in effect despite the discontinuation of the NO X Budget Trading Program after the 2008 ozone season.

On March 8, 2019, EPA revised some of the regulations that were originally promulgated in 1998 to implement the NO X SIP Call. 7 The revision gave states covered by the NO X SIP Call greater flexibility concerning the form of the NO X emissions monitoring requirements that the states must include in their SIPs for certain emissions sources. The revision amended 40 CFR 51.121(i)(4) to make Part 75 monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting optional, such that SIPs may establish alternative monitoring requirements for NO X SIP Call budget units that meet the general requirements of 40 CFR 51.121(f)(1) and (i)(1). Under the updated provision, a state's implementation plan still needs to include some form of emissions monitoring requirements for these types of sources, consistent with the NO X SIP Call's general enforceability and monitoring requirements at 40 CFR 51.121(f)(1) and (i)(1), respectively, but states are no longer required to satisfy these general NO X SIP Call requirements specifically through the adoption of 40 CFR part 75 monitoring requirements.

Following EPA's March 8, 2019, revision to the NO X SIP Call requirements, Domtar Paper Company, LLC (Domtar) petitioned TDEC to adopt revised permit conditions applicable to Domtar's Kingsport Mill in Kingsport, Tennessee, with an alternative monitoring option for this large non-EGU, along with corresponding revised recordkeeping and reporting conditions. This petition resulted in the issuance of the permit for Domtar included as part of TDEC's SIP submittal. The changes allow Domtar to address the NO X SIP Call's requirements for enforceable limits on ozone season NO X mass emissions through non-Part 75 alternative monitoring and reporting methodologies and specifically through the use of continuous emission monitoring under 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B in combination with monitoring of heat input. The January 20, 2022, source-specific SIP revision submitted by TDEC contains the permit provisions that TDEC modified to specifically address the alternative monitoring provisions allowed under the NO X SIP Call and requests conditional approval of those provisions into the SIP. The contents of the submittal and EPA's analysis is further discussed in Section III.

TDEC's January 20, 2022, letter requests that EPA conditionally approve into Tennessee's SIP Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board operating permit No. 079291 for Domtar, state effective on January 12, 2022, to provide alternative NO X monitoring and reporting for the No. 2 Power Boiler at this facility in accordance with 40 CFR 51.121(i). TDEC requests that this approval be conditioned on Tennessee's commitment to modify the provisions at Chapter 1200-03-27.12(11) to specify allowable non-Part 75 permissible alternative monitoring and reporting methodologies for large industrial non-EGUs subject to the NO X SIP Call, such as the alternative monitoring and reporting provisions in permit No. 079291. The submission also includes a demonstration under CAA section 110(l) intended to show that the revision would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. As discussed later, EPA has reviewed these changes, preliminarily finds them consistent with the CAA and regulations governing the NO X SIP Call, and is proposing to conditionally approve the revisions to incorporate the source-specific SIP revision into the State's implementation plan.

On August 13, 2021, Domtar submitted a petition to TDEC requesting approval of alternative monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for the boiler subject to the NO X SIP Call (No. 2 Power Boiler) at Domtar's Kingsport Mill. The petition states that Condition S2-4.F of PSD construction permit 978656 requires Domtar to monitor NO X emissions from the No. 2 Power Boiler in accordance with 40 CFR part 60. The petition also states that Domtar's Bubbling Fluidized Bed Biomass Boiler 4 is required to monitor NO X emissions in accordance with Part 60, and Domtar wishes to use the same monitoring method for both boilers.

That petition resulted in TDEC's issuance of operating permit No. 079291 to Domtar, state effective on January 12, 2022, to address NO X SIP Call requirements and to adopt an alternative monitoring option (along with corresponding recordkeeping and reporting requirements) for this large non-EGU. This permit has been submitted by TDEC for approval into Tennessee's SIP. The permit conditions within this permit are consistent with the flexibility provided to states on March 8, 2019 (84 FR 8422) concerning the form of the NO X emissions monitoring requirements that the states must include in their SIPs for certain emissions sources, such as Domtar, to comply with the NO X SIP Call, required at 40 CFR 51.121(i)(4).

Specifically, permit Condition 1 permits compliance with Tennessee's rules implementing the NO X SIP Call by demonstrating compliance with permit Conditions 2 through 5. Condition 2 provides that Domtar may demonstrate compliance with Tennessee Rule 1200-03-27-.12 by monitoring NO X emissions from the No. 2 Power Boiler using the monitoring methodologies for NO X emission rate set forth in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, in combination with monitoring of heat input.

Condition 3 requires that Domtar submit a program for conducting continuous in-stack monitoring for NO X mass emissions for approval by TDEC in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B. To be approvable by TDEC, the program shall address the following:

(a) A description of the overall monitoring program;

(b) Specifications demonstrating that the proposed monitoring instruments will meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B;

(c) Specifications for the proposed fuel flow meter and a discussion of how the fuel Btu content will be determined;

(d) Proposed location(s) of the monitoring instruments on the boiler effluent gas stream;

(e) Proposed procedures for conducting performance specification testing of the monitoring instruments in units of the applicable standard ( i.e. NO X mass emissions);

(f) Proposed ongoing monitoring instrument quality assurance procedures (40 CFR part 60, Appendix F or approved alternative);

(g) Procedures for addressing missing data (40 CFR part 75, Appendix C, Appendix F or approved alternative); and

(h) Proposed format for the reporting of data.

Condition 4 requires Domtar to calculate NO X mass emissions (in tons) for each control period and report the total to TDEC no later than December 31 following the end of the control period. Further, Condition 4 requires that NO X emission rates shall be calculated from continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) measurements using Method 19 in Appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60.

Condition 5 requires Domtar to maintain records of all measurements; all continuous monitoring system performance evaluations; all continuous monitoring system or monitoring device calibration checks; adjustments and maintenance performed on these systems or devices; and all other information required by this part recorded in a permanent form suitable for inspection. These records shall be retained for at least five years following the end of the control period in which such measurements, maintenance, reports, and records were collected.

Section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits revision of a SIP that would interfere with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS, reasonable further progress toward attainment of a NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. In its submittal, TDEC includes a demonstration in accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA that the proposed revision would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Tennessee's demonstration explains that the proposed changes are compliant with section 110(l) of the CAA because: (1) As a newly constructed affected unit, TDEC calculated pursuant to SIP-approved Rule TAPCR 1200-03-27-.12(6) that the NO X allowance allocation for the No. 2 Power Boiler would be 160 tons per control period based on PSD construction permit 978656, Condition S2-1.F., which would be 2.8% of Tennessee's NO X budget of 5,666 tons; (2) revising the monitoring method will not increase NO X emissions; (3) Tennessee's review of all non-EGUs subject to the NO X SIP Call demonstrates that NO X emissions for the collection of affected facilities are operating well below the state's NO X budget; (4) the alternative monitoring requirements would be permanent, enforceable, and sufficient to determine whether the source is in compliance with the NO X SIP Call emissions requirements; and (5) the work practice requirements of 40 CFR part 63 Subpart DDDDD (periodic tune-ups) will provide additional assurance that the boiler is operating properly. EPA preliminarily agrees with Tennessee's rationale summarized above and the conclusion that the proposed revision would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

In order to address the requirements of the NO X SIP Call for sources that are not covered under a CSAPR trading program for ozone season NO X emissions, SIP revisions must provide for enforceable emissions limitations and require emissions monitoring consistent with the NO X SIP Call's general enforceability and monitoring requirements. 8 EPA is proposing to find that TDEC's submittal meets these requirements and all other requirements of the CAA, including 40 CFR 51.121(i)(1) and (4), except that Tennessee additionally will need to modify TAPCR 1200-03-27.12(11) to specify permissible non-Part 75 alternative monitoring and reporting methodologies within one year of the effective date of EPA's conditional approval. Thus, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve TDEC operating permit No. 079291, state effective on January 12, 2022, into Tennessee's SIP pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(4), subject to TDEC's specific commitment to modify the provisions of TAPCR 1200-03-27.12(11) to specify permissible non-Part 75 alternative monitoring and reporting methodologies within one year of EPA's conditional approval, as described in TDEC's submittal.

If Tennessee meets its commitment to submit a SIP revision modifying the provisions of TAPCR 1200-03-27.12(11) to specify permissible non-Part 75 alternative monitoring and reporting methodologies, as allowed under 40 CFR 51.121(i)(1) and (4), by 12 months from the date of final approval of this proposed action, TDEC operating permit No. 079291 will remain a part of the SIP. However, if the State fails to submit this revision on or before 12 months from the date of final approval of this action, the conditional approval will become a disapproval pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(4).

In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Sections I through III of this preamble, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board's operating permit No. 079291 for the Domtar Kingsport Mill, state effective on January 12, 2022. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section of this preamble for more information).

EPA is proposing to conditionally approve Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board operating permit No. 079291 for the Domtar Kingsport Mill, state effective January 12, 2022, for incorporation into the Tennessee SIP. These changes were submitted by Tennessee on January 20, 2022.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This proposed action merely proposes to conditionally approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3193, released February 16, 2023. The full text of the Petition can be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.

Subject: In the Matter of Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Snowflake, Arizona; Millerton, Oklahoma; Powers, Oregon; Mount Enterprise and Paint Rock, Texas; Hardwick, Vermont; and Meeteetse, Wyoming) in MB Docket No. 21-502. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e).

Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

Background

The Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act), 16 U.S.C. 773-773k, gives the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Convention between Canada and the United States for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Halibut Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention (signed at Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979). The Halibut Act requires that the Secretary adopt regulations to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Halibut Convention and Halibut Act (16 U.S.C. 773c). Additionally, as provided in the Halibut Act, the Regional Fishery Management Councils having authority for the geographic area concerned may develop, and the Secretary of Commerce may implement, regulations governing Pacific halibut fishing in in U.S. waters that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, approved International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) regulations (16 U.S.C. 773c(c)).

At its annual meeting January 22-27, 2023, the IPHC recommended an Area 2A catch limit. This catch limit is derived from the total constant exploitation yield (TCEY) for Pacific halibut, which includes commercial discards and bycatch estimates calculated using a formula developed by the IPHC. As provided in the Halibut Act at 16 U.S.C. 773b, the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce, may accept or reject, on behalf of the United States, regulations recommended by the IPHC in accordance with the Convention. Following acceptance by the Secretary of State, the annual management measures promulgated by the IPHC are published in the Federal Register to provide notice of their immediate regulatory effectiveness and to inform persons subject to the regulations of their restrictions and requirements (50 CFR 300.62). Subject to acceptance by the Secretary of State with concurrence by the Secretary of Commerce, this proposed rule contains 2023 subarea allocations based on the Area 2A catch limit as recommended by the IPHC.

Since 1988, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has developed a Catch Sharing Plan that allocates the IPHC regulatory Area 2A Pacific halibut catch limit between treaty tribal and non-tribal harvesters, and among non-tribal commercial and recreational (sport) fisheries. NMFS has implemented at 50 CFR 300.63 et seq. certain provisions of the Catch Sharing Plan, and implemented in annual rules annual management measures consistent with the Catch Sharing Plan. In 1995, the Council recommended and NMFS approved a long-term Area 2A Catch Sharing Plan (60 FR 14651; March 20, 1995). NMFS has been approving adjustments to the Area 2A Catch Sharing Plan based on Council recommendations each year to address the changing needs of these fisheries. While the full Catch Sharing Plan is not published in the Federal Register , it is made available on the Council website.

This rulemaking proposes to approve the changes the Council recommended at its November 2022 meeting to the Catch Sharing Plan for Area 2A. The recommended changes to the Catch Sharing Plan were developed through the Council's public process. This rulemaking would implement recreational Pacific halibut fishery management measures for 2023, which include season opening and closing dates. These management measures are consistent with the recommendations made by the Council in the 2023 Catch Sharing Plan as modified based on its 2022 recommendations and are detailed below.

Additionally, this proposed rule would amend the regulations codified at 50 CFR 300.63 relating to the Area 2A recreational fishery to include certain longstanding provisions in the Catch Sharing Plan. NMFS has previously implemented these provisions through the annual management measures; they are not new to the fishery. NMFS is also proposing non-substantive “housekeeping” changes to the codified regulations, to ensure they are up to date and clear.

Each year at the Council's September meeting, members of the public have an opportunity to propose changes to the Catch Sharing Plan for consideration by the Council. At the September 2022 Council meeting, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) proposed changes to the Catch Sharing Plan. The Council voted to solicit public input on the changes recommended by WDFW and ODFW. WDFW and ODFW subsequently held public workshops on the proposed changes.

At its November 2022 meeting, the Council considered the results of the state-sponsored workshops on the proposed changes to the Catch Sharing Plan, along with public input provided at the 2022 September and November Council meetings, and made its recommendations for modifications to the Catch Sharing Plan. NMFS proposes to approve all of the Council's recommended changes to the Catch Sharing Plan, which are discussed below.

1. In section 6.9 and 6.10 of the Catch Sharing Plan, the Council recommended that NMFS revise the season structure for the Washington and Columbia River subareas to allow fishing up to 7 days per week in August and September. Additional fishing days would provide late season opportunity to attain the allocation.

2. In section 6.9.1(d) of the Catch Sharing Plan, the Council recommended that NMFS revise the season structure in the Washington Puget Sound subarea to allow fishing up to 5 days per week in April and May during times of higher fishing productivity; and up to 7 days per week in June, August, and September.

3. In section 6.11.1(c) of the Catch Sharing Plan, the Council recommended adding an allocation-based threshold for increasing the daily bag limit in the Central Oregon Coast subarea earlier in the season. Specifically, if the combined all-depth and nearshore allocation for this subarea is 200,000 pounds or greater, NMFS may increase the daily bag limit to two fish per day, based on consultation between IPHC, ODFW, NMFS, and the Council, with the intent of taking the entire subarea allocation by September 30.

4. In section 6.11.1(d) of the Catch Sharing Plan, the Council recommended revising the season structure of the Central Oregon Coast subarea's spring all-depth fishery to be open up to 7 days per week every week starting May 1, provided the spring all-depth allocation is greater than 100,000 pounds. If the allocation is less than 100,000 pounds, then the season will open the second Thursday in May through June 30, and be open every Thursday through Saturday. In either case, weeks can be skipped to avoid adverse tides, then open every other week.

5. Section 6.11.1(g) and 6.11.2(g) of the Catch Sharing Plan currently stipulate that during the recreational all-depth halibut fishery in the central and southern Oregon coast subareas, when the groundfish fishery is restricted by depth and halibut are onboard the vessel, only sablefish, Pacific cod, and flatfish species may be taken and retained, possessed, or landed, except that yellowtail rockfish, widow rockfish, canary rockfish, redstriped rockfish, greenstriped rockfish, silvergray rockfish, chilipepper, bocaccio, and blue/deacon rockfish may be retained, possessed, or landed when caught with long-leader gear (as defined at 50 CFR 660.351). The Council recommended allowing long-leader gear fishing and retention of sablefish, Pacific cod, and other species of flatfish during the recreational halibut all-depth fishery in both Oregon Coast subareas and updating the CSP to reflect this.

6. In the Catch Sharing Plan, the Council also made various administrative edits to improve clarity and to reflect the transition of management of Area 2A non-tribal commercial directed fishery and issuing permits to Area 2A non-tribal commercial fisheries from the IPHC to NMFS in January 2023.

Additional discussion of these changes is included in the materials submitted to the Council at its September and November meetings, available at https://www.pcouncil.org/council-meetings/previous-meetings/. A version of the Catch Sharing Plan including these changes can be found at https://www.pcouncil.org/managed_fishery/pacific-halibut/.

As described above, NMFS proposes to implement recreational fishery management measures, including season dates for the 2023 fishery, consistent with the Council's recommendations in the 2023 Catch Sharing Plan. The Catch Sharing Plan includes a framework for setting days open for fishing by subarea; under this framework, each state submits final recommended season dates annually to NMFS during the proposed rule comment period. However, this proposed rule contains preliminary dates based either on the Catch Sharing Plan framework and/or recommendations received to date. In the final rule, NMFS will implement dates based on public comment, including comments from Oregon and California after each state has concluded its public meetings gathering input on season dates.

The final rule must be effective by April 6, in time for the start of recreational Pacific halibut fisheries. The 2023 Catch Sharing Plan provides the framework for the annual management measures and subarea allocations based on the 2023 Area 2A catch limit for Pacific halibut as set by the IPHC. The season dates and annual management measures in this rulemaking were developed through the Council where the public had the opportunity to participate. In order to ensure that these management measures are effective in time for the start of the recreational fisheries on April 6, NMFS will solicit public comments on this proposed rule for 15 days.

NMFS proposes Area 2A recreational fishery management measures consistent with the Council's Catch Sharing Plan. After the opportunity for public comment, NMFS will publish a final rule approving the Catch Sharing Plan and promulgating the annual management measures for the Area 2A recreational fishery, as required by implementing regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(b)(1). If there is any discrepancy between the Catch Sharing Plan and federal regulations, federal regulations take precedence.

The recreational fishing subareas, allocations, fishing dates, and daily bag limits are as follows. These provisions may be modified through inseason action consistent with 50 CFR 300.63(c). All recreational fishing in Area 2A is managed on a “port of landing” basis, whereby any halibut landed into a port counts toward the allocation for the area in which that port is located, and the regulations governing the area of landing apply, regardless of the specific area of catch.

The allocation for the subarea in Puget Sound and the U.S. waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca is 79,031 lb.

(a) The fishing seasons are structured as follows:

(i) For the area in Puget Sound and the U.S. waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, east of a line at approximately 124°23.70′ W long., NMFS is proposing to open the fishery on April 6-10, 13-17, 20-24, and April 27-May 1; May 4-8, 11-15, 18-22, and 26-28; and June 1-30. If unharvested allocation remains after June 30, NMFS may take inseason action to reopen the fishery in August and September, up to 7 days per week, or until there is not sufficient allocation for another full day of fishing and the area is therefore closed. Any closure will be announced in accordance with Federal regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(c) and on the NMFS hotline at (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825.

(b) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

The allocation for landings into ports in the Washington North Coast subarea is 129,668 lb.

(a) NMFS is proposing to open the fishery on May 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, 20, 26, and 28; and June 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, 17, 22, 24, and 29. If unharvested allocation remains after June 30, NMFS may take inseason action to reopen the fishery in August and September, up to 7 days per week, or until there is not sufficient allocation for another full day of fishing and the area is therefore closed. Any closure will be announced in accordance with Federal regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(c) and on the NMFS hotline at (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825.

(b) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

The allocation for landings into ports in the South Coast subarea is 64,376 lb.

(a) NMFS is proposing to open the Washington South Coast primary fishery on May 4, 7, 11, 14, 18, 21, and 25; June 15, 18, 22, and 25. If unharvested allocation remains after June 30, NMFS may take inseason action to reopen the fishery in August and September, up to 7 days per week, until September 30 or until there is not sufficient allocation remaining for another full day of fishing and the area is therefore closed. Any closure will be announced in accordance with Federal regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(c) and on the NMFS hotline at (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825. The fishing season in the Washington South Coast northern nearshore area commences the Saturday subsequent to the closure of the primary fishery in May or June if allocation remains in the Washington South Coast subarea allocation, and continues 7 days per week until 68,555 lb (31.10 mt) is projected to be taken by the two fisheries combined and the fishery is therefore closed or on September 30, whichever is earlier. If the fishery is closed prior to September 30, or there is insufficient allocation remaining to reopen the Washington South coast, northern nearshore area for another fishing day, then any remaining allocation may be transferred in-season to another Washington coastal subarea by NMFS, in accordance with Federal regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(c).

(b) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

The allocation for landings into ports in the Columbia River subarea is 18,875 lb.

(a) This subarea is divided into an all-depth fishery and a nearshore fishery. NMFS is proposing to open the all-depth fishery on May 4, 7, 11, 14, 18, 21, and 25; and June 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, 18, 22, 25, and 29. If unharvested allocation remains after June 30, NMFS may take inseason action to reopen the fishery in August and September, or until there is not sufficient allocation for another full day of fishing and the area is therefore closed. NMFS is proposing that the nearshore fishery be open every Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday beginning Monday May 8 until the nearshore allocation is taken, or on September 30, whichever is earlier. Any closure will be announced in accordance with Federal regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(c) and on the NMFS hotline at (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825. Subsequent to this closure, if there is insufficient allocation remaining in the Columbia River subarea for another fishing day, then any remaining allocation may be transferred inseason to other Washington or Oregon subareas by NMFS, in accordance with Federal regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(c). Any remaining allocation would be transferred to each state in proportion to the allocation formula in the Catch Sharing Plan.

(b) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

The allocation for landings into ports in the Oregon Central Coast subarea is 275,214 lb.

(a) NMFS is proposing to open the nearshore fishery on May 1. The fishery would be open 7 days per week until the allocation for the nearshore fishery is estimated to have been taken, or on October 31, whichever is earlier. The allocation to the nearshore fishery is 33,026 lb.

(ii) NMFS is proposing to open the spring all-depth fishery May 1 up to 7 days per week until July 31 or until there is not sufficient allocation remaining for another full day of fishing and the area is therefore closed. The allocation to the spring all-depth fishery is 173,385 lb.

(iii) In July, NMFS will announce, in accordance with notice procedures in Federal regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(c)(3) and on the NMFS hotline (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825, whether the fishery will re-open for the summer season in August, based on the overall Area 2A allocation. NMFS is proposing to open the fishery every other week on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, beginning Friday, August 4; or until the combined spring season and summer season allocations in the Oregon Central Coast are estimated to have been taken and the area is therefore closed. Any closure will be announced in accordance with Federal regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(c) and on the NMFS hotline at (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825. Additional fishing days may be opened if enough allocation is available to allow for additional fishing days after the last day of the first scheduled open period (August 5). After August 5, if 60,000 lb (27.2 mt) or greater remains from the combined nearshore, spring, and summer allocations, NMFS may take inseason action to open the fishery every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, beginning August 17, and/or the fishery may be open up to 7 days a week beginning September 1, ending when there is insufficient allocation remaining or October 31, whichever is earlier. After September 6, if 30,000 lb (13.6 mt) or greater remains from the combined nearshore, spring, and summer allocations, and the fishery is not already open every Thursday, Friday and Saturday, NMFS may take inseason action to re-open the fishery every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, beginning September 7, through October 31, until there is not sufficient allocation for another full day of fishing and the area is closed. NMFS will announce, in accordance with notice procedures at 50 CFR 300.63(c)(3) and on the NMFS hotline (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825, whether the summer all-depth fishery will be open on such additional fishing days, what days the fishery will be open, and what the bag limit is.

(b) The Central Oregon Coast subarea allocation (all-depth and nearshore combined) is 275,214 lb. NMFS is proposing to set the daily bag limit at two fish per day. NMFS will announce bag limits in accordance with notice procedures at 50 CFR 300.63(c)(3) and on the NMFS hotline (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825.

The allocation for landings into ports in the Southern Oregon subarea is 8,000 lb.

(a) NMFS is proposing to open the fishery May 1, 7 days per week until October 31 or the allocation is taken, whichever is earlier.

(b) The daily bag limit is one halibut per person with no size limit, unless otherwise specified through inseason action. NMFS will announce any bag limit changes in accordance with notice procedures at 50 CFR 300.63(c)(3) and on the NMFS hotline (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825.

The allocation for landings into ports in the California Coast subarea is 39,520 lb.

(a) NMFS is proposing to open the fishery May 1 through November 15, or until the subarea allocation is estimated to have been taken and the season is therefore closed, whichever is earlier. NMFS will announce any closure in accordance with notice procedures at § 300.63(c)(3) and on the NMFS hotline (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825.

(b) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

NMFS is proposing to make housekeeping changes to regulations at 50 CFR 300.63. These changes include non-substantive edits to increase clarity of the regulations, updating outdated regulations to more accurately reflect the current operations of the fishery, reordering paragraphs to improve organization, and codifying certain management measures that have been unchanged over many years in the Council's Catch Sharing Plan. Specifically, these management measures include defining port of landing for catch of halibut. In addition, the rule proposes codifying descriptions of subareas within Area 2A, including geographic coordinates for those areas; none of these subareas are new. This rule also proposes to clarify NMFS's authority to take automatic action to close a recreational area or subarea once its allocation has been reached. This type of non-discretionary closure has been a regular component of the management of this fishery and NMFS is not proposing anything that is not consistent with this standard past practice. When and how these closures will occur will also continue to be described in the annual management measure rules such as this one, In addition, NMFS proposes to remove the January 1 deadline for publication of the annual proposed rule to approve changes to the Catch Sharing Plan and implement annual management measures from 300.63(b)(1). This change would allow for the annual proposed rule to be published after the annual meeting of the Commission, which decides the total constant exploitation yield for regulatory areas across the species' range in U.S. and Canadian waters, thereby allowing for public comment on the resulting subarea allocations.

The proposed changes in codified regulations are not expected to result in a change in the management of the fishery. The proposed amendments to the codified regulations would make those regulations consistent with longstanding fishery management measures and consistent with the Catch Sharing Plan. The management measures proposed to be codified have been implemented annually for many years and were recommended by the Council, which developed them with extensive public processes.

Under section 773 of the Halibut Act, the Pacific Fishery Management Council may develop, and the Secretary of Commerce may implement, regulations governing Pacific halibut fishing by U.S. fishermen in Area 2A that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, approved IPHC regulations (16 U.S.C. 773c(c)). The proposed rule is consistent with the Council and NMFS's authority under the Halibut Act.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, for the following reasons:

For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has determined that halibut targeting charterboats are all small businesses. Charter fishing operations are classified under NAICS code 487210, with a corresponding Small Business Association size standard of $14 million in annual receipts (13 CFR 121.201). No commercial fishing entities are directly affected by this rulemaking.

This proposed rule would revise the recreational Pacific halibut fishery management measures, including season dates and catch limits. This proposed rule would open the recreational fishery with 2023 season dates and subarea allocations impacting charterboats, anglers, and businesses relying on recreational fishing across all of Area 2A. Therefore, this rulemaking may affect some charterboat operations in Area 2A. These changes were uncontroversial throughout the Council's public process, and overall participation in the recreational fisheries is not expected to change. There are no large entities involved in the halibut fisheries off the West Coast. Since this action will only impact recreational charter vessels, which are small entities, none of these changes will have a disproportionately negative effect on small entities versus large entities.

In 2022, the IPHC issued 106 licenses to the charterboat fleet for Area 2A. Recent information on charterboat activity is not available, but prior analysis indicated that 60 percent of the IPHC charterboat license holders (around 64 vessels) participate in the Pacific halibut recreational fishery and may be affected by these regulations as those vessels operate in Area 2A. Private vessels used for recreational fishing are not businesses and are therefore not included in the RFA analysis.

The major effect of halibut management on small entities will be from the catch limit decisions made by the IPHC, a decision independent from this proposed action. This proposed action would implement management measures including season dates and allocations for the recreational fishery, and approves minor changes to the Catch Sharing Plan to provide increased recreational opportunities under the allocations that result from the Area 2A catch limit. NMFS implements the provisions of the Catch Sharing Plan through the annual management measures in this proposed rule; the changes to the Catch Sharing Plan that NMFS is proposing to implement are considered minor, with minimal economic effects. Profitability is largely based on the catch limit decision made by the IPHC, with subarea allocations determined based on the Catch Sharing Plan framework and the allocation formulae recommended by the Council. Therefore, the proposed rule is unlikely to affect the profitability of the recreational fishery.

For the reasons described above, the proposed action, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 300, subpart E, as follows:

Background

The scallop fishery's management unit ranges from the shorelines of Maine through North Carolina to the outer boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone. The Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP), established in 1982, includes a number of amendments and framework adjustments that have revised and refined the fishery's management. The New England Fishery Management Council sets scallop fishery catch limits and other management measures through specification or framework adjustments that occur annually or biennially. The Council adopted Framework 36 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP on December 7, 2022. The Council submitted a draft of the framework, including a draft EA, for NMFS review and approval on December 20, 2022. This action proposes to approve and implement Framework 36, which establishes scallop specifications and other measures for fishing years 2023 and 2024, including changes to the catch, effort, and quota allocations and adjustments to the rotational area management program for fishing year 2023, and default specifications for fishing year 2024, as recommended by the Council.

NMFS proposes to implement these Framework 36 measures as close as possible to the April 1 start of fishing year 2023. If NMFS implements these measures after the start of the fishing year, the default allocation measures currently established for fishing year 2023 will go into place on April 1, 2023. The Council reviewed the proposed regulations in this rule as drafted by NMFS and deemed them to be necessary and appropriate as specified in section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

The Council set the proposed OFL based on a fishing mortality rate (F) of 0.61, equivalent to the F threshold updated through the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's most recent scallop benchmark stock assessment that was completed in September 2020. The proposed ABC and the equivalent total ACL for each fishing year are based on an F of 0.45, which is the F associated with a 25-percent probability of exceeding the OFL. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommended scallop fishery ABCs of 43.7 million lb (19,828 mt) for 2023 and 44.5 million lb (20,206 mt) for the 2024 fishing year, after accounting for discards and incidental mortality. The SSC will reevaluate and potentially adjust the ABC for 2024 when the Council develops the next framework adjustment.

Table 1 outlines the proposed scallop fishery catch limits. After deducting the incidental target total allowable catch (TAC), the research set-aside (RSA), and the observer set-aside, the remaining ACL available to the fishery is allocated according to the following fleet proportions established in Amendment 11 to the FMP (72 FR 20090, April 14, 2008): 94.5 percent is allocated to the limited access scallop fleet ( i.e., the larger “trip boat” fleet); 5 percent is allocated to the limited access general category (LAGC) individual fishing quota (IFQ) fleet ( i.e., the smaller “day boat” fleet); and the remaining 0.5 percent is allocated to limited access scallop vessels that also have LAGC IFQ permits. Amendment 15 to the FMP (76 FR 43746, July 21, 2011) specified that no buffers to account for management uncertainty are necessary in setting the LAGC ACLs, meaning that the LAGC ACL is equal to the LAGC ACT. For the limited access fleet, the management uncertainty buffer is based on the F associated with a 75-percent probability of remaining below the F associated with ABC/ACL, which, using the updated Fs applied to the ABC/ACL, now results in an F of 0.39. Amendment 21 to the FMP (87 FR 1688, January 12, 2022) modified the ACL flowchart to account for the scallop biomass in the Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) as part of the legal limits in the fishery by adding biomass from the area into calculations of the OFL and ABC. This action moved the accounting of the NGOM ACL from only within the OFL into the OFL and ABC/ACL for the entire fishery. In addition, Amendment 21 created the NGOM Set-Aside to support a directed LAGC fishery (including NGOM and LAGC IFQ permitted vessels) in the NGOM Management Area.

This action would deduct 1.275 million lb (578 mt) of scallops annually for 2023 and 2024 from the ABC for use as the Scallop RSA to fund scallop research. Participating vessels are compensated through the sale of scallops harvested under RSA projects. Of the 1.275-million-lb (578-mt) allocation, NMFS has already allocated 47,057 lb (21,345 kg) to previously funded multi-year projects as part of the 2022 RSA awards process. NMFS is reviewing proposals submitted for consideration of 2023 RSA awards and will be selecting projects for funding in the near future.

This action would also deduct 1 percent of the ABC for the industry-funded observer program to help defray the cost to scallop vessels that carry an observer. The observer set-aside is 198 mt for 2023 and 202 mt for 2024. The Council may adjust the 2024 observer set-aside when it develops specific, non-default measures for 2024.

This action would implement vessel-specific DAS allocations for each of the three limited access scallop DAS permit categories ( i.e., full-time, part-time, and occasional) for 2023 and 2024 (Table 2). Proposed 2023 DAS allocations are the same as those allocated to the limited access fleet in 2022. Framework 36 would set 2024 DAS allocations at 75 percent of fishing year 2023 DAS allocations as a precautionary measure. This is to avoid over-allocating DAS to the fleet in the event that the 2024 specifications action is delayed past the start of the 2024 fishing year. The proposed allocations in Table 2 exclude any DAS deductions that are required if the limited access scallop fleet exceeds its 2022 sub-ACL.

If NMFS implements these Framework 36 measures after the April 1 start of fishing year 2023, default DAS allocations, which were established in Framework Adjustment 34 to the FMP (87 FR 18277, March 30, 2022), would go into place on April 1, 2023. Full-time vessels would receive 18 DAS, part-time vessels would receive 7.20 DAS, and occasional vessels would receive 1.50 DAS. The allocations would later increase in accordance with Framework 36 when Framework 36 goes into effect. NMFS will notify all limited access permit holders of both default and Framework 36 DAS allocations so that vessel owners know what mid-year adjustments would occur should Framework 36 be approved and implemented after April 1, 2023.

For fishing year 2023 and the start of 2024, Framework 36 would change the boundaries of Area II (Table 3) to include all of both areas formerly known as Closed Area II and Closed Area II-East. This area was expanded to better support rotational access in fishing year 2023.

Framework 36 would keep the New York Bight and Nantucket Lightship-West Scallop Rotational Areas closed to scallop fishing to optimize growth of the several scallop year classes within the closure area and to support scallop fishing in years following the 2023 fishing year.

This action would also close the Elephant Trunk (Table 4) and the Area I (Table 5) Scallop Rotational Areas. The Council is proposing to close these areas to support the growth of small scallops in the absence of fishing pressure.