This rulemaking incorporates by reference the latest revisions of three regulatory guides (RGs) into the NRC's regulations. The three RGs identify new, revised, and reaffirmed code cases published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) that the NRC has determined are acceptable for use as voluntary alternatives to compliance with certain provisions of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPV Code) and the ASME Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, Division 1, OM Code: Section IST (OM Code) currently incorporated by reference into the NRC's regulations.

This rulemaking also revises the current NRC requirement for nuclear power plant licensees to update the codes of record for their inservice examination and testing (IST) and inservice inspection (ISI) programs. Currently, licensees are required to update the code of record every 10 years. This rulemaking would revise the requirement so that licensees would update the code of record after completion of an ISI and IST interval, with a maximum of two consecutive ISI and IST intervals before licensees are required to update the code of record. This revision applies to licensees that are implementing the 2017 Edition, or later editions, of the ASME OM Code and the 2017 Edition, or later editions, of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI, as incorporated by reference into § 50.55a of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) “Codes and standards” as the codes of record of their IST/ISI programs. This revision to the NRC's regulations implements Commission direction in staff requirements memorandum (SRM) SRM-SECY-21-0029 (dated November 8, 2021) in response to SECY-21-0029, “Rulemaking Plan on Revision of Inservice Testing and Inservice Inspection Program Update Frequencies Required in 10 CFR 50.55a,” dated March 15, 2021.

Following completion of this code case rulemaking and the ASME 2021-2022 Code Editions rulemaking, the NRC plans to streamline approval of code cases that do not require conditions and are unlikely to receive significant and adverse public comments by using the direct final rule process. The code cases that either require conditions or are likely to receive significant and adverse comments will be combined with the Code Editions rulemakings, which will continue to follow the traditional proposed rule and comment rulemaking process.

The NRC is incorporating by reference the following three RGs: RG 1.84, Design, Fabrication, and Materials Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section III, Revision 40; RG 1.147, Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1, Revision 21; and RG 1.192, Operation and Maintenance [OM] Code Case Acceptability, ASME OM Code, Revision 5. This action allows nuclear power plant licensees and applicants for construction permits, operating licenses, combined licenses, standard design certifications, standard design approvals, and manufacturing licenses to use the code cases listed in these revised RGs as voluntary alternatives to ASME engineering standards for the construction, inservice inspections, and inservice testing of nuclear power plant components. The NRC also notes the availability of RG 1.193, “ASME Code Cases Not Approved for Use,” Revision 8, which lists code cases that the NRC has not approved for generic use and would not be incorporated by reference into the NRC's regulations.

The NRC is revising the requirements in § 50.55a(f)(4) and (g)(4) to refer to the term “code of record interval” instead of “120-month interval.” This term, as well as others, is defined in new definitions in § 50.55a(y). Under the new rules, licensees may maintain the same code of record in their IST and ISI programs for two consecutive IST or ISI intervals. As a result of public comments on the proposed rule, the NRC made changes in the final rule to allow licensees to take advantage of this new flexibility provided their IST or ISI programs implement the 2017 Edition of the ASME OM Code or ASME BPV Code, Section XI, respectively. Also, as a result of public comments, the NRC revised the final rule to update the language of § 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv) to allow licensees to use a later edition of ASME OM Code and ASME BPV Code, Section XI, as incorporated by reference into § 50.55a, at the start of a new IST or ISI interval without submitting a request to the NRC for approval. As a result of these changes, licensees have the option to update their codes of record at the end of each ISI or IST interval or after two consecutive ISI or IST intervals.

The NRC prepared a final regulatory analysis to determine the expected quantitative costs and benefits of this final rule, as well as qualitative factors to be considered in the NRC's rulemaking decision. The analysis concluded that this final rule would result in net savings to the industry and the NRC. As shown in table I, the estimated total net benefit relative to the regulatory baseline and the quantitative benefits would outweigh the costs by a range from approximately $45.6 million (7-percent net present value) to $56.2 million (3-percent net present value).

The final regulatory analysis also considered the following qualitative considerations: (1) flexibility and decreased uncertainty for licensees when making modifications or preparing to perform inservice inspection or inservice testing (while continuing to ensure safety); (2) consistency with the provisions of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, which encourages Federal regulatory agencies to consider adopting voluntary consensus standards as an alternative to de novo agency development of standards affecting an industry; (3) consistency with the NRC's policy of evaluating the latest versions of consensus standards in terms of their suitability for endorsement by regulations and regulatory guides; and (4) consistency with the NRC's goal to harmonize with international standards to improve regulatory efficiency for both the NRC and international standards groups.

The final regulatory analysis concludes that this final rule should be adopted because it is justified when integrating the cost-beneficial quantitative results and the positive and supporting nonquantitative considerations in the decision. For more information, please see the final regulatory analysis as indicated in Section XVI, “Availability of Documents.”

The ASME develops and publishes the ASME BPV Code, which contains requirements for the design, construction, and inservice inspection of nuclear power plant components, and the ASME OM Code, 1 which contains requirements for preservice and inservice testing of nuclear power plant components. In response to BPV and OM Code user requests, the ASME develops code cases that provide voluntary alternatives to BPV and OM Code requirements under special circumstances.

The NRC approves the ASME BPV and OM Codes in § 50.55a, “Codes and standards,” through the process of incorporation by reference. As such, each provision of the ASME Codes incorporated by reference into and mandated by § 50.55a constitutes a legally binding NRC requirement imposed by rule. As noted previously, the ASME code cases, for the most part, represent alternative approaches for complying with provisions of the ASME BPV and OM Codes. Accordingly, the NRC periodically amends § 50.55a to incorporate by reference the NRC's RGs listing approved ASME code cases that may be used as voluntary alternatives to the BPV and OM Codes. 2

This final rule is the latest in a series of rules that incorporate by reference new versions of several RGs that identify new, revised, and reaffirmed  3 ASME Code Cases that the NRC unconditionally or conditionally approves for use. In developing these RGs, the NRC reviews the ASME BPV and OM Code Cases, determines the acceptability of each code case, and publishes its findings in the RGs. The RGs are revised periodically as new code cases are published by the ASME. The NRC incorporates by reference the RGs listing acceptable and conditionally acceptable ASME Code Cases into § 50.55a. The NRC published a final rule dated March 3, 2022, that incorporated by reference into § 50.55a the previous versions of the RGs, which are RG 1.84, “Design, Fabrication, and Materials Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section III,” Revision 39; RG 1.147, “Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1,” Revision 20; and RG 1.192, “Operation and Maintenance Code Case Acceptability, ASME OM Code,” Revision 4.

The NRC staff provided SECY-21-0029 to the Commission with a proposed rulemaking plan for revising the IST and ISI code of record update requirements in § 50.55a. The Commission issued SRM-SECY-21-0029, directing the staff to proceed with the proposed rulemaking plan. In SECY-22-0075, “Staff Requirements-SECY-21-0029 Inservice Testing and Inservice Inspection Program Rulemakings Update,” dated August 10, 2022, the staff described changes from the original plan in response to new information and changed circumstances that affected the implementation of SRM-SECY-21-0029. The changes described in SECY-22-0075 included combining the ASME code case and the IST and ISI code of record update rulemakings and also making conforming and clarifying changes. One such change was adding a definition section (§ 50.55a(y)) where “code of record interval” (the period of time between the code of record updates required by § 50.55a(f)(4) and (g)(4) for the IST and ISI programs, respectively) would be differentiated from both the ISI and IST intervals (the ASME interval described by the licensee's code of record).

In this final rulemaking, along with incorporating by reference three regulatory guides on ASME code cases, the NRC is including rule language that specifies that licensees may update their IST and ISI codes of record every two consecutive IST intervals or ISI intervals provided the licensee implements the 2017 Edition, or later edition or addenda, of ASME BPV Code and the 2017 Edition, or later edition, of the ASME OM Code, as incorporated by reference into § 50.55a, for their IST and ISI programs, respectively. With this revised requirement to update the code of record, the NRC does not intend that the code of record interval for an IST or ISI program would exceed 25 years, even if ASME extends the IST interval or the ISI interval beyond 12 years in the ASME OM Code or the ASME BPV Code, respectively. The 25-year maximum code of record interval would allow the same code of record to be used for two consecutive ISI or IST intervals, each up to 12 years, plus the one-time 1-year extension for IST and ISI programs as specified in the ASME OM Code and ASME BPV Code, respectively. Licensees implementing the 2017 Edition, or later edition, of ASME BPV Code, Section XI and the 2017 Edition, or later edition, of ASME OM Code may immediately utilize the extended code of record interval. The starting date for the 20- or 24-year code of record update interval begins on the date that the licensee had previously incorporated the 2017 Edition, or later edition, as its code of record for the IST or ISI program. Following completion of their current IST or ISI programs, these licensees may choose to maintain the same code of record for the successive IST or ISI interval or update the edition. Licensees choosing to update the editions at the start of a new IST or ISI interval may do so without NRC approval, per the new language in § 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv). Licensees seeking to use a later edition in the middle of an IST or ISI interval must still submit an exemption request for NRC review and approval.

In Revision 5 to RG 1.192, the NRC is conditionally accepting ASME OM Code Case OMN-31, “Alternative to Allow Extension of ISTA-3120 Inservice Examination and Test Intervals From 10 Years to 12 Years,” as a voluntary alternative to the 10-year interval specified in the ASME OM Code for applicants and licensees implementing the 2017 Edition of the ASME OM Code or later editions, as incorporated by reference in § 50.55a, as the code of record for their IST program. In Revision 21 to RG 1.147, the NRC is conditionally accepting ASME Code Case N-921, “Alternative 12-yr Inspection Interval Duration, Section XI, Division 1,” as a voluntary alternative to the 10-year interval specified in Section XI, IWA-2400 of the ASME BPV Code for applicants and licensees implementing the 2017 Edition of the ASME BPV Code or later editions, as incorporated by reference in § 50.55a, as the code of record for their ISI program. As a result of public comments, the NRC added a new condition requiring that these code cases be implemented at the start of a new IST or ISI interval. Implementation of these code cases in the middle of an IST or ISI interval creates complications related to existing testing and examination schedules and alternatives that were approved assuming a 10-year IST or ISI interval. Licensees seeking to apply these code cases in the middle of an IST or ISI interval would need to obtain an exemption under § 50.12.

This final rule incorporates by reference the latest revisions of the NRC's RGs that list the ASME BPV and OM Code Cases that the NRC finds to be acceptable, or acceptable with NRC-specified conditions (“conditionally acceptable”). RG 1.84, Revision 40 supersedes the incorporation by reference of Revision 39; RG 1.147, Revision 21 supersedes the incorporation by reference of Revision 20; and RG 1.192, Revision 5 supersedes the incorporation by reference of Revision 4.

The ASME Code Cases that are the subject of this final rule are the new and revised Section III and Section XI Code Cases as listed in Supplements 2 through 7 to the 2019 Edition of the ASME BPV Code, Supplements 0 through 2 and selected code cases from Supplement 3 to the 2021 Edition of the ASME BPV Code, and the OM Code Cases listed in the 2022 Edition of the ASME OM Code. By letter dated December 22, 2021, ASME requested that the NRC consider including Code Cases N-663-1, N-885-1, and N-921 in this rulemaking. In response, the NRC included these three code cases within the scope of this rulemaking. The NRC is also including OMN-31 within the scope of this rulemaking to provide consistency between the ISI and IST programs.

• RG 1.84, Revision 40, includes new information reviewed by the NRC on the Section III Code Cases listed in Supplements 2 through 7 to the 2019 Edition, and Supplements 0 through 3 to the 2021 Edition of the ASME BPV Code.

• RG 1.147, Revision 21, includes information reviewed by the NRC on the Section XI Code Cases listed in Supplements 2 through 7 to the 2019 Edition, Supplements 0 through 2 to the 2021 Edition, and selected Code Cases from Supplement 3 to the 2021 Edition of the ASME BPV Code.

• RG 1.192, Revision 5, includes information reviewed by the NRC on OM Code Cases listed in the 2022 Edition of the OM Code and on the ASME Codes & Standards (C&S) Connect website.

The ASME publishes code cases that provide alternatives to existing code requirements that the ASME developed and approved. This final rule incorporates by reference the most recent revisions of RGs 1.84, 1.147, and 1.192, which allow nuclear power plant licensees, and applicants for combined licenses, standard design certifications, standard design approvals, and manufacturing licenses under the regulations that govern license certifications, to use the code cases listed in these RGs as suitable alternatives to the ASME BPV and OM Codes for the construction, inservice inspections, and inservice testing of nuclear power plant components. The ASME makes the issued OM Code Cases available on the OM Code website and provides an index listing the issued OM Code Cases and their applicability in each ASME OM Code edition. In contrast, the ASME publishes BPV Code Cases in a separate document and at a different time than the ASME BPV Code Editions. This final rule identifies the BPV Code Cases by the edition of the ASME BPV Code under which they were published by the ASME and the OM Code Cases by the most recent edition of the ASME OM Code to which they apply.

The following general guidance applies to the use of the ASME Code Cases approved in the latest versions of the RGs that are incorporated by reference into § 50.55a as part of this final rule. Specifically, the use of the code cases listed in the latest versions of RGs 1.84, 1.147, and 1.192 are acceptable with the specified conditions when implementing the editions and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM Codes incorporated by reference in § 50.55a.

The approval of a code case in these RGs constitutes acceptance of its technical position for applications that are not precluded by other requirements. The applicant or licensee is responsible for ensuring that use of the code case does not conflict with regulatory requirements or licensee commitments. The code cases listed in the RGs are acceptable for use within the limits specified in the code cases. If the RG states an NRC condition on the use of a code case, then the NRC condition supplements and does not supersede any condition(s) specified in the code case, unless otherwise stated in the NRC condition.

The ASME Code Cases may be revised for many reasons ( e.g., to incorporate operational examination and testing experience and to update material requirements based on research results). On occasion, an inaccuracy in an equation is discovered or an examination, as practiced, is found inadequate to detect a newly discovered degradation mechanism. Therefore, when an applicant or a licensee initially implements a code case, § 50.55a requires that the applicant or the licensee implement the most recent version of that code case, as listed in the RGs incorporated by reference. Code cases superseded by revision are no longer acceptable for new applications unless otherwise indicated.

Section III of the ASME BPV Code applies to new construction ( e.g., the edition and addenda to be used in the construction of a plant are selected based on the date of the construction permit and are not changed thereafter, except voluntarily by the applicant or the licensee). Section III may also be used for repair and replacement activities under the provisions of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code. Whether used for construction or later repair or replacement, when a code case is first implemented by a licensee, the applicant implements the latest edition incorporated by reference into § 50.55a. Thereafter, the applicant or licensee may continue to apply the version of the code case they originally implemented or they may apply the later version of the code case, including any NRC-specified conditions placed on its use.

Licensees that were using a code case prior to the effective date of its revision may continue to use the previous version until the next update to the code of record for the ISI or IST program, as applicable. This relieves licensees of the burden of having to update their ISI or IST program each time a code case is revised by the ASME and approved for use by the NRC. Code cases apply to specific editions and addenda, and code cases may be revised if they are no longer accurate or adequate, so licensees choosing to continue using a code case into a later code of record interval ( e.g., after updating the edition and addenda) for the ISI or IST program must implement the latest version incorporated by reference into § 50.55a and listed in the RGs.

The ASME may annul code cases that are no longer required, are determined to be inaccurate or inadequate, or have been incorporated into the BPV or OM Codes. A code case may be revised, for example, to incorporate user experience. The older or superseded version of the code case cannot be applied by the licensee or applicant for a first use of that code case. If an applicant or a licensee applied a code case before it was listed as superseded or annulled, the applicant or the licensee may continue to use the code case until the applicant or the licensee updates its construction code of record (in the case of an applicant, updates its application) or until the licensee's code of record interval for the ISI or IST program expires, after which the continued use of the code case is prohibited unless NRC authorization is given under § 50.55a(z). If a code case is incorporated by reference into § 50.55a and later a revised version is issued by the ASME because experience has shown that the design analysis, construction method, examination method, or testing method is inadequate, the NRC will amend § 50.55a and the relevant RG to remove the approval of the superseded code case. Applicants and licensees should not begin to implement such superseded code cases in advance of the rulemaking.

The code cases discussed in table II are new, revised, or reaffirmed code cases in which the NRC is not imposing any conditions. The table identifies the regulatory guide listing the applicable code case that the NRC approves for use.

The NRC has determined that certain code cases, as issued by the ASME, are generally acceptable for use, but that the alternative requirements specified in those code cases must be supplemented to provide an acceptable level of quality and safety. Accordingly, the NRC imposed conditions on the use of these code cases to modify, limit, or clarify their requirements. The conditions specify, for each applicable code case, the additional activities that must be performed, the limits on the activities specified in the code case, and/or the supplemental information needed to provide clarity. These ASME Code Cases, listed in table III, are included in table 2 of RG 1.84, RG 1.147, and RG 1.192. This section provides the NRC's evaluation of the code cases and the reasons for the NRC's conditions. Notations indicate the conditions duplicated from previous versions of the RG.

The conditions on Code Case N-71-21 are the same as the conditions on N-71-20 that were approved by the NRC in Revision 39 of RG 1.84. When the ASME revised N-71, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the conditions. Therefore, the condition is retained in Revision 40 of RG 1.84.

Code Case N-570-3 updated references made to ANSI/AISC N690-1994 and ANSI/AISC N690-1994 (R2004) Supplement 2 with ANSI/AISC N690-18. A difference between ANSI/AISC N690-18 and ANSI/AISC N690-1994 (R2004) is that ANSI/AISC N690-18 allows the use of the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method or the Allowable Strength Design (ASD) method, versus the allowable stress design method or plastic design method contained in the ANSI/AISC N690-1994 (R2004) edition. Code Case N-570-2 explicitly stated in paragraph 3.11, that the plastic design method in part 2 of ANSI/AISC N690-1994 (R2004) shall not be used. It is the NRC's understanding that the alternative requirements of Code Case N-570-3 for design are also intended to be limited to the design for strength using the ASD method of ANSI/AISC N690-18, which is similar to the allowable stress design method used in N-570-2; however, the code case does not include such explicit qualifiers regarding the use of ANSI/AISC N690-18. The alternative requirements for design in Code Case N-570-3 would be limited to the design for strength using the ASD method of ANSI/AISC N690-18. To provide clarity, the NRC is imposing a condition: “This Code Case shall not be used with the Load and Resistance Factor Design method of ANSI/AISC N690-18.”

The condition on Code Case N-711-2 is identical to the condition on N-711-1 that was approved by the NRC in Revision 20 of RG 1.147. When the ASME revised N-711, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the condition. Therefore, the condition is retained in Revision 21 of RG 1.147.

Code Case N-716 provides rules for alternative classification and examination requirements for piping welds and components. Revision 3 to Code Case N-716 removes the provision for plants issued an operating license after January 1, 2012, to submit the application of this code case for regulatory approval. The NRC is cognizant of the ASME Code's desire to eliminate the provision for newly constructed plants to submit first time applications of N-716 to the NRC. ASME adopted a general policy to make ASME standards, including this code case, more generally applicable internationally. However, the NRC's opinion is that the new designs may introduce additional variables, which in the absence of substantial operating experience with these new plants, may introduce uncertainty on the applicability of this code case to the new plants. Hence, the NRC has determined there is a need to review the initial proposals for new plants for applications of N-716. The review would confirm the absence of new degradation mechanisms and evaluate any available operating experience, as well as any risk-related information for the new plants, prior to the initial application of the code case to new plants. Therefore, the NRC is imposing a condition that this code case is not approved for use by plants issued an operating license or combined license after January 1, 2012. However, plants issued an operating license or combined license after January 1, 2012, may submit an alternative to use this code case in accordance with § 50.55a(z) for review and approval prior to implementation.

The NRC is revising the conditions on N-754-1 to remove the reference to the NRC's safety evaluation for the topical report “Materials Reliability Program (MRP): Technical Basis for Preemptive Weld Overlays for Alloy 82/182 Butt Welds in PWRs” (MRP-169) and to clarify the examination requirements.

The first condition deals with the use of this code case on a pipe that implements NRC-approved leak-before-break (LBB) methodology. The application of the LBB concept to a pipe is that if a flaw develops in a pipe with certain favorable material properties, the pipe will most likely leak first before it fails catastrophically. The existing leakage detection system in the nuclear plant will detect the leakage and alert the operator. The operator would have sufficient time to shut down the plant safely to perform corrective actions. The NRC has approved LBB for certain Class 1 reactor coolant system piping in pressurized water reactor plants based on the plant-specific and piping-specific LBB analysis, which shows that the probability of the piping rupture is extremely low under conditions consistent with the design basis for the piping as required in General Design Criterion 4 of 10 CFR part 50, appendix A. The LBB methodology and analysis, including specific safety margins, are reviewed and approved via the license amendment process. The LBB implementation is documented in the plant final safety analysis report. When an optimized weld overlay is installed onto pipes that are approved for LBB, the licensee must verify that the safety margins specified in the original LBB analysis are still satisfied.

The second condition states that the preservice and inservice examinations of the overlaid pipe using this code case must be performed in accordance with § 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F). Paragraph 3(c) of N-754-2 states that “In lieu of all other Preservice and Inservice inspection requirements, the examination requirements in accordance with N-770-2 (or later in accordance with [Paragraph] 5) shall be met. Alternately, the requirements of [subparagraphs] (1) through (3) below may be used to modify the provisions of N-770-2 (or later in accordance with [Paragraph] 5).” As stated, if the inspection of the overlaid pipe performed in accordance with N-770-2 cannot be met or performed, alternatives of paragraphs 3(c)(1), 3(c)(2) and 3(c)(3) of N-754-2 could be used. The NRC identified the following issues regarding the statement in paragraph 3(c):

• Paragraphs 3(c)(2) and 3(c)(3) of N-754-2 are related to the design and analysis, not the inspection of the overlaid pipe. Therefore, it is not clear how these two paragraphs can be used to modify the inspection provisions of N-770-5.

• The inspection provisions of paragraph 3(c)(1) can be different from the provisions of Note 14, Preservice Inspection for Optimized Weld Overlays, and Note 18, Inservice Inspection of Optimized Weld Overlays, of table 1 of N-770. The NRC notes that 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F) mandates the use of N-770, as conditioned, for the examination requirements for optimized weld overlays in dissimilar metal butt welds. Therefore, for regulatory clarity regarding preservice and inservice inspection requirements, the condition is provided.

• Section 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F) mandates the implementation of N-770-5, rather than N-770-2.

Therefore, the NRC is imposing this condition to clarify the examination requirements in Paragraph 3 of N-754-2 and to ensure that N-770-5 is implemented as required by § 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F).

The conditions on Code Case N-766-4 are identical to the conditions on N-766-3 that were approved by the NRC in the previous revision of RG 1.147. When the ASME revised N-766, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the conditions. Therefore, the conditions are retained in Revision 21 of RG 1.147.

The conditions on Code Case N-847-1 are identical to the conditions on N-847 that were approved by the NRC in the previous revision of RG 1.147. When the ASME revised N-847, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the conditions. Therefore, the conditions are retained in Revision 21 of RG 1.147.

Code Case N-880-1 removes the size limitation in N-880 by eliminating the NPS 2 size limit. The NRC does not agree with removing the small size limitation (NPS 2 and under). The NRC is imposing a condition to continue to limit the scope of the code case to NPS 2 (DN 50) or smaller fittings because there is insufficient technical basis to expand the application to items larger than NPS 2 (DN 50). The only justification provided for this change was that it is an arbitrary limitation. However, the limitation to NPS 2 (DN 50) and under was based on the capacity of the reactor coolant makeup system being able to safely shutdown the plant if these fittings fail, and therefore, is not an arbitrary limitation.

Without a condition, approval of the code case would allow the use of these non-standard or specialized fittings in any Class 1, 2, and 3 systems, including the reactor coolant makeup system. Therefore, the failure of these fittings, which lack operating experience to demonstrate their reliability, could also affect the reactor coolant makeup system's ability to provide sufficient makeup capacity. Therefore, the NRC is imposing a new condition to limit the use of Code Case N-880-1 to NPS 2 (DN 50) or smaller fittings.

Conditions 2 and 3 are identical to the conditions on N-880 that were approved by the NRC in a previous revision of RG 1.147. When the ASME revised N-880, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove Conditions 2 and 3. Therefore, those conditions are retained in Revision 21 of RG 1.147.

Code Case N-899 provides an alternative method for calculating the values of weld residual stress as a function of distance through the wall thickness for dissimilar metal butt welds in the reactor coolant pressure boundary. The NRC notes that Code Case N-899 may be used in conjunction with methodologies similar to those in Section XI, Nonmandatory Appendix A, Article A-3000 to calculate the crack tip stress intensity factor, K I , for inside surface connected flaws in piping or vessel nozzle butt welds fabricated with UNS N06082, UNS W86182, UNS N06052, or UNS W86152 weld filler material.

In many cases, plants do not have information on the actual repairs performed to Alloy 82/182 butt welds. However, operating experience and records indicate that repairs were common, including some welds being repaired multiple times. Weld repairs generally cause the weld residual stress to become more severe. Given the uncertainty in whether a weld repair exists or not, the NRC has generally found that it is appropriate to assume that a repair is present for the purposes of flaw evaluation. Therefore, consistent with the established NRC position for the weld residual stress distribution analysis for the subject welds of this code case, the inside surface repair residual stress distributions of Code Case N-899 are acceptable for use provided all known and documented repairs are bounded by the 50-percent through wall repair assumed in the case. Based on the above discussion, the NRC is imposing the condition that only the standard weld residual stress distributions with repairs in paragraphs -2331 and -2332 would be approved for use and only if they bound all known or documented repairs previously performed on the subject weld.

Similarly, the NRC also notes that when Paragraph -3000, “Calculation of Residual Stress Using Finite Element Analysis,” is applied as an option to use finite element analysis to calculate weld residual stress distributions, the weld residual stress analysis should incorporate a minimum of a 50 percent through-wall inside surface connected weld repair as part of the analysis. This is consistent with the NRC position on repairs and weld residual stress calculations stated above. If documentation of a repair is found or a previous repair is known, the weld residual stress analysis must be evaluated to determine if it is bounded by the 50-percent repair by modeling or flaw evaluation. The more conservative of either 50-percent repair assumption or the combination of all known previous repairs should be used in the development of the weld residual stress distribution. Therefore, the NRC is imposing the following condition: when developing a plant specific weld residual stress distribution, the finite element analysis calculation of the weld residual stress distribution must use the more bounding of either an assumed previous inside surface repair of 50 percent through-wall or the combination of all known or documented previous repairs.

Code Case N-906 provides a flaw evaluation procedure for cast austenitic stainless steel piping and fittings adjacent to girth welds as alternatives to the methods in Nonmandatory Appendix C, C-4210 and C-6330. Paragraph 1(b) of Code Case N-906 states that the provisions of this Case shall be applied to operating temperatures of 500 °F to 625 °F (260 °C to 330 °C). The paragraph also states that, if a thermal transient below this range of temperatures occurs at the flaw location, the appropriate toughness, J i , at the minimum transient temperature shall be used along with the applied stresses at that minimum transient temperature. Accordingly, if a thermal transient occurs below the specified temperature range, the code case requires that the flaw evaluation use the fracture toughness and applied stresses at the minimum transient temperature.

However, the limiting fracture toughness and relevant applied stress for the flaw under the thermal transient may not be those at the minimum transient temperature. For example, Figure 32 of NUREG/CR-4513, Revision 2, “Estimation of Fracture Toughness of Cast Stainless Steels during Thermal Aging in LWR Systems,” shows that the fracture toughness of a cast austenitic stainless steel material at room temperature may be higher than that at an elevated temperature. Therefore, the NRC is imposing a condition to delete the reference to the minimum transient temperature that is associated with the appropriate fracture toughness and applied stresses for the flaw evaluation. The condition also clarifies that the flaw evaluation must use the fracture toughness and applied stresses that are limiting for the flaw.

Code Case N-921 increases the inservice inspection interval defined in Section XI, IWA-2400 from 10 years to 12 years. Section XI, IWA-2400 requires that licensees have an inservice inspection program that includes, for example, inspection plans, inservice inspection interval dates, and identification of code cases to be applied during the interval. While IWA-2400 requires that licensees specify the edition or addenda of Section XI that will be applied during the interval, Section XI does not prescribe what constitutes an appropriate edition or addenda. In fact, IWA-2410 states that edition or addenda is “as required by the regulatory authority having jurisdiction at the plant site.” The regulation at § 50.55a(g)(4)(ii) determines which edition or addenda the licensee should apply to inservice inspection programs for a successive ISI interval. This regulation, along with the definitions in § 50.55a(y), assumes a 10-year inservice inspection interval, unless the licensee's code of record is the 2017 Edition of ASME BPV Section XI or later.

A licensee applying this code case is, therefore, required by § 50.55a(4)(g)(ii) to update the code of record every 10 years. The inservice inspection interval and the code of record update interval should be synchronized to promote order and predictability in licensee inservice inspection programs.

The proposed rule applied the flexibilities of this code case to licensees using the 2019 Edition of Section XI or later. However, in response to multiple commenters, the NRC performed an analysis between the 2019 Edition of Section XI and the 2017 Edition of Section XI and determined that no safety significant changes exist between the two editions. Because no safety significant changes were identified between the 2019 and 2017 editions, the NRC concluded that it would be appropriate to extend the flexibility to licensees on the 2017 Edition.

In response to a comment, the NRC is adding a requirement that licensees implement Code Case N-921 only at the beginning of an ISI interval. For licensees already using the 2017 Edition, or later, of Section XI, implementation of Code Case N-921 must wait until the start of the next ISI interval. There are complications associated with extending the ISI interval mid-interval. For instance, licensees wanting to extend the ISI interval mid-interval would need to evaluate all NRC-approved alternatives to determine if they should be resubmitted, especially considering that NRC may have granted the alternative assuming a 10-year ISI interval. See Section II.F, “Mid-Interval Discussion and Example,” for a more detailed discussion of performing mid-interval updates. Further, Code Case N-921 specifies requirements in terms of three 4-year periods, so licensees would need to reconcile their inspection schedules accordingly. Therefore, this final rule specifies that Code Case N-921 can only be implemented following a routine update of the ISI program ( i.e., cannot be implemented mid-interval) and requires the licensee's ISI code of record to be the 2017 Edition, or later, of the BPV Code.

In response to a public comment, the NRC added a condition on Code Case N-921 to allow the exceptions described in Section XI, IWB-2411(a), IWC-2411(a), and IWD-2411(a). These provisions provide exceptions to the inspection period requirements of tables IWB-2411-1, IWC-2411-1, and IWD-2411-1, respectively. These exceptions, which are in the Code provisions applicable to this alternative, were left out of the code case. The NRC approved these exceptions in the original code provisions through incorporation by reference of ASME BPV Code Section XI, without conditions. Therefore, the NRC agreed with the commenter and added a condition that the same exceptions of IWB-2411(a), IWC-2411(a), and IWD-2411(a) should apply to table 1 of Code Case N-921.

In response to a public comment, the NRC added a condition on Code Case N-921 that the code case cannot be used to modify examination schedules for augmented inspections under § 50.55a(g)(6)(ii). Code Case N-921 only provides alternative to Section XI requirements, not NRC regulations. Licensees must continue implementing the augmented inspections as specified in § 50.55a(g)(6)(ii) and the associated code cases. The NRC staff intends to continue participating in ASME Code committee discussions on this matter. The NRC may revisit the relationship between Code Case N-921 and the augmented inspection program in a future rulemaking.

For the same reasons explained for Section XI Code Case N-921 above, including the response to public comments, the NRC is restricting the use of OMN-31 to licensees implementing the ASME OM Code, 2017 Edition, or later, as the code of record for the IST Program, as well as imposing a condition that licensees may only begin implementing Code Case OMN-31 at the beginning of an IST interval as specified in ASME OM Code, paragraph ISTA-3120. See Section II.F, “Mid-Interval Discussion and Example,” for a more detailed discussion of performing mid-interval updates.

As indicated in RG 1.192, this OM Code Case may be applied by licensees implementing the 2017 Edition, or later, of the ASME OM Code incorporated by reference in § 50.55a, as the code of record for the IST Program, contrary to the ASME OM Code Case Applicability Index, dated July 1, 2022. The NRC is also imposing a condition that licensees may only begin implementing Code Case OMN-31 at the beginning of an IST interval as specified in ASME OM Code, paragraph ISTA-3120.

No changes were made to the OM Code Cases listed in table 2 of the Revision 5 to RG 1.192 (except for new Code Case OMN-31, discussed previously) from the versions that were listed in OM Code Cases listed in table 2 of Revision 4 to RG 1.192. Therefore, the conditions on the OM Code Cases listed in table 2 of the Revision 5 to RG 1.192 (except for new Code Case OMN-31) are identical to the conditions on those OM Code Cases that were approved by the NRC in Revision 4 of RG 1.192. The OM Code Cases listed in table 2 of the Revision 5 to RG 1.192 were re-affirmed by the ASME for the 2022 Edition of the OM Code with no change to those OM Code Cases. Therefore, the conditions on the OM Code Cases in table 2 are retained in Revision 5 of RG 1.192.

The ASME Code Cases that are currently issued by the ASME, but not approved for generic use by the NRC, are listed in RG 1.193, “ASME Code Cases not Approved for Use.” In addition to the ASME Code Cases that the NRC has found to be technically or programmatically unacceptable, RG 1.193 includes code cases on reactor designs for high-temperature gas-cooled reactors and liquid metal reactors, reactor designs not currently licensed by the NRC, and certain requirements in Section III, Division 2, for submerged spent fuel waste casks, that are not endorsed by the NRC. Regulatory Guide 1.193 complements RGs 1.84, 1.147, and 1.192. It should be noted that the NRC is not proposing to adopt any of the code cases listed in RG 1.193.

Nuclear power plant licensees maintain their IST and ISI programs, respectively, in accordance with the requirements of the ASME OM Code and ASME BPV Code, Section XI, as incorporated by reference in § 50.55a. The initial concept of a 10-year ISI interval first appeared in the 1970 Edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI, in paragraph IS-240. This 10-year interval (referred to as the ISI interval) is only related to ASME ISI requirements. There is a corresponding 10-year IST interval for the OM Code requirements.

Later, in a final rule published in February 1976 (41 FR 6256), the NRC revised § 50.55a to require IST code of record updates every 20 months and ISI code of record updates every 40 months. This requirement was (and still is) independent from the ISI and IST intervals defined by the respective codes. In the early years of the development of ISI and IST programmatic requirements, the NRC requirement to update the codes of record was not synchronized with the ASME concept of an IST or ISI interval. In January 1979 (44 FR 3719), the NRC proposed changes to § 50.55a to extend the 20- and 40-month update intervals to 120 months (10 years), to promote consistency with the 10-year interval in the ASME codes. The corresponding final rule was published in October 1979 (44 FR 57912).

Paragraph IWA-2420 of the 1989 Edition and later of ASME BPV Code, Section XI, requires that nuclear plant owners prepare inspection plans and schedules for each ISI interval. These plans should include a listing of all code cases to be applied during the ISI interval and alternatives authorized under § 50.55a(z). The revision to § 50.55a in this rulemaking does not alter those requirements. In defining the inspection program, paragraph IWA-2410 of ASME BPV Code, Section XI, states, “The Code Edition and Addenda for preservice inspection and for initial and successive inservice inspection intervals shall be as required by the regulatory authority having jurisdiction at the plant site.” Therefore, while ASME BPV Code, Section XI, requires plant owners to declare which edition of Section XI will be applied during each ISI interval, the code does not specify what constitutes an appropriate edition of Section XI.

Similarly, Paragraph ISTA-3110, “Test and Examination Plans,” in the 2020 Edition of the ASME OM Code requires that nuclear plant owners prepare test plans for the preservice test period, initial IST intervals, and subsequent IST intervals. These plans should include a listing of all code cases to be applied during the IST interval, relief granted under § 50.55a(f), and alternatives authorized under § 50.55a(z). Paragraph ISTA-3110 requires in subparagraph (a) that each IST plan shall include “the edition and addenda of this Section that apply to the required tests and examinations.” Therefore, while the ASME OM Code requires nuclear power plant owners to declare which edition and addenda of the OM Code will be applied during each IST interval, the OM Code does not specify what constitutes an appropriate edition and addenda of the OM Code.

Therefore, neither ASME BPV Code, Section XI nor the OM Code specify which edition to use. Rather, the NRC's regulations in § 50.55a determine the appropriate edition and addenda of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI or OM Code to be applied in each ISI or IST interval, respectively. The changes to these code of record requirements in this rulemaking are focused on that aspect alone.

The NRC does not intend the extension of the code of record interval to affect the orderly implementation of IST and ISI programs. Therefore, the final rule is designed to synchronize the requirements of ASME Codes and § 50.55a as much as possible. For licensees with codes of record prior to ASME BPV Code, Section XI, 2017 Edition, and OM Code, 2017 Edition, as incorporated by reference in § 50.55a, the final rule specifies that the code of record interval for the ISI and IST programs shall be the same as the ISI interval or IST interval. This is consistent with the current requirements. For licensees with codes of record of ASME BPV Code, Section XI, 2017 Edition, or later editions and addenda, and ASME OM Code, 2017 Edition, or later editions, as incorporated by reference in § 50.55a, the final rule specifies that the code of record interval for the ISI and IST programs is two consecutive ISI or IST intervals, respectively.

With this revised requirement to update the code of record, the NRC does not intend that the code of record interval for an IST or ISI program will exceed 25 years, even if ASME extends the IST interval or the ISI interval beyond 12 years in the ASME OM Code or the ASME BPV Code, respectively. The 25-year maximum code of record interval allows the same code of record to be used for two consecutive ISI or IST intervals, each up to 12 years, plus the one-time, 1-year extension for IST and ISI programs as specified in the ASME OM Code and ASME BPV Code, respectively. The Commission has not approved extending the code of record intervals beyond the 25-year maximum in this rulemaking. If future editions of the ASME OM Code or ASME BPV Code or future code cases extend the IST interval or ISI interval, respectively, beyond 12 years, the NRC would need to maintain the 25-year maximum code of record interval.

In response to public comments, the NRC does not intend for licensees with codes of record of ASME BPV Code, Section XI, 2017 Edition, or later editions and addenda, and ASME OM Code, 2017 Edition, or later editions, as incorporated by reference into § 50.55a, to be required to maintain the same code of record for the two consecutive ASME intervals. Accordingly, the NRC modified § 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv) to ensure that licensees and applicants maintain the ability to update their code of record at the end of each ASME interval without NRC approval. These licensees also may implement the extended code of record interval immediately when the rule becomes effective. The code of record interval for these licensees, per the definitions in § 50.55a(y), is two consecutive IST or ISI intervals (not 20 or 24 years). Therefore, these licensees may update their code of record either at the end of the current IST or ISI interval or at the end of the subsequent IST or ISI interval.

The concept of a 120-month interval is referenced repeatedly in § 50.55a. However, the current language is not consistent or well-defined. As such, the NRC provided clarifying language by introducing certain definitions in § 50.55a(y). The definitions include IST code of record, ISI code of record, code of record interval, IST interval, ISI program, IST program, and ISI interval. The NRC updated the language throughout § 50.55a to be consistent with the definitions.

The NRC requested feedback on the proposed definitions and if more definitions were warranted. In general, commenters supported the proposed definitions. One commenter recommended that the definition for code of record be two specific definitions (IST code of record and ISI code of record) and requested that the NRC determine where the snubber program should be discussed. As a response to these specific comments, the NRC is providing two definitions for code of record: IST code of record and ISI code of record. Also, the NRC modified the IST code of record definition to include the snubber program.

In the 2006 Addenda of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI, ASME moved the requirements for snubbers to Subsection ISTD, “Preservice and Inservice Requirements for Dynamic Restraints (Snubbers) in Water-Cooled Reactor Nuclear Power Plants,” of the OM Code. Inservice examination, testing, and service life monitoring of dynamic restraints (snubbers) must meet the inservice examination and testing requirements set forth in the applicable ASME OM Code or ASME BPV Code, Section XI, as specified in § 50.55a(b)(3)(v)(A) and (B). When using the 2006 Addenda or later of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI, the inservice examination, testing, and service life monitoring requirements for dynamic restraints (snubbers) must meet the requirements set forth in the applicable ASME OM Code as specified in § 50.55a(b)(3)(v)(B). When using the 2005 Addenda or earlier edition or addenda of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI, ASME OM Code, 1995 Edition through latest edition and addenda may be used for the inservice examination, testing, and service life monitoring requirements for dynamic restraints (snubbers), in place of the requirements of the applicable ASME BPV Code, Section XI, as specified in § 50.55a(b)(3)(v). Nuclear power plant licensees are transitioning to the 2006 Addenda and later editions of the ASME OM Code at their next IST Code of Record update. Licensees are encouraged to discuss their plans regarding the snubber programs with their NRC project manager when preparing to implement IST programs with extended intervals.

With respect to relief from impractical IST requirements as requested in accordance with § 50.55a(f)(5)(iv), neither the rulemaking language regarding the code of record interval nor application of Code Cases OMN-31 or N-921 extend the approval timeframe for previously granted relief requests. At the end of the Inservice Examination and Test Interval, the licensee would reassess whether the IST requirement continues to be impractical and submit an updated relief request as necessary. The NRC is implementing similar revisions for the ISI requirements in § 50.55a(g)(5)(iii) and (iv).

With respect to alternative requests in accordance with § 50.55a(z), the NRC will address the duration of each new authorized alternative in the safety evaluation, describing its review of the request consistent with the current procedures for evaluating alternative requests. Existing NRC-approved alternatives were likely authorized based on the IST or ISI interval. Neither the rulemaking language regarding the code of record interval nor application of Code Cases OMN-31 or N-921 extend the approval timeframe for existing alternatives. Licensees should refer to the NRC safety evaluation to determine the timeframe for which the alternative is authorized and resubmit the request in an appropriate timeframe to maintain compliance with IST and ISI requirements. Licensees may request future alternatives based upon the code of record interval.

In addition, the NRC updated references to the 10-year service period in appendix J to 10 CFR part 50 to be consistent with the definitions in § 50.55a(y), in which the NRC is allowing the ISI period to be extended to 12 years. The current rules for Type A tests under Option A (prescriptive requirements) explicitly reference the 10-year service period required in § 50.55a for inservice inspections. Consistent with the NRC's stated goal of maintaining consistency across all NRC rules regarding ISI and IST programs, the NRC is revising appendix J to directly reference the interval defined in 10 CFR 50.55a, to accommodate a 12-year ISI interval. For the reasons stated in SECY-22-0075, the NRC made this revision without changing the intent or basis for the Type A test requirement in appendix J.

Licensees are currently required to submit various documents, such as IST plans and schedules or Section XI flaw evaluations, to the NRC each IST or ISI interval. The language in this rulemaking regarding the code of record intervals does not alter those submittal requirements in any way. Therefore, licensees should carefully distinguish requirements that apply to the code of record interval from those that apply to the IST or ISI interval. For example, § 50.55a(f)(7) requires IST plans to be submitted within 90 days of their implementation for the applicable 120-month IST program interval. This rule would revise the terms used in paragraph (f)(7) for consistency with the new definitions, but submittal of IST plans would still be required within 90 days of their implementation for the applicable IST interval.

The NRC recognizes that a licensee might consider updating its code of record for the ISI/IST program to a more recent Code edition (such as 2017 Edition or later) during an ISI/IST interval to take advantage of the allowance in the rule to double the code of record interval. Similarly, a licensee might consider implementing Code Case N-921 during an ISI interval or Code Case OMN-31 during an IST interval. The staff notes that complications may arise because of reconciling Section XI and OM Code requirements and requests that were granted or authorized for a 10-year ISI/IST interval relative to the edition previously specified in the licensee's ISI/IST program. The NRC will review mid-interval requests by licensees to update to a more recent edition of the ASME Code as the new code of record for the ISI/IST program per the existing process described in 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(iv) or 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-12. Licensees making such requests should evaluate the impact of updating the code of record on their ISI/IST program, including the completed ISI/IST activities and planned ISI/IST activities. Licensees should review previously authorized alternatives under 10 CFR 50.55a(z) and determine if they need to be resubmitted because of the specific duration specified in the request and authorization. The licensee should also review any previously granted relief requests for their duration and the need for resubmittal, as applicable. If such reviews and approvals are completed, licensees may take advantage of the extended code of record interval afforded by the rule.

The staff notes that the code of record interval is defined as two consecutive ISI/IST Intervals (rather than 20 or 24 years). A licensee that updates the code of record during an ISI/IST interval would be able to maintain the same code of record for the remainder of the current ISI/IST interval and the entirety of the subsequent ISI/IST interval. At the end of the subsequent ISI/IST interval, however, the licensee must update its code of record, since two consecutive ISI/IST intervals have passed. For example, a licensee begins a new ISI/IST interval in January 2020. In 2025, the licensee requests to implement the 2017 edition of ASME BPV Code Section XI or OM Code under 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(iv) or (f)(4)(iv). If the NRC approves the request, the ISI/IST interval would end in January 2030 ( i.e., 10 years from January 2020 when the ISI/IST interval began), while the code of record interval would extend to 2040. If the licensee chooses to implement Code Case N-921 or OMN-31 in January 2030, the ISI/IST interval and the code of record interval would extend to 2042.

Upon the effective date of this final rule, a licensee already implementing the 2017 Edition, or later edition, of the ASME Code for the ISI/IST program would continue with its ongoing 10-year ISI/IST interval with the 2017 Edition, or later edition, as the code of record for the ISI/IST program. At the end of the ongoing 10-year ISI/IST interval, the licensee would assess the ISI/IST program as required in the ASME Code, including the need to resubmit requests for alternatives or relief that expired at the end of the 10-year ISI/IST interval. At that time, the licensee could remain on the same Code edition as the code of record for the subsequent ISI/IST interval, and NRC approval would not be required to do so. At the end of that ISI/IST interval, the licensee would update its code of record to the latest Code edition incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a 18 months before the beginning date of the next ISI/IST interval and submit any alternative or relief requests for the next ISI/IST interval.

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on March 6, 2023 (88 FR 13717) for a 60-day comment period ending May 5, 2023. On May 3, 2023, the NRC published notification in the Federal Register (88 FR 27712) extending the public comment period by an additional 42 days to end on June 16, 2023. The NRC held a public meeting on March 20, 2023, and developed a public meeting summary (ML23083B303).

The NRC published the proposed rule and noticed the draft regulatory guides for public comment in the Federal Register . The NRC received 13 comment submissions. A comment submission is a communication or document submitted to the NRC by an individual or entity, with one or more individual comments addressing a subject or issue. Private citizens provided two comment submissions, nuclear industry organizations provided seven comment submissions, business/trade associations provided three comment submissions, and one comment submission was submitted anonymously.

The comment submissions generally addressed the code cases and their proposed conditions. Many of the comments objected to the proposed conditions for Code Case N-921 (five comments), Code Case OMN-31 (three comments), and the rule language associated with the code edition requirements for implementing the extended code of record intervals (four comments). The NRC received two comments objecting to the fact that the proposed rule language on the extended code of record interval did not allow for licensees and applicants to update their code of record following completion of a single IST or ISI interval without first receiving NRC approval. The NRC received one comment that was outside the scope of this rulemaking.

The public comment submittals are available from the Federal e-Rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2018-0291. The NRC prepared a summary and analysis of public comments received on the proposed rule and draft regulatory guides, which is available as indicated in Section XVI, “Availability of Documents,” of this document. Responses to the public comments, including a summary of how the final rule text or the regulatory guides changed as a result of the public comments, can be found in the public comment analysis.

For more information about the associated guidance documents, see Section XVI, “Availability of Guidance,” of this document.

This section describes the primary revisions made by this final rule; minor editorial and administrative corrections to correct spacing, administrative errors, and typos are not identified in this analysis.

The NRC revised the following paragraphs in § 50.55a as follows:

This final rule revises the reference to “NRC Regulatory Guide 1.84, Revision 39,” by removing “Revision 39” and adding in its place “Revision 40” and changing the month and year for the document's revision date.

This final rule revises the reference to “NRC Regulatory Guide 1.147, Revision 20” by removing “Revision 20” and adding in its place “Revision 21” and changing the month and year for the document's revision date.

This final rule revises the reference to “NRC Regulatory Guide 1.192, Revision 4” by removing “Revision 4” and adding in its place “Revision 5” and changing the month and year for the document's revision date.

This final rule amends paragraph (b)(5)(ii) by replacing the text “120-month interval” with “code of record interval” and “120-month ISI program intervals” with the text “code of record intervals.”

This final rule amends paragraph (b)(5)(iii) by replacing the text “120-month interval” with the text “code of record interval.”

This final rule amends paragraph (b)(6)(ii) by replacing the text “120-month interval” and “120-month ISI program intervals” with the text “code of record intervals.”

This final rule amends paragraph (b)(6)(iii) by replacing the text “120-month interval” with the text “code of record interval.”

This final rule revises the heading and text of paragraph (f)(4)(i) by replacing the text “120-month” with the text “code of record.” This final rule also inserts the text “no more than” to clarify that licensees may consider ASME OM Code editions incorporated by reference less than 18 months before the date of issuance of the operating license or before the date of initial fuel load.

This final rule revises the heading and text of paragraph (f)(4)(ii) by replacing the text “120-month” with the text “code of record.” This final rule also inserts the text “no more than” to clarify that licensees may consider ASME OM Code editions incorporated by reference less than 18 months before the start of the code of record interval.

This final rule revises paragraph (f)(4)(iv) by adding language describing when licensees may update their code of record without NRC approval.

This final rule amends paragraph (f)(5)(iv) by replacing the text “120-month interval of operation” with the text “inservice examination and test interval.”

This final rule amends paragraph (f)(7) by replacing the text “120-month IST program interval” with the text “inservice examination and test interval”.

This final rule amends paragraph (g)(4) introductory text by inserting the text “BPV” into the text “ASME Code Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3” to clarify the language.

This final rule revises paragraph (g)(4)(i) to replace the text “120-month interval” with the text “code of record interval,” replace the text “120-month inspection interval” with the text “code of record interval,” replace the text “120-month ISI interval” with the text “code of record interval,” insert the text “BPV” into the text “ASME Code incorporated by reference” to clarify the language, and insert the text “no more than” to clarify that licensees may use ASME BPV Code, Section XI, editions incorporated by reference less than 18 months before the start of the code of record interval.

This final rule revises paragraph (g)(4)(ii) by replacing the text “120-month intervals” with “code of record intervals,” replacing the text “120-month inspection interval” with “code of record interval,” inserting the text “BPV” into the text “ASME Code incorporated by reference” to clarify the language, and inserting the text “no more than” to clarify that licensees may use ASME BPV Code, Section XI, editions incorporated by reference less than 18 months before the start of the code of record interval.

This final rule revises paragraph (g)(4)(iv) by adding language describing when licensees may update their code of record without NRC approval.

This final rule amends the heading for paragraph (g)(5)(i) by replacing the text “ISI Code editions and addenda” with the text “ISI code of record.”

This final rule amends paragraph (g)(5)(ii) by replacing the text “period” with the text “code of record interval.”

This final rule amends paragraph (g)(5)(iii) by replacing the text “120-month inspection interval” with “inservice inspection interval.”

This final rule amends paragraph (g)(5)(iv) by replacing the text “120-month inspection interval” with “inservice inspection interval.”

This final rule adds paragraph (y) to provide definitions of important terms used in § 50.55a: code of record interval, inservice examination and test (IST) code of record, inservice examination and test (IST) interval, inservice examination and testing (IST) program, inservice inspection (ISI) code of record, inservice inspection (ISI) interval, and inservice inspection (ISI) program.

This final rule revises paragraph D.1.(a) in section III of option A to replace the text “10-year service period” with the text “inservice inspection interval, as defined in 10 CFR 50.55a(y),” and replace the text “10-year plant” with the text “final plant”. This final rule also removes footnote 2 and redesignates footnote 3 as footnote 2.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants. 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 final regulatory analysis on this regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the NRC. The regulatory analysis is available as indicated in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document.

The provisions in this final rule allow licensees and applicants to voluntarily apply NRC-approved code cases, sometimes with NRC-specified conditions. The approved code cases are listed in three RGs that are incorporated by reference into § 50.55a. An applicant's or a licensee's voluntary application of an approved code case does not constitute backfitting because there is no imposition of a new requirement or new position.

Similarly, voluntary application of an approved code case by a 10 CFR part 52 applicant or licensee does not represent NRC imposition of a requirement or action and, therefore, is not inconsistent with any issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52. For these reasons, the NRC finds that this final rule does not involve any provisions requiring the preparation of a backfit analysis or documentation demonstrating that one or more of the issue finality criteria in 10 CFR part 52 are met.

The revisions to the code of record intervals of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM Code are related to the ISI and IST programs of operating reactors. However, the Backfit Rule generally does not apply to incorporation by reference of later editions and addenda of the ASME BPV Code (Section XI) and OM Code. The NRC's longstanding regulatory practice has been to incorporate later versions of the ASME Codes into § 50.55a. Under the former § 50.55a, licensees were required to revise their ISI and IST programs every 120 months to the latest edition and addenda of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM Code incorporated by reference into § 50.55a 18 months before the start of a new 120-month ISI and IST interval. Thus, when the NRC approves and requires the use of a later version of the Code for ISI and IST, it is implementing this longstanding regulatory practice and requirement. The NRC revised this requirement to allow licensees to update to the latest edition and addenda before the start of every other ISI and IST interval. The NRC also revised § 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv) to allow licensees to use a later edition of ASME BPV Code Section XI or ASME OM Code without submitting a request for NRC approval, provided that the licensee implements the later edition at the start of a new ISI or IST interval. These revisions, taken together, constitute a voluntary relaxation, and thus not a backfit, because licensees will continue to have the option to voluntarily update before the start of each ISI or IST interval under § 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) or (g)(4)(iv).

The NRC finds that the incorporation by reference into § 50.55a of the three RGs containing the latest NRC-approved code cases and the revision of § 50.55a to allow the extended code of record interval, does not constitute backfitting or represent an inconsistency with any issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52.

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 31885).

The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.

The determination of this environmental assessment is that there will be no significant effect on the quality of the human environment from this action. The NRC did not receive public comments regarding any aspect of this environmental assessment.

As voluntary alternatives to the ASME Code, NRC-approved code cases provide an equivalent level of safety. The IST and ISI code of record update frequency is changing the update frequency of a program. Therefore, the probability or consequences of accidents is not changed. There also are no significant, non-radiological impacts associated with this action because no changes would be made affecting non-radiological plant effluents and because no changes would be made in activities that would adversely affect the environment. The determination of this environmental assessment is that there would be no significant offsite impact to the public from this action.

This final rule contains new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). The collections of information were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0264.

The burden to the public for the information collection(s) is estimated to average 162 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering, and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the information collection.

The information collection is being conducted to document the plans for a select number of newly licensed operating power reactors to implement Code Case N-716-3. Information will be used by the NRC to verify applicability of the code case to the new plants including absence of degradation mechanisms and evaluate with any available operating experience, as well as risk-related information for the new plants, prior to application of the Code Case. Responses to this collection of information are voluntary under § 50.55a(z).

You may submit comments on any aspect of the information collection(s), including suggestions for reducing the burden, by the following methods:

• Federal rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0291.

• 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 (3150-0011), Attn: Desk Officer for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.

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.

This final rule is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless using such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or is otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC is continuing to use the ASME BPV and OM Code Cases, which are ASME-approved voluntary alternatives to compliance with various provisions of the ASME BPV and OM Codes. As discussed in Section II.A. of this document, the NRC's approval of the ASME Code Cases is accomplished by amending the NRC's regulations to incorporate by reference the latest revisions of the following, which are the subject of this rulemaking, into § 50.55a: RG 1.84, Revision 40; RG 1.147, Revision 21; and RG 1.192, Revision 5. The RGs list the ASME Code Cases that the NRC has approved for use. The ASME Code Cases are national consensus standards as defined in the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 and OMB Circular A-119. The ASME Code Cases constitute voluntary consensus standards, in which all interested parties (including the NRC and licensees of nuclear power plants) participate.

NUREG-2228, “Weld Residual Stress Finite Element Analysis Validation: Part II—Proposed Validation Procedure,” published July 2020 (including errata issued on September 22, 2021), referenced in the amendatory text of this rule, was previously approved for incorporation by reference in § 50.55a. The ASME BPV Code, Section XI, and ASME OM Code, referenced in the amendatory text of this rule, were previously approved for incorporation by reference in § 50.55a.

The NRC is incorporating by reference three NRC RGs that list the ASME Code Cases that the NRC has approved as voluntary alternatives to certain provisions of NRC-required editions and addenda of the ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM Code. These regulatory guides are RG 1.84, Revision 40; RG 1.147, Revision 21; and RG 1.192, Revision 5.

The NRC is required by law to obtain approval for incorporation by reference from the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The OFR's requirements for incorporation by reference are set forth in 1 CFR part 51. The discussion in this section complies with the requirement for rules as set forth in 1 CFR 51.5(b)(2).

The NRC considers “interested parties” to include all potential NRC stakeholders, not only the individuals and entities regulated or otherwise subject to the NRC's regulatory oversight. These NRC stakeholders are not a homogenous group, so the considerations for determining “reasonable availability” vary by class of interested parties. The NRC identified six classes of interested parties with regard to the material to be incorporated by reference in an NRC rule:

• Individuals and small entities regulated or otherwise subject to the NRC's regulatory oversight. This class includes applicants and potential applicants for licenses and other NRC regulatory approvals, and who are subject to the material to be incorporated by reference. In this context, “small entities” has the same meaning as set out in 10 CFR 2.810.

• Large entities otherwise subject to the NRC's regulatory oversight. This class includes applicants and potential applicants for licenses and other NRC regulatory approvals, and who are subject to the material to be incorporated by reference. In this context, a “large entity” is one that does not qualify as a “small entity” under § 2.810.

• Non-governmental organizations with institutional interests in the matters regulated by the NRC.

• Other Federal agencies, States, local governmental bodies (within the meaning of § 2.315(c)).

• Federally recognized and State-recognized Indian tribes.

• Members of the general public ( i.e., individual, unaffiliated members of the public who are not regulated or otherwise subject to the NRC's regulatory oversight) who need access to the materials that the NRC is incorporating by reference in order to participate in the rulemaking.

The three RGs that the NRC is incorporating by reference in this final rule are available without cost and can be read online or downloaded online. The three RGs can be viewed, by appointment, at the NRC Technical Library, which is located at Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852; telephone: 301-415-7000; email: Library.Resource@nrc.gov.

Because access to the three final RGs is available in various forms at no cost, the NRC determines that the three final RGs (RG 1.84, Revision 40; RG 1.147, Revision 21; and RG 1.192, Revision 5) are reasonably available to all interested parties.

The NRC is issuing revised guidance, RG 1.193, “ASME Code Cases Not Approved for Use,” Revision 8, for the implementation of the requirements in this final rule. The guidance is available as indicated in Section XVI, “Availability of Documents,” of this document. You may access information and comment submissions related to the guidance by searching on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2018-0291.

The regulatory guide lists code cases that the NRC has not approved for generic use and will not be incorporated by reference into the NRC's regulations.

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

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 amending 10 CFR part 50 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2021-25-12, Amendment 39-21856 (86 FR 72174, December 21, 2021) (AD 2021-25-12); and AD 2022-11-11, Amendment 39-22061 (87 FR 33627, June 3, 2022) (AD 2022-11-11). AD 2021-25-12 and AD 2022-11-11 applied to certain DeHavilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes. AD 2021-25-12 required repetitive lubrications of the trailing arm of the NLG. AD 2021-25-12 also required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program to include new and revised airworthiness limitations (life limits for certain bolts). AD 2022-11-11 required modification to the NLG shock strut assembly. The FAA issued AD 2021-25-12 and AD 2022-11-11 to address failure of the pivot pin retention bolt, which could result in a loss of directional control or loss of an NLG tire during takeoff or landing, which could lead to runway excursions.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2024 (89 FR 20367). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2023-22, dated March 30, 2023 (Transport Canada AD CF-2023-22) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. Transport Canada AD CF-2023-22 superseded Transport Canada AD CF-2009-29R4, October 1, 2021 (Transport Canada AD CF-2009-29R4). The MCAI states that it requires the removal of pivot pin part number (P/N) 47127-1 or P/N 47127-3 and tow fitting assembly P/N 47160-1, and their replacement with pivot pin P/N 47127-5 and tow fitting assembly P/N 47160-3, as terminating action to the requirements of Transport Canada AD CF-2009-29R4. The pivot pin P/N 47127-5 is now attached directly to the new tow fitting lug and no longer requires the use of a retention bolt. Transport Canada AD CF-2023-22 also prohibits the installation of certain parts.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions specified in AD 2021-25-12 and AD 2022-11-11 and to require replacement of the pivot pin and tow fitting assembly with a new, improved pivot pin and tow fitting assembly and prohibit the installation of affected parts. In the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to remove airplanes from the applicability of AD 2021-25-12 and AD 2022-11-11. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-0756.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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 this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-173, dated November 15, 2022, including Collins Aerospace Service Bulletin 47100-32-153, dated November 10, 2022. This material specifies procedures for replacing the pivot pin retention mechanism and tow fitting assembly with a new, improved pivot pin and tow fitting assembly, which consists of removing pivot pin linkage components and replacing pivot pin P/N 47127-1 or P/N 47127-3 and tow fitting assembly P/N 47160-1 with pivot pin P/N 47127-5 and tow fitting assembly P/N 47160-3.

This AD also requires De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-161, Revision B, dated March 31, 2021, including UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 47100-32-145, Revision 3, dated March 26, 2021, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of July 8, 2022 (87 FR 33627, June 3, 2022).

This AD also requires De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-167, dated August 12, 2021; and De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Temporary Revision ALI-0223, dated October 15, 2020, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of January 5, 2022 (86 FR 72174, December 21, 2021).

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

The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 41 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the FAA recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, the FAA has estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. 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 FAA estimates the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:

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

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

(3) Will 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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2023 (88 FR 65635). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2022-63, dated November 17, 2022, issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states several reports of moisture have been found in the wing-to-fuselage joint, between the mating front spar and rear spar frame segments. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to corrosion and structural degradation of the wing-to-fuselage joint and possible wing separation from the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a visual inspection of the fuselage front and rear spar frames, an ultrasonic test if applicable, other specified actions, and repair if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1885.

The FAA received a comment from De Havilland. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.

De Havilland stated that to allow some operators to accomplish the AD, an update is necessary to the work instructions in De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-53-81, Revision A, dated August 23, 2022. The service bulletin is in the process of being revised to allow operators an alternative means of accessing the front spar joint via the forward fairing rib on certain airplanes.

To allow operators to use later revisions of the referenced document (issued after publication of the AD), either the FAA must revise the AD to reference specific later revisions, or operators may request approval to use later revisions as an alternative method of compliance with this AD under the provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

In light of the critical nature of the identified unsafe condition ( i.e., corrosion and structural degradation of the wing-to-fuselage joint), the FAA does not consider it warranted to delay the issuance of this final rule until the revised service information is published. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

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 this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-53-81, Revision A, dated August 23, 2022. This material specifies procedures for a general visual inspection of the fuselage front and rear spar frames (including around the frame bolts) for signs of moisture ( i.e., stains and streaks). If signs of moisture ingress are noted in the affected structure because of this inspection, then an ultrasonic test and other specified actions will be required, which includes installing a sealant plug, refinishing the frame edge sealing, and removing the existing frame recess sealant between the frame and struts in the cabin.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 41 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:

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

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

(3) Will 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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule due to it being impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Due to the sensitive security issues related to the Republican National Convention, providing a public notice and comment period would be contrary to the security zone's intended objective of protecting VIPs and the public because we cannot share the sensitive security information details prior to the rule being published.

Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date by first publishing an NPRM and holding a comment period would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of the Republican National Convention and accompanying high-ranking government officials.

The Coast Guard may issue security zone regulations under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan has determined that these temporary security zones are necessary to provide for the security of the Republican National Convention and the accompanying high-ranking government officials, and to protect against sabotage or terrorist attacks to human life, vessels, mariners, and waterfront venues at or near this event.

Additionally, the Coast Guard believes that, given the nature of the First Amendment activity expected and likely type of vessels used by individuals desiring to express their First Amendment rights—namely kayaks and other small vessels—a safety zone designating a voluntary First Amendment Area is necessary to ensure the safety of those vessels and persons who chose to express their views safely and without interference from, or interfering with, other maritime traffic.

The Republican National Convention will take place in Milwaukee, WI from July 13, 2024, until July 19, 2024. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has designated the 2024 Republican National Convention as a National Special Security Event (NSSE). NSSE's are significant events, which, due to their political, economic, social, or religious significance, may render them particularly attractive targets of terrorism or other criminal activity. The Federal government provides support, assistance, and resources to state and local governments to ensure public safety and security during NSSE's.

During this NSSE many high-ranking government officials will be arriving in Milwaukee, WI. The Coast Guard is establishing several security zones and a safety zone in portions of Lake Michigan, Milwaukee Harbor, Kinnickinnic River, Menomonee River, and Milwaukee River in Milwaukee, WI. Voluntary First Amendment Safety Zone 1 includes all waters of Lake Michigan within Milwaukee Harbor north of Discovery World. The area is enclosed by a line connecting the following points: starting at 43 02.62′ N, 087 52.83′ W, then west to 43 02.62′ N, 087 53.21′ W, then southwest to 43 02.55′ N, 087 53.70′ W, then south to 43 02.40′ N, 087 53.76′ W, then southeast to 43 02.35′ N, 087 52.91′ W, then northeast to origin. This zone will be enforced intermittently as necessary for the entire duration of the event.

Security Zone 2 includes all waters of the Milwaukee River between the Cherry Street Bridge and the Michigan Street Bridge. This zone will be enforced intermittently as necessary for the entire duration of the event as well as continuously from 8:00 a.m. on July 14, 2024, through 3:00 a.m. on July 19, 2024.

• No commercial or recreational vessel traffic will be permitted.

• Road bridges on the Milwaukee River between Cherry Street and Michigan Street will remain in the down position.

• Privately-owned vessels that are docked at the registered owners' places of domicile within the maritime security zone on the Milwaukee River between Cherry Street and Michigan Street may transit the river so long as their vessels do not require the raising of road bridges. Prior to departure from the dock and re-entry into the maritime security zone, the vessel owner must contact the USCG on channel 16 to request an escort.

○ If a privately-owned vessel that is docked within the maritime security zone departs the maritime security zone, it will be subject to screening prior to re-entry into the maritime security zone.

• All vessels docked within the maritime security zone may remain stationary. Pedestrian screening is not required to access stationary boats within the maritime security zone.

Security Zone 3 includes all waters of the Milwaukee River between the North Humboldt Avenue Bridge and the Cherry Street Bridge. This zone will be enforced intermittently as necessary for the entire duration of the event.

Security Zone 4 includes all waters of the Milwaukee River from the confluence with the Menomonee River at 43 01.92′ N, 087 54.66′ W then north to the Michigan Street Bridge. This zone will be enforced intermittently as necessary for the entire duration of the event.

Security Zone 5 includes all waters of the Milwaukee River from the confluence with the Kinnickinnic River at 43 01.50′ N, 087 54.18′ W, then northwest to confluence with Menomonee River at 43 01.92′ N, 087 54.66′ W. This zone will be enforced intermittently as necessary for the entire duration of the event.

Security Zone 6 includes all waters of the Milwaukee River in the vicinity of the Daniel W. Hoan Bridge. The area is enclosed by a line connecting the following points: starting at 43 01.542′ N, 087 54.127′ W, then east to 43 01.554′ N, 087 53.757′ W, then south to 43 01.511′ N, 087 53.689′ W, then west to 43 01.443′ N 087 54.111′ W, then north to origin. This zone will be enforced intermittently as necessary for the entire duration of the event as well as continuously from 3:00 p.m. on July 14, 2024, through 11:59 p.m. on July 14, 2024. Vessels greater than or equal to 65 feet are prohibited from entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this security zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative. Vessels less than or equal to 64 feet may transit through this security zone but are prohibited from anchoring or loitering; the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative reserves the right to prohibit vessels less than or equal to 64 feet from transiting the security zone as operations dictate.

Security Zone 7 includes all waters of the Menomonee River from the confluence with the Milwaukee River at 43 01.92′ N, 087 54.66′ W, then west to include the following: the Menomonee River to the North Emmber Lane Bridge at 43 01.98′ N, 087 55.74′ W; the entire South Menomonee Canal ending at 43 01.68′ N, 087 55.74′ W; and the entire Burnham Canal ending at 43 01.56′ N, 087 55.86′ W. This zone will be enforced intermittently as necessary for the entire duration of the event.

Security Zone 8 includes all waters of Lake Michigan within Milwaukee Harbor, including the Lakeshore State Park Inlet and Discovery World Lagoon; the area is enclosed by a line connecting the following points: Starting at 43 02.276′ N, 087 53.705′ W, then northeast to 43 02.311′ N, 087 53.319′ W, then south to 43 01.601′ N, 087 53.323′ W, then west to 43 01.560′ N, 087 53.717′ W, then north to origin. This zone will be enforced intermittently as necessary for the entire duration of the event as well as continuously from 8:00 a.m. on July 13, 2024, through 11:59 p.m. on July 14, 2024.

Security Zone 9 includes all waters of Lake Michigan within Milwaukee Harbor enclosed by a line connecting the following points: Starting at 43 01.74′ N, 087 53.07′ W, then southwest to 43 01.56′ N, 087 53.76′ W, then southwest to 43 01.23′ N, 087 53.86′ W, then southeast to 43 00.02′ N, 087 53.28′ W, then northeast to 43 00.49′ N, 087 52.58′ W, then northwest to origin. This zone will be enforced intermittently as necessary for the entire duration of the event.

Security Zone 10 includes all waters of the Kinnickinnic River from the confluence with the Milwaukee River at 43 01.50′ N, 087 54.18′ W then south to the West Becher Street Bridge.

The security zones and accompanying security measures have been specifically developed to protect convention delegates, official parties, dignitaries, the public and surrounding waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zones unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan or designated representative.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time of year of the security zone and safety zone. The zones will impact a small, designated area and will be enforced only during the event and event-related activities. The security zones and safety zone will be in a location where commercial vessel traffic is expected to be minimal during enforcement; commercial vessel traffic will be authorized to transit the security zones to the extent compatible with public safety and security. Persons and vessels will be able to operate in the surrounding area adjacent to the security zones and safety zone during the enforcement period and will be able to enter within the security zones if authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 identifying the continuously and intermittently security zone locations, maritime restrictions, and enforcement dates.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves three security zones which will be enforced for a span of several days between July 13, 2024, through July 19, 2024, that will prohibit entry within certain waters of the Milwaukee River and Milwaukee Harbor. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(c) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

On February 27, 2023, VA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (88 FR 12296) that would implement review criteria and procedures for reconsideration of prior interment or memorialization decisions. The public comment period ended on April 28, 2023, and VA received 3 comments in response to the proposed rule. VA will make no changes to the rulemaking based on the comments received on the proposed rule.

However, VA is making changes to the regulatory text to conform to new statutory authority. Specifically, VA revises paragraphs (c) and (d) in 38 CFR 38.622 to reflect changes to 38 U.S.C. 2411 made by section 6 of Public Law 117-355. The update in the statute, along with the corresponding changes in the regulatory text, allows VA to reconsider interment or memorialization of an individual who committed a Federal or State crime that would cause the person to be a tier III sex offender but was not convicted of such crime due to death or flight to avoid prosecution. We are revising the heading of proposed § 38.622(c) from “Avoidance of Capital Crime Conviction Due to Death or Flight” to “Avoidance of Conviction Due to Death or Flight” and revising proposed paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (d)(2), and (d)(2)(iii) to include a person who committed or may have committed (depending on the paragraph) “a Federal or State crime that would cause the person to be a tier III sex offender under 38 U.S.C. 2411(b)(5)”. These revisions are a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule and do not change the procedure for reconsideration cases set out in the proposed rule. Rather, the revisions merely incorporate Congress's amendments to the statute in adding the additional class of cases subject to reconsideration. Therefore, an additional opportunity for notice and public comment before promulgating this final rule is not necessary. See Veterans Justice Grp. v. Sec'y of Veterans Affs., 818 F.3d 1336, 1343-45 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that additional notice and opportunity for comment were not required where modifications contained in a final rule were a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule).

Additionally, VA is revising the regulatory text to clarify the proper regulations governing appeals to the Board of Veterans' Appeals and to emphasize the restrictions for appeal under the statute. In § 38.622(d)(1) and (d)(2)(iii), we change references to 38 CFR 19.25 (which governs decisions issued prior to February 19, 2019), see Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (AMA), Public Law 115-55, to 38 CFR 20.200 (which governs post-AMA decisions). Similarly, in § 38.622(d)(3), we change the reference to part 19, which governs the legacy appeals system, to part 20, which governs post-AMA appeals. As of the date of publication of this final rule, all pending reconsideration cases involve reconsideration decisions made after February 19, 2019, the effective date of the AMA. Therefore, VA expects that the Board of Veterans' Appeals will adjudicate any appeals of reconsiderations under the AMA regulations, rather than the legacy appeals regulations.

VA revises proposed paragraph (d)(3) to clarify the unique restrictions on appeals imposed by 38 U.S.C. 2411(d)(3). Specifically, VA adds language to emphasize that the notice of disagreement must be filed within 60 days from the date of the notice of decision and that the only available method of appeal from a notice of decision issued by the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs is through review by the Board of Veterans' Appeals. The clear language of sec. 2411(d)(3)(A) imposes the 60-day deadline “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law.” VA is removing language in proposed § 38.622(d)(1) and (d)(2)(iii) regarding the 60-day deadline, as that information now appears in paragraph (d)(3). Additionally, sec. 2411(d)(3) only allows appeals through the filing of a notice of disagreement to initiate review by the Board of Veterans' Appeals “in accordance with the provisions of chapter 71.” The language of sec. 2411(d)(3) predates the 2017 enactment of the AMA, which generally expanded the range of appeal options for VA benefit decisions. However, Congress has not amended the restrictive language of sec. 2411(d)(3), which only allows individuals to appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals by filing a notice of disagreement.

Regarding the comments received in response to the proposed rule, one commenter mentioned supporting reconsideration of interment or memorialization if proven beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual committed a Federal or State capital crime or committed a Federal or State crime that would have caused the person to be a tier III sex offender, whether the individual was convicted or not. As stated in the proposed rule, application of the reconsideration authority to bar benefits is based on 38 U.S.C. 2411(d) and (e). Under 38 U.S.C. 2411(d)(2)(A)(i), if there is evidence of a final conviction, then the bar to burial and memorial benefits would apply. When reconsidering whether to apply the bar to benefits in cases where the decedent committed a Federal or State capital crime or a Federal or State crime that would cause the person to be a tier III sex offender but was not convicted of such crime due to death or flight, VA has no authority to apply a standard other than the “clear and convincing evidence” standard, as is required under § 2411(d)(2)(A)(ii). VA will make no changes based on this comment.

The same commenter also expressed support for the intent of the proposed rule to preserve the legacy of veterans and their families by reconsidering interment or memorialization of an individual who committed a Federal or State capital crime or committed a Federal or State crime that would have caused the person to be a tier III sex offender but was not convicted of such crime due to death or flight to avoid prosecution. VA appreciates the commenter's support and feedback but will make no changes to the regulatory text based on this comment.

Another commenter expressed concerns regarding whether families would be able to afford the cost burden of disinterment and whether the cost would cause undue harm. The commenter suggested an alternative approach for VA to pay costs associated with the reinterment of remains unless the next of kin makes their own arrangements for disposition at their expense. As explained in the proposed rule, VA will provide notice to families about a proposed disinterment or removal of a headstone or marker, prior to taking such actions. The notice provides two options. While not required to do so, a family may choose to claim their loved one's remains and determine the final resting place and manner in which to memorialize their loved one at the family's expense. If a decedent's family does not make arrangements to take possession of the remains, VA will arrange for the disinterment at the Government's expense. VA will determine a suitable cemetery for the disposition of the decedent's remains and will make all necessary arrangements to disinter, transport, reinter, and mark the decedent's grave with a non-Government headstone or marker. VA will notify the decedent's family once these steps are completed. Because VA will provide an option that alleviates families of the financial burden associated with disinterment or removal of a headstone or marker, VA will make no changes based on the commenter's expressed concerns.

Finally, VA addresses a comment that contended the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) is unconstitutional and violates Article III of the United States Constitution, because the requirement to register as a sex offender constitutes a reopening of final judgments entered before the enactment of the SORNA. VA respectfully disagrees with the commenter because the reconsideration authority under sec. 2411 only affects VA's prior adjudication of an interment or memorialization claim and is not a reopening of the decedent's criminal case, as the commenter suggests. As explained in the proposed rule, sec. 2411 requires VA to consider a court's final conviction for Federal or State sex offenses and if that results in VA's finding that the individual meets the criteria to be categorized as a tier III sex offender under the SORNA, we must impose the bar to interment or memorialization in a national cemetery. The reconsideration authority is predicated on this analysis, which only draws on information about a person's criminal convictions but does not impose further criminal penalties. The bar to benefits under sec. 2411 is not a criminal penalty because it only affects a person's ability to receive otherwise entitled benefits based on qualifying military service. Further, we clarify that the reconsideration authority applies to individuals interred or memorialized after December 20, 2013, see Public Law 113-65, sec. 2, and is unrelated to the enactment of the SORNA in 2006. We considered this commenter's analysis but will make no changes to the rulemaking.

We make some clarifying revisions to § 38.622(b)(1) and (b)(2) by revising the proposed reference to “a Federal or State tier III sex offense” to more accurately refer to “a Federal or State crime causing the person to be a tier III sex offender”. We similarly revise § 38.622(d)(1) by changing the reference to “a tier III sexual offense” to “a Federal or State crime that would cause the person to be a tier III sex offender under 38 U.S.C. 2411(b)(5)”. As discussed above, VA is not making any changes to the rulemaking based on the comments received on the proposed rule but is making some changes to implement recent statutory amendments.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. The Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with this rulemaking can be found as a supporting document at www.regulations.gov.

The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, because the number of claims and the amounts involved are expected to be small. This final rule will directly affect the individuals and establishments that may be involved with the transfer of remains process ( e.g., next of kin or personal representative of the decedent and funeral homes). However, based on the anticipated aggregate number of cases involving disinterment or removal of memorialization headstones or markers, this final rule will not impact a substantial number of small entities. Since the 2013 enactment of the reconsideration authority in 38 U.S.C. 2411, VA has only reviewed 7 reconsideration decisions in total. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604 do not apply.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved and signed this document on July 3, 2024, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 38 as set forth below:

Under the Medicare Quality Payment Program, an eligible clinician who participates in an Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM) and meets or exceeds the applicable payment amount or patient count thresholds for a performance period is a Qualifying APM Participant (QP) for that year. For payment years 2020 through 2026, which respectively correspond to the QP Performance Periods for 2018 through 2023, an eligible clinician who attains QP status for a year earns a lump sum APM Incentive Payment that is paid in the payment year. For payment years 2020 through 2024, the amount of the APM Incentive Payment is equal to 5 percent of the estimated aggregate paid amounts for covered professional services furnished by the QP during the calendar year immediately preceding the payment year.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has identified those eligible clinicians who attained QP status in the 2022 performance period and earned a 5 percent APM Incentive Payment for the 2024 payment year based on aggregate paid amounts for the covered professional services they furnished in the CY 2023 base period.

When CMS processed the 2024 APM Incentive Payments, CMS was unable to identify a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) or TINs associated with some QPs, and was therefore unable to disburse the payment. To successfully issue the APM Incentive Payment for the 2024 payment year, CMS is requesting assistance identifying current Medicare billing information for these QPs in accordance with 42 CFR 414.1450(c)(8).

CMS has compiled a list of QPs for whom we were unable to identify any associated TIN to which we can make the APM Incentive Payment. These QPs, and any others who anticipated receiving an APM Incentive Payment but have not, should follow the instructions to provide CMS with updated Medicare billing information at the following web address: https://qpp-cm-prod-content.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2924/2024-QP-Notice-for-APM-Incentive-Payment.zip.

If you have any questions concerning submission of information through the QPP website, please contact the Quality Payment Program Help Desk at 1-866-288-8292.

All information must be received by September 1, 2024. After that date, any claim to an APM Incentive Payment for the 2024 payment period based on an eligible clinician's QP status for the 2022 QP Performance Period will be forfeited. To facilitate payment, please include all required documentation as specified in the previous link. If CMS is still unable to process the APM Incentive Payment based on the Medicare billing information received in response to this advisory, the submitter will not be notified.

CMS will hold all timely submitted information and process the remaining 2024 APM Incentive Payments simultaneously as soon as possible after the deadline. It may take up to 3 months to complete the validation and verification process before these APM Incentive Payments are disbursed.

This advisory is intended to alert certain QPs that CMS is requesting assistance identifying current Medicare billing information so that we can disburse APM Incentive Payments. This request for follow-up information is exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) as specified under implementing regulation 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(9) with regard to the clarification of responses.

The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Chyana Woodyard, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

This document announces that, on May 29, 2024, OMB approved the information collection requirements in 47 CFR 25.108(c)(5) through(c)(6), 25.114(a)(3), and 25.140(b)(6), as modified in the DBS Licensing Report and Order (86 FR 49484, September 3, 2021); 47 CFR 25.136(h), as modified in the Satellite Services Report and Order (86 FR 11880, March 1, 2021); and 47 CFR 25.114(d)(7), (d)(15), and (d)(18), 25.115(e), (g) and (k), 25.117(d)(2)(v), 25.140(a)(2) and (3), (b), and (d), 25.203 and 25.264 as modified in the 17 GHz Report and Order (87 FR 72388, November 25, 2022). The DBS Licensing Report and Order, the Satellite Services Report and Order, and the 17 GHz Report and Order, stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of those rules. This notice announces the effective date of those rules. The other rule amendments adopted in the three orders which did not require OMB approval became effective as identified in their respective Federal Register publications.

This document also summarizes an order adopted by the Commission's Space Bureau and Managing Director, released on March 19, 2024, that amends the final rules in the 17 GHz Report and Order, in order to correct non-substantive typographical errors. The full text of the 17 GHz Correction Order is available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-24-271A1.pdf .

Additionally, this document announces that, on May 29, 2024, OMB approved revisions to the Form 312, including Schedules A, B, and S, and Form 312-R, that stemmed from an update to the International Communications Filing System (ICFS), which is the Commission's filing system for earth station and space station applications filed pursuant to part 25 of the Commission's rules.

If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov, regarding OMB Control Number 3060-0678. Please include the applicable OMB Control Number(s) in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov .

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the Commission is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on May 29, 2024, for the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 25.108(c)(5) through (c)(6), 25.114(a)(3), and 25.140(b)(6); 47 CFR 25.136(h); and 47 CFR 25.114(d)(7), (d)(15), (d)(18), 25.115(e), (g) and (k), 25.117(d)(2)(v), 25.140(a)(2) through (a)(3), (b), and (d), 25.203 and 25.264. Also, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Commission is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on May 29, 2024, for the information collection requirements contained in the revised Form 312, including Schedules A, B, and S, and the revised Form 312-R.

Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for the information collection requirements in these rules is 3060-0678.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-0678.

OMB Approval Date: May 29, 2024.

OMB Expiration Date: May 31, 2027.

Title: Part 25 of the Federal Communications Commission's Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage By, Commercial Earth Stations and Space Stations.

Form Number: FCC Form 312 (including Schedules A, B, and S) and FCC Form 312-R

Type of Review: Revision of an existing collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 3,515 respondents and 3,567 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-80 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, one time and annual reporting requirements; third-party disclosure requirement; recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, and 310.

Total Annual Burden: 27,176.

Annual Cost Burden: $3,923,887.

Needs and Uses: The Commission will use the information collected under this revised information collection effect the policies adopted in three rulemakings and the updates to the Form 312, including Schedules A, B, and S, and Form 312-R that stemmed from an update to the Commission's filing system for earth station and space station applications filed pursuant to part 25 of the Commission's rules.

On September 27, 2019, the Commission released DBS Licensing Report and Order, which adopted a new licensing process for space stations in the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service (DBS). This new process allows applicants for DBS space station licenses to take advantage of a licensing process that parallels the Commission's streamlined part 25 satellite licensing rules for geostationary orbit (GSO) space stations in the fixed-satellite service (FSS). The Commission limited the regulatory burdens borne by applicants, while promoting new opportunities for efficient use of orbital spacing and spectrum by DBS licensees. The Commission's action supports and encourages the increasing innovation in the DBS sector and helps to preserve U.S. leadership in space-based services and operations. This information collection will provide the Commission and the public with necessary information about this area of satellite operations, and serves the public interest by streamlining the collection of information and allowing the Commission to authorize DBS space stations under the new process established in the DBS Licensing Report and Order. Specifically, the DBS Licensing Report and Order contains the following new or modified information collection requirements: space station applications for GSO space stations operating in the frequencies of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Appendices 30 and 30A (incorporated by reference, see 47 CFR 25.108) must include a statement that the proposed operation will take into account the applicable requirements of these Appendices of the ITU Radio Regulations and a demonstration that it is compatible with other U.S. ITU filings under Appendices 30 and 30A or, for any affected filings, a letter signed by the affected operator indicating that it consents to the new application.

On November 19, 2020, the Commission released Satellite Services Report and Order, which streamlined the Commission's rules governing satellite services by creating an optional framework for authorizing both the blanket-licensed earth stations and space stations of a satellite system through a unified license. The Satellite Services Report and Order also permitted earth station applicants to certify compliance with relevant satellite licenses in lieu of providing duplicative or unnecessary technical demonstrations, aligned the build-out requirements for earth stations and space stations, and eliminated unnecessary reporting rules. These changes reduce regulatory burdens, simplify the Commission's licensing of satellite systems, and provide additional operational flexibility. The Satellite Services Report and Order affected two information collections: OMB Control Numbers 3060-1215 and 3060-0678. The Commission received OMB approval for changes under OMB Control No. 3060-1215 on August 26, 2021, as reported in 86 FR 52102.

On August 3, 2022, the Commission released the 17 GHz Report and Order which amended the Commission's rules to permit geostationary satellite orbit (GSO) space stations to use the 17.3-17.7 GHz band in the fixed-satellite service (FSS) in the space-to-Earth direction on a co-primary basis with incumbent services and permit limited GSO FSS (space-to-Earth) use of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band on an unprotected basis with respect to fixed service operations. Specifically, the 17 GHz Report and Order contains the following new or modified information collection requirements:

• Certification of frequency coordination with the operator of the co-frequency space station or submission of an interference analysis demonstrating the compatibility of the proposed system with the co-frequency space station;

• Information as to earth station antenna characteristics to ensure that antennas are properly aimed and configured and that their signals are not likely to interfere with other systems; and

• Information pertaining to implementation of interference detection and mitigation plans to prevent and resolve interference issues.

This information collection will provide the Commission and the public with necessary information about this area of satellite operations and work to prevent interference, and serves the public interest by streamlining the collection of information and allowing the Commission to authorize operations contemplated in the 17 GHz Report and Order .

On March 19, 2024, the Commission's Space Bureau and Managing Director released an Order, DA 24-271 ( 17 GHz Correction Order ), which amended the final rules in Appendix A of the 17 GHz Report and Order, in order to correct typographical errors in the final rules and to conform them with the publishing conventions of the Federal Register . The amendments are non-substantive and do not change any regulatory obligations. This determination is guided by the fact that the text of the 17 GHz Report and Order makes clear that the errors that remained in the text of the final rules were unintentional and typographical in nature. For example, one error was stating “17.3-18.8 GHz” instead of “17.3-17.8 GHz” when the rest of the text made clear that the correct text was “17.3-17.8 GHz.” Furthermore, the text of the final rules as published in the Federal Register was corrected to conform with the publishing conventions of the Federal Register . The Space Bureau and Managing Director found that notice and comment procedures are unnecessary under the “good cause” exception of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the changes in the final rules in Appendix A of the 17 GHz Report and Order as released by the Commission adopted in the 17 GHz Correction Order merely correct typographical errors, align the final rules in Appendix A of the 17 GHz Report and Order as released by the Commission with the text of the final rules as published in the Federal Register , or conform the 17 GHz Report and Order as released by the Commission with the publishing conventions of the Federal Register . Consequently, the Space Bureau and Managing Director found notice and comment procedures are unnecessary for this action as the actions in the 17 GHz Correction Order constitute routine “clean-up” matters that entail no substantive decisions of any consequence or significance to industry or the general public.

Finally, the Commission recently updated ICFS—which was formerly named the International Bureau Filing System, see 88 FR 21424—which resulted in modifications to the Form 312, including Schedules A, B, and S, and Form 312-R. Applicants will be required to submit Form 312 (including Schedules A, B, and S) and Form 312-R through the updated, integrated web-based program. The updated version of Form 312 (including Schedules A, B, and S) and Form 312-R will include several minor changes to the information collection designed to provide clarity to applicants and Commission staff, reduce errors, and make overall improvements to the applicants' experience in completing the forms, including adding several questions designed to better convey the overall information being requested in the form.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 25 as follows:

Atlantic BFT fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its amendments, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ) and consistent with the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ). HMS implementing regulations are at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27(a) divides the U.S. BFT quota, established by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and as implemented by the United States among the various domestic fishing categories, per the allocations established in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments. NMFS is required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1854(g)(1)(D) to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest quotas under relevant international fishery agreements such as the ICCAT Convention, which is implemented domestically pursuant to ATCA.

As described in § 635.27(a), the baseline quotas for the Harpoon and Reserve categories are 59.2 mt and 38.2 mt, respectively. The 2024 Harpoon category fishery opened June 1, and is open through November 15, 2024, or until the Harpoon category quota is reached, whichever comes first. Effective June 1, 2024, NMFS adjusted the daily retention limit for the Harpoon category from the default of no more than 10 large medium and giant BFT to no more than 5 large medium or giant BFT (89 FR 45779). In this action, NMFS is transferring 10.8 mt from the Reserve category to the Harpoon category. This transfer results in 70 mt (59.2 mt + 10.8 mt = 70 mt) being available for the Harpoon category through November 15, 2024, or until the Harpoon category quota is reached, whichever comes first. This transfer also results in 27.4 mt (38.2 mt−10.8 mt = 27.4 mt) being available in the Reserve category through the remainder of the 2024 fishing year.

Under § 635.27(a)(8), NMFS has the authority to transfer quota among fishing categories or subcategories after considering the determination criteria provided under § 635.27(a)(7). NMFS has considered all of the relevant determination criteria and their applicability to this inseason quota transfer. These criteria include, but are not limited to, the following:

Regarding the usefulness of information obtained from catches in the particular category for biological sampling and monitoring of the status of the stock (§ 635.27(a)(7)(i)), biological samples collected from BFT landed by Harpoon category fishermen and provided by BFT dealers continue to provide NMFS with valuable parts and data for ongoing scientific studies of BFT age and growth, migration, and reproductive status. Additional opportunity to land BFT in the Harpoon category would support the continued collection of a broad range of data for these studies and for stock monitoring purposes.

NMFS considered the catches of the Harpoon category quota to date and the likelihood of closure of the Harpoon category if no adjustment is made (§ 635.27(a)(7)(ii)), as well as daily landing trends and the availability of BFT on fishing grounds (§ 635.27(a)(7)(ix)). To date, preliminary landings data indicate that the Harpoon category has landed approximately 42.4 mt. Without a quota transfer at this time, NMFS would likely need to close the Harpoon category fishery and participants would have to stop BFT fishing activities despite commercial-sized BFT remaining available in the areas where Harpoon category permitted vessels operate. A quota transfer of 10.8 mt would provide limited additional opportunities to harvest the U.S. BFT quota while avoiding exceeding it.

Regarding the projected ability of the vessels fishing under the Harpoon category to harvest the additional amount of BFT quota transferred before the end of the fishing year (§ 635.27(a)(7)(iii)), NMFS considered Harpoon category landings over the last several years and landings to date this year. Landings are highly variable and depend on access to commercial-sized BFT and fishing conditions, among other factors. Nevertheless, NMFS anticipates that the Harpoon category could harvest the transferred 10.8 mt prior to the end of the Harpoon category season, subject to weather conditions and BFT availability. NMFS may transfer unused Harpoon category quota to other quota categories, inseason, based on consideration of the determination criteria, as NMFS did in late 2022 (87 FR 73504, November 30, 2022). Thus, this quota transfer would allow Harpoon category fishermen to take advantage of the availability of BFT on the fishing grounds and provide a reasonable opportunity to harvest the available U.S. BFT quota.

NMFS also considered the estimated amounts by which quotas for other gear categories of the fishery might be exceeded (§ 635.27(a)(7)(iv)) and the ability to account for all 2024 landings and dead discards (§ 635.27(a)(7)(xi)). In the last several years, total U.S. BFT landings have been below the available U.S. quota such that the United States has carried forward the maximum amount of underharvest allowed by ICCAT from one year to the next. NMFS anticipates having sufficient quota to account for landings and dead discards within the adjusted U.S. quota, consistent with ICCAT recommendations.

NMFS also considered the effects of the adjustment on BFT rebuilding and overfishing, and the effects of the transfer on accomplishing the objectives of the FMP (§ 635.27(a)(7)(v) and (vi)). This transfer would be consistent with established quotas and subquotas, which are implemented consistent with ICCAT recommendations (established in Recommendation 22-10), ATCA, and the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments. In establishing these quotas and subquotas and associated management measures, ICCAT and NMFS considered the best scientific information available, objectives for stock management and status such as rebuilding and avoiding overfishing, and effects on the stock. This quota transfer is in line with the established management measures and stock status determinations. It is also important that NMFS limit landings to the quota both to adhere to the FMP quota allocations and to ensure that landings are as consistent as possible with the pattern of fishing mortality ( e.g., fish caught at each age) that was assumed in the latest stock assessment, and this quota transfer is consistent with those objectives. Another principal consideration is the objective of providing opportunities to harvest the available Harpoon category quota without exceeding the annual quota. This consideration is based on the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, including achieving optimum yield on a continuing basis and allowing all permit categories a reasonable opportunity to harvest available BFT quota allocations (related to § 635.27(a)(7)(x)).

NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fishery closely. Per § 635.5(b)(2)(i)(A), dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Late reporting by dealers compromises NMFS' ability to timely implement actions such as quota and retention limit adjustments, as well as closures, and may result in enforcement actions. Additionally, and separate from the dealer reporting requirement, Harpoon category vessel owners are required per § 635.5(a)(4) to report their own catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing https://hmspermits.noaa.gov or by using the HMS Catch Reporting app, or calling (888) 872-8862 (Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.).

Depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that additional adjustments are necessary to ensure available quota is not exceeded or to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas. If needed, subsequent adjustments will be published in the Federal Register . In addition, fishermen may access https://www.hmspermits.noaa.gov, for updates on quota monitoring and inseason adjustments.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1885(d)) and regulations at 50 CFR part 635 and this action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity to provide comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the following reasons. Specifically, the regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason adjustments and quota transfers to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. Providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this quota transfer to the Harpoon category for the remainder of 2024 is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as the Harpoon category fishery is currently underway. Based on Harpoon category catch rates, a delay in this action would likely result in closure of the Harpoon fishery when the baseline quota is met, with attendant administrative costs and costs to the fishery. NMFS could not have proposed this action earlier, as it needed to consider updated landings data in deciding whether to transfer a portion of the Reserve category quota to the Harpoon category quota. A delay in implementing this quota transfer would preclude the fishery from harvesting BFT that are currently available on the fishing grounds and that might otherwise become unavailable during a delay. This action does not raise conservation and management concerns and would support effective management of the BFT fishery. Transferring quota from the Reserve category to the Harpoon category does not affect the overall ICCAT-allocated U.S. BFT quota, and available data show the adjustment would have a minimal risk of exceeding the overall quota. NMFS notes that the public had an opportunity to comment on the underlying rulemakings that established the U.S. BFT quota and the inseason adjustment criteria.

For all of the above reasons, the AA finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.

Background

The Council manages a complex of seven skate species ( i.e., barndoor, clearnose, little, rosette, smooth, thorny, and winter) off the New England and mid-Atlantic coasts through the Northeast Skate Complex FMP. Skates are harvested and managed through two different targeted fisheries: (1) food ( i.e., the wing fishery); and (2) bait in other fisheries ( i.e., the bait fishery). The Northeast Skate Complex FMP requires that annual catch and possession limits for the skate fishery be reviewed annually and specified through the specifications process for up to two fishing years at a time, with the second year subject to review and change during the specifications process. The specifications for fishing year 2023 (revised March 17, 2022, 87 FR 15146) have remained in effect through a rollover provision in the regulations but are now superseded through the implementation of this final rule.

In the fall of 2023, the Northeast Skate Complex FMP underwent a level-3 management track assessment that re-estimated commercial fishery catch data, updated survey biomass indices, added recreational catch to total catch, and updated reference points. The assessment also included projections of total fishery catch of skates for 2024 and 2025. The Council took final action on this framework at its December 2023 meeting in Newport, RI.

NMFS published a proposed rule for this action (89 FR 45621, May 23, 2024) that discussed the proposed measures in detail and included proposed implementing regulations deemed necessary by the Council. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Skate Fishery Management Plan regulations, NMFS may approve, disapprove, or partially approve measures that the Council proposes, based on consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.

NMFS is partially approving Framework 12 and disapproving the Council's recommendation to remove barndoor skate possession restrictions for the bait skate fishery due to new discard information that needs further evaluation and consideration. Additional background information regarding the development of these specifications was provided in the proposed rule and is not repeated here.

Framework 12 sets management measures and specifications for the skate fishery for the 2024 fishing year and projected specifications for the 2025 fishing year. The measures in this action decrease the annual catch limit to 32,155 metric tons (mt) (from 37,236 mt in 2023) and the overall total allowable landings to 15,718 mt (from 21,142 mt in 2023). Table 1 summarizes the 2024-2025 specifications. Specifications for fishing year 2025 are projected to be the same as those for 2024. Framework 12 specifications result in a 26-percent decrease in both the bait and wing fisheries' total allowable landings. Although quotas are decreasing, they remain higher than landings in the bait and wing fisheries for at least the last three years; therefore, NMFS does not expect the quotas to be restrictive to the fishery or to result in reductions in overall revenue. The Council will review the projected 2025 specifications to determine if any changes need to be made prior to the 2025 fishing year. NMFS will publish a notice prior to the 2025 fishing year to confirm these limits as projected or publish a proposed rule for any necessary changes.

This action also increases the seasonal skate wing per-trip possession limits when fishing on a day-at-sea (DAS) by 1,000 pounds (lb) (453.6 kilograms (kg)). The wing fishery possession limit in Season 1 (May 1-August 31) increases from 3,000 lb to 4,000 lb (1,360.8 kg to 1,814.4 kg), and the Season 2 (September 1-April 30) wing fishery possession limit increases from 5,000 lb to 6,000 lb (2,268 kg to 2,721.6 kg). This action also increases the incidental skate wing possession limits by 25 percent. For trips fishing on a Northeast multispecies B-DAS, the possession limit increases from 220 lb to 275 lb (99.8 kg to 124.7 kg), and for trips not fishing on a DAS, the possession limit increases from 500 lb to 625 lb (226.8 kg to 283.5 kg). The intent behind increased possession limits is to reduce operational discards in the fishery and provide better economic flexibility and opportunity to vessels. This trip limit increase is not expected to result in overages or increased effort because the Regional Administrator has the authority to reduce the possession limits to an incidental catch limit level when 85 percent of the quota is projected to be landed.

This action further reintegrates barndoor skate into the skate complex by removing the barndoor skate possession restrictions for the wing fishery. The possession restriction limited possession of barndoor skates to 25 percent, by weight, of the trip limit when fishing under a DAS and prohibited possession of barndoor skate for vessels fishing under a multispecies B-DAS or not on a DAS in the wing fishery. The possession limit was implemented to prevent high grading of catch in the wing fishery, which primarily lands winter and barndoor skates. NMFS declared barndoor skate rebuilt in 2016. There is not a known price difference between barndoor and winter skate, and the removal of the barndoor possession restriction in the wing fishery is not expected to result in high grading.

Additionally, this action fully re-integrates smooth skates into the skate complex by removing smooth skate possession restrictions for both the wing and bait fisheries. NMFS declared smooth skates rebuilt in 2018. Accordingly, the need to manage smooth skates as an individual stock is no longer warranted. Smooth skate will be managed as a component of the skate complex, as intended when the Northeast Skate Complex FMP was developed.

After the publication of the proposed rule and receipt of the final EA, an error in the data regarding barndoor skate discards was identified. As a result, discard data for the bait fishery no longer supports a decision to approve the removal of the barndoor skate possession restriction in the bait fishery at this time. The bait fishery is allowed to land skates with maximum fish size of 23 inches (58.42 cm), which is well under the size at which barndoor skates are considered sexually mature (107.9 cm and 116.3 cm for males and females, respectively). Data included in the EA indicated that barndoor skates were discarded on only 0.7-percent of observed trips from 2018 to 2022, and none of the discards were below 23 inches (58.42 cm). At the time, this suggested that removing the prohibition on retaining barndoor skates in the bait fishery would have negligible impacts on the barndoor skate resource. The corrected data indicate that the amount of barndoor skate discarded on trips under Skate Bait Letters of Authorization was higher than the amount described in the EA and considered by the Council when recommending the removal of the barndoor skate possession restriction for both the bait and wing fisheries.

The corrected data indicate that barndoor skate was discarded on approximately 33.6 percent of observed bait trips and approximately 68.7 percent of those discards were below the maximum size. Juvenile barndoor skate mortality could increase if these discards are converted to landings due to removing the bait fishery's barndoor skate possession restriction. Therefore, allowing barndoor skates under 23 inches (58.42 cm) to be landed in the bait fishery would increase mortality of juvenile barndoor skate if these discards are converted to landings. Given the potential increase in juvenile barndoor skate mortality, additional analysis is required before determining whether the removal of the barndoor skate possession restriction is supported for the bait fishery. Based on this, the removal of the barndoor skate possession restriction for the bait fishery is disapproved. As a result, the current regulations at 50 CFR 648.14(v)(2)(ii) and § 648.322(g)(2) that prohibit possession of barndoor skate when fishing under a Skate Bait Letter of Authorization remain in effect, but will be updated to reflect the approved measure removing the barndoor skate possession restrictions for the wing fishery.

The Council will be notified of the decision to disapprove the removal of the barndoor skate possession restriction for the bait fishery, consistent with regulations at § 648.321(a)(5). The Council may reconsider this measure in a future action following a review of the corrected discard data and the potential impacts on juvenile barndoor skates. If the Council reconsiders this measure, the public will have additional opportunities to comment on the potential for removing the restriction on retaining barndoor skate in the bait fishery through the Council and rulemaking processes.

The public comment period for the proposed rule ended on June 24, 2024, and two comments were received from the public. No changes to the final rule are necessary as a result of those comments. One of the comments focused on wind development and whales, is not germane to this action, and is not addressed further.

NMFS received one comment from an industry participant in favor of increased possession limits and more dynamic management with possession limits updated throughout the year. No changes were made to the final rule as a result of this comment because the final rule includes increased possession limits for the wing fishery and the possession limits and other management measures are reviewed annually to allow consideration of the most recent information and ensure decisions are made with the best scientific information available. Information on the skate stocks and fishery performance is updated annually to include the most recent landings and annual survey data.

This final rule includes one change and two corrections from the proposed rule. The proposed rule would have authorized landing juveniles barndoor skates in the bait fishery; however, for the reasons explained above (see Disapproved Measures), we are disapproving that proposed measure.

Although the correct 2024-2025 TAL of 15,718 mt was provided in table 1 in the proposed rule, the text description included the TAL as 15,178 mt. This final rule corrects the text description of the TAL. The proposed rule also described the number of regulated entities as businesses that owned federally permitted skate vessels with skate landings in 2022. However, all vessels with a Federal skate permit are regulated under the Northeast Skate Complex FMP, regardless of skate landings. This increases the number of regulated entities from 149 businesses owning 244 vessels to 1,332 businesses owning 1,980 vessels. Of these, 154 are for-hire businesses and 11 are classified as large entities per the Small Business Administration guidelines. The economic analysis in the final EA has been updated to reflect this correction. The change to the number of regulated entities does not change the economic impact overall or on small businesses or the certification of the rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that, with the exception of the barndoor skate possession restriction disapproved pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(B), this rule is consistent with the Northeast Skate Complex FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

There is a need to implement these measures in a timely manner to ensure that these updated specifications and possession restrictions are in place as soon after the start of the 2024 skate fishing year as possible. In addition, this action relieves restrictions pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) by (1) increasing the per-trip possession limits for the wing fishery by 1,000 lb (453.6 kilograms (kg) when fishing on a DAS and by 25-percent when fishing on a multispecies B-DAS or not fishing on a DAS and (2) removing possession restrictions for two stocks ( i.e., barndoor and smooth skate) for the wing fishery and one stock ( i.e., smooth skate) for the bait fishery. Barndoor skate possession, which was limited to 25 percent, by weight, of the trip limit when fishing under a DAS and prohibited when fishing under a multispecies B-DAS or not on a DAS in the wing fishery, would be allowed on all wing trips. Possession of smooth skate, which was previously prohibited in the Gulf of Maine Regulated Mesh Area, would be allowed on all skate trips. Fishermen would continue to be restricted to the lower possession limits in the wing fishery, restricted to the lower barndoor possession limits on a DAS wing trip and prohibited from possessing barndoor and smooth skate on certain trips, as described above, if the 30-day delay were in place. Therefore, the exception under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) applies to this action.

There is also a sufficient showing under the authority contained in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to waive the 30-day delay in effective date of this action for good cause. The 2024 fishing year began on May 1, 2024, and the 2023 specifications have remained in place through a rollover provision in the regulations. This action establishes the final 2024 and projected 2025 specifications ( i.e., annual catch limits), increases possession limits in the wing fishery, and removes barndoor skate possession restrictions for the wing fishery and smooth skate possession restrictions for the wing and bait fisheries. A delay in effectiveness would be contrary to the public interest as the updated specifications reflect the best available science, and the increased possession limits and removal of barndoor skate possession restriction for the wing fishery and smooth skate possession restriction for the wing and bait fisheries are intended to give greater flexibility to industry participants and to convert discards to landings. NMFS could not have promulgated this rule sooner due to a necessary revision to the economic analysis to ensure communication of the best available data within data confidentiality requirements.

Furthermore, requiring a 30-day delay before the final rule becomes effective does not provide any benefit to the regulated parties, as no additional time is required to come into compliance with this rule. Unlike actions that require an adjustment period, skate fishing vessels will not have to purchase new equipment or otherwise expend time or money to comply with these management measures. Rather, complying with this final rule simply means adhering to the new catch limits and increased possession limits and restrictions for the fishing year. For these reasons, a 30-day delay in effectiveness would be contrary to the public interest. As a result, NMFS is waiving the requirement, consistent with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (d)(3).

This 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 during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification, and the initial certification remains unchanged. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

This final rule does not duplicate, conflict, or overlap with any existing Federal rules.

This action does not contain a collection of information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 648 as follows: