Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0224 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0224.

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

• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0224 in your comment submission.

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

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS. Comments received after June 21, 2019 will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Comments received on this direct final rule will also be considered to be comments on a companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register .

Because the NRC considers this action to be non-controversial, the NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” for this rule. The rule will become effective on September 19, 2019. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments by June 21, 2019, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this direct final rule and would subsequently address the comments received in any final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register . Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC does not intend to initiate a second comment period on this action.

A significant adverse comment is a comment in which the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate. A comment is adverse and significant if it meets the following criteria:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the NRC to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule.

For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the ADDRESSES section in the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register .

Part 52 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,” subpart B, “Standard Design Certifications,” presents the process for obtaining standard design certifications. On December 23, 2014, KEPCO/KHNP submitted its application for certification of the APR1400 standard design (ADAMS Accession No. ML15006A098) to the NRC under subpart B of 10 CFR part 52. The NRC published a notice of receipt of the application in the Federal Register (80 FR 5792; February 3, 2015). On March 12, 2015, the NRC formally accepted the application as a docketed application for design certification (80 FR 13035; March 12, 2015). The pre-application information submitted before the NRC formally accepted the application can be found in ADAMS under Docket No. PROJ0782.

The NRC issued the final safety evaluation report for the APR1400 design on September 28, 2018. The final safety evaluation report is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18087A364. The NRC will publish the final safety evaluation report as a NUREG titled, “Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Certification of the Advanced Power Reactor 1400 Standard Design.” The final safety evaluation report is based on the NRC's review of revision 3 of the APR1400 design control document.

The following discussion describes the purpose and key aspects of each section of the APR1400 DC rule. All section and paragraph references are to the provisions being added as appendix F to the regulations in 10 CFR part 52, unless otherwise noted. The NRC has modeled the APR1400 DC rule on existing DC rules, with certain modifications where necessary to account for differences in the APR1400 design documentation, design features, and environmental assessment (including severe accident mitigation design alternatives). As a result, DC rules are standardized to the extent practical.

The purpose of Section I of appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 is to identify the standard design approved by this DC rule and the applicant for certification of the standard design. Identification of the design certification applicant is necessary to implement appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 for two reasons. First, § 52.63(c) identifies the design certification applicant as a potential source for an applicant for a combined license (COL) to obtain the generic design control document and supporting design information. If the COL applicant does not obtain the design information from the design certification applicant, but instead uses a different entity, then the COL applicant must meet the requirements in § 52.73. Second, paragraph X.A.1 of the rule requires that the identified design certification applicant maintain the generic design control document throughout the time that appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 may be referenced.

The purpose of Section II of appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 is to define specific terminology with respect to this DC rule. During development of the first two DC rules, the NRC decided that there would be both generic (master) design control documents maintained by the NRC and the design certification applicant, as well as individual plant-specific design control documents maintained by each applicant or licensee that references a certified standard design. This distinction is necessary in order to specify the relevant plant-specific requirements to applicants and licensees referencing appendix F to 10 CFR part 52. In order to facilitate the maintenance of the master design control documents, the NRC requires that each application for a standard design certification be updated to include an electronic copy of the final version of the design control document. The final version is required to incorporate all amendments to the design control document submitted since the original application, as well as any changes directed by the NRC as a result of its review of the original design control document or as a result of public comments. This final version is the master design control document incorporated by reference in the DC rule. The master design control document will be revised as needed to include generic changes to the version of the design control document that is approved in this design certification rulemaking. These changes would occur as the result of generic rulemaking by the NRC, under the change criteria in Section VIII.

The NRC also requires each applicant and licensee referencing appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 to submit and maintain a plant-specific design control document as part of the COL final safety analysis report. This plant-specific design control document must either include or incorporate by reference the information in the generic design control document. The plant-specific design control document would be updated as necessary to reflect the generic changes to the design control document that the NRC may adopt through rulemaking, plant-specific departures from the generic design control document that the NRC imposed on the licensee by order, and any plant-specific departures that the licensee chooses to make in accordance with the relevant processes in Section VIII. Therefore, the plant-specific design control document functions similar to an updated final safety analysis report because it provides the most complete and accurate information on a plant's design basis for that part of the plant that would be within the scope of appendix F to 10 CFR part 52.

The NRC is treating the technical specifications in Chapter 16 of the generic design control document as a special category of information and designating them as generic technical specifications in order to facilitate the special treatment of this information under appendix F to 10 CFR part 52. A COL applicant must submit plant-specific technical specifications that consist of the generic technical specifications, which may be modified as specified in paragraph VIII.C, and the remaining site-specific information needed to complete the technical specifications. The final safety analysis report that is required by § 52.79 will consist of the plant-specific design control document, the site-specific final safety analysis report, and the plant-specific technical specifications.

The terms Tier 1, Tier 2, and COL items (license information) are defined in appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 because these concepts were not envisioned when 10 CFR part 52 was developed. The design certification applicants and the NRC use these terms in implementing the two-tiered rule structure (the DCD is divided into Tiers 1 and 2 to support the rule structure) that was proposed by representatives of the nuclear industry after publication of 10 CFR part 52. The Commission approved the use of a two-tiered rule structure in its staff requirements memorandum, dated February 15, 1991, on SECY-90-377, “Requirements for Design Certification under 10 CFR part 52,” dated November 8, 1990 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003707892).

Tier 1 information means the portion of the design-related information contained in the generic DCD that is approved and certified by this appendix. Tier 2 information means the portion of the design-related information contained in the generic DCD that is approved but not certified by this appendix. The change process for Tier 2 information is similar to, but not identical to, the change process set forth in 10 CFR 50.59. The regulations in § 50.59 describe when a licensee may make changes to a plant as described in its final safety analysis report without a license amendment. Because the change process for Tier 2 information provided in Section VIII of this DC rule provides more specific criteria than § 50.59, as described in § 50.59(c)(4), the definitions and criteria of § 50.59 are not applicable to this process. The NRC is including a definition for a “ Departure from a method of evaluation described in the plant-specific DCD used in establishing the design bases or in the safety analyses ” (paragraph II.F), which is appropriate to include in this direct final rule, so that the eight criteria in paragraph VIII.B.5.b will be implemented for new reactors as intended.

The purpose of Section III of appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 is to describe and define the scope and content of this design certification, how to obtain a copy of the generic design control document, requirements for incorporation by reference of the DC rule, and how documentation discrepancies or inconsistencies are to be resolved.

Paragraph III.A is the required statement of the Office of the Federal Register for approval of the incorporation by reference of the APR1400 design control document, revision 3. In addition, this paragraph provides the information on how to obtain a copy of the design control document.

Paragraph III.B is the requirement for COL applicants and licensees referencing the APR1400 design control document to comply with the requirements of this appendix in order to benefit from the issue finality afforded the certified design. The legal effect of incorporation by reference is that the incorporated material has the same legal status as if it were published in the Code of Federal Regulations. This material, like any other properly-issued regulation, has the force and effect of law. Tier 1 and Tier 2 information (including the technical and topical reports referenced in Chapter 1), and generic technical specifications have been combined into a single document called the generic design control document, in order to effectively control this information and facilitate its incorporation by reference into the rule. In addition, paragraph III.B clarifies that the conceptual design information and KEPCO/KHNP's evaluation of severe accident mitigation design alternatives are not considered to be part of appendix F to 10 CFR part 52. As provided by § 52.47(a)(24), these conceptual designs are not part of appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 and, therefore, are not applicable to an application that references appendix F to 10 CFR part 52. Therefore, an applicant referencing appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 would not be required to conform to the conceptual design information that was provided by the design certification applicant. The conceptual design information, which consists of site-specific design features, was required to facilitate the design certification review. Similarly, the severe accident mitigation design alternatives were required to facilitate the environmental assessment.

Paragraphs III.C and III.D set forth the manner by which potential conflicts are to be resolved and identify the controlling document. Paragraph III.C establishes the Tier 1 description in the design control document as controlling in the event of an inconsistency between the Tier 1 and Tier 2 information in the design control document. Paragraph III.D establishes the generic design control document as the controlling document in the event of an inconsistency between the design control document and the final safety evaluation report for the certified standard design.

Paragraph III.E makes it clear that design activities outside the scope of the design certification may be performed using actual site characteristics. This provision applies to site-specific portions of the plant, such as the administration building.

Section IV of appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 sets forth additional requirements and restrictions imposed upon an applicant who references appendix F to 10 CFR part 52.

Paragraph IV.A sets forth the information requirements for COL applicants and distinguishes between information and documents that must be included in the application or the design control document and those which may be incorporated by reference. Any incorporation by reference in the application should be clear and should specify the title, date, edition, or version of a document and the page number(s) and table(s) containing the relevant information to be incorporated. The legal effect of such an incorporation by reference into the application is that appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 would be legally binding on the applicant or licensee.

In paragraph IV.B the NRC reserves the right to determine how appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 may be referenced under 10 CFR part 50. This determination may occur in the context of a subsequent rulemaking modifying 10 CFR part 52 or this DC rule, or on a case-by-case basis in the context of a specific application for a 10 CFR part 50 construction permit or operating license. This provision is necessary because the previous DC rules were not implemented in the manner that was originally envisioned at the time that 10 CFR part 52 was issued. The NRC's concern is with the manner by which the inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) were developed and the lack of experience with design certifications in a licensing proceeding. Therefore, it is appropriate that the NRC retain some discretion regarding the manner by which appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 could be referenced in a 10 CFR part 50 licensing proceeding.

The purpose of Section V of appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 is to specify the regulations that were applicable and in effect at the time this design certification was approved. These regulations consist of the technically relevant regulations identified in paragraph V.A, except for the regulations in paragraph V.B that would not be applicable to this certified design.

The purpose of Section VI of appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 is to identify the scope of issues that are resolved by the NRC through this rulemaking and, therefore, are “matters resolved” within the meaning and intent of § 52.63(a)(5). The section is divided into five parts: Paragraph VI.A identifies the NRC's safety findings in adopting appendix F to 10 CFR part 52, paragraph VI.B identifies the scope and nature of issues that are resolved by this rulemaking, paragraph VI.C identifies issues, that are not resolved by this rulemaking, and paragraph VI.D identifies the issue finality restrictions applicable to the NRC with respect to appendix F to 10 CFR part 52, and paragraph VI.E identifies the availability of secondary resources.

Paragraph VI.A describes the nature of the NRC's findings in general terms and makes the findings required by § 52.54 for the NRC's approval of this DC rule.

Paragraph VI.B sets forth the scope of issues that may not be challenged as a matter of right in subsequent proceedings. The introductory phrase of paragraph VI.B clarifies that issue resolution, as described in the remainder of the paragraph, extends to the delineated NRC proceedings for plants referencing appendix F to 10 CFR part 52. The remainder of paragraph VI.B describes the categories of information for which there is issue resolution.

Paragraph VI.C reserves the right of the NRC to impose operational requirements on applicants that reference appendix F to 10 CFR part 52. This provision reflects the fact that only some operational requirements, including portions of the generic technical specifications in Chapter 16 of the design control document, and no operational programs ( e.g., operational quality assurance), were completely reviewed by the NRC in this design certification rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, the issue finality provisions of § 52.63 apply only to those operational requirements that either the NRC completely reviewed and approved or formed the basis of an NRC safety finding of the adequacy of the APR1400, as documented in the NRC's final safety evaluation report. The NRC notes that operational requirements may be imposed on licensees referencing this design certification through the inclusion of license conditions in the license, or inclusion of a description of the operational requirement in the plant-specific final safety analysis report. 1 The NRC's choice of the regulatory vehicle for imposing the operational requirements will depend upon the following, among other things: (1) Whether the development and/or implementation of these requirements must occur prior to either the issuance of the COL or the Commission finding under § 52.103(g) and (2) the nature of the change controls that are appropriate given the regulatory, safety, and security significance of each operational requirement.

Also, paragraph VI.C allows the NRC to impose future operational requirements (distinct from design matters) on applicants who reference this design certification. License conditions for portions of the plant within the scope of this design certification ( e.g., start-up and power ascension testing), are not restricted by § 52.63. The requirement to perform these testing programs is contained in the Tier 1 information. However, ITAAC cannot be specified for these subjects because the matters to be addressed in these license conditions cannot be verified prior to fuel load and operation, when the ITAAC are satisfied. In the absence of detailed design information to evaluate the need for and develop specific post-fuel load verifications for these matters, the NRC is reserving the right to impose, at the time of COL issuance, license conditions addressing post-fuel load verification activities for portions of the plant within the scope of this design certification.

Paragraph VI.D requires the NRC to follow the restrictions contained in Section VIII when requiring generic or plant-specific modifications, changes, or additions to structures, systems, and components; design features; design criteria; and ITAAC within the scope of the certified design.

Paragraph VI.E ensures that the NRC will specify at an appropriate time the procedures on how to obtain access to sensitive unclassified and non-safeguards information (SUNSI) and safeguards information (SGI) for the APR1400 DC rule. Access to such information would be for the sole purpose of requesting or participating in certain specified hearings, such as hearings required by § 52.85 or an adjudicatory hearing. For proceedings where the notice of hearing was published before the effective date of the final rule, the Commission's order governing access to SUNSI and SGI shall be used to govern access to such information within the scope of the rulemaking. For proceedings in which the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing is published after the effective date of the final rule, paragraph VI.E applies and governs access to SUNSI and SGI.

The purpose of Section VII of appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 is, in part, to specify the period during which this design certification may be referenced by an applicant for a COL, under § 52.55, and the period it will remain valid when the design certification is referenced. For example, if an application references this design certification during the 15-year period, then the design certification would be effective for that application until it is withdrawn or the license issued on that application expires, including periods of operation under a renewed license. The NRC intends for appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 to remain valid for the life of the plants that reference the design certification to achieve the benefits of standardization and licensing stability. This means that changes to, or plant-specific departures from, information in the plant-specific design control document must be made under the change processes in Section VIII for the life of a plant that references this DC rule.

The purpose of Section VIII of appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 is to set forth the processes for generic changes to, or plant-specific departures (including exemptions) from, the design control document. The NRC adopted this restrictive change process in order to achieve a more stable licensing process for applicants and licensees that reference DC rules. Section VIII is divided into three paragraphs, which correspond to Tier 1, Tier 2, and operational requirements.

Generic changes (called “modifications” in § 52.63(a)(3)) must be accomplished by rulemaking because the intended subject of the change is this DC rule itself, as is contemplated by § 52.63(a)(1). Consistent with § 52.63(a)(3), any generic rulemaking changes are applicable to all plants referencing this DC rule, absent circumstances which render the change technically irrelevant. By contrast, plant-specific departures could be either an order to one or more applicants or licensees; or an applicant or licensee-initiated departure applicable only to that applicant's or licensee's plant(s), similar to a § 50.59 departure or an exemption. Because these plant-specific departures will result in a design control document that is unique for that plant, Section X would require an applicant or licensee to maintain a plant-specific design control document. For purposes of brevity, the following discussion refers to the processes for both generic changes and plant-specific departures as “change processes.” Section VIII refers to an exemption from one or more requirements of this appendix and addresses the criteria for granting an exemption. The NRC cautions that when the exemption involves an underlying substantive requirement ( i.e., a requirement outside this appendix), then the applicant or licensee requesting the exemption must demonstrate that an exemption from the underlying applicable requirement meets the criteria of § 52.7 or § 50.12.

For the APR1400 DC review, the staff followed the approach described in SECY-17-0075, “Planned Improvements in Design Certification Tiered Information Designations,” (ADAMS Accession No. ML16196A321), to evaluate the applicant's designation of information as Tier 1 or Tier 2 information. Unlike prior design certification applications, this application did not contain any Tier 2* information. As described in SECY-17-0075, in each of the prior design certification rules in appendices A through D to 10 CFR part 52, information contained in the DCD was divided into three designations: Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 2*. Tier 1 information is the portion of design-related information in the generic DCD that the Commission approves in the part 52 design certification rule appendices. To change Tier 1 information, NRC approval by rulemaking or approval of an exemption from the certified design rule is required. Tier 2 information is also approved by the Commission in the Part 52 design certification rule appendices, but it is not certified and licensees who reference the design can change this information using the process outlined in Section VIII of the appendices. This change process is similar to that in 10 CFR 50.59 and is generally referred to as the “50.59-like” process. If the criteria in Section VIII are met, a licensee can change Tier 2 information without prior NRC approval. The NRC created a third category, Tier 2*, to address industry requests to minimize the scope of Tier 1 information and provide greater flexibility for making changes. Tier 2* information is included in Tier 2 and has the same safety significance as Tier 1 information, but the NRC decided to provide more flexibility for licensees to change this type of information. In prior design certification rules, Tier 2* is significant information included only in Tier 2 that cannot be changed without prior NRC approval of a license amendment requesting the change.

The applicant included Tier 1 and Tier 2 information in the APR1400 DC application and did not designate or categorize any information as Tier 2* information. Generally, where an applicant includes only Tier 1 and Tier 2 information in an application, the staff will evaluate the Tier 2 information to determine whether any of that information requires NRC approval before it is changed. If the staff identifies any such information in Tier 2, then the staff will request that the applicant revise the application to categorize that information as Tier 1 or Tier 2*, depending on whether the change must be made by approval of a license amendment and an exemption requesting the change (Tier 1), or a license amendment alone (Tier 2*). Because the applicant did not designate any information as Tier 2* information, the staff also considered whether the applicant had included information in Tier 2 that prior DC applicants had identified as Tier 2* but that the NRC staff determined should be categorized as Tier 1. Using requests for additional information, the staff questioned KEPCO/KHNP's categorization of certain information as Tier 2 that past DC applicants had identified as Tier 2* and, in some instances, the staff requested that the applicant revise the application to add that information to Tier 1. This approach required staff and KEPCO/KHNP to identify for each request for additional information the verifiable, important to safety parameters that must be included in Tier 1 to be certified in the rule and verified by ITAAC. After several public meetings, some information was added to or updated in Tier 1 (including modifications to some ITAAC) and the requests for additional information were resolved and closed without the designation of any Tier 2* information.

Of these updates in Tier 1, the most significant concerned the design parameters for the critical structural sections  2 for seismic Category I structures. Past DC applications identified dimensions of length to define critical structural sections as Tier 2* information. During recent construction activities for another design, actual dimensional lengths were found to be outside of their design tolerances. This variance required additional license amendments to resolve the issue associated with the design tolerances, resulting in increased burden to the licensee without a commensurate safety benefit. For the APR1400 design, the Tier 1 information and the ITAAC for these critical structural sections used the design load and design load capacity in lieu of dimensions of length, as specific dimensions are not necessarily as important to safety. By focusing on important to safety parameters and including them in ITAAC, the staff expects that the need for license amendments to address changes during construction will be greatly reduced while still maintaining reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety.

Paragraph A describes the change process for changes to Tier 1 information that are accomplished by rulemakings that amend the generic design control document and are governed by the standards in § 52.63(a)(1). A generic change under § 52.63(a)(1) will not be made to a certified design while it is in effect unless the change: (1) Is necessary for compliance with NRC regulations applicable and in effect at the time the certification was issued; (2) is necessary to provide adequate protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security; (3) reduces unnecessary regulatory burden and maintains protection to public health and safety and common defense and security; (4) provides the detailed design information necessary to resolve select design acceptance criteria; (5) is necessary to correct material errors in the certification information; (6) substantially increases overall safety, reliability, or security of a facility and the costs of the change are justified; or (7) contributes to increased standardization of the certification information. The rulemakings must provide for notice and opportunity for public comment on the proposed change, as required by § 52.63(a)(2). The NRC will give consideration as to whether the benefits justify the costs for plants that are already licensed or for which an application for a permit or license is under consideration except for those changes that are necessary to provide adequate protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security.

Departures from Tier 1 may occur in two ways: (1) The NRC may order a licensee to depart from Tier 1, as provided in paragraph A.3 or (2) an applicant or licensee may request an exemption from Tier 1, as addressed in paragraph A.4. If the NRC seeks to order a licensee to depart from Tier 1, paragraph A.3 would require that the NRC find both that the departure is necessary either to assure adequate protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security or to secure compliance with the NRC's regulations applicable and in effect at the time of approval of the design certification and that special circumstances are present. Paragraph A.4 provides that exemptions from Tier 1 requested by an applicant or licensee are governed by the requirements of §§ 52.63(b)(1) and 52.98(f), which provide an opportunity for a hearing. In addition, the NRC would not grant requests for exemptions that will result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.

Paragraph B describes the change processes for the Tier 2 information; which have the same elements as the Tier 1 change process, but some of the standards for plant-specific orders and exemptions would be different. Generic Tier 2 changes would be accomplished by rulemaking that would amend the generic design control document and would be governed by the standards in § 52.63(a)(1). A generic change under § 52.63(a)(1) would not be made to a certified design while it is in effect unless the change: (1) Is necessary for compliance with NRC regulations that were applicable and in effect at the time the certification was issued; (2) is necessary to provide adequate protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security; (3) reduces unnecessary regulatory burden and maintains protection to public health and safety and the common defense and security; (4) provides the detailed design information necessary to resolve select design acceptance criteria; (5) is necessary to correct material errors in the certification information; (6) substantially increases overall safety, reliability, or security of a facility and the costs of the change are justified; or (7) contributes to increased standardization of the certification information.

Departures from Tier 2 would occur in four ways: (1) The NRC may order a plant-specific departure, as set forth in paragraph B.3; (2) an applicant or licensee may request an exemption from a Tier 2 requirement as set forth in paragraph B.4; (3) a licensee may make a departure without prior NRC approval under paragraph B.5; or (4) the licensee may request NRC approval for proposed departures which do not meet the requirements in paragraph B.5 as provided in paragraph B.5.e.

Similar to ordered Tier 1 departures and generic Tier 2 changes, ordered Tier 2 departures cannot be imposed except when necessary, either to bring the certification into compliance with the NRC's regulations applicable and in effect at the time of approval of the design certification or to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security, provided that special circumstances are present as set forth in paragraph B.3. However, unlike Tier 1 changes, the special circumstances for the ordered Tier 2 departures would not have to outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the plant-specific order, as required by § 52.63(a)(4). The NRC has determined that it is not necessary to impose an additional limitation similar to that imposed on Tier 1 departures by § 52.63(a)(4) and (b)(1). This type of additional limitation for standardization would unnecessarily restrict the flexibility of applicants and licensees with respect to Tier 2 information.

An applicant or licensee referencing this DC rule is permitted to request an exemption from Tier 2 information as set forth in paragraph B.4. The applicant or licensee would have to demonstrate that the exemption complies with one of the special circumstances in regulations governing specific exemptions in § 50.12(a). In addition, the NRC would not grant requests for exemptions that will result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design. However, unlike Tier 1 changes, the special circumstances for the exemption do not have to outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption. If the exemption is requested by an applicant for a license, the exemption would be subject to litigation in the same manner as other issues in the licensing hearing, consistent with § 52.63(b)(1). If the exemption is requested by a licensee, then the exemption would be subject to an opportunity for hearing in the same manner as license amendments.

Paragraph B.5 would allow an applicant or licensee to depart from Tier 2 information, without prior NRC approval, if the departure does not involve a change to or departure from Tier 1 information or the technical specifications, and the departure does not require a license amendment under paragraphs B.5.b or c. The technical specifications referred to in B.5.a of this paragraph are the technical specifications in Chapter 16 of the generic design control document, including bases, for departures made prior to the issuance of the COL. After the issuance of the COL, the plant-specific technical specifications would be controlling under paragraph B.5. The requirement for a license amendment in paragraph B.5.b would be similar to the requirement in § 50.59 and would apply to all of the information in Tier 2 except for the information that resolves the severe accident issues.

Paragraph B.5.b addresses information described in the design control document to address aircraft impacts, in accordance with § 52.47(a)(28). Under § 52.47(a)(28), applicants are required to include the information required by § 50.150(b) in their design control document. An applicant or licensee who changes this information is required to consider the effect of the changed design feature or functional capability on the original aircraft impact assessment required by § 50.150(a). The applicant or licensee is also required to describe in the plant-specific design control document how the modified design features and functional capabilities continue to meet the assessment requirements in § 50.150(a)(1). Submittal of this updated information is governed by the reporting requirements in Section X.B.

During an ongoing adjudicatory proceeding ( e.g., for issuance of a COL) a party who believes that an applicant or licensee has not complied with paragraph B.5 when departing from Tier 2 information may petition to admit such a contention into the proceeding under paragraph B.5.g. As set forth in paragraph B.5.g, the petition would have to comply with the requirements of § 2.309 and show that the departure does not comply with paragraph B.5. If on the basis of the petition and any responses thereto, the presiding officer in the proceeding determines that the required showing has been made, the matter would be certified to the Commission for its final determination. In the absence of a proceeding, assertions of noncompliance with paragraph B.5 requirements applicable to Tier 2 departures would be treated as petitions for enforcement action under § 2.206.

The change process for technical specifications and other operational requirements in the design control document is set forth in Section VIII, paragraph C. The key to using the change processes described in Section VIII is to determine if the proposed change or departure would require a change to a design feature described in the generic design control document. If a design change is required, then the appropriate change process in paragraph A or B would apply. However, if a proposed change to the technical specifications or other operational requirements does not require a change to a design feature in the generic design control document, then paragraph C would apply. This change process has elements similar to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 change processes in paragraphs A and B, but with significantly different change standards. Because of the different finality status for technical specifications and other operational requirements, the NRC designated a special category of information, consisting of the technical specifications and other operational requirements, with its own change process in paragraph C. The language in paragraph C also distinguishes between generic (Chapter 16 of the design control document) and plant-specific technical specifications to account for the different treatment and finality consistent with technical specifications before and after a license is issued.

The process in paragraph C.1 for making generic changes to the generic technical specifications in Chapter 16 of the design control document or other operational requirements in the generic design control document is accomplished by rulemaking and governed by the backfit standards in § 50.109. The determination of whether the generic technical specifications and other operational requirements were completely reviewed and approved in the design certification rulemaking is based upon the extent to which the NRC reached a safety conclusion in the final safety evaluation report on this matter. If a technical specification or operational requirement was completely reviewed and finalized in the design certification rulemaking, then the requirement of § 50.109 would apply because a position was taken on that safety matter. Generic changes made under paragraph VIII.C.1 would be applicable to all applicants or licensees referencing this DC rule as described in paragraph C.2, unless the change is made technically irrelevant by a plant-specific departure.

Some generic technical specifications contain values in brackets [ ]. The brackets are placeholders indicating that the NRC's review is not complete and represent a requirement that the applicant for a COL referencing the APR1400 DC rule must replace the values in brackets with final plant-specific values (refer to guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 1.206, Revision 1, “Applications for Nuclear Power Plants”). The values in brackets are neither part of the DC rule nor are they binding. Therefore, the replacement of bracketed values with final plant-specific values does not require an exemption from the generic technical specifications.

Plant-specific departures may occur by either an order under paragraph C.3 or an applicant's exemption request under paragraph C.4. The basis for determining if the technical specification or operational requirement was completely reviewed and approved for these processes would be the same as for paragraph C.1 previously discussed. If the technical specification or operational requirement is completely reviewed and finalized in the design certification rulemaking, then the NRC must demonstrate that special circumstances are present before ordering a plant-specific departure. If not, there would be no restriction on plant-specific changes to the technical specifications or operational requirements, prior to the issuance of a license, provided a design change is not required. Although the generic technical specifications were reviewed and approved by the NRC in support of the design certification review, the NRC intends to consider the lessons learned from subsequent operating experience during its licensing review of the plant-specific technical specifications. The process for petitioning to intervene on a technical specification or operational requirement contained in paragraph VIII.C.5 would be similar to other issues in a licensing hearing, except that the petitioner must also demonstrate why special circumstances are present pursuant to § 2.335.

Paragraph C.6 states that the generic technical specifications would have no further effect on the plant-specific technical specifications after the issuance of a license that references this appendix. After a license is issued, the bases for the plant-specific technical specifications would be controlled by the bases change provision set forth in the administrative controls section of the plant-specific technical specifications.

This section is reserved for future use. The matters discussed in this section of earlier design certification rules—inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria—are now addressed in the substantive provisions of 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, there is no need to repeat these regulatory provisions in the APR1400 design certification rule. However, this section is being reserved to maintain consistent section numbering with other design certification rules.

The purpose of Section X of appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 is to set forth the requirements that will apply to maintaining records of changes to and departures from the generic design control document, which are to be reflected in the plant-specific design control document. Section X also sets forth the requirements for submitting reports (including updates to the plant-specific design control document) to the NRC. This section of appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 is similar to the requirements for records and reports in 10 CFR part 50, except for minor differences in information collection and reporting requirements.

Paragraph X.A.1 requires that a generic design control document including SUNSI and SGI referenced in the generic design control document be maintained by the applicant for this rule. The generic design control document concept was developed, in part, to meet the requirements for incorporation by reference, including public availability of documents incorporated by reference. However, the SUNSI and SGI could not be included in the generic design control document because they are not publicly available. Nonetheless, the SUNSI and SGI were reviewed by the NRC and, as stated in paragraph VI.B.2, the NRC would consider the information to be resolved within the meaning of § 52.63(a)(5). Because this information is not in the generic design control document, this information, or its equivalent, is required to be provided by an applicant for a license referencing this DC rule. Only the generic design control document is identified and incorporated by reference into this rule. The generic design control document and the NRC-approved version of the SUNSI and SGI must be maintained by the applicant (KEPCO/KHNP) for the period of time that appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 may be referenced.

Paragraphs X.A.2 and X.A.3 place recordkeeping requirements on an applicant or licensee that references this design certification so that its plant-specific design control document accurately reflects both generic changes to the generic design control document and plant-specific departures made under Section VIII. The term “plant-specific” is used in paragraph X.A.2 and other sections of appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 to distinguish between the generic design control document that is being incorporated by reference into appendix F to 10 CFR part 52, and the plant-specific design control document that the COL applicant is required to submit under paragraph IV.A. The requirement to maintain changes to the generic design control document is explicitly stated to ensure that these changes are not only reflected in the generic design control document, which will be maintained by the applicant for the design certification, but also in the plant-specific design control document. Therefore, records of generic changes to the design control document will be required to be maintained by both entities to ensure that both entities have up-to-date design control documents.

Paragraph X.A.4.a requires the DC rule applicant to maintain a copy of the aircraft impact assessment analysis for the term of the certification and any renewal. This provision, which is consistent with § 50.150(c)(3), would facilitate any NRC inspections of the assessment that the NRC decides to conduct. Similarly, paragraph X.A.4.b requires an applicant or licensee who references appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 to maintain a copy of the aircraft impact assessment performed to comply with the requirements of § 50.150(a) throughout the pendency of the application and for the term of the license and any renewal. This provision is consistent with § 50.150(c)(4). For all applicants and licensees, the supporting documentation retained should describe the methodology used in performing the assessment, including the identification of potential design features and functional capabilities to show that the acceptance criteria in § 50.150(a)(1) will be met.

Paragraph X.A does not place recordkeeping requirements on site-specific information that is outside the scope of this rule. As discussed in paragraph V.D of this document, the final safety analysis report required by § 52.79 will contain the plant-specific design control document and the site-specific information for a facility that references this rule. The phrase “site-specific portion of the final safety analysis report” in paragraph X.B.3.c refers to the information that is contained in the final safety analysis report for a facility (required by § 52.79) but is not part of the plant-specific design control document (required by paragraph IV.A). Therefore, this rule does not require that duplicate documentation be maintained by an applicant or licensee that references this rule because the plant-specific design control document is part of the final safety analysis report for the facility.

Paragraph X.B.1 requires applicants or licensees that reference this rule to submit reports that describe departures from the design control document and include a summary of the written evaluations. The requirement for the written evaluations is set forth in paragraph X.A.3. The frequency of the report submittals is set forth in paragraph X.B.3. The requirement for submitting a summary of the evaluations is similar to the requirement in § 50.59(d)(2).

Paragraph X.B.2 requires applicants or licensees that reference this rule to submit updates to the design control document, which include both generic changes and plant-specific departures, as set forth in paragraph X.B.3. The requirements in paragraph X.B.3 for submitting reports will vary according to certain time periods during a facility's lifetime. If a potential applicant for a COL that references this rule decides to depart from the generic design control document prior to submission of the application, then paragraph X.B.3.a will require that the updated design control document be submitted as part of the initial application for a license. Under paragraph X.B.3.b, the applicant may submit any subsequent updates to its plant-specific design control document along with its amendments to the application provided that the submittals are made at least once per year. Because amendments to an application are typically made more frequently than once a year, this should not be an excessive burden on the applicant.

Paragraph X.B.3.b also requires semi-annual submission of the reports required by paragraph X.B.1 throughout the period of application review and construction. The NRC will use the information in the reports to support planning for the NRC's inspection and oversight during this phase, when the licensee is conducting detailed design, procurement of components and equipment, construction, and preoperational testing. In addition, the NRC will use the information in making its finding on ITAAC under § 52.103(g), as well as any finding on interim operation under Section 189.a(1)(B)(iii) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Once a facility begins operation (for a COL under 10 CFR part 52, after the Commission has made a finding under § 52.103(g)), the frequency of reporting will be governed by the requirements in paragraph X.B.3.c.

On March 8, 2018, as part of the submission of revision 2 of the design control document (ADAMS Accession No. ML18079A146), KEPCO/KHNP requested the NRC provide a final design approval for the APR1400 design. On August 13, 2018, as part of the submission of revision 3 of the design control document (ADAMS Accession No. ML18228A680), KEPCO/KHNP corrected their request for a final design approval to a request for a standard design approval. A standard design approval for the APR1400, revision 3, was issued on September 28, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18261A187) following the NRC's issuance of the APR1400 final safety evaluation report.

The finality of standard design approvals is discussed in § 52.145. The standard design approval is valid for 15 years from the date of issuance, as described in § 52.147.

The following paragraphs describe the specific changes in this direct final rule: Section 52.11, Information collection requirements: OMB approval.

In § 52.11, this direct final rule adds new appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 to the list of information collection requirements in paragraph (b) of this section.

This direct final rule adds appendix F to 10 CFR part 52 to incorporate the APR1400 standard design into the NRC's regulations. Applicants or licensees intending to construct and operate a plant using an APR1400 design may do so by referencing the DC rule.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this direct final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct 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 not prepared a regulatory analysis for this direct final rule. The NRC prepares regulatory analyses for rulemakings that establish generic regulatory requirements applicable to all licensees. Design certifications are not generic rulemakings in the sense that design certifications do not establish standards or requirements with which all licensees must comply. Rather, design certifications are NRC approvals of specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking, which then may be voluntarily referenced by applicants for COLs. Furthermore, an applicant for a design certification, rather than the NRC, initiates design certification rulemakings. Preparation of a regulatory analysis in this circumstance would not be useful because the design to be certified is proposed by the applicant, rather than the NRC. For these reasons, the NRC concludes that preparation of a regulatory analysis is neither required nor appropriate.

The NRC has determined that this direct final rule does not constitute a backfit as defined in the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109), and it is not inconsistent with any applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52.

This initial DC rule does not constitute backfitting as defined in the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109) because there are no existing operating licenses under 10 CFR part 50, COLs or manufacturing licenses under 10 CFR part 52 referencing this DC rule and because this DC rule does not modify the standard design approval for the APR1400.

This initial DC rule is not inconsistent with any applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52 because it does not impose new or changed requirements on existing DC rules in appendices A through E to 10 CFR part 52 or the standard design approval for APR1400, and no COLs or manufacturing licenses issued by the NRC at this time reference a final APR1400 DC rule.

For these reasons, neither a backfit analysis nor a discussion addressing the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52 was prepared for this rule.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC certifies the APR1400 standard design for use in nuclear power plant licensing under 10 CFR parts 50 or 52. Design certifications are not generic rulemakings establishing a generally applicable standard with which all 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 nuclear power plant licensees must comply. Design certifications are Commission approvals of specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking. Furthermore, design certifications are initiated by an applicant for rulemaking, rather than by the NRC. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

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

The NRC has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, that this direct final rule, if confirmed, 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 NRC's generic determination in this regard is reflected in 10 CFR 51.32(b)(1). The basis for the NRC's categorical exclusion in this regard, as discussed in the 2007 final rule amending 10 CFR parts 51 and 52 (August 28, 2007; 72 FR 49352-49566), is based upon the following considerations. A DC rule does not authorize the siting, construction, or operation of a facility referencing any particular design; it only codifies the APR1400 design in a rule. The NRC will evaluate the environmental impacts and issue an environmental impact statement as appropriate under NEPA as part of the application for the construction and operation of a facility referencing any particular DC rule.

In addition, consistent with 10 CFR 51.30(d) and 10 CFR 51.32(b), the NRC has prepared a final environmental assessment (ADAMS Accession No. ML18306A607) for the APR1400 design addressing various design alternatives to prevent and mitigate severe accidents. The environmental assessment is based, in part, upon the NRC's review of KEPCO/KHNP's evaluation of various design alternatives to prevent and mitigate severe accidents in APR1400-E-P-NR-14006, Revision 2, “Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives (SAMDAs) for the APR1400” (ML18235A158). Based upon review of KEPCO/KHNP's evaluation, the Commission concludes that: (1) KEPCO/KHNP identified a reasonably complete set of potential design alternatives to prevent and mitigate severe accidents for the APR1400 design; (2) none of the potential design alternatives are justified on the basis of cost-benefit considerations; and (3) it is unlikely that other design changes would be identified and justified during the term of the design certification on the basis of cost-benefit considerations because the estimated core damage frequencies for the APR1400 are very low on an absolute scale. These issues are considered resolved for the APR1400 design. Based on its own independent evaluation, the NRC reached the same conclusion as KEPCO/KHNP that none of the possible candidate design alternatives are potentially cost beneficial for the APR1400 design. This independent evaluation was based on reasonable treatment of costs, benefits, and sensitivities. The NRC concludes that KEPCO/KHNP has adequately identified areas where risk potentially could be reduced in a cost-beneficial manner and adequately assessed whether the implementation of the identified potential severe accident mitigation design alternatives or candidate design alternatives would be cost-beneficial for the given site parameters. Therefore, the NRC finds that the evaluation performed by KEPCO/KHNP is reasonable and sufficient.

The determination of this environmental assessment is that there will be no significant offsite impact to the public from this action. The environmental assessment is available as indicated under Section XVI, “Availability of Documents.”

The burden to the public for the information collection(s) is estimated to average 37 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. Further information about information collection requirements associated with this direct final rule can be found in the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rule section in this issue of the Federal Register .

This direct final rule is being issued prior to approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of these information collection requirements, which were submitted under OMB control number 3150-XXXX. When OMB notifies the NRC of its decision, the NRC will publish a document in the Federal Register providing notice of the effective date of the information collections or, if approval is denied, providing notice of what action we plan to take.

Send comments on any aspect of these information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Information Services Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, District of Columbia 20555-0001, or by email to INFOCOLLECTS.RESOURCE@NRC.GOV; and to OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-XXXX), Attn: Desk Officer for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, District of Columbia 20503; email: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.

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.

Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement States Programs,” approved by the Commission on June 20, 1997, and published in the Federal Register (62 FR 46517; September 3, 1997), this rule is classified as compatibility “NRC.” Compatibility is not required for Category “NRC” regulations. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act or the provisions of 10 CFR, and although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to the NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements by a mechanism that is consistent with a particular State's administrative procedure laws, but does not confer regulatory authority on the State.

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

The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2015-0224. The Federal Rulemaking website allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2015-0224); (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

This section contains instructions regarding how the non-publicly available documents related to this rule, and specifically those listed in Table 1.6-1 and 1.6-2 beginning on page 1.6-2 of Tier 2 of the DCD, may be accessed by interested persons who wish to comment on the design certification. These documents contain proprietary information and safeguards information (SGI). Requirements for access to SGI are primarily set forth in 10 CFR parts 2 and 73. This section provides information specific to this rule; however, nothing in this section is intended to conflict with the SGI regulations.

Interested persons who desire access to proprietary information on the APR1400 design should first request access to that information from KEPCO/KHNP, the design certification applicant. A request for access should be submitted to the NRC if the applicant does not either grant or deny access by the 10-day deadline described in the following section.

One of the non-publicly available documents, APR1400-E-A-NR-14002-P-SGI, contains both proprietary information and SGI. If you need access to proprietary information in that document in order to develop comments within the scope of this rule, then your request for access should first be submitted to KEPCO/KHNP in accordance with the previous paragraph. By contrast, if you need access to the SGI in order to provide comments, then your request for access to the SGI must be submitted to the NRC as described further in this section. Therefore, if you need access to both proprietary information and SGI in that document then you should request access to the information in separate requests submitted to both KEPCO/KHNP and the NRC.

Within 10 days after publication of this rule, any individual or entity who believes access to proprietary information or SGI is necessary in order to submit comments on this APR1400 design certification rule may request access to such information. Requests for access to proprietary information or SGI submitted more than 10 days after publication of this document will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing explaining why the request could not have been filed earlier.

The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to access proprietary information and/or SGI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address is: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary is rulemaking.comments@nrc.gov. The requester must send a copy of the request to the design certification applicant at the same time as the original transmission to the NRC using the same method of transmission. Requests to the applicant must be sent to Yun-Ho Kim, President, KHNP Central Research Institute, 70, 1312-gil, Yuseong-daero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 34101, Korea.

The request must include the following information:

1. The name of this design certification, APR1400 design certification; the rulemaking identification number, RIN 3150-AJ67; the rulemaking docket number, NRC-2015-0224; and the Federal Register citation for this rule.

2. The name, address, and email or FAX number of the requester.

3. If the requester is an entity, the name of the individual(s) to whom access is to be provided, including the identity of any expert, consultant, or assistant who will aid the requestor in evaluating the information.

4. If the request is for proprietary information, the requester's need for the information in order to prepare meaningful comments on the design certification must be demonstrated. Each of the following areas must be addressed with specificity:

a. The specific issue or subject matter on which the requester wishes to comment;

b. An explanation why information that is publicly available is insufficient to provide the basis for developing meaningful comment on the APR1400 design certification rule with respect to the issue or subject matter described in paragraph 4.a. of this section; and

c. The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, training or education) of the requestor to effectively utilize the requested proprietary information to provide the basis for meaningful comment. Technical competence may be shown by reliance on a qualified expert, consultant, or assistant who satisfies these criteria.

d. A chronology and discussion of the requester's attempts to obtain the information from the design certification applicant, and the final communication from the requester to the applicant and the applicant's response, if any was provided, with respect to the request for access to proprietary information must be submitted.

5. If the request is for SGI, a statement that explains each individual's “need to know” the SGI, as required by 10 CFR 73.2 and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1). Consistent with the definition of “need to know” as stated in 10 CFR 73.2, the statement must explain:

a. The specific issue or subject matter on which the requester wishes to comment;

b. An explanation of why publicly available information is insufficient to provide the basis for developing meaningful comment on the design certification with respect to the issue or subject matter described in paragraph 5.a. of this section and why the SGI requested is indispensable in order to develop meaningful comments;  4 and

c. The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, training or education) of the requestor to effectively utilize the requested SGI to provide the basis and specificity for meaningful comment. Technical competence may be shown by reliance on a qualified expert, consultant, or assistant who satisfies these criteria.

d. A completed Form SF-85, “Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions,” for each individual who would have access to SGI. The completed Form SF-85 will be used by the Office of Administration to conduct the background check required for access to SGI, as required by 10 CFR part 2, subpart C, and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(2), to determine the requestor's trustworthiness and reliability. For security reasons, Form SF-85 can only be submitted electronically through the electronic questionnaire for investigations processing (e-QIP) website, a secure website that is owned and operated by the Office of Personnel Management. To obtain online access to the form, the requestor should contact the NRC's Office of Administration at 301-415-3710. 5

e. A completed Form FD-258 (fingerprint card), signed in original ink, and submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 73.57(d). Copies of Form FD-258 may be obtained by writing the Office of Administrative Services, Mail Services Center, Mail Stop P1-37, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by email to MAILSVC.Resource@nrc.gov. The fingerprint card will be used to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR part 2, subpart C, 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1), and Section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, which mandates that all persons with access to SGI must be fingerprinted for an FBI identification and criminal history records check.

f. A check or money order in the amount of $357.00  6 payable to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each individual for whom the request for access has been submitted; and

g. If the requester or any individual who will have access to SGI believes they belong to one or more of the categories of individuals relieved from the criminal history records check and background check requirements, as stated in 10 CFR 73.59, the requester should also provide a statement specifically stating which relief the requester is invoking, and explaining the requester's basis (including supporting documentation) for believing that the relief is applicable. While processing the request, the NRC's Office of Administration, Personnel Security Branch, will make a final determination whether the stated relief applies. Alternatively, the requester may contact the Office of Administration for an evaluation of their status prior to submitting the request. Persons who are not subject to the background check are not required to complete the SF-85 or Form FD-258; however, all other requirements for access to SGI, including the need to know, are still applicable.

Copies of documents and materials required by paragraphs 5.d.-g., as applicable, of this section must be sent to the following address: Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Personnel Security Branch, Mail Stop TWF-07D04M, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. These documents and materials should not be included with the request letter to the Office of the Secretary, but the request letter should state that the forms and fees have been submitted as required.

To avoid delays in processing requests for access to SGI, all forms should be reviewed for completeness and accuracy (including legibility) before submitting them to the NRC. The NRC will return incomplete or illegible packages to the sender without processing.

Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraphs 4.a.-4.d. or 5.a.-g. of this section, as applicable, the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the written access request whether the requester has established a legitimate need for access to proprietary information or need to know the SGI requested.

For proprietary information access requests, if the NRC staff determines that the requester has established a legitimate need for access to proprietary information, the NRC staff will notify the requester in writing that access to proprietary information has been granted. The NRC staff must first notify the design certification applicant of the staff's determination to grant access to the requester not less than 10 days before informing the requester of the staff's decision. If the applicant wishes to challenge the NRC staff's determination, it must follow the procedures in Predisclosure Procedures for Proprietary Information Constituting Trade Secrets or Confidential Commercial or Financial Information of this section. The NRC staff will not provide access to disputed proprietary information to the requester until the procedures are completed as described in Predisclosure Procedures for Proprietary Information Constituting Trade Secrets or Confidential Commercial or Financial Information of this section. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of proprietary information by each individual who will be granted access.

For requests for access to SGI, if the NRC staff determines that the requester has established a need to know the SGI, the NRC's Office of Administration will then determine, based upon completion of the background check, whether the proposed recipient is trustworthy and reliable, as required for access to SGI by 10 CFR 73.22(b). If the NRC's Office of Administration determines that the individual or individuals are trustworthy and reliable, the NRC will promptly notify the requester in writing. The notification will provide the names of approved individuals as well as the conditions under which the SGI will be provided. Those conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit by each individual who will be granted access to SGI.

Prior to providing SGI to the requester, the NRC staff will conduct (as necessary) an inspection to confirm that the recipient's information protection system is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 73.22. Alternatively, recipients may opt to view SGI at an approved SGI storage location rather than establish their own SGI protection program to meet SGI protection requirements.

Any comments in this rulemaking proceeding that are based upon the disclosed proprietary information or SGI must be filed by the requester no later than 25 days after receipt of (or access to) that information, or the close of the public comment period, whichever is later. The commenter must comply with all NRC requirements regarding the submission of proprietary information and SGI to the NRC when submitting comments to the NRC (including marking and transmission requirements).

If the request for access to proprietary information or SGI is denied by the NRC staff, the NRC staff shall promptly notify the requester in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.

Before the Office of Administration makes a final adverse determination regarding the trustworthiness and reliability of the proposed recipient(s) for access to SGI, the Office of Administration, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.336(f)(1)(iii), must provide the proposed recipient(s) any records that were considered in the trustworthiness and reliability determination, including those required to be provided under 10 CFR 73.57(e)(1), so that the proposed recipient(s) have an opportunity to correct or explain the record.

Appeals from a denial of access must be made to the NRC's Executive Director for Operations (EDO) under 10 CFR 9.29. The decision of the EDO constitutes final agency action under 10 CFR 9.29(d).

The NRC will follow the procedures in 10 CFR 9.28 if the NRC staff determines, under the Determination of Legitimate Need for Access of this section, that access to proprietary information constituting trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information will be provided to the requester. However, any objection filed by the applicant under 10 CFR 9.28(b) must be filed within 15 days of the NRC staff notice in the Determination of Legitimate Need for Access of this section rather than the 30-day period provided for under 10 CFR 9.28(b). In applying the provisions of 10 CFR 9.28, the applicant for the design certification rule will be treated as the “submitter.”

The NRC is incorporating by reference the APR1400 design control document, revision 3. As described in the “Discussion” section of this document, the generic design control document combined into a single document Tier 1 and Tier 2 information (including the technical and topical reports referenced in Chapter 1) and generic technical specifications in order to effectively control this information and facilitate its incorporation by reference into the rule.

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 OFR regulations require an agency to include in a direct final rule a discussion of the ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested parties or how it worked to make those materials reasonably available to interested parties. The discussion in this section complies with the requirement for direct final 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 but vary with respect to the considerations for determining reasonable availability. Therefore, the NRC distinguishes between different classes of interested parties for the purposes of determining whether the material is “reasonably available.” The NRC considers the following to be classes of interested parties in NRC rulemakings with regard to the material to be incorporated by reference:

• Individuals and small entities regulated or otherwise subject to the NRC's regulatory oversight (this class also includes applicants and potential applicants or licenses and other NRC regulatory approvals) and who are subject to the material to be incorporated by reference by rulemaking. In this context, “small entities” has the same meaning as a “small entity” under 10 CFR 2.810.

• Large entities otherwise subject to the NRC's regulatory oversight (this class also includes applicants and potential applicants for licenses and other NRC regulatory approvals) and who are subject to the material to be incorporated by reference by rulemaking. In this context, “large entities” are those that do not qualify as a “small entity” under 10 CFR 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 10 CFR 2.315(c)).

• Federally-recognized and State-recognized  7 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 may wish to gain access to the materials which the NRC incorporates by reference by rulemaking in order to participate in the rulemaking process.

The NRC makes the materials incorporated by reference available for inspection to all interested parties, 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. In addition, as described in Section XVI of this notice, documents related to this rule are available online in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.

The NRC concludes that the materials the NRC is incorporating by reference in this rule are reasonably available to all interested parties because the materials are available to all interested parties in multiple ways and in a manner consistent with their interest in the materials.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is amending 10 CFR part 52 as follows:

The substance of these special conditions has been published in the Federal Register for public comment in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary, and finds that, for the same reason, good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register .

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

On March 12, 2015, Boeing applied for an amendment to Type Certificate No. T00001SE to include the new 777-9 airplane. This airplane, which is a derivative of the Boeing Model 777 airplane currently approved under Type Certificate No. T00001SE, is a twin-engine, transport category airplane with seating for 495 passengers and a maximum takeoff weight of 775,000 pounds.

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Boeing must show that the 777-9 airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. T00001SE, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 777-9 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Boeing Model 777-9 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

The Boeing Model 777-9 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

Composite fuel tanks that may be subject to tire-debris penetration of the fuel tanks.

Accidents or incidents have resulted from uncontrolled fires caused by fuel leaks due to fragments of tires or uncontained engine failure penetrating or rupturing the undersides of airplane wings. The effects of engine debris as a result of uncontained engine failure are not included in these special conditions because, for the Boeing Model 777-9 airplane, this hazard is addressed under the existing requirements of § 25.903(d), which requires minimizing the hazards from uncontained engine-failure debris.

In one incident in Honolulu, Hawaii, a tire on a Boeing Model 747 airplane burst, and tire debris penetrated a fuel-tank access panel, causing a substantial fuel leak. Takeoff was aborted and passengers were evacuated down the emergency chutes into pools of fuel, which fortunately had not ignited. This accident highlighted deficiencies in the then-existing 14 CFR part 25 regulations pertaining to fuel-tank fuel retention following tire fragments penetrating fuel tanks.

After a subsequent Boeing Model 737 airplane accident in Manchester, England, in which uncontained engine-failure debris penetrated a fuel-tank access panel, the FAA amended § 25.963 to require that fuel-tank access panels be resistant to penetration from both tire-failure debris and uncontained engine-failure debris. Section 25.963(e) requires showing, by analysis or tests, that fuel-tank access covers “. . . minimize penetration and deformation by tire fragments, low energy engine debris, or other likely debris.” Advisory Circular (AC) 25.963-1, “Fuel Tank Access Covers,” defines the region of the wing that is vulnerable to impact damage from these sources, and provides a method to substantiate that the rule has been met for tire fragments. No specific requirements were established for the contiguous wing areas into which the fuel-tank access covers are installed, because of the inherent ability of conventional aluminum wing skins to resist tire-debris penetration. Advisory Circular 25.963-1 specifically notes, “The [fuel-tank] access covers, however, need not be more impact resistant than the contiguous tank structure,” highlighting the assumption that the basic structures of these wings meet some higher standard. An additional amendment to 14 CFR part 121 required operators to modify their existing fleets of airplanes with impact-resistant fuel-tank access panels. This amendment only addressed fuel-tank access panels because service experience at the time indicated that the wing skin on the underside of a wing, on conventional, subsonic airplanes, provided adequate, inherent capability to resist tire debris and engine debris penetration.

However, after the adoption of the amendments to § 25.963 in 2000, an unanticipated failure mode occurred on a Concorde airplane when tire debris impacted the fuel tank. The initial impact of the tire debris did not penetrate the fuel tank, but a pressure wave from the debris impact caused the fuel tank to rupture. In September 2001, both the French civil-aviation authority (DGAC) and the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) issued airworthiness directives requiring modifications to Concorde airplanes, to add a means to retain fuel if the primary fuel retention means was damaged.

To maintain the level of safety envisioned by § 25.963(e), these special conditions establish a standard for resistance to potential tire-debris impacts to the contiguous wing surfaces, and require consideration of possible secondary effects of a tire impact, such as the induced pressure wave that was a factor in the Concorde accident. This standard takes into account that new construction methods and materials may not necessarily provide the resistance to debris impact that historically has been shown as adequate with conventional aluminum wings. These special conditions are based on the defined tire-impact areas and tire-fragment characteristics described in AC 25.963-1.

In addition, despite practical design considerations, some uncommon debris larger than that defined in paragraph (b) of these special conditions may cause a fuel leak within the defined area, so paragraph (c) of these special conditions also takes into consideration possible fuel-leak paths. Fuel-tank surfaces of typical transport airplanes have thick aluminum construction in the tire-debris impact areas that is tolerant to tire debris larger than that defined in paragraph (b) of these special conditions. Consideration of leaks caused by larger tire fragments is needed to ensure that an adequate level of safety is provided where composite material is used.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Boeing Model 777-9 airplane. Should Boeing apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Boeing Model 777-9 airplanes.

(a) Tire-debris impact to any fuel tank or fuel-system component, located within 30 degrees to either side of wheel rotational planes, may not result in penetration or otherwise induce fuel-tank deformation, rupture ( e.g., through propagation of pressure waves), or cracking sufficient to allow a hazardous fuel leak. A hazardous fuel leak results if debris impact to a fuel-tank surface causes—

1. A running leak,

2. A dripping leak, or

3. A leak that, 15 minutes after wiping dry, results in a wetted airplane surface exceeding 6 inches in length or diameter.

The leak must be evaluated under maximum fuel head pressure.

(b) Compliance with paragraph (a), above, must be shown by analysis or tests assuming all of the following. The tire-debris fragment:

1. Size is 1 percent of the tire mass.

2. Is propelled at a tangential speed that could be attained by a tire tread at the airplane flight-manual airplane rotational speed (V R at maximum gross weight).

3. Load is distributed over an area on the fuel-tank surface equal to 1.5 percent of the total tire tread area.

(c) Fuel leaks caused by impact from tire debris larger than that specified in paragraph (b), from any portion of a fuel tank located within the tire-debris impact area defined in paragraph (a), may not result in hazardous quantities of fuel entering any of the following areas of the airplane:

1. Engine inlet,

2. APU inlet, or

3. Cabin-air inlet.

This must be shown by test or analysis, or a combination of both, for each approved engine forward-thrust condition, and each approved reverse-thrust condition.

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2018 (83 FR 58196). The NPRM was prompted by reports indicating that the pitot heat switch is not always set to ON, which could result in misleading air data. The NPRM proposed to require replacement of pitot anti-icing system components, installation of a junction box and wiring provisions, repetitive testing of the anti-icing system, and applicable on-condition actions.

We are issuing this AD to address misleading air data, which can lead to loss of crew situational awareness and could ultimately result in the inability to maintain continued safe flight and landing.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

The Boeing Company stated support for the NPRM.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.

We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

SF Airlines requested that the compliance time be extended. The commenter noted that the two parts kits and window/pitot heat module needed to accomplish the modification on each airplane are too hard to obtain within the proposed 24 months. The commenter further pointed out that the modification requires around 300 work hours, which will require creation of a detailed plan for modifying its 17-airplane fleet. The commenter asserted that the modification would likely be performed in the next C-check, but that such a large modification could not be accomplished during a C-check.

We do not agree to extend the compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered not only the safety implications of the identified unsafe condition, but the average utilization rate of the affected fleet, the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required modification within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. The commenter provided no further evidence to substantiate a parts availability problem. Furthermore, this AD specifies the same 24-month compliance time as is required for the Model 737NGs in AD 2012-24-08, Amendment 39-17278 (77 FR 73282, December 10, 2012), which addresses the same unsafe condition identified in this AD.

If we receive additional data that justify different compliance times, we may consider further rulemaking on this issue. However, under the provisions of paragraph (m) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of alternative compliance times if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the change described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-30A1064, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2017. The service information describes procedures for replacement and repetitive testing of the P5-9 window and pitot heat module, and changing the anti-icing system to automatically supply power to heat the air data sensors.

We also reviewed the following concurrent service information.

• Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1067, Revision 1, dated May 4, 2017. This service information describes procedures for installing a new J18 junction box to change the anti-icing system.

• Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1068, Revision 1, dated May 4, 2017. This service information describes procedures for installing wiring provisions to the anti-icing system.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 296 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide 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.

We are 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 is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

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

(4) 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:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2014-20-04, Amendment 39-17977 (79 FR 59636, October 3, 2014) (“AD 2014-20-04”). AD 2014-20-04 applied to all Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Airbus SAS Model A319 series airplanes; Airbus SAS Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Airbus SAS Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 17, 2018 (83 FR 46905). The NPRM was prompted by our determination that additional work is necessary for certain airplanes. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the four titanium angles between the belly fairing and the keel beam side panel, an inspection for cracking of the open holes if any cracking is found in the titanium angles, and repair or replacement if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to revise the applicability by adding Model A320-216 airplanes. The NPRM also proposed additional work, including a detailed inspection for, and replacement of, certain rivets (including a rotating probe test for cracks in the open holes), and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address cracking at the lower riveting of the four titanium angles that connect the belly fairing to the keel beam side panels on both sides of the fuselage, which could affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0091, dated April 20, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Airbus SAS Model A319 series airplanes; Airbus SAS Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Airbus SAS Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0795.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Delta Air Lines (DAL) requested that we re-issue the NPRM using the method where the FAA AD would mandate the EASA AD for compliance ( i.e., the “incorporate by reference (IBR) the MCAI” method). DAL pointed out this method would simplify the understanding of the NPRM and reduce the number of conflicts between the EASA AD and the NPRM.

We acknowledge the commenter's request to use the “IBR the MCAI” method. Using the “IBR the MCAI” method simplifies FAA ADs and facilitates a simpler AD process. However, we disagree with the request to re-issue the NPRM using this method, as it would require an additional public comment period and unnecessarily delay issuance of this final rule, which is necessary to address the identified unsafe condition. However, based on positive feedback from operators, we are expanding the use of the “IBR the MCAI” method, and additional NPRMs and ADs are currently being drafted using this method.

DAL requested that we allow the use of AMOC ANM-116-15-018 for compliance with all corresponding provisions of the proposed AD. DAL also requested that if the FAA disagrees to include the use of the AMOC as requested, that we include details in the NPRM for addressing the airplanes already inspected and modified using the AMOC and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 01, dated November 26, 2013. DAL mentioned that several airplanes from the DAL fleet were inspected and modified using the AMOC and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 01, dated November 26, 2013. DAL also pointed out that the NPRM does not provide credit for work performed using the AMOC and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 01, dated November 26, 2013.

We agree to allow the use of the AMOC identified by the commenter, as well as all other AMOCs to AD 2014-20-04, and we have added paragraph (r)(1)(ii) to this AD accordingly.

DAL requested that we include Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 01, dated November 26, 2013, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 02, dated March 24, 2016, as service information for the inspection requirements of the proposed AD. DAL pointed out that the removal and installation of the titanium angles is the main concern in limiting the use of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 02, dated March 24, 2016, but that the inspection requirements contain no errors. DAL also indicated concurrence with the requirement to use Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017, after the effective date of the final rule.

We agree for the reasons provided by the commenter and have revised the introductory text of paragraph (h) and paragraphs (h)(2) and (k) of this AD accordingly. However, we have only revised paragraphs (i)(2), (j), and (l) of this AD to include Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 01, dated November 26, 2013, because those paragraphs include installation requirements and Revision 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259 is not acceptable service information for doing those installations.

United Air Lines (UAL) requested that we allow titanium angle part numbers D5337060121295 and D5337060121495 to be installed instead of part numbers D5337060121200 and D5337060121400, respectively. UAL stated that titanium angle part numbers D5337060121200 and D5337060121400 as specified by Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017, are not procurable. UAL mentioned that Airbus indicated to UAL that titanium angle part numbers D5337060121295 and D5337060121495 are acceptable for installation for Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017.

We agree with the commenter for the reasons provided. We have added paragraph (q) to this AD to allow the installation of titanium angle part numbers D5337060121295 and D5337060121495. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

DAL and UAL requested that we revise the affected airplanes for paragraph (o) of the proposed AD. UAL requested that we clarify the service information reference for description of the affected airplanes in paragraph (o) of the proposed AD. DAL and UAL pointed out that the MCAI specifies Revision 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-23-1259 for the action specified in paragraph (o) of the proposed AD and that paragraph (o) of the proposed AD specifies Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, dated November 6, 2012, for identifying affected airplanes.

In addition, DAL requested that we revise paragraph (o) of the proposed AD to apply only to airplanes which had titanium angles removed and replaced in accordance with sub-task 531259-203-001 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 02, dated March 24, 2016. DAL pointed out that paragraph (o) of the proposed AD specified airplanes which were inspected using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, dated November 6, 2012. DAL mentioned that the unsafe condition was introduced in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 02, dated March 24, 2016, and that there are no airworthiness concerns with the inspections (only replacements) accomplished under any revision of the service information.

We agree that paragraph (o) of this AD should refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 02, dated March 24, 2016, to identify the affected airplanes as specified in the MCAI, and we have revised paragraph (o) of this AD accordingly.

We also agree with the request to limit the affected airplanes to those that had titanium angles replaced in accordance with sub-task 531259-203-001 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 02, dated March 24, 2016. However, we have determined that the phrase “modified (replacement of affected titanium angles),” which matches the intent of the language in the MCAI, is more appropriate instead of listing specific sub-tasks for replacement. Operators may have installed these rivets in accordance with instructions approved by Airbus SAS under EASA's Design Organization Approval (DOA) outside of the service information sub-task. Therefore, we have not changed this AD further in this regard.

UAL requested clarification of the intent of paragraph (k) of the proposed AD. UAL specified that the intent should be a detailed inspection of the “replaced” titanium angles and not an inspection of the four titanium angles. UAL explained that paragraph (j) of the proposed AD states to remove the affected [cracked] titanium angle(s), and the next inspection per paragraph (k) of the proposed AD would apply to the replaced titanium angles, not necessarily all four titanium angles.

We agree for the reasons provided by the commenter, and we have revised paragraph (k) of this AD accordingly.

UAL requested that we include information to correct an error in the service information. UAL stated that figure A-GCAAA Sheet 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017, shows views A-A and B-B in reversed left and right direction and that view B-B is missing one rivet location. UAL also stated that this error makes it possible to install incorrect rivets during angle replacement. UAL mentioned that it had contacted Airbus about this error, and that Airbus published Technical Adaptation 80491184/005/2018 to temporarily correct the error. UAL also mentioned that Airbus plans to revise Service Bulletin A320-53-1259 to correct this error.

We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons provided. To ensure operators refer to the correct views and rivet locations, we have revised this AD by referencing Airbus Technical Adaptation 80491184/005/2018, Issue 1, dated February 08, 2018, in lieu of Figure A GCAAA—Sheet 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017, wherever it is appropriate.

UAL requested that we verify the latest revision of Service Bulletin A320-53-1259 is referenced in this AD prior to final publication. UAL indicated its preference not to request an AMOC allowing use of a later revision of the service information immediately after AD publication.

We agree and have confirmed that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017, is the latest version of the service information. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

UAL requested that we expand the airplanes specified in paragraph (o) of the proposed AD to include all angles that were replaced using any service information issued prior to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017, unless maintenance records show that the correct rivets were previously installed. UAL pointed out that revisions issued prior to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 02, dated March 24, 2016, did not specify any procedures to install rivets to the keel beam side panel. UAL mentioned that it could then be possible that an angle replacement done previously using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, dated November 6, 2012, or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 01, dated November 26, 2013, might have missing or incorrect rivets installed.

We disagree with the request to expand the affected airplanes specified in paragraph (o) of this AD. As discussed previously, we have clarified that the affected airplanes specified in paragraph (o) of this AD are those on which a modification (replacement of affected titanium angles) was done in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 02, dated March 24, 2016, and not airplanes on which an inspection was done. Additionally, we have not received any information from either EASA or Airbus regarding expanding the scope of the potential unsafe condition. The new requirements in this AD are a result of incorrect dimensions of the rivet part number provided in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 02, dated March 24, 2016. No such information was provided by Airbus in the previous revisions of the service information. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

DAL requested that, to reduce confusion, we include clarification in paragraph (o) of the proposed AD, that EN6081D5 rivets only need to be installed in the fastener holes common to the titanium angle and belly fairing wall joint. DAL mentioned that paragraph (o) of the proposed AD provides relief for the on-wing inspection if it can be determined no titanium angles were installed in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 02, dated March 24, 2016, or if only EN6081D5 rivets were used to install the titanium angles on that airplane. DAL pointed out that the titanium angles are installed using both hi-lok fasteners as well as rivets. DAL also indicated that the hi-lok fasteners are common to the keel beam panel and the rivets are common to the belly fairing walls.

We agree to clarify. The service information provides specific information for a detailed inspection for the rivets on the titanium angles and belly fairing shear wall attachments between frames (FR)40 and FR42. Additionally, as specified previously, Airbus has issued Airbus Technical Adaptation 80491184/005/2018, Issue 1, dated February 08, 2018, as an exception to Figure A GCAAA—Sheet 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017, which we have included in this AD. Therefore, in paragraph (o) of this AD, where it specifies “or if only EN6081D5 rivets were used to install the titanium angles on that airplane,” the installation location for rivets is on the titanium angles and belly fairing shear wall attachments as identified in the service information. Since the service information provides this information, we have not changed this AD further regarding this issue.

DAL requested that we include additional guidance for accomplishing the titanium angle replacement. DAL stated that Airbus issued Operator Information Telex (OIT) 16-0032, Rev. 00, dated June 3, 2016, that specified the required rivets to use for the replacement. DAL also mentioned that Airbus issued Technical Adaptation 80170642/022/2017, dated April 7, 2017, to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 02, dated March 24, 2016, which specified the correct rivets for the replacement. DAL added that the FAA could provide credit for airplanes on which the correct rivets were installed using the OIT or technical adaptation.

We disagree with the request. Paragraph (p)(2) of this AD refers to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017, and Airbus Technical Adaptation 80491184/005/2018, Issue 1, dated February 08, 2018, which provide adequate service information for completing the replacement required if any part number EN6081D4 series rivet is found during any inspection required by paragraph (o) of this AD. This AD corresponds to EASA AD 2018-0091, dated April 20, 2018, which does not permit Airbus OIT 16-0032, Rev. 00, dated June 3, 2016, and Airbus Technical Adaptation 80170642/022/2017, dated April 7, 2017, as methods of compliance. We agree that those documents are not acceptable methods of compliance with this AD because those documents only specify the part numbers as well as the location and quantity of the parts.

However, we do agree to clarify the statement in paragraph (o) of this AD that describes a method of compliance for the actions required by paragraph (o) of this AD. Paragraph (o) of this AD provides relief for airplanes on which “it can be determined that no titanium angles have been installed on that airplane in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Revision 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, or if only rivets having part number EN6081D5 have been used to install the titanium angles.” We have revised paragraph (o) of this AD to clarify that the “in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Revision 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259” applies to the whole statement.

In the introductory text of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD we retained a compliance time that referred to the effective date of the existing AD. However, we did not include the specific date of AD 2014-20-04. We have revised the introductory text of paragraph (g) of this AD to refer to the effective date of AD 2014-20-04 (November 7, 2014).

In paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD we retained a compliance time that referred to the effective date of the existing AD. However, we did not include the effective date of AD 2014-20-04. We have revised paragraph (h)(3) of this AD to refer to the effective date of AD 2014-20-04 (November 7, 2014).

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017. This service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections for cracking of the four titanium angles between the belly fairing and the keel beam side panel, an inspection for cracking of the open holes if any cracking is found in the titanium angles, repair or replacement if necessary, and a detailed inspection for and replacement of certain rivets (including a rotating probe test for cracks in the open holes).

Airbus has also issued Technical Adaptation 80491184/005/2018, Issue 1, dated February 08, 2018. This service information describes a correction to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1259, Revision 03, dated November 30, 2017.

This AD also requires Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1014, Revision 2, dated September 1, 1994, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of November 7, 2014 (79 FR 59636, October 3, 2014).

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

We estimate that this AD affects 1,250 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:

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.

We are 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 is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

We 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. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. 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 Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744) identifies entities and other persons reasonably believed to be involved, or to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

This final rule does not amend the Entity List, but modifies the license requirement for the sixty-nine entries added to the Entity List in the May 16, 2019, final rule entitled “Addition of Entities to the Entity List,” as described further below, by adding a temporary general license for the specified entities.

BIS added Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (Huawei) and sixty-eight of its non-U.S. affiliates to the Entity List on May 16, 2019. Details regarding the scope of the listing are in the final rule titled “Addition to the Entity List,” effective May 16, 2019, and scheduled to publish in the May 21, 2019, issue of the Federal Register . The sixty-eight non-U.S. affiliates are also listed in Supplement No. 7 to part 744—Temporary General License.

This final rule amends the EAR by adding Supplement No. 7 to Part 744 to create a Temporary General License that returns in part the prior requirements through August 14, 2019. In this final rule, pursuant to Supplement No. 5 to part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), BIS is modifying the effect of the sixty-nine entries on the Entity List by adding a temporary general license to temporarily authorize, as specified below, engagement in transactions, involving the export, reexport, and transfer (in-country) of items subject to the EAR to Huawei and its sixty-eight non-U.S. affiliates subject to the conditions described below.

a. This temporary general license is effective from the date of this Authorization, May 20, 2019, through August 19, 2019.

b. This temporary general license does not relieve persons of other obligations under the EAR, including but not limited to licensing requirements to the People's Republic of China (PRC or China) or elsewhere and/or the requirements of part 744 of the EAR. This authorization does not authorize any activities or transactions involving Country Group E countries ( i.e., Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria) or persons.

c. With the exception of the transactions explicitly authorized by this temporary general license, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) continue to require a license pursuant to the license requirement set forth in Supplement No. 4 to part 744 for Huawei and the sixty-eight non-U.S. affiliates and will be reviewed under the license review policy for those entities.

This temporary general license allows, from May 20, 2019, through August 19, 2019, the following:

1. Continued Operation of Existing Networks and Equipment: BIS authorizes engagement in transactions, subject to other provisions of the EAR, necessary to maintain and support existing and currently fully operational networks and equipment, including software updates and patches, subject to legally binding contracts and agreements executed between Huawei and third parties or the sixty-eight non-U.S. Huawei affiliates and third parties on or before May 16, 2019.

2. Support to Existing Handsets: BIS authorizes engagement in transactions, subject to other provisions of the EAR, necessary to provide service and support, including software updates or patches, to existing Huawei handsets that were available to the public on or before May 16, 2019.

3. Cybersecurity Research and Vulnerability Disclosure: BIS authorizes, subject to other provisions of the EAR, the disclosure to Huawei and/or the sixty-eight non-U.S. affiliates of information regarding security vulnerabilities in items owned, possessed, or controlled by Huawei or any of the sixty-eight non-U.S. affiliates when related to the process of providing ongoing security research critical to maintaining the integrity and reliability of existing and currently fully operational networks and equipment, as well as handsets.

4. Engagement as Necessary for Development of 5G Standards by a Duly Recognized Standards Body: BIS authorizes, subject to other provisions of the EAR, engagement with Huawei and/or the sixty-eight non-U.S. affiliates as necessary for the development of 5G standards as part of a duly recognized international standards body ( e.g., IEEE—Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; IETF—internet Engineering Task Force; ISO—International Organization for Standards; ITU—International Telecommunications Union; ETSI- European Telecommunications Standards Institute; 3GPP—3rd Generation Partnership Project; TIA—Telecommunications Industry Association; and GSMA, a.k.a., GSM Association, Global System for Mobile Communications).

The licensing and other policies of the EAR regarding exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to Huawei and sixty-eight of its non-U.S. affiliates that were in effect prior to their addition to the Entity List on May 16, 2019, are available for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) for transactions eligible for the temporary general license established by this final rule.

For example, the authority of NLR or a license exception that was available on or before May 16, 2019, may be used pursuant to this temporary general license if the underlying export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) meets the temporary general license conditions and is limited in scope to the support of one or more of activities described in clauses 1-4 above.

This temporary general license does not relieve persons of other obligations under the EAR, including but not limited to licensing requirements to the PRC or elsewhere and/or the requirements of the part 744 of the EAR, such as those specified in §§  744.2, 744.3 and 744.4 of the EAR. This temporary general license does not authorize any activities or transactions involving Country Group E countries or persons. For example, this temporary general license does not relieve persons of their obligations under General Prohibition 5 in §  736.2(b)(5) of the EAR which provides that, “you may not, without a license, knowingly export or reexport any item subject to the EAR to an end-user or end-use that is prohibited by part 744 of the EAR.” BIS strongly urges the use of Supplement No. 3 to part 732 of the EAR, “BIS's `Know Your Customer' Guidance and Red Flags,” when persons are involved in transactions that are subject to the EAR.

Also in new Supplement No. 7 to part 744, this final rule includes a paragraph (d) (Certification statement). The certification statement is required to be made by the exporter, reexport, or transferor prior to making an export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) pursuant to this Temporary General License. The certification statement must be kept for recordkeeping purposes by the exporter, reexporter, or transferor.

As a conforming change, in part 762 (Recordkeeping), this final rule adds a new paragraph (b)(55) to reference the Certification statement required in order to rely in the Temporary General License.

On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (Title XVII, Subtitle B of Pub. L. 115-232 (132 Stat. 2210); 50 U.S.C. 4801 et seq. ), which provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule. As set forth in section 1768 of ECRA, all delegations, rules, regulations, orders, determinations, licenses, or other forms of administrative action that have been made, issued, conducted, or allowed to become effective under the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq. ) (as in effect prior to August 13, 2018, and as continued in effect pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. ) and Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of August 8, 2018, 83 FR 39871 (August 13, 2018)), or the Export Administration Regulations, and were in effect as of August 13, 2018, shall continue in effect according to their terms until modified, superseded, set aside, or revoked under the authority of ECRA.

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications and carries a burden estimate of 42.5 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov, or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. Pursuant to section 1762 of ECRA, this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date.

5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

Accordingly, parts 744 and 762 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) are amended as follows:

I. Background

Section 1061 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”)  1 transferred rulemaking authority for certain enumerated consumer financial laws to the Bureau, including portions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 2 although the FTC retained general rulemaking authority under Sections 615(e) (“Red Flag Guidelines and Regulations Required”) and 628 (“Disposal of Records”) of the FCRA. See 15 U.S.C. 1681s(e); Public Law 111-203, sec. 1088(a)(10)(E). Following these amendments, the Commission retains rulemaking authority for its “Identity Theft Rules,” 16 CFR part 681, and its rules governing “Disposal of Consumer Report Information and Records,” 16 CFR part 682, for all entities subject to those rules. See 15 U.S.C. 1681m, 1681w.

The Commission also retains rulemaking authority under the FCRA over any motor vehicle dealer described in Section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act that is predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both. See Dodd-Frank Act, sec. 1029(a), (c).

After the issuance of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission rescinded several rules following their republication by the CFPB. See 77 FR 22200 (2012). The Commission rescinded five rules issued under the FCRA, as amended by the FACT Act, that were republished by the CFPB: (1) [Identity Theft] Definitions, 16 CFR part 603 (republished by the CFPB at 12 CFR 1022.3); (2) Free Annual File Disclosures Rule, 16 CFR part 610 (republished by the CFPB at 12 CFR 1022.130); (3) Prohibition Against Circumventing Treatment as a Nationwide Consumer Reporting Agency, 16 CFR part 611 (republished by the CFPB at 12 CFR 1022.140); (4) Duration of Active Duty Alerts, 16 CFR part 613 (republished by the CFPB at 12 CFR 1022.121); and (5) Appropriate Proof of Identity, 16 CFR part 614 (republished by the CFPB at 12 CFR 1022.123).

The FTC also retained seven rules issued under the FCRA, as amended, that continue to apply to motor vehicle dealers, including the FCRA Model Forms and Disclosures in 16 CFR part 698. 3

The CFPB recently issued further revisions to its own model forms and disclosures associated with the FCRA on September 18, 2018 through an interim final rulemaking. See 83 FR 47027 (2018).

The Commission is now adopting further revisions to its own Model Forms and Disclosures to rescind forms that are no longer necessary. Accordingly, the Commission is rescinding the following appendices in 16 CFR part 698:

• Appendix A—Model Prescreen Opt-Out Notices;

• Appendix D—Standardized Form for Requesting Annual File Disclosures;

• Appendix E—Summary of Identity Theft Rights;

• Appendix F—General Summary of Consumer Rights;

• Appendix G—Notice of Furnisher Responsibilities; and

• Appendix H—Notice of User Responsibilities.

In addition, the Commission is redesignating Appendix B—Model Forms for Risk-Based Pricing and Credit Score Disclosure Exception Notices as appendix A, and Appendix C—Model Forms for Affiliate Marketing Opt-Out Notices as appendix B.

Following these rescissions, covered entities should look to the corresponding forms issued by the CFPB to obtain the appropriate model forms and disclosures. The following is a chart that provides cross-references to the appropriate forms:

The Commission is also making conforming amendments to update references in several Commission rules to the currently applicable forms issued under the FCRA. These amendments address references to the model forms and disclosures in the Risk-Based Pricing Rule, 16 CFR part 640, and the Affiliate Marketing Rule, 16 CFR part 680.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency may promulgate or rescind a rule without prior notice and an opportunity for public comment if the agency finds for good cause that notice and comment are unnecessary. 4 The Commission has determined that public comment on the rescission of these rules is unnecessary because the rulemaking authority for rules associated with these model forms and disclosures has transferred to the CFPB pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act. The rescission of these FTC model forms will help avoid confusion as to which model forms and disclosures covered entities should look to in order to fulfill their disclosure obligations under the FCRA. Thus, there is no reason for public comment on this regulatory action.

In addition, the Commission has determined that these rescissions may take effect immediately upon publication of this notice in the Federal Register , as permitted by the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 The removal of the regulations is exempt from the usual 30-day notice requirement as it merely “relieves a restriction” from FTC requirements. The 30-day notice requirement does not apply under these circumstances, in which the underlying rulemaking authority for rules associated with these model forms and disclosures has transferred to the CFPB. Therefore, affected persons do not need time to prepare for or take any action with regard to the rescission.

The FTC is rescinding several model forms and disclosures contained in 16 CFR part 698 that it has determined are no longer necessary. The removal of these forms will not impact paperwork burden estimates relating to the Commission's rules issued under the FCRA. Neither the Model Forms and Disclosures in 16 CFR part 698 that are being rescinded nor the remaining Model Forms and Disclosures fall within the definition of a “collection of information” covered by the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, because they constitute “[t]he public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public * * *.” 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2). 6 Accordingly, these model forms and disclosures do not constitute a “collection of information” as defined in the regulations implementing the PRA, nor do the financial resources expended in relation to the distribution of these documents constitute a PRA burden.

Because the Commission has determined that it may remove these model forms and disclosures without public comment, the Commission is also not required to publish an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act as part of such action. 7

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Commission amends title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This 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.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because S46, the New Jersey Department of Transportation Bridge, that once required draw operations in 33 CFR 117.723(h), was replaced with a fixed bridge on June 5, 2018. It is unnecessary to publish a NPRM because this regulatory action does not purport to place any restrictions on mariners but rather removes a restriction that has no further use or value.

We are issuing this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The bridge has been a fixed bridge for 10 months and this rule merely requires an administrative change to the Federal Register , in order to omit a regulatory requirement that is no longer applicable or necessary. The modification to the S46 bridge has already taken place and the removal of the regulation will not affect mariners currently operating on this waterway. Therefore, a delayed effective date is unnecessary.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.

The S46 (New Jersey Department of Transportation) Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 14.0, was converted to a fixed bridge on June 5, 2018. It has come to the attention of the Coast Guard that the governing regulation for this drawbridge was never removed subsequent to the completion of the fixed bridge that replaced it. The elimination of this drawbridge necessitates the removal of the drawbridge operation regulation, 33 CFR 117.723(h), that pertains to the former drawbridge.

The purpose of this rule is to remove paragraph (h) of 33 CFR 117.723 that refers to the S46 Bridge at mile 14.0, from the Code of Federal Regulations since it governs a bridge that is no longer able to be opened.

The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117.723 by removing restrictions and the regulatory burden related to the draw operations for this bridge that is no longer a drawbridge. The change removes paragraph (h) of the regulation governing the S46 Bridge since the bridge has been converted into a fixed bridge. This Final Rule seeks to update the Code of Federal Regulations by removing language that governs the operation of the S46 Bridge, which in fact is no longer a drawbridge. This change does not affect waterway or land traffic. This change does not affect nor does it alter the operating schedules in 33 CFR 117.723 that govern the remaining active drawbridges on Hackensack River and connecting waterways.

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 protesters.

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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that the bridge was converted into a fixed bridge and no longer operates as a drawbridge. The removal of the operating schedule from 33 CFR 117 subpart B will have no effect on the movement of waterway or land traffic.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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.

For the reasons stated in section IV.A above this final rule would 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 contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above.

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 calls for no 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 Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

A Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the Record are not required for this rule.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact 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 117 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This 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.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Drilling and coring must be done so that the American Transmission Company can begin the replacement of the servicing lines. Delaying this rule to wait for a notice and comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public from the potential hazards associated with drilling, coring and surveying.

We are issuing this final rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, a 30 day notice period would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone immediately to protect the public from the hazards associated with drilling, coring and surveying.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 46 U.S.C. 7003; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

The American Transmission Company is scheduled to conduct cable replacement and subsurface investigations in the Straits of Mackinac from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily from May 17, 2019 through June 7, 2019. This rule is needed to protect the public and responders within the safety zone from potential hazard associated with drilling, coring and surveying by persons on the Tug CHAMPION and Deck Barge MM-142 while this work is being done.

This rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily from May 17, 2019 through June 7, 2019, unless drilling coring and surveying work is completed before June 7. If the COTP determines the rule need not to be enforced through June 7, he will issue a general permission to enter the zone and will issue a separate rule to terminate this regulation.

The safety zone will cover all U.S. navigable waters of the Straits of Mackinac bounded by longitudes 084°20′ W and 085°10′ W and latitudes 045°39′ N and 045°54′ N that are within 500 yards of where Tug CHAMPION and Deck Barge MM-142 will be operating. This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of the public and surveyors during these operations.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie, or a designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or telephone at 906-635-3233.

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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule is confined to area encompassing emergency operations. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zones when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

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.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of the vessels intending to transit or anchor in the vicinity of the safety zone.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons identified in the Regulatory Planning and Review section. Further, the Coast Guard will give advance notice to the public via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners so the public can plan accordingly.

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 contact 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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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 Management Directive 023-01, which guides 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 establishment of a safety zone of limited size and duration. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60d of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev.01. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. However, we seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact 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:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This 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.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by June 6, 2019 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

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 of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life and property.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the Country Music Awards from June 6, 2019 through June 9, 2019, present a safety concern for anyone in the zone. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of the Country Music Awards participants within the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled times.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on the Cumberland River at Mile Marker (MM) 190.7 to 191.1, from the Woodland Street Bridge to the Sparkman Street Pedestrian Bridge, extending 100′ out from the left descending bank from June 6, 2019 through June 9, 2019. The duration of the safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of the participants of the Country Music Awards before, during, and after the scheduled times. Vessels are not permitted to enter or transit this safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a 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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the regulated area. This rule is limited to the Cumberland River at MM 190.7 to 191.1, from the Woodland Street Bridge to the Sparkman Street Pedestrian Bridge, extending 100′ out from the left descending bank. The zone will be enforced only from June 6, 2019 to June 9, 2019. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter it.

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 temporary 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 contact 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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 establishing a temporary safety zone on the Cumberland River at MM 190.7 to 191.1, from the Woodland Street Bridge to the Sparkman Street Pedestrian Bridge, extending 100′ out from the left descending bank, from June 6, 2019 through June 9, 2019. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact 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:

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 without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This 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.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard would not have sufficient time to publish, take comment, draft, and publish a final rule. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels form the hazards associated with a fireworks display.

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 because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels in vicinity of the fireworks display.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a fireworks display presents significant risks to the public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display takes place.

This rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced from 9:15 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on May 25, 2019. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 280-foot radius of the launch site located on a barge at the end of the Village of Alexandria Municipal Docks at position 44°20′04.1″ N, 075°55′20.3″ W.

The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the fireworks event takes place. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring with the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a 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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the conclusion that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. We anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the COTP.

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 contact 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 proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed 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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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 would 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 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination 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 a safety zone lasting one and a half hour that would prohibit entry within a 280 foot radius of the end of the barge that will be located near the Village of Alexandria Municipal Docks. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact 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:

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 without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This 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.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM, take comments, draft, and publish a final rule. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect personnel and vessels form the hazards associated with dive training.

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 because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the reasons noted above.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that potential hazards associated with joint military swim exercise in a navigable waterway pose a risk to public safety and property within the immediate location.

This rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced on June 24, 2019, from 7 a.m. until 6 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Saint Lawrence River, Ogdensburg, NY contained within a box starting at position: 44°42′33″ N, 75°29′03″ W, then traveling East to 44°42′33″ N, 75°28′45″ W, then traveling North to 44°42′39″ N, 75°28′45″ W, then traveling West to 44°42′39″ N, 75°29′03″ W, and then returning to the point of origin.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at (716) 843-9525.

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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the conclusion that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. We anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

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 contact 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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact 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:

This is a summary of the Commission's Order in WT Docket No. 19-116, FCC 19-43, adopted on May 9, 2019 and released on May 13, 2019. The complete text of this document is available for viewing via the Commission's ECFS website by entering the docket number, WT Docket No. 19-116. The complete text of this document is also available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, fax 202-488-5563.

By this Order, the Commission corrects paragraphs (j)(1) and (k) of § 27.53 of the Commission's rules  1 to update each paragraphs' incorrect cross-reference to the section's paragraph (a)(4). The Commission had inadvertently failed to update those cross-references in 2010 when it renumbered paragraph (a)(4) as (a)(5). Section 27.53 addresses the emission limits for various Part 27 services, and, according to the current language of paragraphs (j)(1) and (k), compliance with the emission limits for the bands identified in those paragraphs “is based on the procedures described in paragraph (a)(4) of this [S]ection.”  2 Paragraph (a)(4), however, does not contain any such procedures; rather, it sets forth wattage amounts by which the power of certain emissions must be attenuated. The next subparagraph in paragraph (a)— i.e., paragraph (a)(5)—is entitled “Measurement procedure” and contains the compliance procedures that paragraphs (j) and (k) had referenced before the Commission added paragraph (a)(4) in 2010. 3 At that time, when the Commission renumbered the old paragraph (a)(4) as (a)(5) to accommodate the new paragraph (a)(4), it neglected to update the paragraphs (j)(1) and (k) cross-reference to the provision that had been renumbered as paragraph (a)(5). And since that time, paragraphs (j)(1) and (k) have continued to refer incorrectly to paragraph (a)(4) as containing the measurement procedures for compliance, rather than paragraph (a)(5). The Commission therefore corrects this error by amending paragraphs (j)(1) and (k) to change the cross-reference to paragraph (a)(5).

The Commission finds it appropriate to forego a notice-and-comment period prior to this Order taking effect, given the administrative nature and limited impact of this rule correction. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that notice procedures are not required where “the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”  4 Here, the Commission finds, for good cause, that using such procedure to correct an outdated cross-reference in paragraphs (j)(1) and (k) of § 27.53—an inadvertent error that arose out of the failure to make a ministerial adjustment to the cross-reference when the subparagraphs of that section's paragraph (a) were renumbered—is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because it would needlessly prolong an obvious inaccuracy in the rules, delay the return of the rules' language to its clearly intended meaning, and fail to yield any of the public interest benefits that notice and comment procedures are designed to produce. The APA also requires publication of a substantive rule at least 30 days before its effective date “except as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.”  5 For the same reasons that the Commission foregoes notice-and-comment procedures, the Commission finds good cause to make this correction to § 27.53(j)(1) and (k) effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.

For reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 27 as follows: