This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, proposes to amend regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 925, as amended (7 CFR part 925), regulating the handling of grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California. Part 925 (referred to as the “Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers and handlers of grapes operating within the production area, and a public member.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This proposed rule falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review.

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the Order now in effect, grape handlers in a designated area of southeastern California are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate would be applicable to all assessable grapes for the 2021 fiscal period and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such a handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed no later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate from $0.020 per 18-pound lug of assessable grapes handled, the rate that was established for the 2018 and subsequent fiscal periods, to $0.040 per 18-pound lug of assessable grapes handled for the 2021 and subsequent fiscal periods.

The Order authorizes the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2018 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate of $0.020 per 18-pound lug of assessable grapes handled. That assessment rate continues in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.

The Committee met on November 4, 2020, and unanimously recommended expenditures of $85,500, and an assessment rate of $0.040 per 18-pound lug of assessable grapes handled for the 2021 and subsequent fiscal periods. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $121,100. The proposed assessment rate of $0.040 is $0.020 higher than the rate currently in effect. The Committee recommended increasing the assessment rate to provide adequate income to cover the Committee's budgeted expenses for the 2021 fiscal period, as well as add funds to the contingency reserve. Funds in the reserve are expected to be approximately $50,100 at the end of the 2021 fiscal period, which is within the Order's requirement to carryover no more than approximately one fiscal period's budgeted expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2021 fiscal period include $50,000 for management and compliance expenses; $19,500 for direct office expenses; $16,000 for shared office, facilities, and maintenance expenses.

Budgeted expenses for these items for the 2020 fiscal period were $56,000 for management and compliance expenses; $20,700 for direct office expenses; $15,900 for shared office, facilities, and maintenance expenses; and $28,500 for production research.

The Committee determined that the contingency reserve fund had grown too large, so they used $37,100 from it to help fund the 2020 budget rather than raise their assessment rate.

The Committee derived the recommended assessment rate by considering anticipated expenses; an estimated crop of 2.5 million 18-pound lugs of assessable grapes; and the amount of funds available in the authorized contingency reserve. Income derived from handler assessments, calculated at $100,000 (2.5 million 18-pound lugs of assessable grapes multiplied by $0.040 assessment rate), would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses of $85,500, as well as add a small amount of funds ($14,500) back into the contingency reserve. Funds in the reserve are estimated to be $50,100 at the end of the 2021 fiscal period.

The assessment rate proposed in this rule would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2021 fiscal period budget, and those for subsequent fiscal periods, would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 10 handlers subject to the regulation under the Order, and approximately 21 producers of grapes in the production area. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $1,000,000, and small agricultural service firms have been defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $30,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to the Committee data, USDA Market News Shipping Point Data, and National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the national average producer price data released in 2020 for the 2019 production year was approximately $10.62 per 18-pound lug. Assuming that the 2020 producer price remains the same as that for 2019, and using Committee data for the 2020 total grape production of 2,448,021 18-pound lugs, the total 2020 value of the grape crop was $25,997,983 (2,448,021 18-pound lugs times $10.62 per 18-pound lug equals $25,997,983). Dividing the total grape crop value by the estimated number of producers (21) yields an estimated average receipt per producer of $1,237,999, which is above the SBA threshold for small producers.

According to USDA Market News data, the reported terminal price for 2020 for grapes ranged between $18.95 to $24.95 per 18-pound lug. The average of this range is $21.95 ($18.95 plus $24.95 divided by 2). Multiplying the 2020 grape total production of 2,448,021 18-pound lugs by the estimated average price per 18-pound lug of $21.95 equals $53,734,061.

Dividing this figure by 10 regulated handlers yields estimated average annual handler receipts of $5,373,406, which is below the SBA threshold for small agricultural service firms. Therefore, using the above data, the majority of producers may be considered large entities, and handlers of grapes in the production area may be classified as small entities.

Based upon information from NASS, the grower price reported for grapes in 2019 was $1,180 per ton ($10.62 per 18-pound lug) of grapes. In order to determine the estimated assessment revenue as a percentage of the total grower revenue, we calculate the assessment rate ($0.040 per 18-pound lug) times the estimated production (2,500,000 18-pound lugs), which equals the assessment revenue of $100,000.

The grower revenue is calculated by multiplying the grower price of $10.62 per 18-pound lug times the estimated production (2,500,000 18-pound lugs), which equals the grower revenue of $26,550,000.

In the final step, dividing the assessment revenue by the grower revenue indicates that, for the 2021 fiscal period, the estimated assessment revenue as a percentage of total grower revenue would be about 0.38 percent.

This proposal would increase the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2021 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.020 to $0.040 per 18-pound lug of assessable grapes handled. The Committee unanimously recommended 2021 expenditures of $85,500 and an assessment rate of $0.040 per 18-pound lug of assessable grapes handled. The proposed assessment rate of $0.040 per 18-pound lug of assessable grapes handled is $0.020 higher than the current rate. The volume of assessable grapes for the 2021 fiscal period is estimated to be 2,500,000 18-pound lugs. Thus, the $0.040 per 18-pound lug of assessable grapes handled should provide $100,000 in assessment income (2,500,000 multiplied by $0.040). Income derived from handler assessments would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses for the 2021 fiscal period.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2021 fiscal period include $50,000 for management and compliance expenses; $19,500 for direct office expenses; $16,000 for shared office, facilities, and maintenance expenses. Budgeted expenses for the 2020 fiscal period were $56,000 for management and compliance; $20,700 for direct office; $15,900 for shared office, facilities, and maintenance; and $28,500 for production research.

The Committee recommended increasing the assessment rate to provide adequate income to cover the Committee's budgeted expenses for the 2021 fiscal period, while adding funds to its financial reserve. This action would maintain the Committee's reserve balance at a level that the Committee believes is appropriate and meets the requirements of the Order.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate recommendation, the Committee discussed various alternatives, including maintaining the current assessment rate of $0.020 per 18-pound lug of assessable grapes handled, and increasing the assessment rate by a different amount. However, the Committee determined that the recommended assessment rate would fully fund budgeted expenses and add funds to the contingency reserve.

This proposed rule would increase the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the Order.

The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the industry. All interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the November 4, 2020, meeting was a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and information collection impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements would be necessary as a result of this proposed rule. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This proposed rule would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large southeastern California grape handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

A 45-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS proposes to amend 7 CFR part 925 as follows:

Executive Summary A. Need for the Regulatory Action

The NRC is proposing to amend its regulations to incorporate by reference the 2019 Edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPV Code) and the 2020 Edition of the ASME Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, Division 1: OM Code: Section IST (OM Code), for nuclear power plants. The NRC is also proposing to incorporate by reference the 2011 Addenda to ASME NQA-1-2008, Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications (ASME NQA-1b-2011), and the 2012 and 2015 Editions of ASME NQA-1, Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications.

The ASME periodically revises and updates its codes for nuclear power plants by issuing new editions; this proposed rule is in accordance with the NRC's practice to incorporate those new editions into the NRC's regulations. This proposed rule maintains the safety of nuclear power plants, makes NRC activities more effective and efficient, and allows nuclear power plant licensees and applicants to take advantage of the latest ASME Codes. The ASME is a voluntary consensus standards organization, and the ASME Codes are voluntary consensus standards. The NRC's use of the ASME Codes is consistent with applicable requirements of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA). See also Section VIII of this document, “Voluntary Consensus Standards.”

Major provisions of this proposed rule include the incorporation by reference with conditions of the following ASME Codes into NRC regulations and delineation of NRC requirements for the use of these Codes:

The NRC prepared a draft regulatory analysis to determine the expected costs and benefits of this proposed rule. The regulatory analysis identifies costs and benefits in both a quantitative fashion as well as in a qualitative fashion.

The analysis concludes that this proposed rule would result in a net quantitative averted cost to the industry and the NRC. This proposed rule, relative to the regulatory baseline, would result in a net averted cost for industry of $6.26 million based on a 7 percent net present value (NPV) and $6.99 million based on a 3 percent NPV. The proposed rulemaking alternative benefits the NRC by averting costs for reviewing and approving requests to use alternatives to the Codes on a plant-specific basis under § 50.55a(z) of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). The NRC net benefit ranges from $0.49 million based on a 7 percent NPV to $0.57 million based on a 3 percent NPV. Qualitative factors that were considered include regulatory stability and predictability, regulatory efficiency, and consistency with the NTTAA. The regulatory analysis shows that the rulemaking is justified because the total quantified benefits of the proposed regulatory action exceed the costs of the proposed action. When the qualitative benefits (including the safety benefit and improvement in knowledge) are considered together with the quantified benefits, the benefits outweigh the identified quantitative and qualitative impacts.

The NRC has had a decades-long practice of approving and/or mandating the use of certain parts of editions and addenda of these ASME Codes in § 50.55a. Continuing this practice in this proposed rule ensures regulatory stability and predictability. This practice also provides consistency across the industry and provides assurance to the industry and the public that the NRC will continue to support the use of the most updated and technically sound techniques developed by the ASME to provide adequate protection to the public. In this regard, the ASME Codes are voluntary consensus standards developed by technical committees composed of mechanical engineers and others who represent the broad and varied interests of their industries, from manufacturers and installers to insurers, inspectors, distributors, regulatory agencies, and end users. The standards have undergone extensive external review before being considered to be incorporated by reference by the NRC. Finally, the NRC's use of the ASME Codes is consistent with the NTTAA, which directs Federal agencies to adopt voluntary consensus standards instead of developing “government-unique” ( i.e., Federal agency-developed) standards, unless inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

For more information, please see the draft regulatory analysis (Accession No. ML20178A448 in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)).

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0290 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this proposed rule. You may obtain information related to this proposed rule by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0290.

• 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.

• Attention: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies of public documents, is currently closed. You may submit your request to the PDR via email at PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (EST), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

• Attention: The Technical Library, where you may examine industry codes and standards, is currently closed. You may submit your request to the Technical Library via email at Library.Resource@nrc.gov between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (EST), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0290 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 http://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.

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers develops and publishes the ASME BPV Code, which contains requirements for the design, construction, and inservice inspection (ISI) of nuclear power plant components, and the ASME Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, Division 1: OM Code: Section IST (OM Code), 1 which contains requirements for inservice testing (IST) of nuclear power plant components. Until 2012, the ASME issued new editions of the ASME BPV Code every 3 years and addenda to the editions annually, except in years when a new edition was issued. Similarly, the ASME periodically published new editions and addenda of the ASME OM Code. Starting in 2012, the ASME decided to issue editions of its BPV and OM Codes (no addenda) every 2 years with the BPV Code to be issued on the odd years ( e.g., 2013, 2015, etc.) and the OM Code to be issued on the even years  2 ( e.g., 2012, 2014, etc.). The new editions and addenda typically revise provisions of the ASME Codes to broaden their applicability, add specific elements to current provisions, delete specific provisions, and/or clarify them to narrow the applicability of the provision. The revisions to the editions and addenda of the ASME Codes do not significantly change code philosophy or approach.

The NRC's practice is to establish requirements for the design, construction, operation, ISI (examination), and IST of nuclear power plants by approving the use of editions and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM Codes (ASME Codes) in § 50.55a of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). The NRC approves or mandates the use of certain parts of editions and addenda of these ASME Codes in § 50.55a through the rulemaking process of “incorporation by reference.” Upon incorporation by reference of the ASME Codes into § 50.55a, the provisions of the ASME Codes are legally-binding NRC requirements as delineated in § 50.55a, and subject to the conditions on certain specific ASME Codes' provisions that are set forth in § 50.55a. The editions and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM Codes were last incorporated by reference into the NRC's regulations in a final rule dated May 4, 2020 (85 FR 26540).

The ASME Codes are consensus standards developed by participants, including the NRC and licensees of nuclear power plants, who have broad and varied interests. The ASME's adoption of new editions of, and addenda to, the ASME Codes does not mean that there is unanimity on every provision in the ASME Codes. There may be disagreement among the technical experts, including the NRC's representatives on the ASME Code committees and subcommittees, regarding the acceptability or desirability of a particular code provision included in an ASME-approved Code edition or addenda. If the NRC believes that there is a significant technical or regulatory concern with a provision in an ASME-approved Code edition or addenda being considered for incorporation by reference, then the NRC conditions the use of that provision when it incorporates by reference that ASME Code edition or addenda into its regulations. In some instances, the condition increases the level of safety afforded by the ASME Code provision, or addresses a regulatory issue not considered by the ASME. In other instances, where research data or experience has shown that certain code provisions are unnecessarily conservative, the condition may provide that the code provision need not be complied with in some or all respects. The NRC's conditions are included in § 50.55a, typically in paragraph (b) of that section. In a Staff Requirements Memorandum dated September 10, 1999, (ADAMS Accession No. ML003755050) the Commission indicated that NRC rulemakings adopting (incorporating by reference) a voluntary consensus standard must identify and justify each part of the standard that is not adopted. For this proposed rule, the provisions of the 2019 Edition of Section III, Division 1; and the 2019 Edition of Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code; and the 2020 Edition of the ASME OM Code that the NRC is not adopting, or is only partially adopting, are identified in the Discussion, Regulatory Analysis, and Backfitting and Issue Finality sections of this document. The provisions of those specific editions and code cases that are the subject of this proposed rule that the NRC finds to be conditionally acceptable, together with the applicable conditions, are also identified in the Discussion, Regulatory Analysis, and Backfitting and Issue Finality sections of this document.

The ASME Codes are voluntary consensus standards, and the NRC's incorporation by reference of these Codes is consistent with applicable requirements of the NTTAA. Additional discussion on the NRC's compliance with the NTTAA is set forth in Section VIII of this document, “Voluntary Consensus Standards.”

The NRC regulations incorporate by reference ASME Codes for nuclear power plants. This proposed rule is the latest in a series of rulemakings to amend the NRC's regulations to incorporate by reference revised and updated ASME Codes for nuclear power plants. This proposed rule is intended to maintain the safety of nuclear power plants and make NRC activities more effective and efficient.

The NRC follows a three-step process to determine acceptability of new provisions in new editions to the Codes and the need for conditions on the uses of these Codes. This process was employed in the review of the Codes that are the subjects of this proposed rule. First, the NRC staff actively participates with other ASME committee members with full involvement in discussions and technical debates in the development of new and revised Codes. This includes a technical justification of each new or revised Code. Second, the NRC's committee representatives discuss the Codes and technical justifications with other cognizant NRC staff to ensure an adequate technical review. Third, the NRC position on each Code is reviewed and approved by NRC management as part of this proposed rule amending § 50.55a to incorporate by reference new editions of the ASME Codes and conditions on their use. This regulatory process, when considered together with the ASME's own process for developing and approving the ASME Codes, assures that the NRC approves for use only those new and revised Code edition and addenda, with conditions as necessary, that provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection to the public health and safety, and that do not have significant adverse impacts on the environment.

The NRC reviewed changes to the Codes in the editions identified in this proposed rule. The NRC concluded, in accordance with the process for review of changes to the Codes, that these editions of the Codes, are technically adequate, consistent with current NRC regulations, and approved for use with the specified conditions upon the conclusion of the rulemaking process.

The NRC is proposing to amend its regulations to incorporate by reference:

• The 2019 Edition to the ASME BPV Code, Section III, Division 1 and Section XI, Division 1, with conditions on its use.

• The 2020 Edition to Division 1 of the ASME OM Code, with conditions on its use.

• The 2011 Addenda to ASME NQA-1-2008, Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications (ASME NQA-1b-2011) and the 2012 and 2015 Editions of ASME NQA-1, with conditions on its use.

The current regulations in § 50.55a(a)(1)(i) incorporate by reference ASME BPV Code, Section III, 1963 Edition through the 1970 Winter Addenda; and the 1971 Edition (Division 1) through the 2017 Edition (Division 1), subject to the conditions identified in current § 50.55a(b)(1)(i) through (xii). This proposed rule would revise § 50.55a(a)(1)(i) to incorporate by reference the 2019 Edition (Division 1) of the ASME BPV Code, Section III.

The current regulations in § 50.55a(a)(1)(ii) incorporate by reference ASME BPV Code, Section XI, 1970 Edition through the 1976 Winter Addenda; and the 1977 Edition (Division 1) through the 2017 Edition (Division 1), subject to the conditions identified in current § 50.55a(b)(2)(i) through (xlii). This proposed rule would revise § 50.55a(a)(1)(ii) to incorporate by reference the 2019 Edition (Division 1) of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI. It would also clarify the wording and add, remove, or revise some of the conditions as explained in this proposed rule.

The current regulations in § 50.55a(a)(1)(iv) incorporate by reference ASME OM Code, 1995 Edition through the 2017 Edition, subject to the conditions currently identified in § 50.55a(b)(3)(i) through (xi). This proposed rule would revise § 50.55a(a)(1)(iv) to incorporate by reference the 2020 Edition of Division 1 of the ASME OM Code. As explained in Section III.B of this document, this proposed rule would revise § 50.55a(a)(1)(iv) to remove the incorporation by reference of the 2011 Addenda of the ASME OM Code as well as the 2015 Edition of the ASME OM Code.

The current regulations in § 50.55a(a)(1)(v) incorporate by reference ASME NQA-1, Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications, subject to conditions identified in § 50.55a(b)(1)(iv) and (b)(2)(x). This proposed rule would revise § 50.55a(a)(1)(v)(B) to incorporate by reference the 2011 Addenda to ASME NQA-1-2008 (ASME NQA-1b-2011) and the 2012 and 2015 Editions of ASME NQA-1.

In the introductory discussion of its Codes, ASME specifies that errata to those Codes may be posted on the ASME website under the Committee Pages to provide corrections to incorrectly published items, or to correct typographical or grammatical errors in those Codes. Users of the ASME BPV Code and ASME OM Code should be aware of errata when implementing the specific provisions of those Codes. Applicants and licensees should monitor errata to determine when they might need to submit a request for an alternative under § 50.55a(z) to implement provisions specified in an errata to their ASME Code of record. Each of the proposed NRC conditions and the reasons for each are discussed in the following sections of this document. The discussions are organized under the applicable ASME Code and Section.

The NRC prepared an unofficial redline strikeout version of the proposed changes to regulatory text which is intended to help the reader identify the proposed changes. The unofficial redline strikeout version of the proposed rule is publicly available and is listed in the “Availability of Documents” section.

The NRC proposes to revise § 50.55a(a)(1)(i)(E) to incorporate by reference the 2019 Edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section III, including Subsection NCA and Division 1 Subsections NB through NG and Appendices. As stated in § 50.55a(a)(1)(i), the Nonmandatory Appendices are excluded and not incorporated by reference. The Mandatory Appendices are incorporated by reference because they include information necessary for Division 1. However, the Mandatory Appendices also include material that pertains to other Divisions that have not been reviewed and approved by the NRC. Although this information is included in the sections and appendices being incorporated by reference, the NRC notes that the use of Divisions other than Division 1 has not been approved, nor are they required by NRC regulations and, therefore, such information is not relevant to current applicants and licensees. The NRC is not taking a position on the non-Division 1 information in the appendices and is including it in the incorporation by reference only for convenience. Therefore, this proposed rule would revise the introductory text to § 50.55a(a)(1)(i)(E) to reference the 2019 Edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section III, including Subsection NCA and Division 1 Subsections NB through NG and Appendices.

The NRC proposes to revise the definition of Section III in § 50.55a(b)(1) to include the latest edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section III incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(i).

The NRC proposes to revise § 50.55a(b)(1)(ii) to extend the applicability of the condition through the latest edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section III incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(i). The 2019 Edition of Section III was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove this condition. Therefore, the NRC is proposing to revise this condition to apply to the latest edition incorporated by reference.

The NRC proposes to revise § 50.55a(b)(1)(iii) to extend the applicability of the condition through the latest edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section III incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(i). The 2019 Edition of Section III was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove this condition. Therefore, the NRC is proposing to revise this condition to apply to the latest edition incorporated by reference.

The NRC is proposing to revise this condition to allow the use of the editions of NQA-1 that are both incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of § 50.55a and specified in either NCA-4000 or NCA-7000 of the 1989 or later edition of Section III. This will allow applicants and licensees to use the 2011 Addenda to ASME NQA-1-2008, Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications (ASME NQA-1b-2011), and the 2012 and 2015 Edition of NQA-1 when using the 2019 and later Editions of Section III, which this rule is also incorporating by reference.

The NRC proposes to revise § 50.55a(b)(1)(vii) to extend the applicability of the condition through the latest edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section III incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(i). The 2019 Edition of Section III was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove this condition. Therefore, the NRC is proposing to revise this condition to apply to the latest edition incorporated by reference.

The NRC proposes to revise § 50.55a(b)(1)(x) to extend the applicability of the condition through the latest edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section III incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(i). The 2019 Edition of Section III was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove this condition. Therefore, the NRC is proposing to revise this condition to apply to the latest edition incorporated by reference.

The NRC is proposing to add a new condition § 50.55a(b)(1)(xiii) to condition the provisions of NB-5283 in the 2019 Edition of Section III, which exempted steam generator tubing from preservice examinations. The condition is in two provisions as follows:

The NRC is proposing to add a condition to require that a full-length preservice examination of 100 percent of the steam generator tubing in each newly installed steam generator be performed prior to plant startup. Preservice examinations provide a baseline for future required inservice examinations and provides assurance of its structural integrity and ability to perform its intended function. The 2019 Edition does not require these preservice examinations to be performed. Therefore, the NRC is adding § 50.55a(b)(1)(xiii)(A) to condition the provisions of NB-5283 in the 2019 Edition of Section III to require that preservice examination of steam generator tubing shall be performed, in order to ensure that the steam generator tubing which is part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary has an adequate baseline examination for future inservice examinations and ensures the tubing's structural integrity to perform its intended function.

The provisions of NB-5360 in the 2019 Edition of Section III removed the requirements for eddy current preservice examination of installed steam generator tubing and the criteria for evaluating flaws found during the preservice examination. A preservice examination is important because it ensures that the steam generator tubes, which are part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, are acceptable for initial operation. In addition, preservice examination provides the baseline condition of the tubes, which is essential in assessing the nature of indications found in the tubes during subsequent inservice examinations. These inspections must be performed with the objective of finding and characterizing the types of preservice flaws that may be present in the tubes and flaws that may occur during operation. Therefore, the NRC is adding § 50.55a(b)(1)(xiii)(B) to condition the provisions of NB-5360 in the 2019 Edition of Section III, to require that flaws revealed during preservice examination of steam generator tubing shall be evaluated using the criteria in the design specifications.

The NRC proposes to remove and reserve § 50.55a(a)(1)(ii)(A), remove § 50.55a(a)(1)(ii)(B)( 5 ) through ( 7 ), and remove and reserve § 50.55a(a)(1)(ii)(C)( 1 ) through ( 32 ) and ( 37 ) through ( 40 ) because they incorporate by reference older editions and addenda of Section XI prior to 2001 Edition which are no longer in use. As a result of removing those older editions that are no longer in use, the NRC proposes to amend regulations in § 50.55a(b)(2)(viii), (ix), (xii), (xiv), and (xv), (b)(2)(xviii)(A), and (b)(2)(xix), and (b)(2)(xx)(A) to remove references to these older editions and addenda.

The NRC proposes to amend the regulations in § 50.55a(a)(1)(ii)(C) to incorporate by reference the 2019 Edition (Division 1) of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI. The current regulations in § 50.55a(a)(1)(ii)(C) incorporate by reference ASME BPV Code, Section XI, the 1977 Edition (Division 1) through the 2017 Edition (Division 1), subject to the conditions identified in current § 50.55a(b)(2)(i) through (xlii). The proposed amendment would revise the introductory text to § 50.55a(a)(1)(ii)(C) to reference the 2019 Edition (Division 1) of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI.

The NRC proposes to revise the definition of Section XI in § 50.55a(b)(2) to include the latest edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii).

As stated above, the NRC proposes to amend the regulations in § 50.55a(b)(2)(viii) to remove references to Section XI editions and addenda prior to the 2001 Edition. With the removal of these earlier editions the NRC also proposes to delete paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(A) through (D) as these conditions apply to these earlier editions.

As stated above, the NRC proposes to amend the regulations in § 50.55a(b)(2)(ix) to remove references to Section XI editions and addenda prior to the 2001 Edition. With the removal of these earlier editions the NRC also proposes to delete paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(C) through (E) as these conditions apply to these earlier editions.

The NRC proposes to revise this condition to extend it to the versions of NQA-1 referenced in the 2019 Edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI, Table IWA 1600-1, “Referenced Standards and Specifications,” which this proposed rule would also incorporate by reference.

The NRC is proposing to revise this condition to allow the use of the editions of NQA-1 that are both incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of § 50.55a and specified in Table IWA 1600-1 of the 1989 or later Editions of Section XI. In the 2019 Edition of ASME BPV Code, Section XI, Table IWA 1600-1 was updated to specify that licensees use the 1994 Edition or 2008 Edition through 2015 Editions of NQA-1 when using the 2019 Edition of Section XI. These revisions will allow licensees to use the 2011 Addenda to ASME NQA-1-2008, and the 2012 and 2015 Edition of NQA-1 when using the 2019 and later Editions of Section XI, which this rule is also incorporating by reference.

The NRC also proposes to revise this condition to remove the reference to IWA-1400 because it does not reference editions of NQA-1. The removal of reference to IWA-1400 clarifies the text of the condition because Table IWA 1600-1 specifies the editions of NQA-1 to be used, while IWA-1400 simply refers to using NQA-1 generally, without specifying any particular edition.

The NRC proposes to amend the condition found in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xviii) to address the removal of ASME BPV Code, Section XI, 2011 Addenda from § 50.55a(a)(1)(ii).

In addition, research performed at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has shown that laboratory practice can be effective in developing the skill to find flaws, and on-the-job training is effective at developing the ability to perform examinations in a nuclear reactor environment. Based on the research described in Technical Letter Report PNNL-29761 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20079E343), the 250 experience hours for a Level I certification can be reduced to 175 hours, with 125 experience hours and 50 hours of laboratory practice, and the experience hours for Level II Certification can be reduced to 720 hours, with 400 experience hours and 320 hours of laboratory practice, without significantly reducing the capabilities of the examiners to navigate in a nuclear reactor environment. The NRC is therefore adding an option to § 50.55a(b)(2)(xviii) to allow these requirements as an alternative to Appendix VII, Table VII-4110-1 and Appendix VIII, Subarticle VIII-2200 in the 2010 Edition.

The NRC proposes to amend the regulations in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xx)(C) to extend the applicability of the condition through the latest edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section. The NRC also proposes to amend § 50.55a(b)(2)(xx)(C) to reflect that IWB-5210(c) was deleted from the 2019 Edition because it contained verbiage that was redundant to the language in IWA-5213(b)(2) and IWB-5221(d).

The NRC proposes to amend the regulations in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxi)(B) to extend the applicability of the condition through the latest edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.

The NRC proposes to amend the regulations in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxv)(B) to extend the applicability of the condition through the latest edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section. The NRC also proposes to amend the conditions found in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxv)(B) by revising requirements associated with: (1) Conducting wall thickness examinations at alternative locations; and (2) follow on examination requirements for external corrosion of buried piping.

Paragraph (b)(2)(xxv)(B)( 2 ) currently requires the licensee to establish a loss of material rate by conducting wall thickness examinations at the location of the defect. The condition also establishes the timing of the examinations ( i.e., two prior consecutive or nonconsecutive refueling outage cycles in the 10 year period prior to installation of the modification). The NRC proposes to provide an alternative by allowing loss of material rates to be measured at an alternative location with similar corrosion conditions, similar flow characteristics, and the same piping configuration ( e.g., straight run of pipe, elbow, tee). The NRC had already accepted these characteristics as those necessary to establish equivalency for internal corrosion on buried piping configurations. The NRC recognizes that many licensees are conducting periodic wall thickness examinations of piping systems as part of asset management plans. Allowing an alternative equivalent location to be used to obtain loss of material rates provides flexibility and reduces unnecessary burden. In addition, the NRC proposes to delete the timing of the examination requirements because the 2 times multiplier required by the condition provides a conservative bias for measured loss of material rates.

Paragraph (b)(2)(xxv)(B)( 3 ) currently requires the licensee to conduct wall thickness examinations on a refueling outage interval until projected flaw growth rates have been validated. After validation of the flaw growth rate, the modification would be examined at half its expected life or, if the modification has an expected life greater than 19 years, once per interval. The NRC proposes to delete the refueling outage interval examinations and only require the examination to occur at half the modification's expected life or, if the modification has an expected life greater than 19 years, once per interval. The NRC has concluded that the 2 times multiplier for known loss of material rates or 4 times multiplier for estimated loss of material rates provides sufficient conservatism to allow a followup examination to occur at half the modification's expected life or, if the modification has an expected life greater than 19 years, once per interval.

The changes proposed in paragraph (b)(2)(xxv)(B)( 3 )( i ) are editorial. The NRC proposes to delete the term “through wall” from the clarification of extent of degradation differences. The NRC recognizes that it would be unlikely that through wall leakage would be occurring in two locations ( i.e., modification location, different examination location). The term “percent wall loss plus or minus 25 percent” is sufficient to capture through wall, if it should occur at the different examination location as well as any other level of wall loss.

Paragraph (b)(2)(xxv)(B)( 3 )( ii ) currently requires licensees to examine a buried pipe modification location where loss of material has occurred due to external corrosion at half its expected life or 10 years, whichever is sooner. The NRC proposes to revise this condition to include a provision that would allow an extension of the required inspection to any time in the first full 10-year inspection interval after installation if the modification is recoated prior to backfill following modification. This could mean that the modification might not be inspected until as much as 19 years after installation. The NRC and industry recognize that effective coatings can isolate the base material from the environment and prevent further degradation. If coating holidays ( e.g., voids in coating) were to go undetected, only localized loss of material would occur versus widespread general corrosion. The NRC has reached this conclusion for two reasons: (1) Effective coatings ensure isolation of the modification site from the environment such that only the areas with coating holidays would be affected by the environment; and (2) because pitting corrosion that might occur due to holidays would not affect the intended function of the piping ( i.e., to deliver flow), extension of the examination timing will not challenge the intended function of the piping system.

The NRC proposes to amend § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) to to remove references to Section XI pressure test and VT-2 examination. The NRC proposes to relax the requirement to perform an ASME Section XI pressure test in accordance with IWA-5211(a) and VT-2 examination of mechanical joints disassembled and reassembled during the course of repair/replacement activities. This condition was established in the final rule dated October 1, 2004 (69 FR 58804) to supplement the test provisions in IWA-4540 of the 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code to require that Class 1, 2, and 3 mechanical joints be pressure tested in accordance with IWA-4540(c) of the 1998 Edition of Section XI. Over the years and in several rulemakings commenters have stated this condition was not required because licensee post-maintenance test programs in accordance with appendix B to 10 CFR part 50, “Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants,” specify requirements for leak testing mechanical connections following reassembly.

The final rule issued on May 4, 2020 (85 FR 26540) revised this condition to clarify examiner and pressure test code requirements. But this change caused confusion, because the industry interpreted the rule to mean that some exemptions from pressure testing allowed by the code were no longer allowable and that certain pressure testings would now be required, whereas they were not required prior to this change. Following the publication of the final rule, the NRC held a public meeting on June 4, 2020, to discuss this condition (ADAMS Accession No. ML20163A609). The industry asked the NRC to reevaluate the interpretation and the need for the condition. The NRC performed a qualitative risk analysis to judge the safety significance of performing the Section XI pressure test and VT-2 examinations. The NRC looked at several risk scenarios and leveraged the principles of risk-informed decision-making with technical work completed through closure of Generic Safety Issue 29 (GSI-29): Bolting Degradation of Failure in Nuclear Power Plants (ADAMS Accession No. ML031430208) and current operational experience; the NRC concluded that the risk of failure of mechanical joints in the absence of pressure testing and VT-2 examination after repair/replacement activities is very low. The NRC found that the risk analyses suggest that the absence of the pressure test after repair/replacement activities imposes a minimal safety concern when taking into account the additional measures conducted by the industry to ensure leak tightness. The NRC concluded that failure of a mechanical joint in the absence of a pressure test and VT-2 exam is unlikely, and the corresponding condition for Section XI pressure testing after repair/replacement activities is not needed for safety. The NRC presented the results of this risk analysis at a public meeting held June 25, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20189A286).

In performing the risk determination, the NRC considered several principles of risk-informed decision-making. While not relying fully on these concepts, the NRC determined that the following additional measures help reduce the uncertainty associated with the qualitative risk assessment discussed above. With respect to performance monitoring, the NRC considered: (1) Leak tests conducted as part of the licensee quality assurance programs, (2) the twice daily walkdowns in all accessible areas by Operations staff, including inspecting for leaks as part of plant rounds, (3) containment monitoring for identified and unidentified leakage, and (4) pressure testing of reactor coolant loop performed after each refueling outage. With respect to defense-in-depth, the NRC considered that many systems, including the emergency core cooling system, are in place to maintain core cooling if a primary system has a flange failure, and that many Code systems have redundant trains. With respect to safety margins, the NRC considered that leak-before-break analysis of nuclear power plant primary systems have illustrated that significant safety margins exist for leaking joints, and the results of studies conducted during closure of GSI-29 showed that a joint will leak with a sufficient rate to be detected and mitigated by the licensees before joint rupture occurs.

Therefore, the NRC is proposing to amend § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) to require a licensee defined leak test to demonstrate the leak tightness of Class 1, 2, and 3 mechanical joints. The proposed change would require that the owner establish the type of leak test, test medium, test pressure, and acceptance criteria that would demonstrate the joint's leak tightness. Because the condition would no longer require an ASME Code pressure test, the ASME Code NDE examiner qualification requirements would no longer apply. Therefore the NRC is also removing the requirement for the NDE examiners to meet the requirements of the licensee's current ISI code of record. The licensee must also specifiy the qualifications of the person performing the leak test.

Requiring the licensee defined leak test ensures the tests are done in accordance with the licensee's appendix B program as described by commenters in the past. The licensee defined test is consistent with recommendations of the ASME Post Construction Committee (PCC), which develops and maintains standards addressing common issues and technologies related to post construction activities. The PCC works with other consensus committees on the development of separate, product-specific, codes and standards that address issues encountered after initial construction for equipment and piping covered by Pressure Technology Codes and Standards. The PCC-developed standards generally follow “Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practice.” The PCC has developed PCC-1, “Guidelines for Pressure Boundary Bolted Flange Joint Assembly,” for maintaining flanged joints, which has been referenced in American Petroleum Institute and National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors Inspection Code standards. PCC-1 requires an owner defined leak test, which is generally accepted as a good engineering practice.

This licensee defined leak test must be performed on mechanical joints in Class 1, 2, and 3 piping and components greater than NPS-1 that are disassembled and reassembled during the performance of a Section XI repair or replacement activity requiring documentation on a Form NIS-2. The licensee defined leak test should be of sufficient rigor to ensure leak tightness under operational conditions of mechanical joints affected by repair/replacement activities. The licensee defined leak test will achieve what the imposition of the original condition in the 2004 rulemaking sought to achieve, which was leak tightness of mechanical joints impacted by repair/replacement activities. The NRC will continue to monitor operating experience related to mechanical joints to determine if this condition merits modification in the future.

The NRC proposes to amend § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxix) to allow the use of Supplement 2 of Nonmandatory Appendix R of Section XI in the 2017 and 2019 Editions without submittal of an alternative in accordance with § 50.55a(z). Currently § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxix) requires licensees who desire to implement a Risk-Informed Inservice Inspection (RI-ISI) program in accordance with Appendix R to obtain prior authorization of an alternative in accordance with § 50.55a(z). The NRC has reviewed the latest revisions to Appendix R and have found that Supplement 2 of Appendix R in the 2017 and 2019 Editions of ASME Section XI would ensure that future RI-ISI programs continue to comply with RG 1.178, “An Approach for Plant-Specific Risk-Informed Decisionmaking for Inservice Inspection of Piping,” (ADAMS Accession No. ML032510128), RG 1.200, “An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities,” (ADAMS Accession No. ML090410014), and NRC Standard Review Plan Chapter 3.9.8, “Review of Risk-Informed Inservice Inspection of Piping,” (ADAMS Accession No. ML032510135). Therefore, the NRC is amending § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxix) to allow RI-ISI programs in accordance with Supplement 2 of Appendix R in ASME Section XI editions 2017 and later to be used without submittal of an alternative in accordance with § 50.55a(z). The submittal of an alternative is still required for RI-ISI programs in accordance with Supplement 1 of Appendix R or to use Supplement 2 of Section XI editions prior to 2017.

The NRC proposes to amend the condition in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxxii) to relax the timeframe for submittal of Summary Reports (pre-2015 Edition) or Owner Activity Reports (2015 Edition and later) for inservice examinations and repair replacement activities. Through the 2017 Edition of ASME BPV Code, Section XI, owners were required to prepare Summary Reports or Owner Activity Reports of preservice examination, inservice examinations and repair replacement activities within 90 calendar days of the completion of each refueling outage. In the 2019 Edition of Section XI this timeframe was extended to 120 days. The NRC has no objections to allowing licensees up to 120 days to submit the reports and sees no reason to require earlier submittal for users of previous editions. Therefore, the NRC proposes to relax the requirement for all licensees.

The NRC proposes to amend the regulations in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxxvi) to extend the applicability of the condition through the latest edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.

The NRC proposes to amend the regulations in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxxix) to extend the applicability of the condition through the latest edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.

The NRC proposes to amend the regulations in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xl) to extend the applicability of the condition through the latest edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section. The NRC also proposes to add prohibitions on the use of ASME BPV Code, Section XI, IWC-3510.5(b)(4), IWC-3510.5(b)(5), and Tables A-4200-1 and G-2110-1. This proposed condition does not change the current requirements. Rather, it maintains existing testing requirements that licensees/applicants may use to show that the ASME Section XI toughness curve is applicable to high-strength ferritic steels.

ASME has revised certain provisions to extend methods for characterizing fracture tougness of high-strength ferritic steels and associated flaw acceptance standards that the NRC prohibited in a previous rulemaking (85 FR 26540: May 4, 2020) to IWC-3510.5 and Tables A-4200-1 and G-2110-1 (for SA-533 Type B Class 2). The NRC proposes to extend the application of this condition to these revised provisions for the same reasons as outlined in the previous rulemaking. In addition to amending the text of § 50.55a(b)(2)(xl), the NRC proposes to change the heading of the paragraph to read: “ Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xl) Section XI Condition: Prohibitions and Restrictions Related to Fracture Toughness of Certain High-Strength Ferritic Steels.”

The NRC proposes to add § 50.55a(b)(2)(xliii) to require licensees to submit certain analyses for NRC review. In the 2019 Edition of the Code, ASME elected to remove a number of submittal requirements related to flaw evaluation. The subparagraphs where these requirements were removed included IWA-3100(b), IWB-3410.2(d), IWB-3610(e), IWB-3640, IWC-3640, IWD-3640, IWB-3720(c), IWB-3730(c), G-2216, G-2510, G-2520, A-4200(c), A-4400(b), and G-2110(a). The NRC reviewed each of these subparagraphs and determined that three of these removed submittal requirements were necessary to allow the NRC to review plant safety with respect to violation of pressure-temperature limits, ductile-to-brittle transition behavior of ferritic steels, and the effects of radiation embrittlement. Therefore, the proposed condition would simply retain the requirement from previous editions of ASME Section XI.

The IWB-3720 addresses the scenario where plant pressure-temperature limits are violated due to an unanticipated operating event. Pressure-temperature limits provide important operational limitations that protect against brittle fracture of the Reactor Coolant System. In the case that such limits are exceeded, IWB-3720(a) directs the plant owner to perform an analysis that determines the effect of the out-of-limit condition on the structural integrity of the Reactor Coolant System. Given the important safety implications of violating pressure-temperature limits, the NRC determined that licensees shall submit analyses performed under IWB-3720(a) for NRC review.

Nonmandatory Appendix A, subparagraph A-4200(c) and Nonmandatory Appendix G, subparagraph G-2110(c) allow owners to use a reference temperature based upon T 0 (called RT T0 ) instead of RT NDT . RT NDT is a long-accepted method for accounting for ductile-to-brittle transition behavior of ferritic steels, including the effects of radiation embrittlement. T 0 has not been extensively used in the nuclear power industry, at this time. Determination of plant-specific T 0 values requires careful consideration of the operating characteristics of the plant. Given the safety significance of the reactor pressure vessel and the relative lack of experience with using T 0 , the NRC determined that licensees shall submit analyses to determine T 0 for NRC review.

The NRC proposes to amend the regulations in § 50.55a(a)(1)(iv)(B) to incorporate by reference the 2020 Edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, Division 1: OM Code: Section IST, for nuclear power plants.

The current NRC regulations in § 50.55a(a)(1)(iv)(B)( 2 ) incorporate by reference the 2011 Addenda of the ASME OM Code into § 50.55a. The NRC is streamlining § 50.55a wherever possible to provide clearer IST regulatory requirements for nuclear power plant licensees and applicants. As part of this effort, the NRC has determined that the incorporation by reference of the 2011 Addenda of the ASME OM Code into § 50.55a is not necessary. There are no licensees or applicants currently implementing the 2011 Addenda of the ASME OM Code. Further, the NRC regulations would have required updating licensees or applicants to implement the 2012 Edition of the ASME OM Code (rather than the 2011 Addenda) because it is a later edition and was incorporated by reference into § 50.55a on the same date. Therefore, the NRC proposes to remove the incorporation by reference of the 2011 Addenda of the ASME OM Code from § 50.55a(a)(1)(iv)(B)( 2 ), which would allow the NRC to remove the condition on the use of the 2011 Addenda specified in § 50.55a(b)(3)(xi) as well as the reference to the 2011 Addenda in § 50.55a(b)(3)(ix). For similar reasons, the NRC proposes to remove the incorporation by reference of the 2015 Edition of the ASME OM Code from § 50.55a(a)(1)(iv)(C)( 2 ) because the 2017 Edition of the ASME OM Code was incorporated by reference into § 50.55a on the same date as the 2015 Edition. In the case of both the 2011 Addenda and 2015 Edition, the NRC incorporated these editions of the Code on the same date as a later Edition, and as a result neither was ever eligible for use by applicants or updating licensees; if similar circumstances occur in the future, the NRC will consider skipping an edition rather than incorporating a revision that would not be useable for applicants or updating licensees.

The NRC proposes to simplify § 50.55a(b)(3) to be consistent with the proposal to remove specific editions or addenda from § 50.55a(a)(1)(iv) as previously mentioned and further discussed in the following.

The NRC proposes to simplify § 50.55a(b)(3)(iii) by revising the applicability date to read “April 17, 2018” instead of “the date 12 months after April 17, 2017.” This editorial correction does not change the applicability date of the condition.

The NRC proposes to replace the reference to the 2015 Edition of the ASME OM Code with the 2012 Edition of the ASME OM Code in this paragraph because the NRC proposes to amend § 50.55a(a)(1)(iv)(C)( 2 ) to remove the incorporation by reference of the 2015 Edition of the ASME OM Code. The 2012 Edition would become the latest edition that this condition applies to because changes were made to the 2017 and later Editions that allowed the NRC not to extend the condition to the newer Editions.

The NRC proposes to remove this condition on the use of Subsection ISTB, “Inservice Testing of Pumps in Light-Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants—Pre-2000 Plants,” in the 2011 Addenda of the ASME OM Code from § 50.55a. The condition would become unnecessary because the NRC also proposes to amend § 50.55a(a)(1)(iv)(B)( 2 ) to remove the incorporation by reference of the 2011 Addenda of the ASME OM Code. The NRC proposes to reserve this paragraph for future use.

The current NRC regulations in § 50.55a(b)(3)(viii) specify that licensees may not implement the risk-informed approach for IST of pumps and valves specified in Subsection ISTE, “Risk-Informed Inservice Testing of Components in Light-Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants,” in the ASME OM Code, 2009 Edition through the latest edition and addenda of the ASME OM Code incorporated by reference in § 50.55a(a)(1)(iv), without first obtaining NRC authorization to use Subsection ISTE as an alternative to the applicable IST requirements in the ASME OM Code pursuant to § 50.55a(z). In its review of Subsection ISTE, “Risk-Informed Inservice Testing of Components in Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants,” in the 2020 Edition of the ASME OM Code, the NRC has found that the ASME has revised the subsection to be acceptable in the 2020 Edition of the ASME OM Code. Therefore, the NRC proposes to not to extend this condition to the 2020 Edition of the ASME OM Code. The NRC notes that a licensee will be expected to address performance issues with pumps and valves regardless of the risk ranking of the pumps and valves during the extent of condition review as part of the corrective action program to avoid common cause safety concerns at the applicable nuclear power plant.

The NRC proposes to amend the condition on the use of Subsection ISTF in § 50.55a(b)(3)(ix) by removing the references to the 2011 Addenda and the 2015 Edition of the ASME OM Code. The references are unnecessary because the NRC also proposes to amend § 50.55a(a)(1)(iv)(B)( 2 ) to remove the incorporation by reference of the 2011 Addenda and amend § 50.55a(a)(1)(iv)(C)( 2 ) to remove the incorporation by reference of the 2015 Edition of the ASME OM Code. The 2012 Edition would become the latest edition that this condition applies to because changes were made to the 2017 and later Editions that allowed the NRC not to extend the condition to the newer Editions.

The NRC proposes to amend § 50.55a(b)(3)(xi) for the implementation of paragraph ISTC-3700, “Position Verification Testing,” in the ASME OM Code to clarify the condition by removing the reference to addenda of the ASME OM Code. ASME stopped publishing addenda after the 2011 Addenda to the 2009 Edition, and the condition applies only to the 2012 or later editions.

In addition, the NRC proposes to amend § 50.55a(b)(3)(xi) to allow schedule flexibility for valves not susceptible to stem-disk separation by specifying that position verification testing required by paragraph ISTC-3700 may be performed on a 10-year interval (rather than the 2-year interval specified in ISTC-3700) where justification is documented and available for NRC review. Such documentation would be required to demonstrate that the stem-disk connection is not susceptible to separation based on the internal design and evaluation of the stem-disk connection using plant-specific and industry operating experience, and vendor recommendations. This allows design information and performance data to be applied in demonstrating that a valve is not susceptible to stem-disk separation. For example, some valves with a threaded stem-disk connection are susceptible to stem-disk separation based on industry operating experience. In the event of unsuccessful position verification testing, the valve would no longer be considered to be not susceptible to stem-disk separation, and would return to the ISTC-3700 testing interval together with the results of the extent of condition review under the corrective action program. The ASME OM Code committees are considering increased schedule flexibility for position verification testing as part of a proposed Code Case. The NRC is proposing to allow up to 10 years in this condition for valve position verification testing in line with other 10-year/120-month testing intervals in the ASME OM Code and § 50.55a. However, the NRC is aware that the ASME committees are considering allowing up to 12 years as the maximum interval for valve position verification testing in a Code Case. If that Code Case is issued before the final rule is published, the NRC may adopt the 12-year maximum interval in that Code Case.

The NRC proposes to modify § 50.55a(f)(4) to clarify the relationship between § 50.55a(f)(4) and (g)(4) regarding the IST or ISI programs for dynamic restraints (snubbers). In the 2006 Addenda of the BPV Code, Section XI, ASME moved the requirements for snubbers to Subsection ISTD, “Preservice and Inservice Requirements for Dynamic Restraints (Snubbers) in Water-Cooled Reactor Nuclear Power Plants,” of the OM Code. The NRC proposes to include provisions in this paragraph that for dynamic restraints (snubbers), inservice examination, testing, and service life monitoring must meet the inservice examination and testing requirements set forth in the applicable ASME OM Code or ASME BPV Code, Section XI, as specified in § 50.55a(b)(3)(v)(A) and (B). When using the 2006 Addenda or later of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI, the inservice examination, testing, and service life monitoring requirements for dynamic restraints (snubbers) must meet the requirements set forth in the applicable ASME OM Code as specified in § 50.55a(b)(3)(v)(B). When using the 2005 Addenda or earlier edition or addenda of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI, the inservice examination, testing, and service life monitoring requirements for dynamic restraints (snubbers) must meet the requirements set forth in either the applicable ASME OM Code or ASME BPV Code, Section XI, as specified in § 50.55a(b)(3)(v). This change to § 50.55a(f)(4), coupled with the change to § 50.55a(g)(4), clarifies the applicability of the inservice examination, testing, and service life monitoring requirements for dynamic restraints (snubbers) with either the ASME OM Code or ASME BPV Code, Section XI.

The NRC proposes to add § 50.55a(f)(7) to require nuclear power plant applicants and licensees to submit their IST Plans and interim IST Plan updates related to pumps and valves, and IST Plans and interim Plan updates related to snubber examination and testing to the NRC.

The ASME OM Code editions prior to the 2020 Edition state in paragraph (a) of ISTA-3200, “Administrative Requirements,” that “IST Plans shall be filed with the regulatory authorities having jurisdiction at the plant site.” However, the ASME has removed this provision from the 2020 Edition of the ASME OM Code, asserting this provision is more appropriate as a regulatory requirement rather than a Code requirement. The NRC needs these IST Plans for use in evaluating relief and alternative requests and to review deferral of quarterly testing to cold shutdowns and refueling outages. Therefore, the proposed condition retains a requirement from previous editions of the ASME OM Code.

The NRC proposes to modify § 50.55a(g)(4) to parallel proposed revisions to § 50.55a(f)(4) to clarify the relationship between § 50.55a(f)(4) and (g)(4) regarding the IST and ISI programs for dynamic restraints (snubbers). This change to § 50.55a(g)(4), coupled with the change to § 50.55a(f)(4), clarifies the applicability of the inservice examination, testing, and service life monitoring requirements for dynamic restraints (snubbers) with either the ASME OM Code or ASME BPV Code, Section XI.

As discussed in public meetings on August 21, 2020, September 24, 2020, and January 19, 2021, the NRC also considered revising § 50.55a(g)(4) to clarify requirements for operational leakage. (Meeting summaries for the first two are available at ADAMS Accession Nos. ML20265A083 and ML20338A553; the summary for the January meeting is not yet available). The intent of the revision being considered was to clarify that ASME Code methodologies, or approved alternatives, must be used to evaluate structural integrity when operational leakage occurs regardless of the plant operating state during which the through-wall leakage is discovered. This has been the NRC's longstanding position on this issue. Because there is no change in agency position or interpretation of this requirement, the NRC determined that the issuance of a generic communication, rather than a rule change, should be sufficient to communicate the agency's requirements. Therefore, the NRC decided not to propose revisions to clarify the existing operational leakage requirements in the proposed rule. The NRC will follow its established procedures for development of any generic communications, including appropriate opportunities for stakeholder input.

This proposed rule would revise paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(E)( 18 ) and ( 19 ) and add new paragraph (a)(1)(i)(E)( 20 ) to include the 2019 Edition of the ASME BPV Code.

This proposed rule would remove and reserve paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A).

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) and remove paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(B)( 5 ) through ( 7 ).

This proposed rule would remove and reserve paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(C)( 1 ) through ( 32 ) and paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(C)( 37 ) through ( 40 ), revise paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(C)( 54 ) and ( 55 ), and add new paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(C)( 56 ) to include the 2019 Edition of the ASME BPV Code.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(B)( 1 ) and remove and reserve paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(B)( 2 ) and it would revise paragraphs (a)(1)(iv)(C)( 2 ) and ( 3 ) to replace the 2015 Edition with the 2017 Edition and the 2017 Edition with the 2020 Edition of the ASME OM Code, respectively.

This proposed rule would revise paragraphs (a)(1)(v)(B)( 2 ) and ( 3 ) and add new paragraphs (a)(1)(v)(B)( 4 ) through ( 6 ) to include the 2011 addenda, and the 2012 and the 2015 Editions of the ASME NQA-1 Code.

This proposed rule would revise paragraphs (b)(1) introductory text, Table 1 in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (iii), and (iv) to retain the applicability to users of the latest edition incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(i). It would also revise paragraph (b)(1)(iv) to include the use of the 2015 Edition of NQA-1 and paragraph (b)(1)(x) introductory text and paragraphs (b)(1)(x)(A) and (B) to add “through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(i).” New paragraph (b)(1)(xiii) introductory text and paragraphs (b)(1)(xiii)(A) and (B) which apply to preservice inspection of steam generator tubes would also be added.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(2) introductory text to retain the applicability to users of the latest edition incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii).

This proposed rule would remove and reserve paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(A) through (D).

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(2)(ix) to remove references to Section XI editions and addenda prior to the 2001 Edition and to retain the applicability to users of the latest edition incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii). This proposed rule would also revise paragraph (b)(2)(ix)(B) to remove references to Section XI editions and addenda prior to the 2001 Edition. This proposed rule would also remove and reserve paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(C) through (E).

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(2)(x) to include the use of NQA-1b-2011 Addenda to NQA-1-2008 Edition, and the 2012 and the 2015 Editions of NQA-1. The proposed rule would also remove the reference to IWA-1400.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(2)(xii) to replace the reference to Section XI, 1997 Addenda with the reference to Section XI, 2001 Edition.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(2)(xiv) to replace the reference to the 1999 Addenda with the reference to the 2001 Edition.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(2)(xv) to remove the phrase “the 1995 Edition through.”

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(2)(xviii) to remove references to Section XI editions and addenda prior to the 2001 Edition and to retain the applicability to users of the latest edition incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii). This proposed rule would also revise paragraph (b)(2)(xviii)(D) to add an option to allow the requirement in the 2019 Edition, Appendix VII, Table VII-4110-1 as an alternative to Table VII-4110-1 and Appendix VIII, Subarticle VIII-2200.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(2)(xix) to remove references to Section XI editions and addenda prior to the 2001 Edition.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(2)(xx)(A) to replace the reference to the 1997 Addenda with the reference to the 2001 Edition. This proposed rule would also revise paragraph (b)(2)(xx)(C) to retain the applicability to users of the latest edition incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) and remove reference to IWB-5210(c).

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(2)(xxi)(B) to retain the applicability to users of the latest edition incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii).

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(2)(xxv) introductory text and revise paragraph (b)(2)(xxv)(B) to extend the applicability to users of the latest edition incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii). This proposed rule would also revise paragraph (b)(2)(xxv)(B)( 2 ) to provide an alternative by allowing loss of material rates to be measured at an alternative location with similar corrosion conditions, similar flow characteristics, and the same piping configuration. This proposed rule would also revise paragraph (b)(2)(xxv)(B)( 3 ) to delete the refueling outage interval examination requirement and only require the examination to occur at half the modification's expected life or, if the modification has an expected life greater than 19 years, once per interval. This proposed rule would also revise paragraph (b)(2)(xxv)(B)( 3 )( i ) to make editorial changes and revise paragraph (b)(2)(xxv)(B)( 3 )( ii ) to include a provision that would allow an extension of the required inspection if the modification location is recoated prior to backfill.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(2)(xxvi) to remove the requirements for pressure testing in accordance with IWA-5211(a) and NDE examination. This proposed rule would also revise paragraph (b)(2)(xxvi) to add a requirement for the owner to establish the type of leak test, test medium, test pressure, and acceptance criteria that would demonstrate the joint's leak tightness.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(2)(xxix) to add paragraphs (b)(2)(xxix)(A), (B), and (C) to allow the use of Supplement 2 of Nonmandatory Appendix R of Section XI in the 2017 and 2019 Editions without submittal of an alternative in accordance with § 50.55a(z).

This proposed rule would revise the reporting requirements in paragraph (b)(2)(xxxii) to extend the timeframe for submittal of Summary Reports or Owner Activity Reports to 120 days.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(2)(xxxvi) to retain applicability to users of the latest edition incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii).

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(2)(xxxix) to retain applicability to users of the latest edition incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii).

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(2)(xl) to extend applicability to users of the latest edition incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) and to extend the prohibitions and restrictions on the use of certain characteristics of high-strength steels in IWB-3510.4(b) to IWC-3510.5(b), Table A-4200-1, and Table G-2110-1 in the 2020 Edition of ASME Code, Section XI.

This proposed rule would add new paragraph (b)(2)(xliii) to require submission of certain analyses to the NRC for review.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(3) to remove references to specific editions or addenda and to extend the applicability to users of the latest edition incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(iv).

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(3)(iii) for clarity of the date of application of this condition.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(3)(iv) to update the conditions for use of Appendix II of the ASME OM Code, 2003 Addenda through the 2012 Edition and revise the paragraph for clarity.

This proposed rule would remove and reserve paragraph (b)(3)(vii).

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(3)(viii) to prevent it from applying to editions later than the 2017 Edition of the ASME OM Code.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(3)(ix) to remove the reference to Subsection ISTF of the 2011 Addenda and 2015 Edition.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b)(3)(xi) to remove reference to ASME OM Code addenda, revise the paragraph for clarity, and allow increased flexibility in the schedule for position verification testing of valves not susceptible to stem-disk separation.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (f)(4) to clarify the relationship between paragraphs (f)(4) and (g)(4) regarding the IST and ISI programs for dynamic restraints.

This proposed rule would add new paragraph (f)(7) to include the requirements for inservice testing reporting.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (g)(4) to clarify the relationship between paragraphs (f)(4) and (g)(4) regarding the IST and ISI programs for dynamic restraints.

In December 2010, the NRC issued “Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report,” NUREG-1801, Revision 2 (ADAMS Accession No. ML103490041), for applicants to use in preparing license renewal applications. The GALL Report provides aging management programs (AMPs) that the NRC has concluded are sufficient for aging management in accordance with the license renewal rule, as required in § 54.21(a)(3). In addition, “Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants,” NUREG-1800, Revision 2 (ADAMS Accession No. ML103490036), was issued in December 2010, to ensure the quality and uniformity of NRC reviews of license renewal applications and to present a well-defined basis on which the NRC evaluates the applicant's aging management programs and activities. In April 2011, the NRC also issued “Disposition of Public Comments and Technical Bases for Changes in the License Renewal Guidance Documents NUREG-1801 and NUREG-1800,” NUREG-1950 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11116A062), which describes the technical bases for the changes in Revision 2 of the GALL Report and Revision 2 of the standard review plan (SRP) for review of license renewal applications.

Revision 2 of the GALL Report, in Sections XI.M1, XI.S1, XI.S2, XI.M3, XI.M5, XI.M6, XI.M11B and XI.S3, describes the evaluation and technical bases for determining the sufficiency of ASME BPV Code Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, or IWL for managing aging during the period of extended operation ( i.e., up to 60 years of operation). In addition, many other AMPs in the GALL Report rely, in part but to a lesser degree, on the requirements specified in the ASME BPV Code, Section XI. Revision 2 of the GALL Report also states that the 1995 Edition through the 2004 Edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI, Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, or IWL, as modified and limited by § 50.55a, were found to be acceptable editions and addenda for complying with the requirements of § 54.21(a)(3), unless specifically noted in certain sections of the GALL Report. The GALL Report further states that future Federal Register documents that amend § 50.55a will discuss the acceptability of editions and addenda more recent than the 2004 Edition for their applicability to license renewal. In a final rule issued on June 21, 2011 (76 FR 36232), subsequent to Revision 2 of the GALL Report, the NRC also found that the 2004 Edition with the 2005 Addenda through the 2007 Edition with the 2008 Addenda of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code, Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, or IWL, as subject to the conditions in § 50.55a, are acceptable for the AMPs in the GALL Report and the conclusions of the GALL Report remain valid with the augmentations specifically noted in the GALL Report. In a final rule issued on July 18, 2017 (82 FR 32934), the NRC further finds that the 2009 Addenda through the 2017 Edition of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code, Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, or IWL, as subject to the conditions in § 50.55a, will be acceptable for the AMPs in the GALL Report. Also, in a final rule issued on May 4, 2020 (85 FR 26540), the NRC further finds that Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, or IWL of Section XI of the 2015 Edition and the 2017 Edition of the ASME BPV Code, as subject to the conditions in § 50.55a, will be acceptable for the AMPs in the GALL Report.

In July 2017, the NRC issued “Generic Aging Lessons Learned for Subsequent License Renewal (GALL-SLR) Report,” NUREG-2191 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17187A031 and ML17187A204), for applicants to use in preparing applications for subsequent license renewal. The GALL-SLR Report provides AMPs that are sufficient for aging management for the subsequent period of extended operation ( i.e., up to 80 years of operation), as required in § 54.21(a)(3). The NRC also issued “Standard Review Plan for Review of Subsequent License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants” (SRP-SLR), NUREG-2192 in July 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17188A158). In a similar manner as the GALL Report does, the GALL-SLR Report, in Sections XI.M1, XI.S1, XI.S2, XI.M3, XI.11B, and XI.S3, describes the evaluation and technical bases for determining the sufficiency of ASME BPV Code Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, or IWL for managing aging during the subsequent period of extended operation. Many other AMPs in the GALL-SLR Report rely, in part but to a lesser degree, on the requirements specified in the ASME BPV Code, Section XI. The GALL-SLR Report also indicates that the 1995 Edition through the 2013 Edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI, Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, or IWL, as subject to the conditions in § 50.55a, are acceptable for complying with the requirements of § 54.21(a)(3), unless specifically noted in certain sections of the GALL-SLR Report.

As part of this proposed rule, the NRC evaluated whether those AMPs in the GALL Report and GALL-SLR Report that rely upon Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, or IWL of Section XI in the editions and addenda of the ASME BPV Code incorporated by reference into § 50.55a, in general continue to be acceptable if the AMP relies upon these Subsections in the 2019 Edition. The NRC finds that the 2019 Edition of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code, Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, or IWL, as subject to the conditions of this proposed rule, are acceptable for the AMPs in the GALL Report and GALL-SLR Report with the exception of augmentation, as specifically noted in those reports, and the NRC finds that the conclusions of the GALL Report and GALL-SLR Report remain valid. Accordingly, an applicant for license renewal (including subsequent license renewal) may use, in its plant-specific license renewal application, Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, or IWL of Section XI of the 2019 Edition of the ASME BPV Code, as subject to the conditions in this proposed rule, without additional justification. Similarly, a licensee approved for license renewal that relied on the AMPs may use Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, or IWL of Section XI of the 2019 Edition of the ASME BPV Code. However, applicants must assess and follow applicable NRC requirements with regard to licensing basis changes and evaluate the possible impact on the elements of existing AMPs.

Some of the AMPs in the GALL Report and GALL-SLR Report recommend augmentation of certain Code requirements in order to ensure adequate aging management for license renewal. The technical and regulatory aspects of the AMPs for which augmentations are recommended also apply if the 2019 Edition of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code is used to meet the requirements of § 54.21(a)(3). The NRC evaluated the changes in the 2019 Edition of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code to determine if the augmentations described in the GALL Report and GALL-SLR Report remain necessary; the NRC's evaluation has concluded that the augmentations described in the GALL and GALL-SLR Reports are necessary to ensure adequate aging management.

For example, GALL-SLR Report AMP XI.S3, “ASME Section XI, Subsection IWF”, recommends that volumetric examination consistent with that of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-G-1 should be performed to detect cracking for high strength structural bolting (actual measured yield strength greater than or equal to 150 kilopound per square inch (ksi)) in sizes greater than 1 inch nominal diameter. The GALL-SLR Report also indicates that this volumetric examination may be waived with adequate plant-specific justification. This guidance for aging management in the GALL-SLR Report is the augmentation of the visual examination specified in Subsection IWF of the 2019 Edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI.

A license renewal applicant may either augment its AMPs as described in the GALL Report and GALL-SLR Report (for operation up to 60 and 80 years respectively), or propose alternatives for the NRC to review as part of the applicant's plant-specific justification for its AMPs.

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

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113 (NTTAA), and implementing guidance in U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119 (revised on January 27, 2016), requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless using such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or is otherwise impractical. The NTTAA requires Federal agencies to use industry consensus standards to the extent practical; it does not require Federal agencies to endorse a standard in its entirety. Neither the NTTAA nor Circular A-119 prohibit an agency from adopting a voluntary consensus standard while taking exception to specific portions of the standard, if those provisions are deemed to be “inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.” Furthermore, taking specific exceptions furthers the Congressional intent of Federal reliance on voluntary consensus standards because it allows the adoption of substantial portions of consensus standards without the need to reject the standards in their entirety because of limited provisions that are not acceptable to the agency.

In this proposed rule, the NRC is continuing its existing practice of establishing requirements for the design, construction, operation, ISI (examination) and IST of nuclear power plants by approving the use of the latest editions and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM Codes (ASME Codes) in § 50.55a. The ASME Codes are voluntary consensus standards, developed by participants with broad and varied interests, in which all interested parties (including the NRC and licensees of nuclear power plants) participate. Therefore, the NRC's incorporation by reference of the ASME Codes is consistent with the overall objectives of the NTTAA and OMB Circular A-119.

As discussed in Section III of this document, this proposed rule would condition the use of certain provisions of the 2019 Edition to the ASME BPV Code, Section III, Division 1 and the ASME BPV Code, Section XI, Division 1, as well as the 2020 Edition to the ASME OM Code. In addition, the NRC proposes not to adopt (exclude) certain provisions of the ASME Codes as discussed in this document, and in the regulatory and backfit analysis for this proposed rule. The NRC finds that this proposed rule complies with the NTTAA and OMB Circular A-119 despite these conditions and “exclusions.”

If the NRC did not conditionally accept the ASME editions, addenda, and code cases, the NRC would disapprove them entirely. The effect would be that licensees and applicants would submit a larger number of requests for the use of alternatives under § 50.55a(z), requests for relief under § 50.55a(f) and (g), or requests for exemptions under § 50.12 and/or § 52.7. These requests would likely include broad-scope requests for approval to issue the full scope of the ASME Code editions and addenda which would otherwise be approved as proposed in this proposed rule ( i.e., the request would not be simply for approval of a specific ASME Code provision with conditions). These requests would be an unnecessary additional burden for both the licensee and the NRC, inasmuch as the NRC has already determined that the ASME Codes and Code Cases that are the subject of this proposed rule are acceptable for use (in some cases with conditions). For these reasons, the NRC concludes that this proposed rule's treatment of ASME Code editions and addenda, and code cases and any conditions placed on them does not conflict with any policy on agency use of consensus standards specified in OMB Circular A-119.

The NRC did not identify any other voluntary consensus standards developed by U.S. voluntary consensus standards bodies for use within the U.S. that the NRC could incorporate by reference instead of the ASME Codes. The NRC also did not identify any voluntary consensus standards developed by multinational voluntary consensus standards bodies for use on a multinational basis that the NRC could incorporate by reference instead of the ASME Codes. The NRC identified codes addressing the same subject as the ASME Codes for use in individual countries. At least one country, Korea, directly translated the ASME Code for use in that country. In other countries ( e.g., Japan), the ASME Codes were the basis for development of the country's codes, but the ASME Codes were substantially modified to accommodate that country's regulatory system and reactor designs. Finally, there are countries ( e.g., the Russian Federation) where that country's code was developed without regard to the ASME Code. However, some of these codes may not meet the definition of a voluntary consensus standard because they were developed by the state rather than a voluntary consensus standards body. Evaluation by the NRC of the countries' codes to determine whether each code provides a comparable or enhanced level of safety when compared against the level of safety provided under the ASME Codes would require a significant expenditure of agency resources. This expenditure does not seem justified, given that substituting another country's code for the U.S. voluntary consensus standard does not appear to substantially further the apparent underlying objectives of the NTTAA.

In summary, this proposed rule satisfies the requirements of the NTTAA and OMB Circular A-119.

The NRC proposes to incorporate by reference two recent editions to the ASME Codes for nuclear power plants. The NRC is also proposing to incorporate by reference the 2011 Addenda to ASME NQA-1-2008, Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications (ASME NQA-1b-2011), and the 2012 and 2015 Editions of ASME NQA-1, Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications. As described in the “Background” and “Discussion” sections of this document, these materials contain standards for the design, fabrication, and inspection of nuclear power plant components.

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. On November 7, 2014, the OFR adopted changes to its regulations governing incorporation by reference (79 FR 66267). The OFR regulations require an agency to include in a proposed rule a discussion of the ways that the materials the agency proposes to incorporate 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 proposed rules as set forth in § 51.5(a)(1).

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 for 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 § 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 § 2.810.

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

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

• Federally-recognized and State-recognized  3 Indian tribes.

I. Background

On July 1, 2020, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in which DOE proposed a new part 1061 in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations to implement the requirements of Executive Order 13891, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents” (84 FR 55235). 1 (85 FR 39495) After considering comments from stakeholders on the NOPR, DOE published a final rule, on January 6, 2021, establishing new 10 CFR part 1061. (86 FR 451) As required by Executive Order 13891, part 1061 contained internal DOE requirements for the contents of guidance documents, procedures for providing notice of, and soliciting public comment on, certain guidance documents, and procedures for the public to petition for the issuance, withdrawal or revision of guidance documents.

On January 20, 2021, the President issued Executive Order 13992, “Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning Federal Regulation” (86 FR 7049), which, among other things, revoked Executive Order 13891 and directed agencies to promptly take steps to rescind any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies, or portions thereof, implementing or enforcing the Executive Order 13891. Executive Order 13992 states that it is the policy of the Administration to use available tools to confront the urgent challenges facing the Nation, including the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, economic recovery, racial justice, and climate change. To tackle these challenges effectively, executive departments and agencies must be equipped with the flexibility to use robust regulatory action to address national priorities. This order revokes harmful policies and directives that threaten to frustrate the Federal Government's ability to confront these problems, and empowers agencies to use appropriate regulatory tools to achieve these goals.

Previously, DOE postponed the effective date of part 1061 until March 21, 2021. (86 FR 7799) DOE issued the extension consistent with the memorandum issued on January 20, 2021 by the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff (“Chief of Staff”) outlining the President's plan for managing the Federal regulatory process at the outset of the new Administration and for the reasons described in E.O. 13992. DOE sought comment on further delay of the effective date, including the impacts of such delay, as well as comment on the legal, factual, or policy issues raised by the rule. DOE did not receive comments on these issues. Accordingly, DOE has further extended the effective date of this rule to June 17, 2021. (86 FR 14807)

After consideration and review, DOE has tentatively concluded that part 1061 will hinder DOE in providing timely guidance in furtherance of DOE's statutory duties. The final rule will in particular hinder DOE's ability to address the economic recovery and climate change challenges enumerated in Executive Order 13992. As discussed in the Executive Order, agencies must have flexibility to timely and effectively address these challenges. The procedures of part 1061 are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ), and they limit the regulatory tools available to DOE to address the challenges listed in Executive Order 13992. Part 1061 deprives DOE of flexibility in determining when and how best to issue guidance based on particular facts and circumstances, and restricts DOE's ability to provide timely guidance on which the public can confidently rely.

In addition, DOE's stated purpose in issuing part 1061 was to promote transparency and public involvement in the development and amendment of DOE guidance documents. DOE notes, however, that its procedures for public transparency and involvement in the development of agency guidance documents will remain unchanged by withdrawal of part 1061. DOE guidance documents will continue to be available on DOE's website. DOE will also continue its practice, as appropriate, of soliciting stakeholder input on guidance documents of significant stakeholder and public interest. Additionally, stakeholders may still petition DOE at any time to issue, withdraw or revise DOE guidance documents, or inquire about DOE guidance documents, by emailing petitions or inquiries to Guidance@hq.doe.gov. The benefits of binding DOE to the procedures of part 1061 therefore appear outweighed by the need for DOE to have the ability to issue guidance timely and effectively to address the challenges listed in the Executive Order, and to otherwise meet DOE's statutory duties. Moreover, DOE notes that guidance, whether issued under part 1061 or otherwise, is non-binding, and does not have the force and effect of law.

Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13992 and for the reasons stated above, DOE proposes to rescind its internal agency procedures for issuing guidance documents published at 10 CFR part 1061.

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule on or before the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this document. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.

Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE General Counsel staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section below.

DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via email will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, or optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE.

Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are written in English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” that deletes the information believed to be confidential. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and will treat it according to its determination.

It is DOE's policy that all comments, including any personal information provided in the comments, may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, except for information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure.

This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). As a result, this action was not reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). DOE does not anticipate that this rulemaking will have an economic impact on regulated entities. This is a proposed rule of agency procedure and practice. This proposed rule would repeal the regulations governing DOE's internal procedures for the promulgation and processing of guidance documents. DOE proposes to repeal these internal procedures as part of its implementation of Executive Order 13992 and does not anticipate incurring significant additional resource costs in doing so.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking, 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process, 68 FR 7990. The Department has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of General Counsel's website: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.

This proposed rule would repeal internal agency procedures regarding DOE's issuance of guidance documents. DOE notes, however, that its procedures for public transparency and involvement in the development of agency guidance documents will remain unchanged by the withdrawal. DOE guidance documents will continue to be available on DOE's website. DOE will also continue its practice, as appropriate, of soliciting stakeholder input on guidance documents of significant stakeholder and public interest. Additionally, stakeholders may still petition DOE at any time to issue, withdraw or revise DOE guidance documents, or inquire about DOE guidance documents, by emailing petitions or inquiries to Guidance@hq.doe.gov. The benefits of binding DOE to the procedures of part 1061 therefore appear outweighed by the need for DOE to have the ability to issue guidance timely and effectively to address the challenges listed in the Executive Order. Moreover, DOE notes that guidance, whether issued under part 1061 or otherwise, is non-binding, and does not have the force and effect of law. DOE therefore does not anticipate any significant economic impacts from today's proposed rule. For these reasons, DOE certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE did not prepare an IRFA for this rulemaking. DOE's certification and supporting statement of factual basis will be provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

This proposed rule would impose no new information or record keeping requirements. Accordingly, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).

DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include a categorical exclusion for rulemakings interpreting or amending an existing rule or regulation that does not change the environmental effect of the rule or regulation being amended. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, Appendix A5. DOE anticipates that this rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion A5 because it is a rulemaking that amends a rule and does not change the environmental effect of the rule and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review before issuing the final rule.

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. (65 FR 13735) DOE examined this proposed rule and determined that it would not preempt State law and would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000, applies to agency regulations that have Tribal implications, that is, regulations that have substantial direct effects 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. This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175. Because this proposed rule would not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies its preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies its retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed rule would meet the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a) and (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA (62 FR 12820) (also available at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel ). This proposed rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, so these requirements under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act do not apply.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed rule would not result in any takings which might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. The proposed rule would repeal internal agency procedures and does not meet any of the three criteria listed above. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13211 do not apply.

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 23, 2021, by John T. Lucas, Acting General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0193; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01612-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218; Kathleen.Arrigotti@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0268, dated December 4, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0268) (also referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. EASA AD 2020-0268 refers to Airbus A350 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 5, “Fuel Airworthiness Limitations (FAL),” Revision 04, dated May 29, 2020, and Airbus A350 ALS Part 5, “Fuel Airworthiness Limitations (FAL),” Variation 4.1, dated September 15, 2020. Airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after September 15, 2020, must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0193.

This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the overheat failure mode of the hydraulic engine-driven pump (EDP), which may cause a fast temperature rise of the hydraulic fluid, and, if combined with an inoperative fuel tank inerting system, could lead to an uncontrolled overheat of the hydraulic fluid, possibly resulting in ignition of the fuel-air mixture of the affected fuel tank. See the MCAI for additional background information.

EASA AD 2020-0268 describes new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations related to fuel tank ignition prevention and fuel tank flammability reduction.

This proposed AD would also require accomplishing a certain airworthiness limitation using the following service information. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P025, dated August 10, 2020.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P027, dated November 24, 2020.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P029, dated December 16, 2020.

The service information describes procedures for an update of the hydraulic monitoring system to include additional redundancy ( i.e., modifying the case-drain filter manifolds by installing new dual temperature sensors on the hydraulic EDP). 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.

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

This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD 2020-0268 described previously, as incorporated by reference. Any differences with EASA AD 2020-0268 are identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. This proposed AD would require accomplishing a certain airworthiness limitation using the Airbus service information described previously.

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

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0268 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0268 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in the EASA AD.

Service information specified in EASA AD 2020-0268 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-0268 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0193 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.

For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged. Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).

The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a paragraph that specified that no alternative actions ( e.g., inspections), intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, and CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in the AMOCs paragraph under “Other FAA Provisions.” This new format includes a “New Provisions for Alternative Actions, Intervals, and CDCCLs” paragraph that does not specifically refer to AMOCs, but operators may still request an AMOC to use an alternative action, interval, or CDCCL.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 15 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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

According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0196; Product Identifier 2018-SW-021-AD” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA; telephone (206) 231-3218; email kathleen.arrigotti@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European, has issued EASA AD 2018-0061, dated March 20, 2018 (EASA AD 2018-0061), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD) (formerly Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH, Eurocopter Hubschrauber GmbH, Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm GmbH), Airbus Helicopters Inc. (formerly American Eurocopter LLC) Model MBB-BK117 A-1, MBB-BK117 A-3, MBB-BK117 A-4, MBB-BK117 B-1, MBB-BK117 B-2, and MBB-BK117 C-1 helicopters, all serial numbers.

This proposed AD was prompted by new test results from an analysis of the M/R blade loop area, which revealed that certain M/R blade thimbles require reduced inspection intervals. The FAA is proposing this AD to address composite failure of the M/R blades, resulting in loss of control of the helicopter. See the EASA AD for additional background information.

EASA AD 2018-0061 specifies compliance intervals to repetitively inspect certain M/R blades, with a blade sweep angle of 1 degree, for cracks and resin chippings in the area of the greater thimble radius and corrective actions, if there is a crack or anomaly. EASA AD 2018-0061 also specifies compliance intervals to repetitively inspect certain M/R blades, with a blade sweep angle of 0 degrees, for cracks and bulging in the teflon foil in the area of the greater thimble radius and corrective actions, if there is a crack or bulge. Corrective actions include dispatching the M/R blades to an authorized repair station, as required.

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

These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all the relevant information and determining the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type designs.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2018-0061 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD and except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the EASA AD.”

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2018-0061 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2018-0061 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in the EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2018-0061 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2018-0061 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0196 after the FAA final rule is published.

The EASA AD applies to Model MBB-BK117 A-1, MBB-BK117 A-3, MBB-BK117 A-4, MBB-BK117 B-1, MBB-BK117 B-2 and MBB-BK117 C-1 helicopters, whereas this proposed AD would apply to Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK 117 B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, and MBB-BK 117 C-1 helicopters with certain M/R blades installed instead. The service information required by the EASA AD requires accomplishment of certain corrective action by “ECD” or an authorized service or repair station, whereas this proposed AD would require performing the corrective action in accordance with FAA-approved procedures, instead. The EASA AD requires revising the Aircraft Maintenance Program (AMP), whereas this proposed AD would not. The EASA AD allows a tolerance to compliance times, whereas this proposed AD would not.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 216 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD.

Inspecting an M/R blade thimble area would take about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of about $85 per M/R blade thimble, per inspection cycle.

Repairing or replacing an M/R blade could take up to about 20 work-hour(s) and parts could cost up to about $23,100 for an estimated cost of up to $24,800 per blade.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2020-1074; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01257-A” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0194, dated September 8, 2020 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address an unsafe condition on certain serial-numbered Pilatus Model PC-24 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1074.

The FAA reviewed Pilatus PC-24 Service Bulletin No. 71-001, dated June 30, 2020. This service information specifies procedures for inspecting the engine attachment hardware for loose nuts and missing washers and taking corrective actions depending on findings. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 34 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates that it would take 2.5 work-hours to do the one-time inspections. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators would be $7,225 or $212.50 per airplane.

The FAA also estimates that, as on-condition costs, installing missing washers, replacing bolts, and doing an eddy current inspection of the bolt holes would take 4.5 work-hours and require parts costing $200 for a cost of $582.50 per airplane. This estimate assumes replacing all of the rear engine beam attachment bolts and washers and doing an eddy current inspection of all the attachment bolt holes. If the bolt holes are found damaged during the eddy current inspection, the damage will vary considerably from airplane to airplane, and the FAA has no way of estimating a repair cost. In addition, the FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

The FAA has included all known costs in this cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0189; Project Identifier AD-2020-00645-R” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Matthew L. Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, DSCO Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5251; email matthew.l.thompson@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA proposes to adopt a new AD for type certificated Model UH-1H restricted category helicopters. The type certificate holders for these helicopters include but are not limited to Arrow Falcon Exporters Inc.; Global Helicopter Technology, Inc.; Hagglund Helicopters, LLC; JJASPP Engineering Services, LLC.; Northwest Rotorcraft, LLC; Overseas Aircraft Support, Inc.; Richards Heavylift Helo, Inc.; Rotorcraft Development Corporation; Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc.; and Tamarack Helicopters, Inc.

This proposed AD was prompted by multiple reports of failure of a main driveshaft. This proposed AD would require establishing a life limit for certain part-numbered main driveshafts, removing and inspecting the main driveshaft, inspecting the alignment of the main driveshaft installation, and repetitive inspections of the main driveshaft. As an optional terminating action, this AD allows the installation of a certain part-numbered main driveshaft not affected by this unsafe condition. This condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of engine power to the transmission and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Headquarters, Department of the Army, Aviation Unit and Intermediate Maintenance Instructions Army Model UH-1H/V/EH-1H/X Helicopters, Technical Manual TM 55-1520-210-23-1, Change No. 42, dated April 14, 2003. This service information contains main driveshaft assembly figures and specifies procedures for the main driveshaft disassembly, cleaning, inspecting, repairing, lubricating and assembly, installing, and inspecting and correction of its alignment.

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

This proposed AD would require, before further flight after the effective date of this AD, establishing a life limit of 5,000 hours time-in-service (TIS) for KAflex main driveshaft part number (P/N) SKCP2180-1, SKCP2281-1, SKCP2281-1R, and SKCP2281-103. This proposed AD would also require, within 25 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, removing the main driveshaft and inspecting the main driveshaft for any broken, loose, or missing hardware; each flex frame and mount bolt torque stripe for movement; each joint for fretting corrosion; the main driveshaft for damage; and the alignment of the main driveshaft, and if required, adjusting the alignment. This proposed AD would then require, at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS, repeating the inspections with the main driveshaft installed.

As an optional terminating action, this proposed AD would allow installing KAflex main driveshaft P/N SKCP3303-1.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 384 helicopters of U.S. registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD.

Determining the total hours TIS of the main driveshaft would take about 0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of about $43 per helicopter and $16,512 for the U.S. fleet. Removing and inspecting the main driveshaft would take about 4 work-hours for an estimated cost of $340 per helicopter and $130,560 for the U.S. fleet. Inspecting the installed main driveshaft would take about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of about $85 per helicopter and $32,640 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle. Inspecting the alignment of the main driveshaft installation would take about 2 work-hours for an estimated cost of $170 per helicopter and $65,280 for the U.S. fleet. If required, adjusting the alignment would take about 0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of $43 per instance. Replacing a main driveshaft would take about 1 work-hour and parts would cost about $54,000, for an estimated cost of $54,085 per 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Invited

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0192; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01580-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223; email sanjay.ralhan@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0219, dated October 12, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0219) (also referred to as the mandatory continuing airworthiness information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318 series; Model A319-111, -112, -113, , -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, and -153N; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes; and Model A321 series airplanes. EASA AD 2020-0219 states that Airbus has published new and more restrictive tasks to be incorporated into the airworthiness limitations section of the aircraft maintenance program. According to EASA, failure to accomplish these tasks could result in an unsafe condition.

This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that the new and more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. Some of the subject tasks in EASA AD 2020-0219 are also required by EASA AD 2020-0067, which prompted FAA AD 2020-22-16, Amendment 39-21312 (85 FR 70439, November 5, 2020) (AD 2020-22-16). The requirements in EASA AD 2020-0219 invalidate prior instructions for those tasks. This proposed AD would therefore terminate (invalidate) the corresponding requirements of AD 2020-22-16, for tasks 213100-00001-1-C, 213100-00001-2-C, and 213100-00001-3-C, as identified in the service information referred in EASA AD 2020-0219 only.

EASA AD 2020-0219 refers to Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3 Variation 7.1, dated June 10, 2020. Because airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after June 10, 2020, must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design, this proposed AD would not apply to those airplanes. Also, Model A320-215 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate; therefore, this proposed AD would not apply to that model airplane. The FAA is proposing this AD to address a safety-significant latent failure (that is not annunciated), which, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, could result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition. See the MCAI for additional background information.

EASA AD 2020-0219 specifies new and more restrictive airworthiness limitations for certain safety valves. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD 2020-0219 described previously, as incorporated by reference.

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

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0219 would be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with certain paragraphs of EASA AD 2020-0219, through that incorporation.

Service information specified in EASA AD 2020-0219 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-0219 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0192 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAIs as the primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs has been limited to certain MCAIs (primarily those with service bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the process to include MCAIs that require a change to airworthiness limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.

For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI that changes airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged. Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).

The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a paragraph that specified that no alternative actions ( e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions and intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in the AMOCs paragraph under “Other FAA Provisions.” This new format includes a “Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals” paragraph that does not specifically refer to AMOCs, but operators may still request an AMOC to use an alternative action or interval.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 1,680 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0134; Project Identifier AD AD-2020-01254-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3555; email: kevin.nguyen@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, the FAA issued a final rule titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction, and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements that rule included Amendment 21-78, which established Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88”) to 14 CFR part 21. Subsequently, SFAR 88 was amended by: Amendment 21-82 (67 FR 57490, September 10, 2002; corrected at 67 FR 70809, November 26, 2002), Amendment 21-83 (67 FR 72830, December 9, 2002; corrected at 68 FR 37735, June 25, 2003, to change “21-82” to “21-83”), and Amendment 21-101 (83 FR 9162, March 5, 2018).

Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design ( i.e., type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the final rule published on May 7, 2001, the FAA intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.

In evaluating these design reviews, the FAA has established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with another latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.

The FAA issued AD 2008-11-13, Amendment 39-15536 (73 FR 30737, May 29, 2008) (AD 2008-11-13), which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. The applicability of AD 2008-11-13 did not include the Boeing Company Model 777F series airplane because those airplanes were not yet type certificated. AD 2008-11-13 requires incorporation of fuel system AWLs and also requires an initial inspection to phase in certain repetitive inspections, and repair if necessary. The fuel system AWLs were developed to satisfy SFAR 88 requirements and were included in the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the manufacturer's Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. Since the FAA issued AD 2008-11-13, the ALS has been significantly revised by the manufacturer to correct technical and editorial errors and also to add new or more restrictive requirements. Many of those changes are related to fuel tank ignition prevention, the engine fuel suction feed system, and the nitrogen generation system. The FAA has determined that the specific revisions of the AWL mandated by AD 2008-11-13 (which applies to airplanes with an original standard airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued before December 5, 2007) and the revisions of the AWL that have been delivered with airplanes as part of the type design and airworthiness certificate on or after December 5, 2007, are inadequate to provide information necessary to maintain critical design features and perform inspections.

The FAA also issued AD 2014-09-09, Amendment 39-17844 (79 FR 30005, May 27, 2014) (AD 2014-09-09), which applies to all The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes. AD 2014-09-09 requires revising the maintenance program to incorporate a revision to the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the maintenance planning data (MPD) document. Since the FAA issued AD 2014-09-09, 28-AWL-101 has been revised, therefore, this proposed AD would require the incorporation of the revised 28-AWL-101. Incorporating the revision required by this proposed AD would terminate all the requirements of AD 2014-09-09.

The FAA has received a report indicating that significant changes, including new or more restrictive requirements, made to the AWLs and CDCCLs related to fuel tank ignition prevention, the engine fuel suction feed system, and the nitrogen generation system. The FAA is issuing this AD to address ignition sources inside the fuel tanks and the increased flammability exposure of the center fuel tank caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of an airplane; and to address potential loss of engine fuel suction feed capability, which could result in dual engine flameouts, inability to restart engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane.

The FAA reviewed Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), of Boeing 777-200/200LR/300/300ER/777F Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D622W001-9, dated November 2019. This service information describes airworthiness limitations and CDCCLs tasks related to fuel tank ignition prevention, the engine fuel suction feed system, and the nitrogen generation 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.

The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

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

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

Paragraph (g) of this proposed AD would require operators to revise their existing maintenance or inspection program by incorporating, in part, AWL No. 28-AWL-11, “Fuel Quantity Indicating System (FQIS) and Auxiliary Fuel Tank (Cell) Electronic Fuel Level Indication System (EFLI)—Out Tank Wiring Installation Separation Requirement,” of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), of Boeing 777-200/200LR/300/300ER/777F Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D622W001-9, dated November 2019.

Paragraph (h) of this proposed AD would allow certain changes to be made to the requirements specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-11 as an option. Where AWL No. 28-AWL-11 identifies certain wire types for routing and installation of any new wiring under certain conditions, paragraph (h) of this proposed AD provides acceptable alternative wire types. Additionally, where AWL No. 28-AWL-11 identifies certain wiring sleeve material for new wiring installed under certain conditions, paragraph (h) of this proposed AD provides acceptable alternative wire sleeve materials.

The FAA has previously issued AMOC approvals for compliance with paragraph (g)(2) of AD 2008-11-13 to allow operators to incorporate alternative versions of AWL No. 28-AWL-11. AWL No. 28-AWL-11 includes the requirements for new wiring introduced by any alterations or changes to the type design, including STC modifications, in proximity to wiring that penetrates the fuel tank wall. Certain STCs that introduced new wiring near the fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) wiring utilized design features that were different from the critical design features for fuel tank ignition prevention specified in the AD-mandated version of AWL No. 28-AWL-11. For those STCs, the FAA has approved alternative versions of AWL No. 28-AWL-11 that specified critical design features associated with STC modifications. The FAA has determined that certain critical design features specified in the AMOC-approved versions of AWL No. 28-AWL-11 are not acceptable to meet the intent of this AWL. Therefore, this proposed AD does not allow credit for AMOCs previously approved under AD 2008-11-13. However, based on the agency's assessment of critical design features, the FAA has provided options under paragraph (h) of this proposed AD to allow certain changes to be made to the requirements specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-11.

The requirements for new wiring versus existing wiring are specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-11. Based on these requirements, any STC modifications that are installed after the incorporation of the version of AWL No. 28-AWL-11 required by paragraph (g) of this proposed AD must comply with AWL No. 28-AWL-11, including any mandatory rework, or the operator must request approval of an AMOC according to paragraph (k) of this proposed AD. Any STC modifications that are installed prior to the incorporation of the version of AWL No. 28 AWL-11 required by paragraph (g) of this proposed AD are not required to be reworked for compliance with the new wiring requirements of AWL No. 28-AWL-11, except that future repair and replacement of existing wiring must follow AWL No. 28-AWL-11.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 219 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0191; Project Identifier AD-2020-01492-E” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Nicholas Paine, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2019-21-11, Amendment 39-19777 (84 FR 57813, October 29, 2019), (AD 2019-21-11) for certain PW PW1519G, PW1521G, PW1521GA, PW1524G, PW1525G, PW1521G-3, PW1524G-3, PW1525G-3, PW1919G, PW1921G, PW1922G, PW1923G, and PW1923G-A model turbofan engines. AD 2019-21-11 was prompted by an in-flight failure and additional findings of cracks in the LPC R1. AD 2019-21-11 requires initial and repetitive BSI of the LPC R1 and, depending on the results of the BSIs, replacement of the LPC. The agency issued AD 2019-21-11 to prevent failure of the LPC R1.

The FAA issued AD 2020-07-02, Amendment 39-21106 (85 FR 17742, March 31, 2020), (AD 2020-07-02), for all PW PW1519G, PW1521G, PW1521G-3, PW1521GA, PW1524G, PW1524G33, PW1525G, and PW1525G33 model turbofan engines. AD 2020-07-02 was prompted by reports of four in-flight shutdowns due to failure of the LPC R1 and by subsequent findings of cracked LPC R1s during inspections. AD 2020-07-02 requires the removal from service of certain EEC FADEC software and the installation of a software version eligible for installation. The agency issued AD 2020-07-02 to prevent failure of the LPC R1.

Since the FAA issued AD 2019-21-11 and AD 2020-07-02, the manufacturer performed further root cause analysis of the LPC R1 failures and determined the need to update the EEC FADEC software to automate rotor speed management and limit the maximum climb and maximum continuous thrust ratings.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin (SB) PW1000G-A-72-00-0125-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 002, dated October 24, 2019; Pratt & Whitney SB PW1000G-A-72-00-0075-00B-930A-D, Issue No. 003, dated October 24, 2019; Pratt & Whitney SB PW1000G-A-73-00-0044-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 004, dated February 23, 2021; and Pratt & Whitney SB PW1000G-A-73-00-0023-00B-930A-D, Issue No. 002, dated February 22, 2021. The FAA also reviewed Section PW1000G-A-72-00-00-02A-0B5A-A of Pratt & Whitney Engine Maintenance Manual (EMM), Issue No. 016, dated January 15, 2021; and Section PW1000G-A-72-31-00-00A-312A-D of Pratt & Whitney EMM, Issue No. 016, dated January 11, 2021.

Pratt & Whitney SBs PW1000G-A-72-00-0125-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 002, dated October 24, 2019, and PW1000G-A-72-00-0075-00B-930A-D, Issue No. 003, dated October 24, 2019, specify procedures for performing initial and repetitive BSI of certain LPC R1s. Pratt & Whitney SB PW1000G-A-73-00-0044-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 004, dated February 23, 2021, specifies procedures for replacing or modifying the EEC to incorporate EEC FADEC software version V2.11.10.4. Pratt & Whitney SB PW1000G-A-73-00-0023-00B-930A-D, Issue No. 002, dated February 22, 2021, specifies procedures for replacing or modifying the EEC to incorporate EEC FADEC software version V9.5.6.7.

Section PW1000G-A-72-00-00-02A-0B5A-A of Pratt & Whitney EMM, Issue No. 016, dated January 15, 2021, specifies procedures for inspecting the engine for possible engine damage after receiving notification of an N1 or N2 overspeed operation. Section PW1000G-A-72-31-00-00A-312A-D of Pratt & Whitney EMM, Issue No. 016, dated January 11, 2021, specifies procedures for performing a BSI of the LPC.

This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2019-21-11 and none of the requirements of AD 2020-07-02. This proposed AD would continue to require a BSI of certain LPC R1s for damage and cracks and, depending on the results of the BSI, replacement of the LPC R1. This proposed AD would continue to require repetitive BSIs of certain LPC R1s until replacement of the EEC FADEC software with the updated software. This proposed AD would also require a BSI of the LPC R1 after installation of the updated EEC FADEC software if certain Onboard Maintenance Message fault codes are displayed and meet specified criteria.

The FAA considers that this proposed AD would be an interim action. If final corrective action is later identified, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 94 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

The Commission is proposing revisions to amend several sections of its regulations to provide clarity to project sponsors, target only the most appropriate activities, and establish a more efficient and effective framework to review groundwater withdrawals, which can be data-intensive and time consuming and costly for both the Commission and the project sponsor. The proposed revisions also modify the aquifer testing requirements to include an Alternative Hydrogeologic Evaluation(AHE) process for certain new and existing projects and establishes where an aquifer test or AHE evaluation is not required. As a companion to this rulemaking, the Commission is also releasing three policies related to groundwater reviews to be open for public comment simultaneously with this proposed rulemaking: A revised Aquifer Testing Plan Guidance; a new policy on Alternative Hydrogeologic Evaluations; and a new policy on Pre-Drill Well Site Review. The Commission recognizes that groundwater management will be a challenge under changing climate conditions. These rules will ensure wells are permitted and monitored in efficient but robust ways that allow the Commission to provide dynamic decision making as impacts of climate change manifest. Further, the proposed rules and policies will help reduce costs, both to systems that are smaller and have economic challenges, including communities with environmental justice concerns.

The Commission is also proposing revisions to update its regulations dealing with the triggers that lead to the loss of grandfathering, consumptive water use by the natural gas industry, the transfer of projects, as well as general updates to its project review application procedures.

In recognition of the Commission's priority of pursuing environmental justice initiatives, Commission staff will conduct inclusive outreach on this proposal to maximize public awareness and participation in the rulemaking process by underrepresented communities.

Definitions of small and medium capacity sources are added to 18 CFR 806.3. The jurisdictional limit for Commission review of a withdrawal is 100,000 gallons per day (gpd) over a consecutive 30-day average. However, over time, the regulations developed various mechanisms that also apply the Commission's regulatory oversight to small (under 20,000 gpd) and medium (between 20,000 and 100,000 gpd) capacity withdrawals. Current groundwater regulations, policy, and review standards subject these sources to the same level of review and associated cost implications as large volume withdrawals, regardless of their potential risk of adverse impact. The new definitions and classification of withdrawals based on size clarifies, and in some cases, reduces the level of effort by a project sponsor to seek approval to use small and medium capacity sources as well as reduces the level of review by the Commission based on the potential risk for adverse impact. To the extent these sources in some cases are utilized by smaller communities with financial challenges and serving disadvantaged communities, it will provide more flexibility moving forward for the Commission to consider appropriate measures for such consideration.

Changes are proposed to § 806.4 regarding projects requiring review and approval. The proposed revisions eliminate § 806.4(a)(2)(iii) that captures small and medium capacity sources supplying water to a regulated consumptive user. New language has been proposed to § 806.4(a)(1) clarifying the regulatory requirements for small and medium capacity withdrawals related to a consumptive use approval.

The Commission is seeking to revise the scope of its constant-rate aquifer testing requirements and standards for groundwater withdrawals to encourage the use of existing data and review projects in a manner commensurate with the level of risk posed by a withdrawal. The proposed processes will allow the Commission's review to more adequately consider data and information that include changing conditions in the environment and with climate to allow for more sustainable and resilient withdrawals.

First, as related to small capacity sources, the Commission finds that their size significantly limits the likelihood of adverse impacts to aquifers, surface water features or competing water users and the Commission is able to utilize methods other than aquifer testing to assess the impact of withdrawal from these small sources. Accordingly, the rule proposes § 806.12(j) to provide that these small capacity sources do not generally need an aquifer test, but does retain the flexibility for the Executive Director to determine that one is needed for evaluation of resource issues in limited circumstances. Similarly, § 806.23(b)(7) is proposed to provide more focused standards for small capacity sources.

Second, existing groundwater regulations, policy and review standards include limited differentiation for renewals versus proposed new withdrawals. This lack of differentiation limits effective consideration of previous aquifer testing results and long-term operational data for some existing projects, resulting in increased renewal costs to regulated projects and the Commission. The proposed rules provide better clarity and the streamlining of review standards, especially if the project sponsor is not changing its withdrawal quantities as part of the renewal. The rule proposes a new paragraph, § 806.12(h), which provides that projects undergoing a renewal with the Commission that have also previously completed an aquifer test under the Commission's approval can satisfy the aquifer testing requirement by relying on the prior test and providing an updated groundwater availability estimate. This is conditioned on the project sponsor seeking to operate at the previously tested rate of withdrawal. Section 806.23(b)(6) is proposed to provide more differentiation between reviews for renewed or otherwise existing sources versus new projects. This differentiation includes relying on prior testing and operational data of existing projects, as well as the alternative hydrogeologic evaluation established in § 806.12(i) and the related guidance document also proposed. The proposed rule also enshrines the Commission's current flexibility to require an aquifer test and/or condition docket approvals.

Third, as related to aquifer testing and an aquifer testing waiver, existing regulation, unless formally waived, requires aquifer testing of all groundwater wells regardless of setting, size of withdrawal, available data, and status as a new, renewing or existing source. The existing waiver process used to avoid aquifer testing is not well understood by projects or consultants and frequently leads to increased costs to both the Commission and projects due to confusion about the process and incomplete submittals. The proposed rule amends § 806.12 to improve this process by adding clarity and more certainty for project sponsors but retaining the flexibility that the Commission currently has in these reviews. Section 806.12(i) is added to provide for the Alternative Hydrogeologic Evaluation (AHE) process to replace the previous waiver process. The Commission is also proposing a draft AHE policy and a revised Aquifer Testing Guidance that provide further clarity and a revised technical approach for these evaluations.

Finally, § 806.12(g) establishes that the hydrogeologic evaluation requirements in § 806.12 do not apply to withdrawals related to mine dewatering, construction dewatering, water resources remediation and acid mine drainage (AMD) remediation facilities to support the existing regulatory review provisions for these types of facilities codified in § 806.14(b)(6), (d)(6) and 806.23(b)(5). Mining and remediation projects in particular are heavily regulated by our member jurisdictions, and the proposed rule would allow the Commission to rely on the work previously done in order to get member jurisdiction approval for these activities.

The proposed rule offers edits to § 806.14 to clarify and improve the readability of the regulation and to account for the changes to § 806.12. These changes generally fall into two categories: (1) Those that increase efficiency through simplification and clarification and (2) those that establish updated requirements for how groundwater applicants provide data and information required by § 806.12. The changes recognize prior determinations (including waivers of § 806.12) by the Commission staff which establish clear requirements for projects in those situations, remove uncertainty regarding previous determinations of aquifer testing requirements, and increase efficiency for both application preparation and the review of renewal and modification applications by Commission staff. These changes will greatly help projects by allowing them to avoid additional unnecessary aquifer testing or data collection, especially in those situations where the requirements had been previously met. These changes are important with the larger number of projects that will be seeking renewals for the first time over the next ten years.

Grandfathering, the exemption for certain pre-existing projects to operate without formal review and approval, can be lost by a variety of mechanisms. The Commission has been overseeing the successful implementation of its grandfathering registration program. This program was developed to help track an estimated one billion gallons of water use a day by grandfathered projects, while allowing them to preserve the grandfathered status of their consumptive uses and withdrawals through registration with the Commission. This program has been successfully filling in the data gaps created by grandfathered projects and is thus a valuable effort in the improvement of the water management of the basin. With this program in place, the Commission proposes to eliminate most of the current triggers for losing grandfathering and retain just two: (1) Increasing the usage above the registered amount and (2) through a transfer of ownership.

First, minor changes are proposed to §§ 806.4(a)(1)(iii) and 806.4(a)(2)(iv) to reflect the closing of the grandfathering registration window. Because the term “pre-compact consumptive use” is defined, it is added to Section 806.4(a)(1)(iii). Similarly, the regulatory trigger dates are no longer needed in Section 806.4(a)(2)(iv); however, they were relocated to § 806.4(a)(2)(i) because they still have regulatory significance and cannot be eliminated altogether.

Second, section 806.4(a)(2)(ii) is revised to remove the language that acted as a trigger for the loss of grandfathering when a source was added or any source of a project was increased in quantity. The language related to the review of increases to existing sources is removed from (a)(2)(ii) and is now contained in the revised § 806.4(a)(2)(iii). The revised § 806.4(a)(2)(ii) provides that a regulated project that adds a new source must make an application for review and approval of that source, but it does not serve as a trigger for loss of grandfathering and subject the entire project to review, as it previously did. Similarly, revised § 806.4(a)(2)(iii) provides that any previously approved withdrawal that increases above its approval amount must make an application for review and approval of the increased amount. However, this increase does not subject the entire project to review and approval, as it previously did, which was also a trigger for loss of grandfathering.

Third, for diversions, minor adjustments to §§ 806.4(a)(3)(iii) and (iv) were needed to make the provisions related to grandfathered diversions be consistent with the changes made to grandfathered withdrawals and consumptive uses.

Fourth, change of ownership remains a pathway for the loss of grandfathering under §§ 806.4(a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(v), and (a)(3)(iv). This is also reflected in § 806.6(b). All of these provisions are simplified and revised to reflect that the grandfathering registration period is now closed.

Fifth, a new paragraph § 806.6(d) is added to provide the new sponsor of a transferred project time to collect operational data that would allow it to take advantage of the AHE and not have to immediately prepare applications for the source(s) that have lost grandfathering. These changes are also consistent with the direction provided by the Commissioners in Resolution 2017-12 related to inter-municipal transfers.

Under the proposed rule, a new project owner with registered grandfathered sources undergoing a qualified change in ownership would be required to comply with the existing monitoring requirements under § 806.30 for all sources, along with any other conditions necessary to effectuate the transfer. Additionally, for any unapproved sources, the approved transfer will act as the project's approval for a period of five years, at which point, the project sponsor must submit an application for review and approval of the sources. This would provide ample time for the new project sponsor to collect operational data for these existing sources and potentially avoid the cost of an aquifer test.

Related to transfers, the proposed rule eliminates the corporate reorganization exception in § 806.4(b). This exception caused confusion to project sponsors, was difficult to implement and was infrequently used.

Section 806.22(f) is amended to update the Commission's regulation of consumptive waster use for unconventional natural gas extraction. Commission staff conducted an internal review of processes and procedures used by its Approval by Rule program and has developed these changes to update the regulations to address the evolution of this program and the industry.

Section 806.22(f)(11)(ii) is amended to include captured stormwater, which includes corresponding changes to § 806.4(a)(3)(v) through (vii) and adding a definition of “captured stormwater” to § 806.3. The purpose of this change is to make clear that this captured stormwater is covered under the Commission's regulatory approvals, which is consistent with how these regulations have been interpreted.

The proposed rule also eliminates the concept of “hydrocarbon water storage facilities” from the regulations. There are two reasons for this change. First, this concept was developed early on in the Commission's initial response to the development of the unconventional natural gas industry. However, the industry's water use evolved in a manner where approvals of this type were never issued by the Commission. Second, the Commission began regulating and tracking consumptive use by the natural gas industry at the source of withdrawal. This method of tracking has proven itself to be effective and enforceable and obviates the need for the water storage facility provisions, both now and in the future. Accordingly, the Commission is proposing corresponding changes to §§ 806.3, 806.22(f)(11)(iv), and 806.22(f)(14).

Section 806.22(f)(4) is revised to eliminate some of the specific details for what is ultimately captured in the post-hydrofracture report. This report is still required; however, this revision makes it easier for the Commission to revise the items requested in the report and the Commission intends to align this report with the post-drilling completion reports filed with the member jurisdictions to avoid any duplication of effort.

Sections 806.22(f)(12) and (13) are amended to track and support the Commission's current practices with respect to the use of non-public and public water suppliers by the natural gas industry as a source for water.

Interconnections. The Commission is proposing to eliminate language in § 806.4(a)(2) that subjected public water supply interconnections to specific review and approval requirements. The Commission is adding language dealing with interconnections as a part of a project in its review standards for water withdrawals in § 806.23. Public water supply interconnections are closely regulated by member jurisdictions and these revisions allow the Commission to avoid any duplication of effort.

Diversions for Municipalities on the Basin Divide. The proposed rule adds a paragraph § 806.4(a)(3)(viii) that would allow the diversion of drinking water or sewage into or out of the basin without applying for approval from the Commission. The diversion would have to be by or through a publicly or privately owned public water supplier or wastewater treatment works and, for out of basin diversions, service a municipality that was on or adjacent to the basin divide in order to be eligible for the exemption. The primary purpose of the Commission's regulations for reviewing diversions of water into the basin is to ensure that the water quality of the incoming water is not a threat to affect the water quality of the water resources of the basin. Where municipalities may cross the basin divide for the operation of drinking water and wastewater systems that are regulated by the member jurisdictions, any water quality concerns are fully mitigated by the regulatory oversight of the member jurisdictions and additional review by the Commission is unnecessary.

Notice Provisions. Changes are proposed to § 806.15 to clarify, update, and improve the readability of the regulation, as well as to align the notice requirements for applications for minor modifications, notices of intent (NOIs) for general permits, approvals by rule under § 806.22(e), approvals by rule (ABR) under § 806.22(f)(9) and source approvals under § 806.22(f)(13). The notice requirements in existing §§ 806.15(d), (e) and (f) are deleted and consolidated in part in a new § 806.15(g). The notice for groundwater withdrawals under § 806.15(b)(1) is revised to provide notice to property owners within a quarter mile radius of the withdrawal.

Minor Modifications. In 2015, the Commission added § 806.18 providing a process for minor modifications. This addition has been successful in creating an efficient method for the Commission to process changes to its approvals that are primarily administrative and do not rise to the level of major modifications. Based on the Commission's experience since 2015, it is proposing to modify and add new categories of changes that would qualify as minor modifications. The addition of §§ 806.18(c)(10) and (11) also aid in the implementation of the Consumptive Use Mitigation Policy adopted in March 2020.

Consumptive Use Approvals—ABR(e). Consumptive users who are entirely sourced by public water supply, stormwater, wastewater, or reused or recycled water are eligible for a streamlined approval by rule under § 806.22(e). Section 806.22(e)(6) is revised to allow for discontinuance as a consumptive use mitigation option for these approvals to be consistent with and support the recently adopted Consumptive Use Mitigation Policy. Section 806.22(e)(8) is revised to allow the Executive Director to permit a project sponsor to continue to use the ABR(e) process if they use a small capacity well for consumptive use or for use only for supply of potable water. These small wells are below the Commission's regulatory thresholds and their use should not be a reason to disallow the use of the ABR(e) process for project sponsors who use them to service their facilities.

Emergency Certificates. Section 806.34 is revised to allow an emergency certificate to be issued by the Executive Director for a term that allows the Commission to place the extension of a certificate on its public hearing notice. Currently, the rule requires that these certificates are valid until the next scheduled Commission meeting where they can be extended by the Commissioners, but typically this occurs after the public hearing has already been noticed and held. This change allows for greater public input and transparency when the project sponsor seeks the Commission's approval to extend the term of these certificates for a longer period of time.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission proposes to amend 18 CFR part 806 as follows:

The additions and revisions read as follows: