[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 26, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41503-41505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-16286]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 26, 2025 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 41503]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 52
[NRC-2025-0018]
RIN 3150-AL26
Revising the Duration of Design Certifications
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is confirming the
effective date of September 15, 2025, for the direct final rule
published in the Federal Register on July 2, 2025. This direct final
rule amended the NRC's regulations to revise the duration of design
certifications (DCs). This action replaced the 15-year duration for DCs
with a 40-year duration period, both for existing DCs currently in
effect and generically for future DCs. This direct final rule did not
change the date of issuance for existing DCs (i.e., the start date by
which an existing DC may be referenced remains unchanged). This direct
final rule also incorporated a minor editorial correction.
DATES: The effective date of September 15, 2025, for the direct final
rule published July 2, 2025 (90 FR 28869), is confirmed.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0018 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may
obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of
the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2025-0018. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Helen Chang; telephone: 301-415-3228;
email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact the
individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``Begin ADAMS Public Search.''
For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email
to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each document
referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time it
is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies
of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an
appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to
[email protected] or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8
a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Doyle, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-3748, email:
[email protected]; or Jordan Glisan, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, telephone: 301-415-3478, email: [email protected]. Both
are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On July 2, 2025 (90 FR 28869), the NRC published a direct final
rule amending its regulations in part 52 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations to revise the duration of design certifications.
In the direct final rule, the NRC stated that if no significant
adverse comments were received, the direct final rule would become
effective on September 15, 2025. The NRC received and docketed four
comment submissions on the companion proposed rule (90 FR 28911; July
2, 2025). Electronic copies of the comments can be obtained from the
federal rulemaking website https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
NRC-2025-0018 and are also available in ADAMS under Accession Nos.
ML25209A465, ML25211A180, ML25211A187, and ML25217A008. As explained in
the July 2, 2025, direct final rule, the NRC would withdraw the direct
final rule only if it received a significant adverse comment. A
significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains
why the rule would be inappropriate, challenges its underlying premise
or approach, or shows why it would be ineffective or unacceptable
without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient
to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For
example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider)
its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a
substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously
addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and
it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable
without incorporation of the change or addition; or
(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than
editorial) to the rule.
For the reasons discussed in more detail in Section II, ``Public
Comment Analysis,'' of this document, none of the comments contained in
the submissions are considered significant adverse comments.
II. Public Comment Analysis
The NRC evaluated the comments against the criteria described in
the direct final rule and determined that none of the comments
submitted on the proposed rule are significant adverse comments. The
public comments received on this action did not warrant any additions
or changes to the final rule. The NRC is not making substantive changes
to the rule; it is apparent that the rule is effective and acceptable
as proposed, without the need for a substantive change or addition. The
comments did not raise a relevant issue that was not previously
addressed or considered by the NRC, and the comments did not cause the
NRC to
[[Page 41504]]
either (1) reevaluate or reconsider its position, or (2) conduct
additional analyses.
The comment submissions from ClearPath (ADAMS Accession No.
ML25209A465) and The Breakthrough Institute (ADAMS Accession No.
ML25211A180) did not oppose the rule. The comment submissions from
Andrew Kalukin (ADAMS Accession No. ML25211A187) and the anonymous
commenter (ADAMS Accession No. ML25217A008) opposed the rule, but they
did not meet the criteria for significant adverse comments; however,
the NRC is taking this opportunity to respond to these comments to
clarify information about the direct final rule.
The following paragraphs summarize each individual comment from
Andrew Kalukin and the anonymous commenter followed by the NRC
response.
Comment 1: The commenter opposes extending the design certification
period from 15 to 40 years, expressing concern that too many nuclear
plants are obsolete in their safety technology, such as engineering to
withstand ground motion. The commenter also expresses concern about the
number of safety violations and near misses at nuclear plants.
NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with this comment. The comment does
not provide sufficient information to identify obsolete safety
technology. Nuclear power plants are designed and built to withstand
earthquakes and other natural hazards, and the NRC continues to examine
new seismic information as it becomes available. Safety violations at
nuclear power plants are dispositioned through the NRC's inspection and
enforcement programs in a manner intended to reflect the seriousness of
the violation and the circumstances involved. The NRC made no changes
to the rule as a result of this comment.
Comment 2: The commenter asserts that there is an insufficient
basis for extending the duration of standard design certifications,
arguing that this change would undermine the regulatory structure of
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The commenter states that
extending the certification period by more than a factor of two would
exceed the NRC's current experience with design certifications, and the
agency has not adequately evaluated or discussed the potential
implications of this extension. The commenter states that this change
would delay compliance with safety requirements, such as those related
to aircraft impact assessments, which were previously determined by the
NRC to provide a substantial increase in public health and safety
protections.
The commenter also asserts that the issue finality provisions
applicable to DCs limit the NRC's ability to require updates and
improvements to certified designs during the approval period, whereas
shorter renewal periods offer more frequent opportunities for changes
to be made during subsequent renewal periods. The commenter asserts
that the direct final rule could reduce regulatory flexibility and
create inefficiencies.
NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with this comment. The NRC
considered all relevant implications of the amendments made by this
direct final rule. The Federal Register notice for the direct final
rule discusses how the amendments cause no reduction in safety or
security. Section IV, ``Discussion,'' explains that the NRC has
processes to address potential safety or security issues outside of the
renewal process, including, among other ways, by making generic changes
to DC rules or plant-specific changes by Commission order.
With respect to the commenter's concern regarding aircraft impact
assessments, each DC rule affected by this direct final rule does
comply with the NRC's aircraft impact assessment regulations. This
includes the AP1000 design, which was amended to address the NRC's
aircraft impact assessment rule in 2011 (76 FR 82079; December 30,
2011).
Regarding the commenter's concern about the issue finality
provisions, the NRC can effectively update DC rules even though they do
not need to be renewed as often. This is explained in the Federal
Register notice for the direct final rule and in this document. The NRC
has also successfully updated DC rules before, even with issue finality
provisions in place, including changes to address the NRC's aircraft
impact assessment regulations. The issue finality provisions will not
prevent the NRC from taking action to address safety or security
concerns. In fact, the criteria for requiring design changes during a
DC renewal review (found in 10 CFR 52.59(b)(1)-(b)(3)) are encompassed
by the issue finality criteria for amending a DC during the term of the
DC (found in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)). Also, as reflected in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1), any person may petition to amend a DC, and the Commission
may amend a DC on its own motion. To the extent the commenter objects
to the NRC's issue finality provisions, these provisions were designed
to appropriately balance important factors, including regulatory
stability, flexibility, and efficiency, and are outside the scope of
this rulemaking.
The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.
Comment 3: The commenter criticizes the NRC's use of the direct
final rulemaking process, stating that it was inappropriate and lacked
sufficient transparency.
NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with this comment. The NRC uses the
direct final rule process for regulatory amendments that are unlikely
to be controversial. The direct final rule process allows an agency to
issue a rule without having to go through the review process twice
(i.e., at the proposed and final rule stages) if there are no
significant adverse comments, while at the same time offering the
public the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. The NRC made
no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.
Comment 4: Addressing the NRC's rationale concerning regulatory
burden, the commenter argues that the agency has not proven that the
current certification duration imposes an unnecessary regulatory
burden. The commenter maintains that the renewal process provides
benefits that would be lost or diminished because it allows for regular
updates to designs in response to new safety requirements.
NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with this comment. The Federal
Register notice for the direct final rule discusses how the amendments
reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens with no reduction in safety or
security. Section IV, ``Discussion,'' explains that (1) the 15-year
certification period did not allow for sufficient time for operating
experience to accumulate to provide new insights in a renewal
application, and thus, resulted in inefficient use of resources both on
the part of the NRC and the applicant; and (2) that the NRC retains
other means of ensuring that codified DCs and the plants referencing
them continue to meet safety and security requirements (90 FR 28869,
28870-871; July 2, 2025). In addition, Section VII, ``Regulatory
Analysis,'' describes how the rule is estimated to result in averted
costs of approximately $56.7 million in 2024 dollars to the NRC,
licensees, and applicants over the analysis period (90 FR 28869, 28871;
July 2, 2025). The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of this
comment.
In summary, the NRC did not receive any significant adverse
comments and therefore, this direct final rule will become effective as
scheduled.
Dated: August 21, 2025.
[[Page 41505]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Araceli Billoch Colon,
Chief, Regulatory Analysis and Rulemaking Support Branch, Division of
Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2025-16286 Filed 8-25-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P