[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 8, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17757-17762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-06747]
========================================================================
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. 91, No. 67 / Wednesday, April 8, 2026 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 17757]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 50
[NRC-2026-0166]
RIN 3150-AL63
The Sunset Rule--Aircraft Impact Assessment
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
regulations to insert a conditional sunset date for the requirements
for aircraft impact assessment. This action is in response to Executive
Order 14270, ``Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American
Energy.'' The NRC has considered public input received on a previous
rulemaking to sunset NRC regulations and provides in this document the
NRC's response to those public comments that the NRC has deemed
significant and adverse.
DATES: The final rule is effective April 8, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-0166 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: Electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket ID NRC-2026-0166. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Helen Chang; telephone: 301-415-3228;
email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact the
individual 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].
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: Cindy Bladey, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3280; email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Executive Order 14270, ``Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to
Unleash American Energy''
III. Aircraft Impact Assessment Regulations
IV. Public Comments
V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
VI. Regulatory Analysis
VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
VIII. Plain Writing
IX. National Environmental Policy Act
X. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
XI. Regulatory Planning and Review
XII. Review Under E.O.s 14154, 14192, 14215, and 14300
XIII. Congressional Review Act
XIV. Availability of Documents
I. Background
In response to Executive Order (E.O.) 14270, ``Zero-Based
Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy,'' the NRC published a
direct final rule, ``The Sunset Rule,'' in the Federal Register on
December 3, 2025 (90 FR 55621). The direct final rule amended certain
NRC regulations to insert a conditional sunset date. The rule included
an amendment that would have established a conditional sunset date in
the NRC's provisions for aircraft impact assessments (AIA) in section
50.150, ``Aircraft impact assessment,'' in title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR).
As described in the direct final rule, if the NRC were to receive
significant adverse comments by January 2, 2026, the NRC would withdraw
the action and address the comments in a subsequent final rule. The NRC
received 6 comment submissions on the amendment to sunset the AIA
regulations that contained comments that NRC deemed are significant and
adverse. Accordingly, in a document published on January 8, 2026 (91 FR
553), the NRC withdrew the amendment to add a conditional sunset date
to 10 CFR 50.150.
In this action, the NRC responds to the significant adverse public
comments received on the proposed rule, ``The Sunset Rule'' (90 FR
55699; December 3, 2025). After additional consideration of these
comments, the NRC re-evaluated its position and determined that it is
appropriate to add a sunsetting clause in the NRC's AIA regulations at
10 CFR 50.150. The NRC is issuing this final rule to amend its
regulations to insert a conditional sunset date for the NRC's
requirements for AIA at 10 CFR 50.150.
II. Executive Order 14270, ``Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash
American Energy''
Executive Order 14270 directs the NRC to issue a rule inserting a
conditional sunset date into each of its regulations that are in effect
as of the date of the E.O. (90 FR 15643; April 15, 2025) and were
issued in whole or in part pursuant to the following statutes, as
amended: the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Energy Reorganization Act
of 1974, and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The conditional
sunset date for covered regulations is to be one year after the
effective date of the sunset rule. The E.O. directs the NRC to issue a
sunset rule ``to the extent consistent with applicable law'' and
provides that the E.O. does not apply to ``regulatory permitting
regimes authorized by statute.'' For purposes of implementing this
E.O., regulations that provide standards and requirements for NRC
license and permit holders or applicants constitute the NRC's
``regulatory permitting regime.'' Thus, the scope of this rulemaking is
generally limited to those regulations that do not fit into one or more
of the following three categories: (1) regulations that could not be
sunset ``consistent with applicable law'' because they are necessary to
fulfill the NRC's statutory mandate to provide for the common defense
and security and to protect public health
[[Page 17758]]
and safety; (2) regulations that are part of the NRC's ``regulatory
permitting regimes authorized by statute''; or (3) regulations that do
not implement one of the three NRC-specific statutes identified in the
E.O. (e.g., regulations that implement government-wide requirements
such as the Freedom of Information Act of 1969). The vast majority of
the NRC's regulations fit into one of these three categories.
Nonetheless, the NRC identified several regulations, including its AIA
regulations at 10 CFR 50.150, that although they fall into one or more
of these categories, they are not being used or no longer serve their
original purpose and thus fall within the spirit and intent of the E.O.
as ``outdated.''
As stated in E.O. 14270, the sunsetting provision states a
conditional sunset date that is one year after the effective date of
this final rule and provides that, before that sunset date, the NRC
will offer the public an opportunity to comment on the costs and
benefits of the regulation that is being conditionally sunset. The NRC
will issue a separate notice describing the comment opportunity after
this final rule is effective. Following the opportunity for the public
to comment on the sunset regulation's costs and benefits, the NRC may
extend the conditional sunsetting date if warranted and may do so as
many times as appropriate. However, if the NRC does not extend the
conditional sunset date, then following the sunset date, the NRC will
consider the sunset regulation to no longer be effective, will not seek
to enforce it, and will remove the sunset regulation from the CFR and
make necessary conforming changes.
The President has directed the NRC to issue this zero-based
regulating rule. Section 4(a) of E.O. 14270 states that ``each of the
Covered Agencies shall issue a sunset rule,'' and further specifies the
terms of that rule. Accordingly, the NRC lacks any discretion over
whether to undertake this sunsetting rule. The President's direction
provides an independent, and sufficient, justification for this
rulemaking. However, the E.O. does not direct the NRC to rescind or
reissue any particular regulation. The NRC retains its full authority
to issue and repeal regulations under the three relevant statutes and
their amendments. The President has directed only the manner in which
the NRC is to review and sunset the relevant regulations.
III. Aircraft Impact Assessment Regulations
The regulations in 10 CFR 50.150 are safety enhancements that are
not necessary for the NRC to meet its statutory mission under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to provide reasonable assurance
of adequate protection of the public health and safety and provide for
the common defense and security. When the AIA rule was promulgated in
2009 (74 FR 28112; June 12, 2009) (the 2009 final rule), the NRC
quantified the costs of the rule but did not quantify the benefits and
concluded that the key qualitative benefit of the rule was an
``improvement in knowledge'' of how a new reactor would address beyond-
design-basis hazards, such as a deliberate large aircraft impact. At
the time, the NRC concluded that qualitative benefits outweighed the
cost of the rule. However, as discussed in section IV.E, ``Cost/Benefit
Analysis,'' of this document, several key assumptions have changed
since the assessment was performed. As a result of those changes, it is
not clear that the cost of implementation of the AIA rule is justified
by the increase in safety provided by the rule.
Subsequent to the issuance of the 2009 final rule, the NRC issued
regulations that now require nuclear power plant license-related
applicants to address aircraft impact hazards both inside and outside
the design basis. For example, 10 CFR part 53, ``Risk-Informed,
Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Commercial Nuclear
Plants,'' requires a comprehensive risk assessment that illustrates the
NRC's evolution in thought about how a newly licensed plant could
address beyond-design-basis hazards. These concepts are discussed
further in sections IV.B, ``Discussion of 10 CFR 50.155,'' and IV.C,
``Discussion of 10 CFR part 53,'' of this document. Beyond changes to
the NRC's regulatory framework, since 2009 there have been substantial
increases in security at commercial aviation facilities as well as
hardened access to aircraft cockpits, making the initiating event
analyzed under 10 CFR 50.150 significantly less likely to occur.
Currently operating facilities will not be affected by sunsetting
this provision because the analyses required by 10 CFR 50.150 are
incorporated into a plant's licensing basis. Any licensee-initiated
change to the facility will be controlled through the change process in
10 CFR 50.59, ``Changes, tests, and experiments,'' as discussed in the
response to public comment in section IV.D of this document. Further,
applicants for new reactor permits, licenses, and certifications still
must assess hazards from aircraft accidents, as required by 10 CFR part
100, ``Reactor Site Criteria,'' to determine whether these hazards
should be considered within the design basis.\1\ Thus, while 10 CFR
50.150 constituted part of the NRC's permitting regime authorized by
statute, it is no longer needed. A sunset date will allow this outdated
and duplicative regulation to roll off the books. At the same time, if
evidence emerges in the interim indicating a continued need for this
regulation, the agency can extend the sunset date as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NRC guidance for reviewing aircraft hazards analyses in
nuclear power plant license applications is provided in NUREG-0800,
``Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for
Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition,'' Section 3.5.1.6, ``Aircraft
Hazards,'' Revision 4 (ML100331298). This document describes the
regulations that require the plant siting evaluation, including 10
CFR part 100 and 10 CFR 52.79, ``Contents of applications; technical
information in final safety analysis report'' and the considerations
for incorporating aircraft impacts into the design basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Public Comments
As discussed in the December 3, 2025, direct final rule, a
significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains
why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's
underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable
without a change.\2\ A comment is adverse and significant if:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Administrative Conference of the United States, Adoption of
Recommendations, (60 FR 43108-43111; August 18, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient
to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For
example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate (or reconsider) its
position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a
substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously
addressed or considered by the NRC.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and
it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable
without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC to make a change (other than
editorial) to the rule.
The NRC determined that 6 of the 15 public submissions received on
the proposed rule contained comments on the AIA amendment that were
deemed by NRC to be significant and adverse as they caused the NRC to
re-evaluate its position. These comment submissions were provided by 3
private citizens, 2
[[Page 17759]]
state agencies, and an academic organization and are available as shown
in section XIV, ``Availability of Documents,'' of this document and on
the Federal e-Rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket ID No. NRC-2025-0479.
The NRC organized the comments into 5 categories. This section
summarizes each category and provides the NRC's response.
A. Adequate Protection and Safety Enhancement
One commenter expressed concern that adequate protection would not
be maintained if 10 CFR 50.150 were eliminated.
The NRC disagrees with this comment. In the preamble to the 2009
final rule, the Commission stated that the rule was based both on
enhanced public health and safety and enhanced common defense and
security but was not necessary for adequate protection. Because the
rule was not identified as necessary for adequate protection when
promulgated, it is not necessary to address whether removal of the
requirements maintains adequate protection, except as related to
circumstances not considered in the initial issuance of the rule as
described later in these comment responses.
Multiple commenters discussed their concerns regarding the purpose
of 10 CFR 50.150. Specifically, they claimed that the original basis
for the rule was both an improvement in knowledge and to provide an
enhanced level of protection beyond adequate protection, so the
elimination of this requirement could weaken the safety standards.
The NRC disagrees with these comments. The NRC acknowledges that
sunsetting the AIA rule removes a requirement for some facilities to
consider, at the design stage, the effects of intentional large
commercial aircraft impact. However, applicants for new reactor
permits, licenses, and certifications still must assess hazards from
aircraft impacts, as required by 10 CFR part 100, to determine whether
these hazards should be considered within the design basis. As
discussed in the NRC's comment response in section IV.B of this
document, paragraph (b)(2) of 10 CFR 50.155, ``Mitigation of beyond-
design-basis events,'' provides that fires and explosions such as those
that could result from a large aircraft impact must be considered as
beyond-design-basis events. Section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, states that the NRC regulates license applications to
a standard of ``adequate protection to the health and safety of the
public.'' As previously noted, the 2009 final rule was not found to be
necessary for adequate protection. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
sunsetting the AIA rule would not result in a degradation of safety
standards to a degree that adequate protection of public health and
safety would not be maintained.
B. Discussion of 10 CFR 50.155
Several commenters expressed concern over the discussion in the
proposed rule regarding 10 CFR 50.155 and its use to justify sunsetting
10 CFR 50.150. Specifically, commenters noted that 10 CFR 50.155
addresses natural phenomena and the mitigation of the resulting fires
and explosions, whereas 10 CFR 50.150 involves large commercial
aircraft. In addition, commenters expressed concern that 10 CFR 50.155
is not germane to the initial design of the reactor facility but rather
focuses on after-the-fact response. Commenters stated that when 10 CFR
50.155 was promulgated in 2019, it was intended to complement, not
duplicate or supersede 10 CFR 50.150; therefore, 10 CFR 50.155 is not
more comprehensive and cannot be credited in the NRC's reasoning for
sunsetting 10 CFR 50.150.
The NRC agrees, in part, and disagrees, in part, with the comments.
The NRC disagrees that 10 CFR 50.155 only addresses natural
phenomena. The requirements of 10 CFR 50.155(b)(1) address ``external
events from natural phenomena.'' However, in the preamble for the 10
CFR 50.155 final rule (84 FR 39684; August 9, 2019), the Commission
explained that this language was ``meant to differentiate these
requirements from those that previously existed in Sec. 50.54(hh)(2)
that are now located in Sec. 50.155(b)(2), and which address beyond-
design-basis external events leading to loss of large areas of the
plant due to explosions and fire.'' The Commission also stated that
``[a]lthough the wording of Sec. 50.155(b)(2) differs from that of
previous Sec. 50.54(hh)(2), no substantive change in the requirements
is intended.'' As such, the requirements in 10 CFR 50.155(b)(2) to
develop extensive damage mitigation guidelines (EDMGs) are intended to
encompass a range of external events, including both natural and human-
induced phenomena.
The Commission also noted that the EDMGs were maintained in the
regulations because the conditions that necessitate the development of
EDMGs may result from aircraft impact and a beyond-design-basis
security event that could introduce kinetic energy into the spent fuel
pool independent from the decay heat of the fuel. Thus, the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.155(b)(2) are intended to specifically
address losses of large areas of the facility caused by fires and
explosions resulting from events such as aircraft impacts.
The NRC agrees that 10 CFR 50.150 and 50.155 have slightly
different objectives. 10 CFR 50.150 is intended to ensure certain
large, commercial aircraft impacts are mitigated by design with reduced
operator action, while 10 CFR 50.155 is intended to address mitigation
of beyond-design-basis events through development and implementation of
mitigation strategies, and was determined to be required to maintain
adequate protection of public health and safety. However, as discussed
in the previous comment responses, the requirements at 10 CFR 50.150
are not needed to maintain reasonable assurance of adequate protection
of public health and safety.
C. Discussion of 10 CFR Part 53
Several commenters noted that the then-proposed 10 CFR part 53 had
not yet been promulgated as a final rule and therefore could not
support the argument to sunset 10 CFR 50.150.
The NRC agrees, in part, and disagrees, in part, with the comment.
The NRC agrees that the 10 CFR part 53 final rule had not been
promulgated at the time the December 8, 2025, Sunset Rule was issued.
However, the NRC disagrees that the risk-informed, performance-
based thinking in the then-proposed 10 CFR part 53 could not support
the justification for sunsetting 10 CFR 50.150. Licenses issued under
10 CFR parts 50 and 52 are largely based on deterministic analyses of
the safety of the facility relying on the general design criteria in
appendix A, ``General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,'' to 10
CFR part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization
Facilities.'' In contrast, under 10 CFR part 53, applicants are
required to perform a comprehensive risk assessment of their reactor
design to identify potential failures, susceptibility to internal and
external hazards, and other contributing factors that could pose a risk
to public health and safety. The reference to the proposed 10 CFR part
53 in the Sunset Rule was intended to illustrate the evolution in
thought about how newly licensed plants could address beyond-design-
basis hazards and can be used to inform current and future technical
decisions, such as the decision to add a sunset provision to 10 CFR
50.150. This is further illustrated by the agency's decision to remove
the AIA requirement from the final 10 CFR part 53 rule language for the
reasons discussed in
[[Page 17760]]
Section III and because part 53 applicants will have to consider how to
mitigate the broader potential plant impacts that could result from an
event such as the impact of a large aircraft.
D. Analysis Credited in Licensing Basis Under 10 CFR 50.59
A commenter stated that the removal of 10 CFR 50.150 would allow
licensees to remove the analyses being credited in the licensing bases
under 10 CFR 50.59.
The NRC agrees with the comment.
The NRC agrees that removal of 10 CFR 50.150 would allow certain
licensees to make changes to portions of their facilities' designs
related to aircraft impacts, subject to the requirements of 10 CFR
50.59. Section 50.59(c)(4) specifies that the provisions in 10 CFR
50.59 do not apply to changes to the facility or procedures when the
applicable regulations establish more specific criteria for
accomplishing such changes. Section 50.150(c) provides such criteria
for control of changes to the facility related to the AIA. Removal of
10 CFR 50.150 would revert control of such changes to 10 CFR 50.59. The
use of the well-established 10 CFR 50.59 change control process does
not impact the proposal to insert a conditional sunset date in the AIA
rule.
The AIA analyses themselves are not required to be submitted to the
NRC. The provisions of 10 CFR 50.150(b) require the preliminary or
final safety analysis report (as applicable) to include only a
description of (1) the design features and functional capabilities
identified in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1), and (2) how these design features
and functional capabilities meet the assessment requirements of 10 CFR
50.150(a)(1). Additionally, the 2009 final rule makes clear that the
intent of the rule was to enhance the robustness of facilities to
aircraft impacts at the design stage. The Commission stated in the
final rule preamble that ``once the design features and functional
capabilities for addressing an aircraft impact have been incorporated
into a nuclear power plant's design, the goal of this final rule has
been achieved in that consideration of aircraft impacts has been
factored into the design.''
The NRC notes that the 10 CFR 50.59 change control process does not
allow licensees to change or remove portions of the facility or the
final safety analysis report related to AIA without evaluation of the
safety impacts under 10 CFR 50.59(c). The 10 CFR 50.59 process
therefore provides reasonable assurance of adequate protection of
public health and safety in the event a licensee decides to pursue
facility changes following the sunsetting of the AIA rule.
E. Cost/Benefit Analysis
Several commenters said that without a formal cost-benefit
analysis, the AIA rule cannot be sunset.
The NRC agrees with this comment.
This final rule does not sunset the AIA rule; rather, this rule
inserts a conditional sunset provision in 10 CFR 50.150, in accordance
with E.O. 14270. Before the NRC takes regulatory action to remove the
AIA regulations, the NRC will perform a full regulatory analysis and
will request public comments on that cost-benefit analysis. After
reviewing those comments, the NRC will determine whether to remove the
AIA regulations from 10 CFR part 50.
Several of the commenters took issue with the NRC's statement in
the proposed rule that, if reconsidered today, the cost of
implementation of the AIA rule would not be justified by the increase
in safety for future reactors.
The NRC agrees in part, and disagrees in part, with this comment.
The NRC agrees that the NRC did not include details to support that
statement in the proposed rule. However, the NRC reviewed the cost-
benefit analysis from the initial promulgation of the AIA rule and
found several key assumptions have changed.
One of the assumptions in the cost-benefit analysis for the 2009
final rule was that the NRC considered it unlikely that a request for a
new construction permit or operating license would be submitted to the
NRC for approval during the next 20 years. However, since 2009, the NRC
has received multiple additional applications for construction permits
and combined licenses. A number of other applicants and pre-applicants
have expressed interest in additional construction permit, operating
license, and combined license applications.
Additionally, due to the nature of the operating fleet and new
reactor license reviews under way at the time the 2009 final rule was
under development, the cost-benefit analysis for that rulemaking was
focused on large, light-water reactor (LWR) designs. The large LWRs
considered in the rulemaking featured robust containments that provide
inherent protection against aircraft impacts, so the estimated costs
were predominantly focused on the cost of performing the AIA and the
associated NRC review. The new reactor landscape has changed
significantly since 2009, with small modular reactors and advanced non-
light-water reactors playing a more significant role in the new
reactors being pursued by industry. These reactor designs may eliminate
or substantially reduce the potential for energetic releases that could
expel radionuclides from the reactor. As a result of the low likelihood
of release, these designs may not require a containment similar to that
of large LWRs. While this may result in less inherent protection from
aircraft impacts when compared to large LWRs, it is at least partially
offset by increased inherent and passive safety in the design and
smaller plant footprints. Nonetheless, the NRC expects the
corresponding cost of incorporating protection against aircraft impacts
into advanced reactor designs would be substantially greater than the
costs considered in the original AIA rule. Considering the AIA rule was
an enhancement to safety beyond what is needed for reasonable assurance
of adequate protection and other regulations will continue to require
applicants to address aircraft impact hazards both inside and outside
the design basis as needed for adequate protection, as discussed in
sections IV.A and B of this document, the NRC expects that the
anticipated costs would not justify the safety benefit in the current
reactor landscape.
The NRC has concluded that these comments do not provide a basis to
materially change the NRC's decision to provisionally sunset the AIA
rule.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC
certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. This final rule affects only
the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants. The companies that
own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of
``small entities'' set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the
size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).
VI. Regulatory Analysis
Because the sunset rule is needed to implement E.O. 14270, and this
rulemaking is an administrative activity, the NRC did not prepare a
regulatory analysis.
VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
This final rule does not constitute backfitting as that term is
defined in 10 CFR 50.109, ``Backfitting,'' or affect the issue finality
of an approval issued under 10 CFR part 52, ``Licenses, Certifications,
and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.'' This final rule inserts a
conditional sunsetting provision in 10 CFR 50.150. This revision will
not result in a modification of or addition to systems, structures,
components, or design of a facility; or
[[Page 17761]]
the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility; or the
procedures or organization required to design, construct or operate a
facility, and therefore does not meet the definition of backfitting in
10 CFR 50.109 or affect the issue finality of a 10 CFR part 52
approval.
VIII. Plain Writing
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal
agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized
manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the
Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, ``Plain
Language in Government Writing,'' published June 10, 1998 (63 FR
31885).
IX. National Environmental Policy Act
The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action
described in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2), which categorically excludes from
environmental review rules that are corrective or of a minor, nonpolicy
nature and do not substantially modify existing regulations. Therefore,
neither an environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment
has been prepared for this final rule.
X. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule does not contain a collection of information as
defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
XI. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has
determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action.
XII. Review Under E.O.s 14154, 14192, 14215, and 14300
The NRC has examined this final rule and has determined that it is
consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154,
``Unleashing American Energy,'' E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity
Through Deregulation,'' E.O. 14215, ``Ensuring Accountability for All
Agencies,'' and E.O. 14300, ``Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.'' This final rule is considered an E.O. 14192
deregulatory action.
XIII. Congressional Review Act
This final rule is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget
has found it does not meet the criteria at 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
XIV. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the following table are available to
interested persons as indicated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAMS accession No./Federal
Document Register citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice, ``Adoption of 60 FR 43108
Recommendations,'' August 18, 1995.
Final Rule, ``Consideration of 74 FR 28112
Aircraft Impacts for New Nuclear
Power Reactors,'' June 12, 2009.
Final Rule, ``Mitigation of Beyond- 84 FR 39684
Design-Basis Events,'' August 9,
2019.
Direct Final Rule, ``The Sunset 90 FR 55621
Rule,'' December 3, 2025.
Proposed Rule, ``The Sunset Rule,'' 90 FR 55699
December 3, 2025.
Notice, ``The Sunset Rule,'' January 91 FR 553
8, 2026.
NUREG-0800, Chapter 3, SRP Section ML100331298
3.5.1.6, Reg. 4, ``Aircraft
Hazards,'' March 9, 2010.
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory 58 FR 51735
Planning and Review,'' October 4,
1993.
Executive Order 14154, ``Unleashing 90 FR 8353
American Energy,'' January 29, 2025.
Executive Order 14192, ``Unleashing 90 FR 9065
Prosperity Through Deregulation,''
February 6, 2025.
Executive Order 14215, ``Ensuring 90 FR 10447
Accountability for All Agencies,''
February 24, 2025.
Executive Order 14270, ``Zero-Based 90 FR 15643
Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash
American Energy,'' April 15, 2025.
Executive Order 14300, ``Ordering the 90 FR 22587
Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, May 29, 2025.
Presidential Memorandum, ``Plain 63 FR 31885
Language in Government Writing,''
June 10, 1993.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No. 3, Fred Schofer, December ML25349A140
8, 2025.
Comment No. 6, Barry Quigley, ML25364A101
December 29, 2025.
Comment No. 7, Fred Dilger, State of ML26002A007
Nevada, January 2, 2026.
Comment No. 10, Jason Schwartz, ML26002A076
Institute for Policy Integrity,
January 2, 2026.
Comment No. 11, Stewart Schneider, ML26005A018
January 2, 2026.
Comment No. 13, Alyese Peterson, ML26008A119
State of New York, January 2, 2026.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC may post materials related to this document on the Federal
rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-
2026-0166. In addition, the Federal rulemaking website allows members
of the public to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a
docket folder. To subscribe: (1) navigate to the docket folder (NRC-
2026-0166); (2) click the ``Subscribe'' button; and (3) enter an email
address and click on the ``Subscribe'' button.
List of Subjects for 10 CFR Part 50
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting,
Classified information, Criminal penalties, Education, Emergency
planning, Fire prevention, Fire protection, Intergovernmental
relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Radiation
protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting
the following amendment to 10 CFR part 50.
PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 101, 102, 103,
104, 105, 108, 122, 147, 149, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186,
[[Page 17762]]
187, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2131, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135,
2138, 2152, 2167, 2169, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236,
2237, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs.
201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982, sec. 306 (42 U.S.C. 10226); National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504
note; Sec. 109, Pub. L. 96-295, 94 Stat. 783.
0
2. In Sec. 50.150, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 50.150 Aircraft impact assessment.
* * * * *
(d) Sunsetting provisions. This section shall cease to have effect
on April 8, 2027, unless the NRC determines that the cessation deadline
should be extended to a date not more than 5 years in the future after
offering the public an opportunity to provide input on the costs and
benefits of this section and considering that input. The NRC will
publish a document in the Federal Register announcing its determination
and revising or removing this section accordingly.
Dated: April 2, 2026.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael King,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2026-06747 Filed 4-7-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P