[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 2, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54727-54737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14367]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2024 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 54727]]



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 51

[NRC-2018-0300]
RIN 3150-AK54


Categorical Exclusions From Environmental Review

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to 
amend its regulations on categorical exclusions for licensing, 
regulatory, and administrative actions that individually or 
cumulatively do not have a significant effect on the human environment. 
The proposed revisions would eliminate the preparation of environmental 
assessments for such NRC actions. The proposed rule would not change 
any requirements for applicants or licensees. The NRC plans to hold a 
public meeting to promote full understanding of the proposed rule and 
facilitate public comment.

DATES: Submit comments by September 16, 2024. Comments received after 
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC 
is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this 
date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods; 
however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the 
Federal rulemaking website:
     Federal rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID: NRC-2018-0300. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Dawn Forder; telephone: 301-415-3407; 
email: [email protected]. For technical questions contact the 
individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Email comments to: [email protected]. If you do 
not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact 
us at 301-415-1677.
     Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission at 301-415-1101.
     Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff.
     Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. eastern time, Federal 
workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.
    You can read a plain language description of this proposed rule at 
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NRC-2018-0300. For additional 
direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Martinez, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 630-829-9734, email: 
[email protected] and Gregory Trussell, Office of Nuclear Material 
Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-6244, email: 
[email protected]. Both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
    A. Obtaining Information
    B. Submitting Comments
II. Background
    A. General Overview of Categorical Exclusions
    B. NRC Categorical Exclusion Regulations
    C. Basis for Proposed Amendment of Categorical Exclusion 
Regulation
    D. The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023
III. Discussion
    A. What action is the NRC taking?
    B. How are categorical exclusions applied?
    C. Who would this action affect?
    D. Why is the NRC taking this action now?
    E. How did the NRC determine which categorical exclusions to 
modify or add?
    F. What are the proposed revisions to address inefficiencies and 
inconsistencies?
    G. What is the basis for proposed new categorical exclusions?
    H. What is the basis for proposed revisions to existing 
categorical exclusions?
    I. Why is the NRC proposing to remove existing categorical 
exclusions?
IV. Specific Requests for Comments
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
VII. Regulatory Analysis
VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation
X. Plain Writing
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
XII. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations
XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards
XIV. Availability of Guidance
XV. Public Meeting

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0300 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-2018-0300.
     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 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 [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each 
document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first 
time that it is mentioned in this document.
     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.

B. Submitting Comments

    The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the 
Federal rulemaking website (https://www.regulations.gov). Please 
include Docket ID NRC-2018-0300 in your comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly

[[Page 54728]]

disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment 
submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment 
submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment 
submissions to remove identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

Background

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires 
Federal agencies to undertake an assessment of the environmental 
effects of their proposed actions prior to deciding whether to approve 
or disapprove the proposed actions. The NRC's NEPA implementing 
regulations are contained in part 51 of title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR), ``Environmental Protection Regulations for 
Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.''

A. General Overview of Categorical Exclusions

    There are three types of NEPA analyses: environmental assessments 
(EAs), environmental impact statements (EISs), and categorical 
exclusions. If a Federal agency believes that the environmental impacts 
of a proposed action are not likely to be significant, the agency may 
prepare an EA. An EA is a concise document that provides sufficient 
evidence and analysis for determining whether to make a finding of no 
significant impact (FONSI) or to prepare an EIS. If a Federal agency 
believes that the environmental impacts of a proposed action may be 
significant (for example, because an EA did not result in a FONSI), the 
agency will prepare an EIS. An EIS is a detailed written statement of 
the environmental impacts of a proposed action and alternatives to the 
proposed action.
    A categorical exclusion, by contrast, falls into the category of 
actions that do not have a significant effect on the human environment, 
as defined by a Federal agency in its NEPA implementing regulations. If 
the Federal agency finds that actions in a given category have no 
significant effect on the human environment, either individually or 
cumulatively, then the agency may establish a categorical exclusion for 
that category of actions. The NRC has the option to prepare and issue 
an EA or EIS for any proposed action, even if the proposed action meets 
the criteria for a categorical exclusion. Once it has established a 
categorical exclusion, the agency is not required to prepare an EA or 
EIS for any action that falls within the scope of the categorical 
exclusion unless the agency finds, for any particular action, that 
there are special circumstances that would preclude use of the 
categorical exclusion. Categorical exclusions increase efficiency in 
the environmental review process, saving time, effort, and resources.

B. NRC Categorical Exclusion Regulations

    On March 12, 1984 (49 FR 9352), the NRC published 10 CFR part 51, 
including Sec.  51.22, ``Criterion for categorical exclusion: 
identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for 
categorical exclusion or otherwise not requiring environmental 
review.'' The regulation included the NRC's first list of 18 
categorical exclusions in Sec.  51.22(c). Since 1984, the NRC has made 
18 amendments to the categorical exclusions in Sec.  51.22(c). The 
NRC's categorical exclusions include administrative, organizational, 
and procedural amendments to certain types of NRC regulations, 
licenses, and certificates; minor changes related to application filing 
procedures; certain personnel and procurement activities; and 
activities for which environmental review by the NRC is excluded by 
statute.
    On September 24, 2003 (68 FR 55954), the Council on Environmental 
Quality (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act Task Force published a 
report, ``Modernizing NEPA Implementation'' (Task Force Report) that 
recommended Federal agencies periodically review and update their 
categorical exclusion regulations. The Task Force Report stated that an 
agency can use, among other things, information from past actions to 
establish the basis for the determination of no significant effects. It 
also provided that ``[w]hile the criteria for identifying new 
categorical exclusions might vary from agency to agency, some 
candidates for categorical exclusions include repetitive actions that 
do not individually or cumulatively have significant effects on the 
human environment, those that generally require limited environmental 
review, and those that are noncontroversial.''
    In a December 6, 2010, Federal Register notification (75 FR 75628), 
the CEQ issued final guidance, ``Establishing, Applying, and Revising 
Categorical Exclusions under [NEPA]'' (hereafter ``CEQ guidance 
memorandum''), which recommends agencies periodically review 
categorical exclusions to assure their continued appropriate use and 
usefulness. The review should help determine if the existing 
categorical exclusions are still relevant or if there are additional 
eligible actions. Further, the CEQ recommended that agencies develop a 
process and timeline to periodically review their categorical 
exclusions to ensure that their categorical exclusions remain current 
and appropriate, and that those reviews should be conducted at least 
every seven years. The NRC last amended its categorical exclusion 
regulations in 2010 (75 FR 20248; April 19, 2010).
    Consistent with the CEQ recommendations, the NRC reviewed its 
environmental programs and organization to identify potential 
opportunities to continue to protect people and the environment in 
different ways that would enhance the process, save time, and reduce 
resources. That review resulted in SECY-20-0065, ``Rulemaking Plan-
Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review,'' which recommended 
to the Commission that the staff conduct this rulemaking activity 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML20021A160).

C. Basis for Proposed Amendment of Categorical Exclusion Regulation

    In staff requirements memorandum (SRM) SRM-SECY-20-0065, 
``Rulemaking Plan--Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review,'' 
dated November 30, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20336A009), the 
Commission approved the staff's recommendation to initiate a rulemaking 
to add new categorical exclusions and amend existing categorical 
exclusions.
    This proposed rule is based upon a review of NRC regulatory 
actions, consistent with the CEQ guidance memorandum, which recommends 
that agencies evaluate past EA/FONSIs for particular categories of 
actions to develop new or expand existing categorical exclusions. 
Consistent with this recommendation, the NRC conducted an in-depth 
review of the NRC activities, including EA/FONSIs, completed since the 
2010 rulemaking was conducted. The review identified several recurring 
categories of regulatory actions that are not addressed in Sec.  51.22 
and have no significant effect on the human environment, either 
individually or cumulatively. These categories of

[[Page 54729]]

actions were considered in developing this proposed rule.
    The NRC held a public meeting on June 16, 2021, to help facilitate 
comments on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) that was 
published on May 7, 2021 (86 FR 24514). The ANPR identified potential 
rulemaking changes that would allow the NRC to continue to protect 
people and the environment in different ways that would enhance the 
process, save time, and reduce resources. The ANPR raised the 
possibility of reorganizing the existing categorical exclusions and 
adding new categorical exclusions. During the meeting, the NRC 
presented background information, the NRC's regulations on categorical 
exclusions, and the potential rulemaking changes under consideration. 
Participants asked clarifying questions on the NRC's approach and were 
provided details on how to submit their comments.
    The NRC received more than 2,300 comment submittals on the ANPR; 
most were identical comments on topics that the NRC determined were out 
of scope for this rulemaking. Approximately 20 unique comment 
submittals were within scope. The NRC evaluated and considered the 
comments during the development of this proposed rule. Some of the 
comments supported reorganizing the list of categorical exclusions to 
eliminate redundancy and add clarity. Additionally, some comments 
supported revisions to eliminate distinctions in categorical exclusions 
between license amendments, exemptions, rulemaking, and other forms of 
NRC actions to ensure that categorical exclusions are based on the 
activities that would be authorized rather than the administrative and 
legal differences between the different forms of NRC approvals.
    The NRC received comments that did not support some of the 
categories considered in the ANPR. Based on an in-depth review of these 
comments, the NRC modified some of the changes under consideration; for 
example, the NRC is not pursuing categorical exclusions for four 
categories of actions considered in the ANPR: (1) the issuance of 
exemptions to low-level waste disposal sites for the storage and 
disposal of special nuclear material regulated by Agreement States; (2) 
approvals for alternative waste disposal procedures for reactor and 
materials licenses in accordance with 10 CFR 20.2002, ``Method for 
obtaining approval of proposed disposal procedures''; (3) the NRC's 
concurrence, under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), 
section 274c., on termination by an Agreement State of licenses for AEA 
section 11e.(2) byproduct material where all decommissioning activities 
have been completed; and (4) approvals of long-term surveillance plans 
for decommissioned uranium mills.
    In addition, based on a comment received on the ANPR, the NRC 
evaluated categorical exclusions adopted by other Federal agencies for 
potential adoption by the NRC. This evaluation did not identify any 
categorical exclusions for incorporation in this proposed rule.

D. The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023

    The NRC acknowledges recent amendments to the NEPA statute enacted 
in section 321 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 118-5, 
137 Stat. 10).
    The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 added a new NEPA section 109, 
which includes a provision allowing agencies to adopt a categorical 
exclusion prepared by another agency, and NEPA now defines 
``categorical exclusion'' in section 111(1). The NRC has not identified 
categorical exclusions prepared by other agencies that it would adopt 
under NEPA section 109, nor has the NRC identified any need to change 
its existing categorical exclusions or those proposed in this rule to 
address the new definition in NEPA section 111(1).

III. Discussion

A. What action is the NRC taking?

    The NRC is proposing changes to its list of categorical exclusions 
to clarify the scope of existing categories, to improve consistency in 
their application, and to add new categories of actions that have no 
significant effect on the human environment. For example, the NRC is 
proposing to eliminate distinctions in categorical exclusions between 
license amendments, exemptions, rulemaking, and other forms of NRC 
actions to ensure that categorical exclusions are based on the 
activities that would be authorized (e.g., certain maintenance 
activities) rather than on the different forms of the NRC approvals. 
The proposed amendments would ensure resources are directed to 
activities that have the potential to significantly affect the 
environment.

B. How are categorical exclusions applied?

    If a Federal agency finds that actions in a given category have no 
significant effect on the human environment, either individually or 
cumulatively, then the agency may establish a categorical exclusion for 
that category of action. Once it has established a categorical 
exclusion, the agency is not required to prepare an EA or EIS for any 
action that falls within the scope of the categorical exclusion, unless 
the agency finds, for any particular action, that there are 
extraordinary circumstances (called special circumstances in the NRC's 
regulations) that may have a significant effect on the human 
environment. If such special circumstances are or are likely to be 
present, the agency would prepare an EA (which may result in a FONSI) 
or, if necessary, an EIS. If special circumstances are not present, the 
categorical exclusion may be applied and the agency will have satisfied 
its NEPA obligation for that proposed action.
    Under NRC regulations, the determination of whether special 
circumstances are present is a matter of agency discretion. The 
determination that special circumstances are not present does not 
require the preparation of any specific or additional documentation 
beyond the documentation normally prepared indicating that the 
categorical exclusion is being invoked for the proposed action.

C. Who would this action affect?

    The amendments would not impose any new requirements on NRC 
applicants or licensees but would ensure that NRC actions (including 
decisions on licensing requests) are completed in a more consistent, 
efficient and effective manner and would result in cost savings to the 
NRC and applicants and licensees. The proposed amendments would 
eliminate the NRC's preparation of EA/FONSIs for actions that the NRC 
knows from staff expertise or that routinely have no significant effect 
on the human environment (e.g., administrative, procedural, or 
organizational licensee requests). For example, ambiguities in the 
current categorical exclusion regulations have resulted in resources 
being directed to EAs for approvals of organizational name changes, 
which do not significantly affect the environment.
    The NRC is not required to provide opportunity for comment on draft 
EA/FONSIs. However, the NRC under certain circumstances does provide 
opportunity for comment on draft EA/FONSIs. Therefore, the NRC cannot 
rule out the possibility that adding new categorical exclusions (as 
proposed in this proposed rule) could result in fewer opportunities for 
public participation in the NRC's environmental review process, albeit 
only for activities where

[[Page 54730]]

the NRC has determined there will not be a significant effect on the 
human environment.

D. Why is the NRC taking this action now?

    This proposed rule is based upon a review of NRC regulatory 
actions. As noted, the CEQ guidance memorandum recommends that Federal 
agencies regularly review their categorical exclusion regulations to 
identify potential revisions that would ensure resources are directed 
to activities that have the potential to significantly affect the 
environment.

E. How did the NRC determine which categorical exclusions to modify or 
add?

    In accordance with CEQ's 2010 guidance memorandum, the NRC reviewed 
and analyzed past actions, including their supporting NEPA 
documentation, to develop initial candidates for potential changes to 
categorical exclusion regulations. The NRC then solicited input from 
internal stakeholders and, through an ANPR, from the public on the 
initial candidates and to identify any additional potential candidates. 
The NRC then considered available information and experience to 
determine whether the candidates for categorical exclusion and 
revisions to the existing categorical exclusions could be 
substantiated.
    The CEQ guidance memorandum provides four methods for 
substantiating a new or revised categorical exclusion. The NRC used two 
of those methods in substantiating its proposed changes. The methods 
used in the NRC's proposal are based on (1) data from implementing 
comparable past actions and the expert judgment of the NRC staff who 
conducted the past actions, and (2) professional opinions and 
information from other NRC staff. Based on its review of all the 
information collected, the NRC determined that actions covered by the 
proposed changes would not individually or cumulatively have 
significant effects on the human environment.
    The NRC has prepared a supporting rationale in Section III of this 
document for each of its proposed changes that provides specific 
background and context.

F. What are the proposed revisions to address inefficiencies and 
inconsistencies?

    The NRC is proposing to reorganize the list of categorical 
exclusions to eliminate redundancy, add clarity, and improve 
consistency. The current regulation contains 25 separate paragraphs, 
several of which contain multiple categorical exclusions. The NRC has 
identified several actions where staff have cited different, 
potentially overlapping, categorical exclusions for similar or even 
identical actions (e.g., Sec.  51.22(c)(9) versus (c)(25)). The 
reorganization would eliminate distinctions in categorical exclusions 
between license amendments, exemptions, rulemaking, and other forms of 
NRC actions to ensure that categorical exclusions are based on the 
activities that would be authorized rather than the administrative and 
legal differences between the different forms of NRC approvals. The 
reorganization would remove the overlapping actions and consolidate 
similar actions into one categorical exclusion.
    The proposed organization would list the categorical exclusions in 
four separate categorical exclusion paragraphs, paragraphs (a) through 
(d) based on threshold criteria used to more clearly and consistently 
identify the categories of actions being excluded. For example, each 
paragraph would be organized into similar actions to add clarity.
    The NRC is proposing to remove the ``no significant hazards 
consideration'' criterion in Sec.  51.22(c)(9), (25)(i) and (v). The 
``no significant hazards consideration'' is a procedural standard from 
Sec.  50.92, ``Issuance of amendment'' that governs whether an 
opportunity for a hearing must be provided before a license amendment 
action is taken by the NRC for a production and utilization facility 
under part 50 (51 FR 7746; March 6, 1986). It is not related to NEPA 
and not applicable to exemptions that do not include license amendments 
or actions related to materials licenses (e.g., 10 CFR part 30, ``Rules 
of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material,'' 
or 10 CFR part 40, ``Domestic Licensing of Source Material,'' 
licenses). The remaining criteria in Sec.  51.22(c)(9), (25)(i) and (v) 
are sufficient for determining whether the categorical exclusion 
applies to an action. Therefore, as part of the reorganization, the NRC 
is proposing to eliminate the criterion for no significant hazards 
considerations criteria currently in Sec.  51.22(c)(9) and (25).
    In addition, the ``no significant construction impact'' criterion 
in Sec.  51.22(c)(6), (11), (12)(i), and (25)(iv) would be revised to 
``provided that any ground disturbance is limited to previously 
disturbed areas.'' The purpose of this change is to provide 
clarification. The regulatory history indicates that the ``no 
significant construction'' impact criterion was intended to preclude 
actions that would result in ground disturbing activities in 
undisturbed areas, which would have the potential to alter, modify, or 
destroy important attributes of environmental resource areas (e.g., 
land use, terrestrial ecology, historic and cultural resources). Based 
on experience with the use of these categorical exclusions, the NRC's 
view is that it would be clearer to explicitly state the relevant 
consideration in the regulations.

G. What is the basis for proposed new categorical exclusions?

    The NRC is proposing to add the following categorical exclusions.
    Termination of licenses that were issued but for which no 
construction activities have begun or where all decommissioning 
activities have been completed and approved and license termination is 
a final administrative step.
    First, the termination of licenses that were issued but for which 
no construction has begun would remove authorization for activities 
that could affect the environment. Second, when all site 
decommissioning activities have been approved and completed, license 
termination is an NRC administrative action. To be eligible for license 
termination, facilities must complete necessary dismantlement and 
decontamination activities and have met radiological criteria in 10 CFR 
part 20, ``Standards for Protection Against Radiation,'' for site 
release and demonstrated that public health and safety and the 
environment will be protected. Therefore, the action of terminating a 
license after all site decommissioning activities have been approved 
and completed is administrative in nature and does not have the 
potential to individually or cumulatively affect the human environment. 
The NRC has historically cited various other categorical exclusions or 
prepared an EA for these activities. The inclusion of this example in 
proposed Sec.  51.22(a)(1)(xiii) would provide clarity and consistency 
for future license terminations. This proposed categorical exclusion 
would not include the NRC's concurrence on termination by an Agreement 
State of an Agreement State license for AEA Sec.  11e.(2) byproduct 
material. It would also not include partial site releases or license 
termination plans.
    Actions on or changes to requirements for decommissioning funding 
plans under 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 50, 70, or 72. Decommissioning funding 
actions only relate to changes in the management of funds allowed for 
managing irradiated fuel activities. They do not authorize new land-
disturbing activities that could affect land use, soils and geology,

[[Page 54731]]

water resources, ecological resources, historic and cultural resources, 
air quality, traffic and transportation, socioeconomics, environmental 
justice, or accidents. Categorically excluding decommissioning funding 
plan submittals would provide clarity and surety for future such 
actions and eliminate inconsistencies in the decommissioning funding 
plan approval process. Licensees would continue to comply with all 
appropriate NRC regulations related to occupational and public 
radiation exposure and therefore decommissioning funding actions would 
not result in an increase to occupational or public doses. Finally, 
licensees are required to maintain adequate funding for radiological 
decommissioning and to provide information regarding this funding to 
the NRC. Since 2010 the NRC has completed approximately 30 EAs for 
decommissioning funding plans, all resulting in FONSIs. Therefore, the 
NRC determined that decommissioning funding actions are strictly 
financial in nature and do not have the potential to individually or 
cumulatively affect the human environment. These actions would be 
categorically excluded by proposed Sec.  51.22(a)(1) and listed as an 
example in subparagraph (xii).
    Issuance of amendments to Sec.  72.214 for new, amended, revised, 
or renewed certificates of compliance for cask designs used for spent 
fuel storage. The codification of certificates of compliance for cask 
designs is accomplished by rulemaking to amend 10 CFR part 72. As 
background, on July 18,1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment 
to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a 
general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential 
environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was initially 
analyzed in the EA for the 1990 final rule. Currently, the NRC prepares 
EAs for new, amended, revised, and renewed certificates of compliance 
for cask designs used for spent fuel storage. Since the 2010 rulemaking 
the NRC has completed approximately 125 EAs for amendments to Sec.  
72.214 for new, amended, revised, or renewed certificates of compliance 
for cask designs, all resulting in FONSIs. Accordingly, the NRC 
determined that certificate of compliance cask design changes do not 
result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts 
that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in 
the EA and FONSI supporting the 1990 final rule. Therefore, the NRC 
concludes that codifying certificates of compliance for cask designs do 
not individually or cumulatively affect the human environment. This 
categorical exclusion is proposed as Sec.  51.22(a)(12).
    Actions under Sec.  50.55a, ``Codes and standards.'' Section 50.55a 
establishes minimum quality standards for the design, fabrication, 
erection, construction, testing, and inspection of certain systems, 
structures, and components of boiling and pressurized water-cooled 
nuclear power plants. Under Sec.  50.55a, the NRC can authorize 
proposed alternatives to these standards (Sec.  50.55a(z)), grant 
relief from or impose augments to requirements for in service 
inspection and testing of components due to impracticality (Sec.  
50.55a(f)(6)(i) and (g)(6)(i)), or approve the early use of later code 
editions for in service inspection and testing of components (Sec.  
50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv)). Categorically excluding these actions 
would provide clarity and surety for future actions of this type. For 
the following reasons, these approvals under Sec.  50.55a do not 
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
environment, which makes these actions eligible for categorical 
exclusion. Approvals under Sec.  50.55a do not authorize new ground 
disturbance or the installation of new systems, structures, or 
components; rather, they relate to requirements for the design, 
construction, and maintenance of systems, structures and components 
authorized for use by other actions (i.e., licensing). These approvals 
also do not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, 
result in changes to the types or amounts of effluents released 
offsite, result in an increase to occupational or public dose, or 
result in other radiological or nonradiological environmental impacts. 
Therefore, the NRC concludes that actions under Sec.  50.55a do not 
individually or cumulatively affect the human environment. This 
categorical exclusion is proposed as Sec.  51.22(a)(16).
    Changes to requirements for fire protection, emergency planning, 
physical security, cybersecurity, or quality assurance. Since 2010, the 
NRC has completed 51 EAs/FONSIs associated with the approval of 
exemptions or license amendments related to emergency planning, 
physical security, or fire protection requirements. The EAs have 
concluded that these amendments or exemptions do not increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents and do not result in 
significant changes to the types or amounts of effluents released 
offsite, increases to occupational or public dose, or any other 
radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts. However, some 
of these actions include ground disturbing activities, such as 
construction of security fences. Therefore, the NRC concludes that 
these changes to requirements for fire protection, emergency planning, 
or physical security plans do not individually or cumulatively affect 
the human environment, provided that any associated ground disturbance 
is limited to previously disturbed areas.
    Quality assurance programs are intended to provide adequate 
confidence that a structure, system, or component will perform 
satisfactorily in service. Elements of a quality assurance program 
include procedures, recordkeeping, inspections, corrective actions, and 
audits. Cybersecurity plans protect computer and digital communication 
systems and networks against cyber-attacks. Changes to quality 
assurance programs or cybersecurity plans affect activities that occur 
inside buildings. These changes do not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents and do not result in significant changes to 
the types or amounts of effluents released offsite, increases to 
occupational or public dose, or any other radiological or non-
radiological impacts and do not involve ground disturbance in 
undisturbed areas. Therefore, changes to requirements for quality 
assurance or cybersecurity do not have the potential to individually or 
cumulatively affect the human environment.
    These actions would be categorically excluded by proposed Sec.  
51.22(d)(4).
    Changes to extend implementation dates for activities previously 
found to not have a significant environmental impact. These revisions 
would categorically exclude actions authorizing licensees to delay 
implementation of certain new NRC requirements. This proposed 
categorical exclusion only applies to implementation date delays for 
activities previously found to have no significant environmental impact 
and where the delay would result in no significant increase in the 
potential for or consequences from radiological accidents, no ground 
disturbance in undisturbed areas, no changes in effluents released 
offsite, and no additional doses to individuals. The proposed 
categorical exclusion does not apply to authorizations for other date 
extensions, such as license term extensions. Since 2010 the NRC has 
completed approximately 44 EAs to extend implementation dates, all 
resulting in FONSIs. Therefore, the NRC determined that implementation 
date extensions do not have the potential to individually or 
cumulatively affect the

[[Page 54732]]

human environment. These actions would be categorically excluded by 
proposed Sec.  51.22(d)(6).

H. What is the basis for the proposed revisions to existing categorical 
exclusions?

    The NRC is proposing to reorganize the list of categorical 
exclusions to eliminate redundancy, add clarity, and improve 
consistency. The reorganization would eliminate distinctions in 
categorical exclusions between license amendments, exemptions, 
rulemaking, and other forms of NRC actions, to ensure that categorical 
exclusions are based on the activities that would be authorized rather 
than the administrative and legal differences between the different 
forms of NRC approvals. The reorganization would consolidate similar 
actions into one categorical exclusion. In some instances, the 
revisions would expand or clarify language used in the existing 
categorical exclusions (e.g., focusing on ground disturbance rather 
than on whether there would be a significant construction impact). In 
these cases, the rulemaking analyzes these newly included actions for 
suitability for categorical exclusion but does not revisit the 
suitability of the existing categorical exclusion. The NRC would also 
make a small number of editorial revisions. This section provides the 
basis for the proposed revisions.
    The proposed new categorical exclusion in Sec.  51.22(a)(1) applies 
to all NRC actions that are administrative, procedural, or solely 
financial in nature including exemptions and orders pertaining to these 
actions. The list of activities in proposed paragraphs 51.22(a)(1)(i) 
through (xi) consolidates all existing categorical exclusions that fit 
into the new category, but is not exclusive; rather it provides 
examples of actions that are included in the category for clarity. The 
actions included in proposed Sec.  51.22(a)(1) are limited to 
administrative, procedural, or solely financial in nature. The NRC 
notes that actions that are ``solely financial in nature'' do not 
include, for example, grants or contracts that enable activities that 
could have environmental effects. Instead, this refers to activities 
that relate only to sources or means of funding or verifying that 
adequate funding is available for approved activities. Actions that are 
solely financial in nature affect the financial arrangements of the 
licensees, but do not have environmental impacts. Accordingly, the NRC 
concludes that these actions would not have significant individual or 
cumulative effects on the human environment.
    The proposed Sec.  51.22(a)(8) would expand the categorical 
exclusion for issuance, amendment, or renewal of operators' licenses 
under 10 CFR part 55 to include all forms of related NRC actions, 
including exemptions and orders. Part 55 of 10 CFR prohibits persons 
from performing the functions of an operator or a senior operator at a 
licensed facility unless authorized to do so by a license issued by the 
Commission. Although issuance or denial of an operator's license may 
have a significant economic effect on the individual applicant, the 
action of the Commission in issuing, amending, or renewing an 
operator's license in accordance with the procedures of 10 CFR part 55 
does not have an environmental effect. The environmental impact of the 
operation of a licensed facility by a licensed operator is fully 
considered in the EIS or EA prepared in connection with the licensing 
action authorizing operation of the facility. The formal action of 
certifying an operator does not authorize facility operation. 
Accordingly, the NRC finds that issuance, amendment, or renewal of 
operators' licenses under 10 CFR part 55 comprises a category of 
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment. For the same reasons, the NRC 
concludes that neither exemptions nor orders relating to these 
requirements would have significant effects on the human environment.
    The proposed Sec.  51.22(a)(10) would expand an existing 
categorical exclusion to include all forms of related NRC actions, 
including exemptions and orders, but not rulemakings. Specifically, it 
would expand the current categorical exclusions for issuance, 
amendment, or renewal of materials licenses issued under 10 CFR parts 
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, or 70 authorizing the types of 
activities listed in the current Sec.  51.22(c)(14). It has been the 
NRC's experience that additional NRC actions such as exemptions and 
orders involve insignificant amounts of source, byproduct, or special 
nuclear material in quantities and form similar to those categorically 
excluded in Sec.  51.22(c)(14) and, therefore, have no significant 
individual or cumulative environmental impact. For the same reasons, 
the NRC concludes that neither exemptions nor orders relating to these 
requirements would have significant individual or cumulative effects on 
the human environment.
    The proposed Sec.  51.22(b) and (d) include a criterion stating 
that the actions would not result in disturbances to previously 
undisturbed areas. This wording replaces the previous wording of ``no 
significant construction impact.'' The purpose of this new wording is 
to clarify that ground disturbance in areas that are already disturbed 
can be a factor in determining whether an action would have potential 
impacts. Actions that involve ground disturbance in areas not already 
disturbed will be reviewed for potential environmental impacts. The 
proposed Sec.  51.22(b) is otherwise substantively unchanged from the 
existing Sec.  51.22(c)(6).
    The proposed Sec.  51.22(d)(1) through (3), and (5) would expand 
the following categorical exclusions to include rulemaking, orders, and 
license amendments, provided the actions would not disturb previously 
undisturbed areas, would not result in a significant change in the 
types or amounts of effluents released offsite, would not significantly 
increase individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation 
exposure, and would not increase the potential for or consequences from 
radiological accidents:
     changes to inspection or surveillance requirements 
(proposed Sec.  51.22(d)(1)): this would also be expanded to apply to 
facilities other than reactors (i.e., would eliminate reference to 10 
CFR part 50 or 52). Expanding this categorical exclusion to include 
facilities other than reactors improves the consistency of the 
categorical exclusion. The NRC expects that the application of this 
categorical exclusion to non-reactor facilities would not be materially 
different from the current application to reactor facilities because 
the activities are substantially similar at all NRC licensed 
facilities;
     changes to equipment servicing or maintenance requirements 
(proposed Sec.  51.22(d)(2));
     changes to safeguards plans or material control and 
accounting inventory requirements, including modifications to systems 
used for security and/or materials accountability (proposed Sec.  
51.22(d)(3)); and
     changes to scheduling requirements (proposed Sec.  
51.22(d)(5)).
    In addition to exemptions, the NRC conveys its regulatory decisions 
using other forms, such as rulemaking, orders, and license amendments. 
The NRC previously found that requests for exemptions from requirements 
for inspection and surveillance, equipment servicing and maintenance, 
safeguards plans and material control and accounting, and scheduling 
requirements would not lead to significant environmental impacts on the 
human environment individually or cumulatively. Similarly, the NRC

[[Page 54733]]

concludes that changes to these requirements resulting from 
rulemakings, orders, and license amendments, assuming the changes meet 
the criteria in the proposed Sec.  51.22(d), would not have significant 
individual or cumulative effects on the human environment.
    The proposed Sec.  51.22(d)(7) would expand an existing categorical 
exclusion, current Sec.  51.22(c)(11), to include exemptions, orders, 
and rulemaking. Specifically, current Sec.  51.22(c)(11) is a 
categorical exclusion for amendments to licenses for fuel cycle plants 
and radioactive waste disposal sites and amendments to materials 
licenses identified in Sec.  51.60(b)(1) that are administrative, 
organizational, or procedural in nature, or that result in a change in 
process operations or equipment, provided that there is no significant 
change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any 
effluents released offsite, no significant increase in individual or 
cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure, no significant 
construction impact, and no significant increase in the potential for 
or consequences from radiological accidents. In the NRC's experience, 
these actions also do not result in any significant adverse incremental 
impacts to the environment. Implementation of these minor and routine 
types of changes do not significantly alter the previously evaluated 
environmental impacts associated with the licensed activity, 
considering the potential for ground disturbance, types and amounts of 
effluents released by the operation, occupational exposure to 
employees, or potential accidents. The actions that would be 
categorically excluded do not affect the scope or nature of the 
licensed activity. Therefore, the issuance of exemptions and orders 
relating to these matters in and of themselves would not cause any 
significant individual or cumulative environmental effects.
    The proposed Sec.  51.22(d)(7) relating to authorizations that 
result in changes in process operations or equipment under certain 
licenses, would be subject to the criterion in proposed Sec.  51.22(d) 
stating that the actions would not result in disturbances to previously 
undisturbed ground. This wording replaces the limitation in the 
existing categorical exclusion (at Sec.  51.22(c)(11)) to activities 
that involve ``no significant construction impact.'' The purpose of 
this new wording is to clarify that ground disturbance can be a factor 
in determining whether an action would have potential impacts and 
should not be categorically excluded from environmental review.
    The proposed Sec.  51.22(d)(8), relating to certain authorizations 
under part 50 or 52, would expand the existing categorical exclusion in 
Sec.  51.22(c)(9) to include rulemakings and orders. Specifically, it 
would expand the existing categorical exclusion for the issuance of an 
amendment to a permit or license for a reactor under 10 CFR part 50 or 
52 that changes a requirement or issuance of an exemption from a 
requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility 
component. The proposed rule would also expand this categorical 
exclusion to include installation or use of a facility component 
outside the restricted area under certain circumstances. Changes which 
relate to the installation or use of a facility component located 
within a restricted area and which do not involve significant hazards 
considerations, significant changes in offsite effluents, or 
significant increases in occupational doses do not result in offsite 
effects that could have a significant individual or cumulative effects 
on the human environment. Associated effects, if any, would be minimal 
and would be confined to limited access areas on site.
    The proposed Sec.  51.22(d)(8) would be subject to the criterion in 
proposed Sec.  51.22(d) stating that the actions would not result in 
disturbances to previously undisturbed areas. This criterion would 
replace restriction in the current categorical exclusion (at Sec.  
51.22(c)(9)) to facility components located within the restricted area. 
The purpose of the existing restriction is to ensure that ground 
disturbance is limited to previously disturbed areas, which was the 
basis for the previous limitation for this categorical exclusion to 
components in the restricted area. Thus, this proposed revision would 
continue to ensure that the categorical exclusion does not apply to 
activities that include ground disturbance in areas not already 
disturbed. As a result of this proposed change, this categorical 
exclusion would apply where a facility component is located inside or 
outside the restricted area as long as installation or use of the 
component would not disturb previously undisturbed areas (and meets the 
other criteria in Sec.  51.22(d)).

I. Why is the NRC proposing to remove existing categorical exclusions?

    The NRC evaluated all existing categorical exclusions to determine 
if any are no longer necessary or have proven to no longer meet the 
criteria for categorical exclusion. The NRC determined that two 
existing categorical exclusions are no longer necessary because they 
are obsolete. The remaining existing categorical exclusions continue to 
be valid. The NRC is proposing to remove Sec.  51.22(c)(17), ``Issuance 
of an amendment to a permit or license under 10 CFR part 30, 40, 50, 
52, or 70, which removes any limiting condition of operation or 
monitoring requirement based on or applicable to any matter subject to 
the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.'' The NRC 
has concluded its activity to amend applicable NRC licenses and permits 
to remove limiting conditions of operation or monitoring requirements 
pertaining to nonradiological discharge pollutants under the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act and no longer includes such conditions in 
NRC permits and licenses (49 FR 9380; March 12, 1984). Therefore, the 
NRC has determined that this categorical exclusion is no longer 
necessary.
    The NRC is also proposing to remove Sec.  51.22(c)(18), ``Issuance 
of amendments or orders authorizing licensees of production or 
utilization facilities to resume operation, provided the basis for the 
authorization rests solely on a determination or redetermination by the 
Commission that applicable emergency planning requirements are met.'' 
This categorical exclusion was established in the NRC 1984 NEPA 
implementing regulations (49 FR 9352; March 12, 1984) to support the 
implementation of a 1980 emergency planning rule (45 FR 55402; August 
19, 1980). That emergency planning rule has been fully implemented, 
therefore, the NRC has determined that this categorical exclusion is no 
longer applicable and should be removed.

IV. Specific Requests for Comments

    The NRC is seeking feedback from the public on the proposed rule. 
We are particularly interested in comments and supporting rationale 
from the public on the following:
     The categorical exclusions in proposed Sec.  51.22(b) 
(related to confirmatory research and review and approval of 
transportation routes under 10 CFR 73.3) and (d) (addressing nine 
different types of actions) will require the application of threshold 
criteria to determine whether the actions listed in those sections may 
be categorically excluded. The threshold criteria used in current Sec.  
51.22 include ``no significant construction impact.'' The NRC is 
proposing to substitute the phrase ``any ground disturbance is limited 
to previously disturbed areas'' for ``no significant construction 
impact.'' The purpose of this change would be to prevent the 
categorical exclusion of actions that would disturb previously 
undisturbed land, which have the

[[Page 54734]]

potential to affect historic or cultural resources, and actions that 
would disturb areas that have been allowed to return to a natural 
state, which have the potential to affect functioning ecologies. The 
NRC is requesting input on the proposed phrase ``any ground disturbance 
is limited to previously disturbed areas.''
     The NRC is considering defining the phrase, ``previously 
disturbed areas'' to refer to ``areas that have been changed such that 
its functioning ecological processes have been and remain altered by 
human activity. The phrase encompasses areas that have been transformed 
from natural cover to non-native species or a managed state, including, 
but not limited to, utility and electric power transmission corridors 
and rights-of-way, and other areas where active utilities and currently 
used roads are readily available.'' The NRC is requesting input on the 
proposed definition.
     As discussed in Section III.F, of this document, the NRC 
is proposing to remove the ``no significant hazards consideration'' 
determination in Sec.  51.22(c)(9), (25)(i) and (v), which is related 
to a process for issuance of license amendments for nuclear power 
reactor and testing facility licenses, but is not related to 
environmental impacts and not relevant to materials licenses. The ``no 
significant hazards consideration'' is a procedural standard that 
governs whether an opportunity for a hearing must be provided before an 
action is taken by the NRC. The NRC is requesting input on the removal 
of the ``no significant hazards consideration'' determination in Sec.  
51.22(c)(9), (25)(i) and (v).

V. Section-by-Section Analysis

    The following paragraphs describe the specific changes proposed by 
this rulemaking.

Section 51.21 Criteria for and Identification of Licensing and 
Regulatory Actions Requiring Environmental Assessments

    This proposed rule would revise Sec.  51.21 to update the 
references for those categorical exclusions and other actions 
identified as not requiring an environmental review.

Section 51.22 Criterion for Categorical Exclusion; Identification of 
Licensing and Regulatory Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusion or 
Otherwise Not Requiring Environmental Review

    This proposed rule would revise the section heading to more 
accurately reflect the section. The proposed rule also would add 
introductory text, redesignate paragraph (d) as paragraph (e), add a 
new paragraph (d), and revise paragraphs (a) through (c) to add, 
clarify, and eliminate categorical exclusions.

Section 51.25 Determination To Prepare Environmental Impact Statement 
or Environmental Assessment; Eligibility for Categorical Exclusion

    This proposed rule would revise Sec.  51.25 to update the reference 
for the location of categorical exclusions to Sec.  51.22 (a) through 
(d).

Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51, Format for Presentation of Material 
in Environmental Impact Statements

    This proposed rule would revise footnote 4 to remove the reference 
to Sec.  51.22(c)(17).

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 
605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

VII. Regulatory Analysis

    The NRC has prepared a regulatory analysis on this proposed 
regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the 
alternatives considered by the NRC. The conclusion from the analysis is 
that this proposed rule and associated guidance would result in a net 
benefit to the NRC of $71,000 using a 7-percent discount rate and 
$266,200 using a 3-percent discount rate. The NRC requests public 
comment on the draft regulatory analysis. The regulatory analysis is 
available under ADAMS Accession No. ML24165A234.

VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality

    This proposed rule would eliminate the NRC's requirement to prepare 
environmental assessments or environmental impact statements for 
certain categories of actions. Although the proposed rule would not 
alter requirements for applicants or petitioners for rulemaking to 
provide environmental reports under Sec. Sec.  51.40-51.68, it could 
reduce the information an applicant or petitioner for rulemaking would 
be obligated to provide in an environmental report. Reductions in the 
information required to be included in applications and petitions for 
rulemaking constitutes a voluntary reduction in requirements and 
therefore is not a backfit under the backfitting rules (Sec. Sec.  
50.109, 70.76, 72.62, or 76.76) nor a violation of any issue finality 
provisions in 10 CFR part 52.
    Further, applicants and petitioners are not, with certain 
exceptions, within the scope of either the backfitting rules 
(Sec. Sec.  50.109, 70.76, 72.62, or 76.76) or any issue finality 
provisions in 10 CFR part 52. The backfitting and issue finality 
regulations include language delineating when those provisions begin; 
in general, they begin after the issuance of a license, permit, or 
approval (e.g., Sec.  50.109(a)(1)(iii) and Sec.  52.98(a)). Neither 
the backfitting provisions nor the issue finality provisions, with 
certain exceptions, are intended to apply to NRC actions that 
substantially change the expectations of current and future applicants. 
These applicants cannot reasonably expect that future requirements will 
not change.
    Therefore, this proposed rule does not involve any provisions 
within the scope of the backfit rules (Sec. Sec.  50.109, 70.76, 72.62, 
or 76.76) or the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. 
Accordingly, the NRC did not prepare a backfit or forward fit analysis 
for this proposed rule.

IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation

    The NRC is following its Cumulative Effects of Regulation (CER) 
process by engaging with external stakeholders throughout this proposed 
rule and related regulatory activities. Opportunity for public comment 
is provided to the public at this proposed rule stage.
    The staff published an ANPR in the Federal Register on May 7, 2021. 
The NRC held a public meeting on June 16, 2021, to help facilitate 
comments for the ANPR. The NRC will conduct another public meeting 
during the comment period for this proposed rule.
    The NRC is requesting CER feedback on the following questions:
    1. In light of any current or projected CER challenges, would a 30-
day effective date from the publication of the final rule provide 
sufficient time to implement the new requirements as proposed?
    2. If CER challenges currently exist or are expected, what should 
be done to address them? For example, if more time is required for 
implementation of the new requirements, what period of time is 
sufficient?
    3. Do other (NRC or other agency) regulatory actions (e.g., orders, 
generic communications, license amendment requests, inspection findings 
of a generic nature) influence the implementation of the proposed 
rule's requirements?
    4. Are there unintended consequences? Does the proposed rule

[[Page 54735]]

create conditions that would be contrary to the proposed rule's purpose 
and objectives? If so, what are the unintended consequences, and how 
should they be addressed?
    5. Please comment on the NRC's cost and benefit estimates in the 
regulatory analysis that supports the proposed rule.

X. 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). The NRC requests comment on this document with respect to the 
clarity and effectiveness of the language used.

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed 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.

XII. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations

    Under the ``Agreement State Program Policy Statement'' approved by 
the Commission on October 2, 2017, and published in the Federal 
Register (82 FR 48535; October 18, 2017), this rule is classified as 
compatibility ``NRC.'' Category NRC consists of program elements over 
which the NRC cannot discontinue its regulatory authority pursuant to 
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended, or provisions of title 
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Under the Policy Statement, a 
program element means any component or function of a radiation control 
regulatory program, including regulations and other legally binding 
requirements imposed on regulated persons, which contributes to the 
implementation of that program. The NRC maintains regulatory authority 
over program elements classified as category NRC and the Agreement 
States must not adopt these NRC program elements. However, an Agreement 
State may inform its licensees of these NRC requirements through a 
mechanism under the State's administrative procedure laws, as long as 
the State adopts these provisions solely for the purposes of 
notification, and does not exercise any regulatory authority as a 
result.

XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, 
Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical 
standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. The NRC is proposing to amend 
Sec.  51.22, the NRC's list of categories of actions that the NRC has 
determined to have no significant individual or cumulative effect on 
the human environment. This action does not constitute the 
establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable 
requirements.

XIV. Availability of Guidance

    There is no licensee or applicant implementation or compliance 
required by this rulemaking. The NRC staff plans to update guidance 
documents that currently contain references to Sec.  51.22 (e.g., 
standard review plans). The NRC will publish notice in the Federal 
Register announcing the availability of the revised guidance documents. 
The final guidance documents will be available on the NRC website and 
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2018-0300.

XV. Public Meeting

    The NRC will conduct a public meeting during the comment period for 
this proposed rule for the purpose of facilitating the submittal of 
comments and answering questions from the public on this proposed rule.
    The NRC will publish a notice of the location, time, and agenda of 
the meeting on the NRC's public meeting website at least 10 calendar 
days before the meeting. Stakeholders should monitor the NRC's public 
meeting website for information about the public meeting at: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 51

    Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact 
statements, Hazardous waste, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear 
power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    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 proposing 
to amend 10 CFR part 51 as follows:

PART 51--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC 
LICENSING AND RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 161, 193 (42 U.S.C. 
2201, 2243); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202 (42 
U.S.C. 5841, 5842); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
U.S.C. 4332, 4334, 4335); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 
144(f), 121, 135, 141, 148 (42 U.S.C. 10134(f), 10141, 10155, 10161, 
10168); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

0
2. Revise and republish Sec.  51.21 to read as follows:


Sec.  51.21  Criteria for and identification of licensing and 
regulatory actions requiring environmental assessments.

    All licensing and regulatory actions subject to this subpart 
require an environmental assessment except those identified in Sec.  
51.20(b) as requiring an environmental impact statement, those covered 
by categorical exclusions identified in Sec.  51.22(a) through (d), and 
those identified in Sec.  51.22(e) as other actions not requiring 
environmental review. As provided in Sec.  51.22, the Commission may, 
in special circumstances, prepare an environmental assessment on an 
action covered by a categorical exclusion.
0
3. Revise and republish Sec.  51.22 to read as follows:


Sec.  51.22  Categorical exclusions.

    Licensing, regulatory, and administrative actions eligible for 
categorical exclusion must belong to a category of actions that the 
Commission, by rule or regulation, has declared to be a categorical 
exclusion, after first finding that the actions within the category do 
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
environment. Except in special circumstances, as determined by the 
Commission upon its own initiative or upon request of any interested 
person, an environmental assessment or an environmental impact 
statement is not required for any action within a category of actions 
included in the list of categorical exclusions set out in paragraphs 
(a) through (d) of this section. Special circumstances include the 
circumstance where the proposed action involves unresolved conflicts 
concerning alternative uses of available resources within the meaning 
of section 102(2)(E) of NEPA.
    (a) The following categories of NRC actions are excluded from the 
requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental 
impact statement:

[[Page 54736]]

    (1) Actions that are administrative, procedural, or solely 
financial in nature, including, for example:
    (i) Issuance of or changes to procedures for filing and reviewing 
applications;
    (ii) Issuance of or changes to recordkeeping or reporting 
requirements;
    (iii) Issuance of or changes to surety, insurance, or indemnity 
requirements;
    (iv) Issuance of or changes to administrative procedures or 
requirements;
    (v) Actions on petitions for rulemaking, but not including 
rulemakings in response to a petition for rulemaking;
    (vi) Amendments to the regulations in this chapter that are 
corrective or of a minor or nonpolicy nature and do not substantially 
modify existing regulations;
    (vii) Issuance of or changes to guidance for the implementation of 
regulations in this chapter and other informational and procedural 
documents that do not impose any legal requirements;
    (viii) Changes to a person or organization's name, position, or 
title;
    (ix) Revisions that are editorial, corrective, or otherwise minor, 
including the updating of NRC-approved references, or changes to 
formatting of a document;
    (x) Changes to contact information;
    (xi) Personnel or managerial actions;
    (xii) Actions on or changes to requirements for decommissioning 
funding under parts 30, 40, 50, 70, or 72 of this chapter; or
    (xiii) Termination of licenses that were issued but for which no 
construction activities have begun or where all decommissioning 
activities have been completed and approved and license termination is 
a final administrative step.
    (2) Issuance of or changes to education, training, experience, 
qualification, or other employment suitability requirements.
    (3) Amendments to parts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 
16, 19, 21, 25, 26, 55, 75, 95, 110, 140, 150, 160, 170, or 171 of this 
chapter.
    (4) Procurement of general equipment and supplies, and procurement 
of technical assistance and personal services relating to the safe 
operation and protection of commercial reactors, other facilities, and 
materials subject to NRC licensing and regulation.
    (5) Entrance into or amendment, suspension, or termination of all 
or part of an agreement with a State under section 274 of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, providing for assumption by the State 
and discontinuance by the Commission of certain regulatory authority of 
the Commission.
    (6) Approvals of direct or indirect transfers of any license issued 
by the NRC (any associated amendments of a license required to reflect 
the approval of a direct or indirect transfer of an NRC license are 
included in paragraph (a)(1) of this section).
    (7) The import of nuclear facilities and materials under part 110 
of this chapter, but not including the import of spent power reactor 
fuel.
    (8) Approvals of or changes to operators' licenses under part 55 of 
this chapter.
    (9) Approvals of package designs for packages to be used for the 
transportation of licensed materials.
    (10) Actions under parts 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, or 70 
of this chapter authorizing the following:
    (i) Distribution of radioactive material and devices or products 
containing radioactive material to general licensees and to persons 
exempt from licensing;
    (ii) Distribution of radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent kits 
and/or sealed sources to persons licensed under 10 CFR 35.18;
    (iii) Nuclear pharmacies;
    (iv) Use of radioactive materials for medical and veterinary 
purposes;
    (v) Use of radioactive materials for research and development and 
for educational purposes;
    (vi) Industrial radiography;
    (vii) Irradiators;
    (viii) Use of sealed sources and use of gauging devices, analytical 
instruments and other devices containing sealed sources;
    (ix) Use of uranium as shielding material in containers or devices;
    (x) Possession of radioactive material incident to performing 
services such as installation, maintenance, leak tests and calibration;
    (xi) Use of sealed sources and/or radioactive tracers in well-
logging procedures;
    (xii) Acceptance of packaged radioactive wastes from others for 
transfer to licensed land burial facilities provided the interim 
storage period for any package does not exceed 180 days and the total 
possession limit for all packages held in interim storage at the same 
time does not exceed 50 curies;
    (xiii) Manufacturing or processing of source, byproduct, or special 
nuclear materials for distribution to other licensees, except 
processing of source material for extraction of rare earth and other 
metals;
    (xiv) Nuclear laundries;
    (xv) Possession, manufacturing, processing, shipment, testing, or 
other use of depleted uranium military munitions; or
    (xvi) Any use of source, byproduct, or special nuclear material not 
listed above which involves quantities and forms of source, byproduct, 
or special nuclear material similar to those listed in paragraphs 
(a)(10)(i) through (xv) of this section.
    (11) Standard design approvals under part 52 of this chapter.
    (12) Issuance of amendments to 10 CFR 72.214 for new, amended, 
revised, or renewed certificates of compliance for cask designs used 
for spent fuel storage.
    (13) Issuance, amendment, modification, or renewal of a certificate 
of compliance of gaseous diffusion enrichment plants under part 76 of 
this chapter.
    (14) The decommissioning of sites where licensed operations have 
been limited to the use of--
    (i) Small quantities of short-lived radioactive materials;
    (ii) Radioactive materials in sealed sources, provided there is no 
evidence of leakage of radioactive material from these sealed sources; 
or
    (iii) Radioactive materials in such a manner that a decommissioning 
plan is not required by 10 CFR 30.36(g)(1), 10 CFR 40.42(g)(1), or 10 
CFR 70.38(g)(1), and the NRC has determined that the facility meets the 
radiological criteria for unrestricted use in 10 CFR 20.1402 without 
further remediation or analysis.
    (15) The Commission finding for a combined license under 10 CFR 
52.103(g).
    (16) Actions under 10 CFR 50.55a.
    (b) The following categories of NRC actions are excluded from the 
requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental 
impact statement, provided that any ground disturbance is limited to 
previously disturbed areas:
    (1) Procurement of confirmatory research.
    (2) Review and approval of transportation routes under 10 CFR 
73.37.
    (c) The following categories of NRC actions are excluded from the 
requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental 
impact statement except to the extent they include activities directly 
affecting the environment, such as the construction of facilities; a 
major disturbance brought about by blasting, drilling, excavating or 
other means; field work, except that which only involves noninvasive or 
non-harmful techniques such as taking water or soil samples or 
collecting non-protected species of flora

[[Page 54737]]

and fauna; or the release of radioactive material:
    (1) Grants to institutions of higher education in the United 
States, to fund scholarships, fellowships, and stipends for the study 
of science, engineering, or another field of study that the NRC 
determines is in a critical skill area related to its regulatory 
mission, to support faculty and curricular development in such fields, 
and to support other domestic educational, technical assistance, or 
training programs (including those of trade schools) in such fields.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (d) The following categories of NRC actions are excluded from the 
requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental 
impact statement provided that any ground disturbance is limited to 
previously disturbed areas and there is no significant change in the 
types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may 
be released offsite, no significant increase in individual or 
cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure, and no 
significant increase in the potential for or consequences from 
radiological accidents.
    (1) Changes to inspection or surveillance requirements.
    (2) Changes to equipment servicing or maintenance requirements.
    (3) Changes to safeguard plans or materials control and accounting 
inventory requirements, including modifications to systems used for 
security and/or materials accountability.
    (4) Changes to requirements for fire protection, emergency 
planning, physical security, cybersecurity, or quality assurance.
    (5) Changes to scheduling requirements.
    (6) Changes to extend implementation dates for activities 
previously found to not have a significant environmental impact.
    (7) Actions that result in a change in process operations or 
equipment under licenses for fuel cycle facilities or radioactive waste 
disposal sites, or under the materials licenses identified in Sec.  
51.60(b)(1).
    (8) Authorizations under, or changes to requirements in 10 CFR part 
50 or 52 with respect to installation or use of a facility component.
    (e) In accordance with section 121 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10141), the promulgation of technical requirements 
and criteria that the Commission will apply in approving or 
disapproving applications under part 60 or 63 of this chapter shall not 
require an environmental impact statement, an environmental assessment, 
or any environmental review under subparagraph (E) or (F) of section 
102(2) of NEPA.
0
4. Revise and republish Sec.  51.25 to read as follows:


Sec.  51.25  Determination to prepare environmental impact statement or 
environmental assessment; eligibility for categorical exclusion.

    Before taking a proposed action subject to the provisions of this 
subpart, the appropriate NRC director will determine on the basis of 
the criteria and classifications of types of actions in Sec. Sec.  
51.20, 51.21 and 51.22, whether the proposed action is of the type 
listed in Sec.  51.22(a) through (d) as a categorical exclusion or 
whether an environmental impact statement or an environmental 
assessment should be prepared. An environmental assessment is not 
necessary if it is determined that an environmental impact statement 
will be prepared.
0
5. In appendix A to subpart A of part 51, revise footnote 4 to read as 
follows:

Appendix A to Subpart A--Format for Presentation of Material in 
Environmental Impact Statements

* * * * *
    \4\ With respect to limitations on NRC's NEPA authority and 
responsibility imposed by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
Amendments of 1972, see Sec. Sec.  51.10(c) and 51.71(d).

    Dated: June 25, 2024.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carrie Safford,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-14367 Filed 7-1-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P