[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 142 (Monday, July 27, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46869-46881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-15117]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 71
[NRC-2025-1667]
RIN 3150-AL62
Modernizing Package Certification Requirements
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to
amend its regulations governing the
[[Page 46870]]
packaging and transportation of radioactive material. This proposed
action is responsive to several executive orders and the NRC's mission
to enable the safe and secure use of nuclear materials in an efficient
and reliable manner. The proposed amendments would establish voluntary
provisions to provide greater flexibility for applicants by introducing
risk-informed methodologies for demonstrating safety requirements and
by providing an alternative radiation standard for approval of Type B
packages for certain exclusive use shipments. The proposed rule would
streamline application processes for package approval, remove
unnecessary requirements, and clarify existing provisions.
DATES: Comments must be submitted electronically using https://www.regulations.gov by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on August 26, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID NRC-2025-1667,
at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted
using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the individual listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as
name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business
information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments are
public records; they are publicly displayed exactly as received, and
will not be deleted, modified, or redacted. Comments may be submitted
anonymously.
Follow the search instructions on https://www.regulations.gov to
view public comments.
You can read a plain language description of this proposed rule at
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NRC-2025-1667. 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: Soly Soto Lugo, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-
7258, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
B. Submitting Comments
II. Executive Order 14300: Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission
III. Background
IV. Discussion
V. Specific Request for Comment
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
VII. Regulatory Analysis
VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation
X. Plain Writing
XI. National Environmental Policy Act
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act
XIII. Executive Orders
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review (as
Amended by Executive Order 14215, Ensuring Accountability for All
Agencies)
B. Executive Order 14154: Unleashing American Energy
C. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation
D. Executive Order 14270: Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting To
Unleash American Energy
E. Executive Order 14294: Fighting Overcriminalization in
Federal Regulations
XIV. Coordination With NRC Agreement States
XV. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations
XVI. Availability of Guidance
XVII. Public Meeting
XVIII. Availability of Documents
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-1667 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2025-1667.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS 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]. For the convenience of the reader, instructions
about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in
the ``Availability of Documents'' section.
NRC's PDR: 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.
Public Meeting: The NRC may conduct a public meeting to
describe the proposed amendments and answer questions from the public
on the proposed rule. If the NRC determines it will hold a public
meeting, NRC will publish a notice of the location, time, and agenda of
the meeting on the NRC's public meeting website within 10 calendar days
of 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.
B. Submitting Comments
Comments must be submitted electronically using https://www.regulations.gov no later than 11:59 p.m. eastern time on August 26,
2026. Please include Docket ID NRC-2025-1667 in your comment
submission.
II. Executive Order 14300: Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission
On May 23, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order
(E.O.) 14300, ``Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.'' Section 5, ``Reforming and Modernizing the NRC's
Regulations,'' requires the NRC to undertake a review and wholesale
revision of its regulations and guidance documents as guided by the
policies set forth in section 2 of the E.O. This rulemaking addresses
section 5 of the E.O., proposing changes pertaining to the packaging
and transportation of radioactive material that would yield
efficiencies and reduce regulatory burden for licensees and the NRC
while maintaining reasonable assurance of adequate protection for
public health and safety and the environment.
III. Background
Transportation of radioactive material in the United States has a
strong historical safety record. Since the 1970s, millions of shipments
of radioactive material--including medical isotopes, industrial
sources, and spent nuclear fuel--have been safely transported
worldwide. Overall, the historical safety record demonstrates that the
transportation of radioactive material is one of the safest sectors of
hazardous materials logistics, with no recorded fatalities or serious
injuries attributable to radiation exposure during transport or as a
result of a transportation accident.
The NRC's regulations for packaging and transportation of
radioactive material are codified in title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) part 71, ``Packaging and Transportation
[[Page 46871]]
of Radioactive Material.'' These requirements provide the procedures
and standards for package approval, preparation for shipment, and
transportation of licensed material. The provisions apply to any NRC
licensee authorized to receive, possess, use, or transfer licensed
material, including those delivering licensed material to a carrier or
transporting it offsite. Under 10 CFR part 71, the NRC reviews and
certifies Type B (see Sec. 71.4) and fissile material package designs
to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety and the
environment under normal and accident conditions of transport. The
transportation of NRC-certified packages is subject to the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) hazardous materials regulations,
which govern preparation, labeling, and operational controls. As co-
regulators of radioactive material transport in the United States, NRC
and DOT regulations provide a consistent, comprehensive approach
without duplicative requirements. Additional background information
regarding the roles of the NRC and DOT is contained in a Memorandum of
Understanding between the two agencies (44 FR 38690; July 2, 1979).
The NRC's requirements ensure the safe and reliable transport of
radioactive material by establishing clear, well-defined design and
performance criteria for Type B and fissile material transportation
packages. Emerging technologies, such as microreactors, may present
unique design, operational, and deployment considerations that warrant
the use of different performance criteria. In particular, applications
involving considerations that were not addressed in current
regulations, such as limited cooling time for the fuel, may benefit
from additional regulatory flexibility that continues to ensure
reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety
and the environment. This proposed rule seeks to provide such
flexibility by allowing the regulatory framework to continue supporting
innovation while preserving the safety objectives of 10 CFR part 71.
These proposed changes support anticipated future transportation needs
for microreactors and other new reactor designs, in line with E.O.
14300, which directs actions to enable safe and increased domestic
deployment of new civilian nuclear reactor technologies.
IV. Discussion
The proposed revisions to 10 CFR part 71 are generally intended to
add flexibility to the current regulatory framework and support the
future domestic deployment of microreactors and other similar new
nuclear technologies. Specifically, the proposed changes would:
1. Provide applicants seeking certification of transportation
package designs with greater flexibility by allowing the voluntary use
of alternative approaches--such as risk-informed or performance-based
methods--to demonstrate compliance with physical testing or analyses
requirements specified in the NRC's transportation regulations.
2. Allow increased radiation level limits, under certain
conditions, for approval of certain Type B packages, primarily to
facilitate the certification of transportation package designs for
microreactors, should such designs be submitted to the NRC for review.
3. Streamline requirements and reduce burden on holders of
certificates of compliance, while reducing application review
timelines.
A. Risk-Informed Alternatives for Package Design Certification
Compliance
The NRC is proposing to revise Sec. 71.41 to allow the use of an
NRC-endorsed methodology as an alternative to meeting certain
prescriptive requirements in 10 CFR part 71. This design certification
pathway could, with appropriate justifications, allow a package
designer to demonstrate that the transportation package meets or
exceeds the current level of safety provided by the 10 CFR part 71
framework. Specifically, the proposed rule introduces a new paragraph,
Sec. 71.41(e), that explicitly identifies the availability of an
optional framework for evaluating transportation package performance
that would allow applicants to demonstrate an equivalent level of
safety, as an alternative to meeting the specific physical testing
requirements outlined for Type B packages in Sec. Sec. 71.71, 71.73
and 71.61. The proposed Sec. 71.41(e) would allow for the evaluation
of packages through other methods of demonstration acceptable to the
Commission, depending on the feature under consideration. These
revisions align with the existing regulatory language in Sec.
71.41(a).
Under this alternative approach, applicants would be permitted to
reference a previously approved risk methodology or submit a risk-
informed methodology for NRC approval in accordance with Sec. 71.1(a)
before submitting an application for a certificate of compliance. The
methodology would be required to provide a means for demonstrating
adequate safety during transportation and be acceptable to the
Commission. For example, the NRC has previously endorsed a risk-
informed methodology in SECY-24-0062, ``Risk-Informed Methodology for a
Future Transportable Triso-Based Micro-Reactor Package Application,''
for the Project PELE TRISO-based package. Adoption of a similarly
acceptable risk-informed approach in future applications may provide
applicants with enhanced flexibility and potential cost efficiencies.
The proposed voluntary approach would enable applicants to
demonstrate compliance with existing package performance requirements
in Sec. Sec. 71.71, 71.73 and 71.61 by assessing the likelihood and
consequences of potential transportation events, thereby meeting the
NRC's standard of reasonable assurance of adequate protection. The NRC
anticipates that the use of other methods to address package response
to normal and accident conditions in applications for package
certification may be beneficial, offering an alternative to the current
procedures found in Sec. 71.41(c) and (d) for requesting package
approval using different approaches. The proposed rule also includes
minor changes to Sec. 71.1, ``Communications and Records,'' to reflect
this alternative, and to update the NRC's address with the zip code.
B. Radiation Exposure Limits and Exclusive Use Requirements for
Radioactive Material Packages
Currently, in accordance with 10 CFR part 71, subpart E, ``Package
Approval Standards,'' package designs must be assessed for compliance
with Sec. 71.47, ``External radiation standards for all packages.''
Microreactor designs, including those for critical applications such as
post-natural disaster (e.g., earthquake, hurricane) emergency response
and remote power supply, may require the transportation of a fueled
microreactor on accelerated timelines that may not allow for extended
decay heat or radiation level reduction through post-irradiation
cooling (e.g., less than one-year of cooling). In such scenarios,
external radiation levels during transport could exceed the 0.1
millisievert per hour (mSv/h) (10 millirem per hour (mrem/h)) at 2
meters (m) from the vehicle radiation level limit currently specified
in Sec. 71.47(b)(3). To achieve compliance with the radiation level
limit in Sec. 71.47(b)(3), which requires radiation levels for such a
shipment not to exceed 0.1 mSv/h (10 mrem/h) at any point 2 m (80 in)
from the outer lateral surfaces of the vehicle, package designs may
necessitate additional shielding that increases
[[Page 46872]]
package weight and size beyond feasible transportation limits,
particularly for modes of transport subject to weight, dimensional, or
infrastructure constraints.
These constraints could hinder the domestic deployment of
microreactors for critical applications such as post-natural disaster
(e.g., earthquake, hurricane) emergency response or remote power supply
without a corresponding benefit to safety. Further, the existing
radiation level limit may present an unnecessary regulatory constraint
for certain microreactor transportation scenarios that were not
contemplated when the existing provisions were established.
To address these challenges, this proposed rule would amend Sec.
71.47 by adding new language to paragraph (b)(3). The existing external
radiation standards in the current regulations would remain in place,
but proposed revision to Sec. 71.47(b)(3) would establish an
additional, optional external radiation standard for certain package
approvals by allowing higher radiation levels for certain packages,
such as transportable microreactors under exclusive use controls, as
defined in Sec. 71.4. Public radiation exposures for single
transportation events under this new proposed limit would fall well
within the current annual 10 CFR part 20, ``Standards for Protection
Against Radiation,'' public radiation level limit (1 mSv (100 mrem)).
The proposed new paragraph at Sec. 71.47(b)(3) would establish
radiation level limits that apply only under the normal transportation
conditions under Sec. 71.71.
The proposed limit in the revised Sec. 71.47(b) is 0.5 mSv/h (50
mrem/h) at 2 m from the vehicle surface and would apply to certain
approvals of packages for shipment that (1) are made under exclusive
use provisions for normal conditions of transportation and (2) do not
meet the 0.1 mSv/h (10 mrem/h) radiation level limit at 2 m (6.6 feet
(ft)) from the vehicle in accordance with the existing language in
Sec. 71.47(b)(3). The proposed limit in the revised paragraph would be
applicable to packages with contents which meet the definition of
highway route controlled quantity (HRCQ) in 49 CFR 173.403, and which
would, therefore, be required to meet applicable regulations of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The FMCSA
regulations enhance safety by minimizing access to HRCQ shipments from
the public.
In developing a basis for the proposed addition of an optional
higher radiation level limit in Sec. 71.47(b)(3), the NRC staff, with
assistance from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) of the
U.S. Department of Energy, examined potential public and occupational
radiation exposures from postulated microreactor transportation
scenarios. In the report PNNL-38760, ``Microreactor Incident Free
Transportation Radiation Dose Assessment,'' PNNL evaluated possible
future microreactor transportation scenarios and estimated the public
and occupational radiation exposures from those transportation
scenarios which considered radiation level limits greater than the
current limit in Sec. 71.47(b)(3) (i.e., 0.1 mSv/h (10 mrem/h) at 2 m
from the vehicle). The report considered alternative radiation level
limits at 2 m from the vehicle used for transporting a microreactor of
0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mSv/h (50, 100, and 200 mrem/h, respectively). The
highest public radiation exposures calculated in the report for these
scenarios were: (1) for a member of the public that might be caught in
traffic within 2 m (6.6 feet) of a truck shipment of a package of
radioactive material, and (2) for vehicle safety inspectors performing
an inspection of the vehicle carrying the radioactive material. The
report indicated that doses to most other members of the public remain
negligible.
Although the PNNL evaluation is considered bounding for the
microreactor transportation scenarios analyzed in the study, it may not
bound radiation fields associated with other Type B package contents,
such as spent nuclear fuel assemblies or potential future microreactor
concepts with differing source term characteristics. Use of the
proposed limit in revised Sec. 71.47(b) for package designs or
contents that were not evaluated in the PNNL analysis (i.e., anything
other than a TRISO based ``heat pipe'' microreactor) would therefore
require the NRC staff to confirm, as part of the package approval
process, that the radiation conditions associated with their specific
design can be safely accommodated under the proposed limit.
Based on the results of the report, the NRC determined that the 0.5
mSv/h (50 mrem/h) at 2 m from the vehicle scenario, with established
measures and controls for highway routing, rendered public radiation
exposures for single transportation events well within the current
annual 10 CFR part 20 public radiation level limit. Licensees
consigning an irradiated microreactor to a carrier for transport would
be required to comply with Sec. 71.5, and, as appropriate, coordinate
with Federal, State, or local inspection authorities along the
transportation route of such transport to ensure awareness of the
higher radiation levels associated with these packages. At the single
inspection estimated radiation dose reported in PNNL-38760 for a 2 m
radiation level limit of 0.5 mSv/h (50 mrem/h) (0.586 mSv (58.6 mrem)),
a vehicle safety inspector could perform multiple inspections
(estimated at 85) in a single year before approaching the occupational
dose limit for radiation workers of 50 mSv/y (5,000 mrem/y).
Specifically, the proposed new requirements in Sec. 71.47(b)(3)
that must be met for use of the higher radiation level limit are as
follows:
1. The package contents meet the definition of highway route
controlled quantity specified in 49 CFR 173.403; and
2. The licensee must coordinate in advance with the appropriate
Federal, State or local inspection authorities to ensure those
authorities are aware of the shipment and are prepared to conduct any
required vehicle inspections. Such coordination must ensure that
inspection personnel are informed of the radiological conditions and of
any applicable controls needed to support inspection activities,
including appropriate radiation dosimetry.
The proposed new Sec. 71.47(b)(3) requirements are applicable to
packages with contents which meet the definition of HRCQ in 49 CFR
173.403, as provided in proposed Sec. 71.47(b)(3)(i), to ensure that
packages with a higher radiation level at 2 m (6.6 ft.) from the
vehicle are subject to the requirements of the FMCSA, which would
include highway route planning and vehicle safety inspections. These
requirements help to reduce the likelihood of a transportation incident
and enhance the ability to prevent public access to the package during
transportation. Irradiated microreactors will likely contain a quantity
of radioactive material greater than 3,000 A2. A2
means the maximum activity (i.e., in Curies, millicuries, etc.) of
radioactive material permitted in a Type A package. Activity in excess
of A2 must be placed in a Type B package for transport. A
transportation package containing this quantity of radioactive material
would meet the HRCQ definition in 49 CFR 173.403. HRCQ shipments are
subject to routing requirements of 49 CFR part 397, ``Transportation of
Hazardous Materials; Driving and Parking Rules.'' It is important to
note that HRCQ shipments can be made by all modes of transport, not
just by highway. The HRCQ definition is based on package contents and
is not mode specific.
HRCQ shipments are required to have a pre-shipment inspection, in
accordance with 49 CFR 385.415. The
[[Page 46873]]
proposed requirement in Sec. 71.47(b)(3)(ii) for licensees to
coordinate in advance with the appropriate Federal, State or local
inspection authorities is intended to ensure those inspection
authorities are informed of the shipment and are prepared to conduct
any required vehicle inspections or other activities to support the
shipment. This coordination also seeks to help Federal, State or local
inspection authorities ensure that inspectors are either qualified
radiation workers or are otherwise adequately protected from exceeding
annual public dose limits in 10 CFR part 20.
In support of inspections of shipments of licensed material
involving packages of irradiated material--particularly shipments of a
microreactor which may qualify as HRCQ shipments--licensees would
benefit by conducting pre-shipment coordination with inspector
organizations along the transport route. Such coordination will provide
the opportunity for inspection authorities to ensure that properly
trained personnel are available to safely conduct inspections in close
proximity to the vehicle.
Under this proposed rule, the NRC would certify packages with
higher radiation levels (50 mrem/h at 2 m from the vehicle) if approved
following its safety review; however, packages approved for these
higher radiation levels could exceed the limits currently permitted
under DOT transport requirements (49 CFR 173.441). Consequently, a
shipper who voluntarily seeks to use this flexibility under NRC
requirements for package approval would need to obtain an exception or
special permit from DOT requirements.
NRC certification of packages is limited to domestic shipment
within the U.S., unless the NRC Certificate of Compliance is
revalidated by a foreign Competent Authority against the requirements
in the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) ``Regulations for
the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material'' (SSR-6) for import into a
foreign country. Since SSR-6 requirements do not have a similar
provision for higher radiation levels for Type B packages, as described
in the proposed new requirements in Sec. 71.47(b)(3), use of these
requirements will be effectively limited to domestic U.S. shipments.
This proposed rule provides the public and stakeholders with the
opportunity to provide feedback on the revised criteria for package
certification for this voluntary approach for certification of packages
allowing higher radiation levels during domestic shipments. The NRC
plans to continue its practice of interagency coordination with Federal
agencies, as well as coordination with State, local, and Tribal
authorities, on this potential rule change. Consistent with Section VII
of the Memorandum of Understanding between NRC and DOT (44 FR 38690;
July 2, 1979), the NRC has engaged and intends to continue to engage
with DOT to discuss the proposed rule changes and consult on proposed
mechanisms to ensure alignment between NRC and DOT requirements.
C. Additional Changes to 10 CFR Part 71
This proposed rule also seeks to, among other things, streamline
requirements, and reduce regulatory burden. The NRC considered removing
certain unused provisions related to the air transport of plutonium in
Sec. Sec. 71.64, 71.74, and 71.88. However, the NRC did not remove
these requirements because air transportation of plutonium has specific
statutory requirements in the second undesignated paragraph in Section
201 of Public Law 94-79 and Section 5062 of Public Law 100-203.
The proposed rule also includes minor revisions to streamline 10
CFR part 71 and reduce regulatory burden. For example, the NRC proposes
to revise Sec. 71.45 to adopt the IAEA's SSG-26, Rev. 1, Table IV.1
design load values for lifting and tie-down standards. The NRC reviewed
these requirements and determined they provide a level of safety
equivalent to the current NRC requirements. The values originated
through consensus by international experts and are published within
international guidance documents. These consensus values are considered
adequate to meet the applicable international transport regulations,
and the U.S. actively participated in their development. The proposed
change would align U.S. requirements with the internationally endorsed
standards that have undergone extensive expert review. This alignment
with international guidelines would eliminate discrepancies between
U.S. and international requirements and reduce the burden on applicants
seeking certification or revalidation of foreign packages.
The proposed rule also includes minor revisions to Sec. Sec. 71.17
and 71.95 to streamline reporting and submittal processes, as well as
removing the definition of spent fuel from Sec. 71.4. The proposed
rule also makes a revision to Sec. 71.5 to add a reference to FMCSA
regulations in paragraphs (a) and (a)(2)(iv). Specifically, licensees
should note that a shipment of an HRCQ of radioactive material is
required to meet the applicable requirements in 49 CFR 385, consistent
with current practice.
To improve the efficiency of report submittals, the NRC proposes to
revise Sec. 71.17(c)(3) to allow for the electronic submission of
letters registering the first use of a package. Additionally, paragraph
(c) of Sec. 71.95, ``Reports,'' would be revised to allow
notifications and reports to be submitted electronically to the NRC's
Document Control Desk or through the NRC's electronic submittal portal.
These changes are expected to improve the timeliness of report receipt,
thereby enhancing the NRC's ability to respond promptly to safety-
related information.
Finally, the NRC proposes to remove the definition of ``Spent
nuclear fuel or Spent fuel'' from 10 CFR part 71. While the definition
of these terms appears in Sec. 71.4, the terms ``Spent nuclear fuel''
or ``Spent fuel'' do not appear in any of the subsequent regulations in
10 CFR part 71. Further, the requirements of 10 CFR part 71 apply to
transportation of irradiated fuel, regardless of cooling time. The
removal of this definition furthers harmonization of U.S. regulations
with IAEA international radioactive material transport regulations.
V. Specific Request for Comment
The NRC is seeking advice and recommendations from the public on
the proposed rule. The NRC is particularly interested in comments and
supporting rationale from the public on the following:
A proposed revision to Sec. 71.47(b)(3) would establish an
additional, optional external radiation standard for certain package
approvals by allowing higher radiation levels for certain packages,
such as transportable microreactors, under exclusive use controls. This
revision is informed by the technical analysis in the PNNL report
(PNNL-38760), which evaluated radiation dose scenarios for microreactor
transportation. To help make the rule technology-neutral while also
providing the necessary safety basis to meet the optional higher
radiation levels, the proposed provision does not specifically
reference transportable microreactors, but instead, requires that
package contents meet the definition of HRCQ in 49 CFR 173.403. By
meeting this definition, shipments would be required to meet applicable
regulations of the FMCSA. The FMCSA regulations enhance safety by
minimizing access to HRCQ shipments from the public and thus minimizing
potential public exposure. This approach is intended to ensure enhanced
safety controls while providing flexibility for certain packages
[[Page 46874]]
that may share similar characteristics with microreactors and could
exceed the current 0.1 mSv/h (10 mrem/h) limit at 2 meters from the
vehicle.
1. If the NRC were to consider an alternative approach, what
criteria should guide allowing the optional radiation standard for NRC-
approved Type B packages that do not meet the HRCQ definition?
2. Are there certain scenarios where the NRC-approved Type B
package contents would not meet the HRCQ definition but could still
justify higher allowable radiation levels at 2 meters (6.6 ft) from the
vehicle?
a. Please describe the scenario and explain why higher radiation
standards would be necessary and appropriate.
b. What requirements would be needed to minimize potential public
and occupational exposure in such scenarios?
c. Provide your technical basis for these recommendations.
3. The technical basis for the proposed increased dose rate
provisions in Sec. 71.47(b)(3) is informed, in part, by the analysis
presented in the PNNL-38760 report. While this report provides a
valuable foundation, its scope may be limited by the current lack of
detailed information regarding emerging microreactor designs. The
report also does not encompass other types of radioactive material,
such as nuclear reactor spent fuel, which may be subject to the
proposed provisions. Recognizing these limitations and the potential
for new data and operational experience to inform future regulatory
decisions, the NRC is seeking stakeholder input on the following
matter:
a. Should the optional increased dose rate provision in Sec.
71.47(b)(3) be applied broadly to all shipments of radioactive
material, or should its use be subject to specific criteria,
limitations, or circumstances? Please provide which criteria,
limitations, or circumstances and provide your rationale and technical
justification for your recommendations, including any supporting data
or analysis.
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, will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposed rule would affect a number of ``small
entities'' as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size
standards established by the NRC (Sec. 2.810). However, as indicated
in the draft regulatory analysis section, the proposed amendments, if
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on the
affected small entities.
Any small entity subject to this regulation that determines,
because of its size, it is likely to bear a disproportionate adverse
economic impact should notify the Commission of this opinion in a
comment that indicates--
(a) The licensee's size and how the proposed regulation would
impose a significant economic burden on the licensee as compared to the
economic burden on a larger licensee;
(b) How the proposed regulations could be modified to take into
account the licensee's differing needs or capabilities;
(c) The benefits that would accrue or the detriments that would be
avoided if the proposed regulations were modified as suggested by the
licensee;
(d) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would more closely
equalize the impact of NRC regulations or create more equal access to
the benefits of Federal programs as opposed to providing special
advantages to any individual or group; and
(e) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would still
adequately protect public health and safety and the environment.
Comments should be submitted as indicated under the ADDRESSES
caption.
VII. Regulatory Analysis
The NRC is proposing amendments to 10 CFR part 71 to strengthen and
streamline the regulatory framework to better support the future
deployment of microreactors and other similar new nuclear technologies.
The proposed changes in 10 CFR part 71 would allow applicants
requesting certification of a transportation package design to use
alternative approaches to demonstrate compliance with certain
transportation requirements, which would yield efficiencies and reduce
regulatory burden for licensees and the NRC while maintaining
reasonable assurance of adequate protection for public health and
safety and the environment. The NRC anticipates the changes made in 10
CFR part 71 would strengthen the regulatory framework in support of
deployment of microreactors and otherwise support a more technology-
neutral regulatory framework. The NRC is proactively developing this
proposed rule to account for anticipated advancements in nuclear
technology. As a result, the rulemaking approach is intentionally
technology neutral.
The proposed changes under Sec. 71.41 include a new paragraph (e).
The new language identifies the availability of an optional framework
allowing applicants to use an alternative method for evaluating
transportation package performance in order to demonstrate an
equivalent level of safety for a certification review of a package
design, in an application to the NRC, made in accordance with Sec.
71.1(a).\1\ The new language would allow applicants to demonstrate to
the NRC, via a risk-informed and performance-based method that works
best for the applicant, that their package design provides an
equivalent level of safety as under the current regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This new optional framework is intended to provide
flexibility for future advanced technologies, with the goal of
allowing applicants the ability to provide options that meet the NRC
requirements but are more suited to the proposed design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule would also amend Sec. 71.47 by new requirements
under Sec. 71.47(b)(3). The proposed new requirements address specific
design and operational parameters for transportation of certain
packages that might exceed currently allowed radiation dose rate
limits. The proposed new provision would establish a voluntary external
radiation standard for approval of packages for shipments by allowing
higher radiation dose rates for exclusive use shipments of certain
packages, such as transportable microreactors. Hence, vendors of
microreactors would have the option to continue developing
transportation packages based on current radiation level limits, or
vendors could submit a design, or an amendment to the NRC for design
changes, which, if approved, would allow an increase in radiation dose
rate at 2 m from the vehicle.
Vendors who choose to maintain the status quo would see no change
to their monetary commitment in the construction of their transportable
package. However, the NRC's Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) anticipate
vendors would change to a design that meets the new acceptable
radiation dose level of 50 mrem at 2 m from the vehicle (up from 10
mrem) to take advantage of the flexibility the proposed rule provides
in the construction of transportable packages for certain shipments.
The NRC anticipates that vendors who change to a design that meets the
new, alternative radiation standard would realize a monetary saving due
to the additional flexibility in the design afforded by the new
radiation standard for certain transportable packages. Although there
is no data that can identify how a vendor would design their
transportable package under this newly proposed standard, given the
numerous design options a vendor may take, the NRC anticipates a
transportation package
[[Page 46875]]
design meeting this newly proposed standard would have a substantial
overall cost-savings over time.
To illustrate potential savings associated with proposed Sec.
71.47, the NRC has assessed a hypothetical transportation package
design that would meet the new radiation standard with reduced package
shielding on 5 sides of the package walls that are impacting the 2 m
vehicle distance of radiation exposure requirement. Using a shielding
material composed of carbon steel (as an example), SMEs have estimated
an overall reduction of half inch (moving from a 2-inch plate to a 1.5-
inch plate) would have a potential savings of approximately $25,000
dollars per package. In addition, the perceived estimated net average
growth rate of microreactors coming on-line over a 40-year period of
analysis is 2,102 microreactors.\2\ If we assume that all microreactors
built had their shielding reduced by .5 inches, the industry could
experience a cost-savings of $52.5 million (undiscounted) over a 40-
year period, with an annualized savings of $ 0.48 million at 7 percent.
Table 1 gives a truncated summary accounting schedule for potential
industry cost-savings over 40 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Licensing Requirements for Microreactors and Other Reactors
With Comparable Risk Profiles, Proposed rule (91 FR 23628; May 1,
2026).
Table 1--Estimated Hypothetical Cost--Savings From Vendors Design of Transportation Package Under Proposed
Optional Design Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean estimate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compounded population growth Annual growth Year Undiscounted 7% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3............................... 3 1 $ 75,000 $ 70,093 $ 72,816
8............................... 5 2 125,000 109,180 117,824
11.............................. 3 3 75,000 61,222 68,636
13.............................. 2 4 50,000 38,145 44,424
15.............................. 2 5 50,000 35,649 43,130
1193............................ 157 36 3,925,000 343,577 1,354,252
1374............................ 181 37 4,525,000 370,185 1,515,798
1583............................ 209 38 5,225,000 399,487 1,699,307
1823............................ 240 39 6,000,000 428,730 1,894,521
2101............................ 278 40 6,950,000 464,124 2,130,570
Total........................... 2101 .............. 52,525,000 6,350,920 20,032,946
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized.................. .............. .............. .............. 476,377 866,673
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the savings based on proposed optional design
standards for certain transportation packages, the SMEs also anticipate
additional savings from the actual transportation of the package due to
the reduction in package weight. Although currently there is no data or
logistical premise to measure potential savings, the NRC anticipates a
substantial cost-savings due to a reduction in fuel use and wear and
tear of the transportation vehicle.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Estimated savings are not dependent on amendments to DOT
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, applicants are not obligated to undertake any activity
under these requirements. The NRC anticipates that none of the changes
proposed in 10 CFR part 71 will create any added burden to future
applicants for package certification. Conversely, the NRC does
anticipate the changes to 10 CFR part 71 would create an economic
benefit for applicants and certificate holders, since they will now be
able to streamline their processes to meet both their operational needs
and regulatory obligations. At this time, NRC is limited in quantifying
the benefits applicants might incur from the proposed changes since
actual data is not available.
VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, which is found in
Sec. Sec. 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, 76.76, and 10 CFR part 52, does not
apply to this proposed rule because the proposed amendments do not
involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR
chapter I or affect the issue finality of any approval issued under 10
CFR part 52. There is no backfit provision in 10 CFR part 71.
The backfitting and issue finality provisions under 10 CFR parts
50, 52, 70, 72, and 76 apply to activities directly regulated under
those parts of the NRC's regulations and do not apply to activities
regulated under other parts that do not include backfitting or issue
finality provisions. The exception to this general principle is where
the activity regulated under other parts that do not include
backfitting or issue finality provisions is an inextricable part of the
regulated activity within the scope of backfitting or issue finality.
The activity that would be regulated by this proposed rule, i.e.,
certification of packages and the preparation of packages for
transportation, is not an inextricable part of the procedures or
organization required to design, construct, or operate a facility as
licensed under 10 CFR part 50, 52, 70, 72, or 76; rather, it is a
separate activity that these licensees may choose to undertake. The
scope of this proposed rule does not include any changes to any of
those facilities or plants' activities for which the backfitting and
issue finality provisions apply.
IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation
The NRC seeks to minimize potential negative consequences resulting
from the cumulative effects of regulation (CER). The NRC believes that
the de-regulatory impacts of this rulemaking activity are unlikely to
cause implementation challenges for stakeholders. In addition, during
the pendency of this rulemaking, the NRC is deprioritizing issuance of
regulatory actions that might influence the implementation date for the
new rule requirements (e.g., orders, generic communications, license
amendment requests, and inspection findings of a generic nature).
To fully understand any potential CER implications that could
result from this rulemaking, the NRC is asking the following questions.
Response to these questions is voluntary and any input will be
considered during development of the final rule.
1. The NRC is proposing an effective date that will be 30 days
after the date of publication of a final rule. Does this
[[Page 46876]]
provide sufficient time to implement the proposed requirements? Please
provide a rationale for your response.
2. Are there unintended consequences related to this rulemaking and
how should they be addressed? Please provide a rationale for your
response.
3. Please comment on the NRC's cost and benefit estimates in the
regulatory analysis that supports this proposed rule. Please comment on
how to quantify unquantified portions of this analysis. NRC
acknowledges difficulties in developing scenarios involving future
advanced technologies that have not yet been commercially realized, and
would like to refine these estimates to produce agency's best estimates
of potential effects. Please comment on any underlying uncertainties
about the proposed changes that would lead to using, or potentially not
using, the afforded flexibilities (i.e., cost savings).
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. National Environmental Policy Act
A. Introduction
The NRC has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) of the
proposed rule amending package certification requirement regulations to
determine the significance of the environmental effects of the proposed
agency action in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, as amended (NEPA) and NRC's NEPA implementing regulations in
10 CFR part 51, ``Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic
Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.'' As explained below, the
NRC has determined that the proposed agency action to modernize NRC's
package certification requirement regulations would have no significant
effect on the quality of the human environment.
B. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Agency Action
Proposed rule changes would occur in 10 CFR part 71. Conforming
changes would be made to guidance in the future consistent with changes
to regulations. Table B-1 lists the sections of the regulations being
changed and affected guidance.
Table B-1--Regulations and Guidance Under Consideration in the
Modernizing Package Certification Requirements Rulemaking
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulations Guidance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. Sec. 71.1, 71.4, 71.5, 71.17, NUREG[dash]1520,
71.41, 71.45, 71.47, 71.95. NUREG[dash]2215,
NUREG[dash]2216.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conforming changes are administrative actions with no physical
environmental effect and provide for the appropriate administrative and
regulatory framework for package certification under 10 CFR. An example
would be adding a reference to a newly created subsection in an
existing regulation. All proposed amendments to NRC regulations in this
proposed rule occur within the affected regulation.
B.1 Rule Amendments Addressed Under Categorical Exclusion
Categorical exclusions provide a mechanism to identify Federal
actions that normally do not have a significant environmental effect on
the human environment and for which neither an EA nor environmental
impact statement is normally required. This ensures that resources are
not expended on the environmental analysis of proposed actions that do
not present the potential for significant environmental effects. The
NRC has determined that some of the changes to the regulations
identified in this proposed rule meet criteria under Sec. 51.22,
``Categorical exclusions.'' These proposed rule amendments belong to
categories of actions which the Commission, by rule or regulation, has
declared to be a categorical exclusion, after first finding that the
category of actions within the category do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. In
reviewing the list of regulations in Table B-1, the NRC staff have
determined that several of the rule amendments are actions eligible for
categorical exclusion examples under Sec. 51.22(a)(1).
Rule amendments with applicable categorical exclusions are
presented in Table B-2 below and no further NEPA analysis is required.
The following rulemaking actions meet the criterion for categorical
exclusion under Sec. 51.22(c)(2) or Sec. 51.22(c)(3):
Table B-2--Rule Amendments Covered by Categorical Exclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule amendments Categorical exclusion Reason
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. Sec. 71.1; 71.17; 71.95......... Sec. 51.22(a)(1)......... Actions that are administrative,
procedural, or solely financial in
nature, including, for example (ii):
Issuance of or changes to recordkeeping
or reporting requirements. Amendments
comprise reporting requirements, such as
edits intended to allow for electronic
submission.
Sec. 71.4............................. Sec. 51.22(a)(1)......... Example (vi): Amendments are corrective
or of a minor or nonpolicy nature and do
not substantially modify existing
regulations. Clarifications include
removing the definition of ``spent
nuclear fuel or spent fuel'' because the
terms are not used in 10 CFR part 71.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.2 Rule Amendments Requiring Environmental Assessment
The NRC also evaluated rule amendments that have the potential to
affect the human environment and determined that the proposed agency
action (rulemaking) would not have a significant environmental effect.
These rule amendments would clarify NRC regulations, would continue to
provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health
and safety, and would result in no new or different environmental
effects. The following table presents the basis for why these
[[Page 46877]]
proposed rule amendments would have no significant environmental
effects.
Table B-3--Basis for No Significant Environmental Effects Determination
for Rule Amendments Not Covered by a Categorical Exclusion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis for no significant environmental
Rule amendments effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 71.5 Transportation of Amendment would add 49 CFR part 385 to
licensed material. the list of DOT regulations in Sec.
Sec. 71.5(a) and 71.5(a)(2)(iv), that
licensees are required to comply with,
as applicable. This is consistent with
current practice and is aligned with the
proposed new requirements in Sec.
71.47(b)(3), which would require
licensees to coordinate with inspection
authorities before shipment of certain
Type B packages, such as irradiated
microreactors, that are classified as an
HRCQ of radioactive material for
transport. This amendment would have an
equivalent level of public health,
safety and security as current NRC
regulations and would not result in any
physical changes in the environment.
Therefore, the NRC has determined that
the proposed agency rulemaking action
would result in no significant effects
to the human environment.
Sec. 71.41 Demonstration of Amendments would provide licensees with
compliance. the option to use alternative methods of
demonstration, such as using a risk-
informed methodology, to demonstrate
compliance with certain NRC
transportation requirements for package
certification. The alternative method
would have to be submitted for review in
accordance with Sec. 71.1(a),
demonstrate adequate safety during
transport, and be acceptable to the
Commission, as is currently required for
the existing methods. Therefore, this
amendment has an equivalent level of
safety and security as current NRC
regulations and would not result in any
physical changes in the environment.
Therefore, the NRC has determined that
the proposed agency rulemaking action
would result in no significant effects
to the human environment.
Sec. 71.45 Lifting and tie- Amendments to Sec. 71.45(b)(1) would
down standards. replace existing NRC requirements with
international tie-down standards. These
requirements provide a level of safety
equivalent to the current NRC
requirements. These requirements
essentially serve a defense in depth
function as the package itself, and not
the lifting and tie-down standards,
provides adequate protection against
radiological release, including during
accidents. Therefore, this amendment
would not result in any physical changes
in the environment and thus the proposed
agency action would not result in
significant effects to the human
environment.
Sec. 71.47 External Amendment to Sec. 71.47(b)(3) would
radiation standards for all establish new radiation level limits for
packages. approval of certain Type B packages,
including transportable microreactors,
under normal transportation conditions
under Sec. 71.71. The NRC staff
determined that a 0.5 mSv/h (50 mrem/h)
dose limit at 2 m from the vehicle, with
established measures and controls, would
result in public doses from these
vehicles as single events well within
the annual 10 CFR part 20 public dose
limit.
Packages approved under this amendment
would be subject to transportation
requirements (e.g., those applicable to
HRCQs) which may be credited for
reducing radiation risk that Type B
packages might pose to the public during
normal transportation. In addition,
licensees would be required to
coordinate with the appropriate
inspection authorities to ensure they,
and their inspection personnel, are
informed of the shipment and any
controls necessary to conduct
inspections (e.g., dosimetry). This
amendment has an equivalent level of
public health, safety and security as
current NRC regulations and would not
result in any physical changes in the
environment. Therefore, the NRC has
determined that the proposed agency
rulemaking action would result in no
significant environmental effects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These proposed rule amendments would modernize existing NRC
regulations while ensuring the continued safe, effective, and efficient
package certification to provide reasonable assurance of adequate
protection of public health and safety and the environment. Table B-3
notes that any of the changes to the 10 CFR part 71 regulations must
still provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public
health and safety. Therefore, the proposed amendments would have no
significantly different environmental effects than those resulting from
the current regulatory framework.
C. Summary of the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Agency Action
Implementation of the proposed rule would result in no physical
changes to the environment, and, therefore, the NRC has determined that
this proposed agency action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Proposed rule amendments are
administrative in application, involve matters of procedure, clarify
reporting requirements, and would provide an equivalent level of safety
and security as current NRC regulations.
Since no physical changes would occur in the human environment, the
proposed agency action (rulemaking) would not affect any threatened or
endangered species or historic properties. Accordingly, the NRC finds
that the proposed rulemaking would have no significant environmental
impact.
D. Environmental Impacts of the Alternative to the Proposed Agency
Action
Under the no action alternative (i.e., the status quo), NRC
regulations would remain unchanged. As stated in section B of this EA,
the proposed rule would not have a significant effect on the quality of
the human environment. Therefore, the no action alternative and the
proposed agency action (i.e., proposed rulemaking) would have the same
environmental effect, although there would be costs attributable to
reviewing the environmental effects of exemption and license amendment
requests under the no action alternative. Licensees would continue to
comply with existing NRC regulations or request regulatory relief
(exemption) from the regulations. The NRC would continue to evaluate
the environmental effects of exemption and license amendment requests.
The averted costs (benefits) of the rulemaking would not occur. The
regulatory analysis for the proposed rule provides information about
the costs and benefits of the no action alternative and the proposed
agency action. The information can be found in Section VI of this
document, ``Regulatory Analysis.''
E. Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC is requesting public comments on this draft EA and Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The NRC will consider public comments
in
[[Page 46878]]
the development of the final rule, EA, and FONSI. The NRC will issue
the EA and FONSI when it publishes the final rule. In addition, the NRC
consulted with the DOT on the proposed language in Sec. 71.47(b)(3)
for certain Type B packages with higher radiation level.
As discussed in Section XI.B, the proposed rule provisions would
not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
For this reason, the proposed rulemaking would not impact threatened or
endangered species or critical habitat, and the NRC has determined that
section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, is not necessary. The proposed regulatory changes do not
involve any ground disturbing activities or visual effects that would
adversely affect historic properties. Therefore, the NRC has determined
that consultation is not required under section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
F. Draft Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC has prepared this EA to determine the environmental effects
of the proposed agency action (rulemaking). Proposed rule amendments
are primarily administrative or procedural in nature and thus would not
have any physical environmental effect. As explained in the EA, the NRC
has determined the proposed rulemaking would continue to provide
reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety
and would result in no new or different environmental effects.
Therefore, the NRC concludes that the proposed regulatory changes would
not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
Based on this conclusion, the NRC has determined there is no need to
prepare an environmental impact statement. Accordingly, the NRC finds
the proposed agency action would have no significant environmental
impact.
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains new or amended collections of
information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). This proposed rule has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for review and approval of the information
collections.
Type of submission: New.
The title of the information collection: Modernizing Package
Certification Requirements.
OMB approval numbers: 3150-0008.
The form number if applicable: Not applicable.
How often the collection is required or requested: On occasion. A
third-party notification is required each time a qualifying Type B
package is shipped, while the alternative compliance documentation is
submitted each time an applicant seeks NRC certification for a package
using the optional risk-informed methodology.
Who will be required or asked to respond: Licensees and applicants
who transport qualifying Type B packages or seek NRC certification of
transportation packages using the optional risk-informed methodology.
An estimate of the number of annual responses: 0.
The estimated number of annual respondents: 0. No respondents are
anticipated during the clearance period.
An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to comply
with the information collection requirement or request: 0.
Abstract: The proposed rule would amend 10 CFR part 71 to make two
changes to information collection requirements. First, the proposed
rule would require licensees transporting certain Type B packages to
coordinate in advance with Federal, State, or local inspection
authorities. Second, the proposed rule would provide an optional
framework for applicants to demonstrate transportation package safety
using risk-informed or alternative methodologies, allowing submission
of supporting documentation to the NRC in lieu of meeting specific
physical testing requirements.
The NRC is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the
information collections contained in this proposed rule and on the
following issues:
1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the
information will have practical utility? Please explain your response.
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the proposed information
collection accurate? Please explain your response.
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected? Please explain your response.
4. How can the burden of the proposed information collection on
respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology?
A copy of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance
package and proposed rule are available in the ``Availability of
Documents'' section of this document or may be viewed free of charge by
contacting the NRC's Public Document Room reference staff at 1-800-397-
4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. You may
obtain information and comment on submissions related to the OMB
clearance package by searching on https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket ID NRC-2025-1667.
You may submit comments on any aspect of these proposed information
collection(s), including suggestions for reducing the burden and on the
above issues, by the following methods:
Federal rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2025-1667.
Submit comments by August 26, 2026.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting
or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
XIII. Executive Orders
The following are Executive orders that are related to this
proposed rule:
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review (as Amended by
Executive Order 14215, Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies)
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has
determined that this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866; though not economically significant
under section 3(f)(1). Accordingly, the NRC submitted this proposed
rule to OIRA for review. The NRC is required to conduct an economic
analysis in accordance with section 6(a)(3)(B) of E.O. 12866. More can
be found in Section VI of this document, ``Regulatory Analysis.''
B. Executive Order 14154: Unleashing American Energy
The NRC has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it
is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154.
C. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
This action is tentatively determined to be a deregulatory action.
This proposed rule is a deregulatory action as defined by E.O. 14192.
Details on the estimated costs of this proposed rule can be found in
Section VI of this document, ``Regulatory Analysis.''
[[Page 46879]]
D. Executive Order 14270: Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting To Unleash
American Energy
E.O. 14270, ``Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American
Energy,'' requires the NRC to insert a conditional sunset date into all
new or amended NRC regulations provided the regulations are (1)
promulgated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), the
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, or the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982, as amended; (2) not statutorily required; or (3)
not part of the NRC's permitting regime. The NRC determined that the
regulatory changes proposed in this rule are required because they are
necessary for providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection of
public health and safety and common defense and security, and would be
part of NRC's permitting regime as they apply to package certification
requirements. Therefore, the NRC views this rulemaking to be outside
the scope of E.O. 14270 and did not insert conditional sunset dates for
the regulatory changes in this proposed rule.
E. Executive Order 14294: Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal
Regulations
This proposed rule includes Federal regulations that, if adopted,
would be enforceable by criminal penalty, as authorized by Section 223
of the AEA. Therefore, per Executive Order 14294, those regulations
constitute ``criminal regulatory offenses.''
For the purposes of Section 223 of the AEA, the NRC is issuing this
proposed rule that would amend 10 CFR part 71 under one or more of
Sections 161b, 161i, or 161o of the AEA, except as noted in Sec.
71.100(b). The applicability of criminal penalties to regulations in
part 71 is set forth in Sec. 71.100. Willful violations of the 10 CFR
part 71 regulations, other than those listed in Sec. 71.100(b), would
be subject to criminal enforcement.
XIV. Coordination With NRC Agreement States
On September 3, 2025, the NRC held a government-to-government
meeting with the Agreement States regarding E.O. 14300. In this
meeting, the NRC presented its goals and objectives for future
rulemakings to be done in response to the E.O. At the time of the
meeting, the proposed rule text was not available. On January 29, 2026,
the proposed rule was shared with the Standing Committee for
Compatibility.
XV. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations
On the basis of 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), NRC program elements
can be placed into six categories (A, B, C, D, NRC, or health and
safety (H&S)) to form the basis for evaluating and classifying the
program elements. 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 implementation of that program.
This proposed rule only modifies regulations that are of Compatibility
Categories B, D, and NRC.
Compatibility Category B pertains to a limited number of program
elements that cross jurisdictional boundaries and should be addressed
to ensure uniformity of regulation on a nationwide basis. For
Compatibility Category B, the Agreement State program element shall be
essentially identical to that of NRC.
Compatibility Category D are those program elements that do not
meet any of the criteria of Category A, B, or C, and are not required
to be adopted by Agreement States for purposes of compatibility. An
Agreement State has the flexibility to adopt and implement program
elements within the State's jurisdiction that are not addressed by the
NRC or that are not required for compatibility. However, such program
elements of an Agreement State relating to agreement material shall (1)
not create conflicts, duplications, gaps, or other conditions that
would jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of agreement
material on a nationwide basis; (2) not preclude a practice authorized
by the AEA and in the national interest; and (3) not preclude the
ability of the NRC to evaluate the effectiveness of Agreement State
programs for agreement material with respect to protection of public
health and safety and the environment.
Compatibility Category NRC are those program elements that address
areas of regulation that cannot be relinquished to the Agreement States
under the AEA, or provisions of 10 CFR. The NRC maintains regulatory
authority over these program elements 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.
The proposed rule is a matter of compatibility between the NRC and
the Agreement States, thereby providing consistency among Agreement
State and NRC requirements. The compatibility (A, B, C, D, and NRC) and
adequacy (H&S) categories are designated in the following table:
Adequacy and Compatibility Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adequacy or compatibility
Section Change Subject -----------------------------------
Existing New
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
71.1(a)........................ Amend............. Communications and D.............. NRC--for
Records. ``demonstrations
of alternative
package
evaluations''.
D--remaining
provisions.
71.4........................... Remove............ Definitions--Spent D..............
Nuclear Fuel.
71.5........................... Amend............. Transportation of [B]............ [B].
licensed material.
71.17.......................... Amend............. General license: NRC- B.............. B.
approved package.
71.41(e)....................... New............... Demonstration of ............... NRC.
compliance.
71.45.......................... Amend............. Lifting and tie-down NRC............ NRC.
standards for all
packages.
71.47(b)(3).................... Amend............. External radiation ............... NRC.
standards for all
packages.
71.47(a), (b), & (d)........... Amend............. External radiation [B]............ NRC.
standards for all
packages.
[[Page 46880]]
71.95.......................... Amend............. Reports................ D.............. C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XVI. Availability of Guidance
Due to the accelerated schedule for this rulemaking, the NRC is not
issuing draft guidance for implementation of the proposed requirements
at this time.
XVII. Public Meeting
The NRC will conduct a public meeting on the proposed rule for the
purpose of providing stakeholders with the opportunity to ask questions
and seek clarification from the NRC staff on the proposed rule.
The NRC will publish a notice of the location, time, and agenda of
the meeting in the Federal Register, on Regulations.gov, and on the
NRC's public meeting website within 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.
XVIII. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the following table are available to
interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as
indicated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAMS Accession No./web link/Federal Register
Document citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECY-24-0062, ``Risk-Informed Methodology for a Future ML23320A124 (Package).
Transportable Triso-Based Micro-Reactor Package
Application,'' July 22, 2024.
Memorandum of Understanding; Transportation of Radioactive 44 FR 38690.
Materials, July 2, 1979.
OMB Supporting Statement, ``Supporting Statement for ML26022A034.
Information Collections Contained in Modernizing Package
Certification Requirements Proposed Rule,'' July 2026.
PNNL-38760, ``Microreactor Incident Free Transportation ML26061A014.
Radiation Dose Assessment,'' December 2025.
Revision to Policy Statement, ``Agreement State Program 82 FR 48535.
Policy Statement,'' October 18, 2017.
Proposed rule, ``Licensing Requirements for Microreactors 91 FR 23628.
and Other Reactors With Comparable Risk Profiles,'' May 1,
2026.
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735.
October 4, 1993.
Executive Order 14154, ``Unleashing American Energy,'' 90 FR 8353.
January 29, 2025.
Executive Order 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through 90 FR 9065.
Deregulation,'' February 6, 2025.
Executive Order 14215, ``Ensuring Accountability for All 90 FR 10447.
Agencies,'' February 24, 2025.
Executive Order 14270, ``Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to 90 FR 15643.
Unleash American Energy,'' April 15, 2025.
Executive Order 14294, ``Fighting Overcriminalization in 90 FR 20363.
Federal Regulations,'' May 14, 2025.
Executive Order 14300, ``Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear 90 FR 22587.
Regulatory Commission,'' May 29, 2025.
Presidential Memorandum, ``Plain Language in Government 63 FR 31885.
Writing,'' June 10, 1998.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including
public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2025-1667. 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-2025-1667); (2) click
the ``Subscribe'' button; and (3) enter an email address and click on
the ``Subscribe'' button.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 71
Criminal penalties, Hazardous materials transportation,
Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materials, Packaging and
containers, Penalties, Radioactive materials, 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 71.
PART 71--PACKAGING AND TRANSPORTATION OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL
0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Atomic Energy Act secs. 53, 57, 62, 63, 81, 161, 182,
183, 223, 234, 1701 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2201,
2232, 2233, 2273, 2282, 2297f); Energy Reorganization Act secs. 201,
202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); Nuclear Waste
Policy Act sec. 180 (42 U.S.C. 10175); Government Paperwork
Elimination Act sec. 1704 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act
of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
Section 71.97 also issued under sec. 301, Pub. L. 96-295, 94
Stat. 789-790.
0
2. In Sec. 71.1, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 71.1 Communications and Records.
(a) Except where otherwise specified, all communications,
demonstrations of alternative package evaluations, and reports
concerning the regulations in this part and applications filed under
them should be sent by mail addressed: ATTN: Document Control Desk,
Director, Division of Fuel Management, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001, by hand delivery to the NRC's offices at 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852; or, where practicable, by electronic
submission, for example, via Electronic Information Exchange, or CD-
ROM. Electronic submissions must be made in a manner that enables the
NRC to receive, read, authenticate, distribute, and archive the
submission, and process and retrieve it a single page at a time.
Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions can be obtained by
visiting the NRC's website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html; by email to [email protected]; or by writing the
Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
[[Page 46881]]
0001. The guidance discusses, among other topics, the formats the NRC
can accept, the use of electronic signatures, and the treatment of
nonpublic information. If the submission date falls on a Saturday,
Sunday, or a Federal holiday, the next Federal working day becomes the
official due date.
* * * * *
Sec. 71.4 [Amended]
0
3. In Sec. 71.4, remove the definition to Spent nuclear fuel or Spent
Fuel.
Sec. 71.5 [Amended]
0
4. In Sec. 71.5:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the phrase ``shall'' and add in its place
the phrase ``must'', and add the phrase ``385,'' after the phrase ``171
through 180,'';
0
b. In paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and (a)(2) introductory text,
remove the phrase ``shall'' and add in its place the phrase ``must'';
and
0
c. In paragraph (a)(2)(iv), and add the phrase ``,385'' after the
phrase ``part 177''.
0
5. In Sec. 71.17, in paragraph (c) introductory text, remove the
phrase ``shall'' and add in its place the phrase ``must'' and revise
paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 71.17 General license: NRC-approved package.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Submit using an appropriate method listed in Sec. 71.1(a), the
licensee's name and license number and the package identification
number specified in the package approval before the first use of the
package to: ATTN: Document Control Desk, Division of Fuel Management,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec. 71.41, add new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 71.41 Demonstration of compliance.
* * * * *
(e) In accordance with paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section, in
lieu of an evaluation of the effects on a package of the tests
specified in Sec. 71.71 (``Normal conditions of transport''), and the
tests specified in Sec. 71.73 (``Hypothetical accident conditions''),
and Sec. 71.61 (``Special requirements for Type B packages containing
more than 10\5\ A2''), another method of demonstration may
be used to evaluate a package for certification if the method of
demonstration has been submitted for review in accordance with Sec.
71.1(a) before the submission of an application for a certificate of
compliance, provides adequate safety during transport, and is
acceptable to the Commission.
0
7. In Sec. 71.45, revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 71.45 Lifting and tie-down standards for all packages.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) If there is a system of tie-down devices that is a structural
part of the package, the system must be capable of withstanding,
without generating stress in any material of the package in excess of
its yield strength, a static force applied to the center of gravity of
the package having a vertical component of 2 times or, for air
transportation, 2.5 times the weight of the package with its contents;
a horizontal component along the direction in which the vehicle travels
of 5 times the weight of the package with its contents; and a
horizontal component in the transverse direction of 1.3 times the
weight of the package with its contents.
* * * * *
0
8. In Sec. 71.47, revise paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 71.47 External radiation standards for all packages.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) 0.1 mSv/h (10 mrem/h) at any point 2 meters (80 in) from the
outer lateral surfaces of the vehicle (excluding the top and underside
of the vehicle); or in the case of a flat-bed style vehicle, at any
point 2 meters (6.6 feet) from the vertical planes projected by the
outer edges of the vehicle (excluding the top and underside of the
vehicle). These radiation standards apply unless the following
conditions are met, in which case the limit is 0.5 mSv/h (50 mrem/h):
(i) The package contents meet the definition of highway route
controlled quantity specified in 49 CFR 173.403; and
(ii) The licensee coordinates in advance with the appropriate
Federal, State or local inspection authorities to ensure those
authorities are aware of the shipment and are prepared to conduct any
required vehicle inspections. Such coordination must ensure that
inspection personnel are informed of the radiological conditions and of
any applicable controls needed to support inspection activities,
including appropriate radiation dosimetry; and
* * * * *
0
9. In Sec. 71.95:
0
a. In paragraphs (a) and (b) remove the phrase ``written''; and
0
b. Revise paragraph (c) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 71.95 Reports.
* * * * *
(c) Each licensee must submit, in accordance with Sec. 71.1, a
report required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this section within 60 days
of the event or discovery of the event. The licensee must also provide
an electronic copy of each report submitted to the NRC to the
applicable certificate holder. Reports prepared under other regulations
may be submitted to fulfill this requirement if the reports contain all
the necessary information, and the appropriate distribution is made.
Using an appropriate method listed in Sec. 71.1(a), the licensee must
report to: ATTN: Document Control Desk, Division of Fuel Management,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. These reports must
include the following:
* * * * *
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated: July 23, 2026.
Jody Martin,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2026-15117 Filed 7-24-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P