Categorical Exclusions From Environmental Review, 20248-20257 [2010-8921]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 74 (Monday, April 19, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20248-20257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-8921]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 51

[NRC-2009-0269]
RIN 3150-AI27


Categorical Exclusions From Environmental Review

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its 
regulations that describe the categories of actions which do not 
require an environmental review under the requirements of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as the NRC has determined that 
such actions do not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment. The amended regulations eliminate the 
need for the preparation of environmental assessments for NRC actions 
that are minor, administrative, or procedural in nature. The amendments 
do not change any requirements for licensees, but may provide for more 
time for NRC action on more substantial issues and/or speed up the 
process for review of the amendments.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 19, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You can access publicly available documents related to this 
document using the following methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search

[[Page 20249]]

for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2008-0269. Address questions 
about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher at 301-492-3668; e-mail 
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine 
and may have copied for a fee publicly available document at the NRC's 
PDR, Public File Area O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC 
are available electronically at the NRC's electronic Reading Room at 
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public 
can gain entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's 
public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are 
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's 
PDR reference staff at 1-899-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to 
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cardelia H. Maupin, Office of Federal 
and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-
2312, e-mail, Cardelia.Maupin@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
    A. General Overview of Categorical Exclusion
    B. NRC Categorical Exclusion Regulations
    C. Amendments to NRC Categorical Exclusion Regulations
    D. Basis for Amendment of Categorical Exclusion Regulation
II. Discussion
    A. What Is a Categorical Exclusion?
    B. What Is NRC's Definition of Categorical Exclusion?
    C. How Should a Categorical Exclusion Be Applied?
    D. What Action Is the NRC Taking?
    E. Who Would This Action Affect?
III. Discussion of Amendments by Section
IV. Agreement State Compatibility
V. Plain Language
VI. Voluntary Consensus Standards
VII. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Environmental Impact
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
IX. Public Protection Notification
X. Regulatory Analysis
XI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
XII. Backfit Analysis
XIII. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

    NEPA requires Federal agencies to undertake an assessment of the 
environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making a 
decision on whether to approve or disapprove of the proposed action. 
The NRC's NEPA regulations are contained in 10 CFR Part 51, 
``Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and 
Related Regulatory Functions.''

A. General Overview of Categorical Exclusion

    There are three types of NEPA analyses: An environmental impact 
statement (EIS), an environmental assessment (EA), and a categorical 
exclusion. An EIS documents an agency's evaluation of the environmental 
impacts of a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality 
of the human environment. An EA is a concise, publicly available 
document that provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining 
whether to prepare an EIS or make a finding of no significant impact 
(FONSI). If an EA supports a FONSI, the environmental review process is 
complete. If the EA reveals that the proposed action may have a 
significant effect on the human environment, the Federal agency then 
prepares an EIS. A categorical exclusion, in contrast, is a category of 
actions that the agency has determined not to have a significant 
effect, either individually or cumulatively, on the human environment. 
A categorical exclusion is established by rulemaking. 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 (e.g., unique, unusual or controversial) 
circumstances that may have a significant effect on the human 
environment. Categorical exclusions streamline the NEPA process, saving 
time, effort, and resources.

B. NRC Categorical Exclusion Regulations

    On July 18, 1974, the NRC published a final rule (39 FR 26279) that 
added 10 CFR Part 51, ``Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures 
for Environmental Protection,'' to the NRC regulations. This rulemaking 
listed four categorical exclusions. On March 12, 1984, the NRC 
published a final rule (49 FR 9352) revising and renaming 10 CFR Part 
51, ``Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and 
Related Regulatory Functions and Related Conforming Amendments.'' This 
final rule expanded the number of categorical exclusions from four to 
eighteen, and redesignated the section listing the NRC's approved 
categorical exclusions as 10 CFR 51.22, ``Criterion for and 
identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for 
categorical exclusion.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The section heading was revised to its current heading, 
``Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of licensing 
and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or 
otherwise not requiring environmental review,'' by a final rule 
published on July 3, 1989 (54 FR 27870).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Amendments to NRC Categorical Exclusion Regulations

    NRC has made 14 amendments to the categorical exclusions in Sec.  
51.22 since 1984. Ten of these amendments were minor, corrective, or 
conforming changes, and four were more substantive. All resulted from 
rulemaking efforts addressing other parts of NRC regulations. As a 
result of the 14 amendments, the list of categorical exclusions in 
Sec.  51.22(c) increased from 18 to 23 categorical exclusions. The 
NRC's categorical exclusions include administrative, managerial, or 
organizational amendments to certain types of NRC regulations, 
licenses, and certificates; minor changes related to application filing 
procedures; and certain personnel and procurement activities.

D. Basis for Amendment of Categorical Exclusion Regulation

    The NRC is amending the 10 CFR 51.22 categorical exclusions to 
reflect regulatory experience gained since the development of this 
regulation in March 1984. Prior to this amendment effort, there has 
been no comprehensive review and update of Sec.  51.22. The amendments 
being adopted in this final rule are based, in part, on the Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) September 2003 NEPA Task Force Report (Task 
Force Report) ``Modernizing NEPA Implementation,'' https://www.nepa.gov/ntf/report/pdftoc.html. The Task Force Report notes that the 
development and updating of categorical exclusions by Federal agencies 
occurs infrequently and recommends that Federal agencies examine their 
categorical exclusion regulations to identify potential revisions that 
would eliminate unnecessary and costly EAs. It also provides 
recommendations for categorical exclusion development and revision.
    The Task Force Report notes that in developing new or broadening 
existing categorical exclusions, a key issue is how to evaluate whether 
a proposed categorical exclusion is appropriate and how to support the 
determination that it describes a category of actions that do not 
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human

[[Page 20250]]

environment. The Task Force Report recommends the use of information 
from past actions to establish the basis for the no significant effect 
determination. It further advises Federal agencies to evaluate past 
actions that occurred during a particular period to determine how often 
the NEPA analyses resulted in FONSIs for the category of actions being 
considered. The Task Force Report indicates that an adequate basis for 
developing new or broadening existing categorical exclusions exists if 
all the evaluated past actions resulted in FONSIs. It also provides 
that criteria for identifying new categorical exclusions should 
include: (1) Repetitive actions that do not individually or 
cumulatively have significant effects on the human environment; (2) 
actions that generally require limited environmental review; and (3) 
actions that are noncontroversial.
    The amendments being adopted in this final rule are also based upon 
a review of NRC regulatory actions. As noted, the Task Force Report 
recommends that agencies evaluate past EA/FONSIs for particular 
categories of actions to develop new or broaden existing categorical 
exclusions. To comply with this recommendation, an NRC search of files 
for EA/FONSIs completed during the 20-year period from 1987 to 2007 was 
conducted. The search revealed that more than 1,500 actions resulted in 
EA/FONSIs. NRC conducted an in-depth review of the EA/FONSIs issued 
during the period 2003-2007. That review identified several recurring 
categories of regulatory actions that are not addressed in 10 CFR 
51.22, and have no significant effect on the human environment, either 
individually or cumulatively. These categories of actions were 
considered in the amendments being adopted in this final rule.

II. Discussion

A. What Is a Categorical Exclusion?

    The CEQ Task Force report defines the term ``categorical 
exclusion'' as ``a category of actions that do not individually or 
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and, 
therefore, preparing an EA or an EIS is not required unless 
extraordinary circumstances indicate otherwise.'' \2\ If a certain type 
of regulatory action, such as the amendment of regulations, would not 
normally result in any significant effect upon the human environment, 
then it is unnecessary to spend time and effort to repeatedly document 
that fact. The Task Force Report's definition of a ``categorical 
exclusion'' also provides for ``extraordinary circumstances'' 
(essentially, the NRC equivalent of special circumstances) in which a 
normally excluded action may have a significant environmental effect, 
and thus require preparation of an EA or an EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CEQ regulations define the term ``categorical exclusion'' at 
40 CFR 1508.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What Is NRC's Definition of Categorical Exclusion?

    A ``categorical exclusion'' is defined in NRC's regulations in 10 
CFR 51.14 as a ``category of actions which do not individually or 
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and 
which the Commission has found to have no such effect in accordance 
with procedures set out in Sec.  51.22, and for which, therefore 
neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact 
statement is required.'' The NRC has determined that the categorical 
exclusions listed in 10 CFR 51.22 do not have a significant effect on 
the human environment.

C. How Should a Categorical Exclusion Be Applied?

    Before applying a categorical exclusion to a proposed action, it 
should be determined whether there are any special circumstances that 
would potentially effect the human environment. If such special 
circumstances are, or are likely to be present, the NRC would then 
prepare an EA and, if necessary, an EIS. If special circumstances are 
not present, then the categorical exclusion may be applied and the NRC 
will satisfy its NEPA obligation for that proposed action. The 
determination of whether special circumstances are present is a matter 
of NRC discretion. The determination that special circumstances are not 
present will not require the preparation of any specific or additional 
documentation beyond the documentation normally prepared, if any, 
indicating that the categorical exclusion is being invoked for the 
proposed action.

D. What Action Is the NRC Taking?

    The NRC is amending its list of categorical exclusions to clarify 
the scope of existing categories and to add new categories of actions 
that have been shown to have no significant effect on the human 
environment. For example, the provisions in Sec.  51.22(c)(10) cover 
administrative and procedural changes to a license or permit. However, 
because of the ambiguity of the language in this provision, the NRC has 
prepared numerous EA/FONSIs for changes to a licensee's name, address, 
or telephone number. In addition, these amendments broaden the scope of 
the categorical exclusion that addresses decommissioning activities and 
adds categorical exclusions that address the awarding of education 
grants and the granting of exemptions from certain regulatory 
requirements.
    The amendments to the categorical exclusion regulations will reduce 
inefficiencies and inconsistencies in the implementation of NRC's 
regulatory program. The amendments will eliminate the need to prepare 
unnecessary EAs for NRC regulatory actions that have no significant 
effect on the human environment. The amendments will also support the 
NRC's organizational objectives of ensuring that its actions are 
effective, efficient, realistic, and timely.

E. Who Would This Action Affect?

    This amendment will not impose any new requirements on NRC 
licensees. It will ensure that review of licensees' amendment requests 
are completed by the NRC in a more efficient, effective, and timely 
manner, and will result in cost savings to the NRC and licensees. The 
amendments eliminate the need for the preparation of EA/FONSIs for 
actions that routinely have been shown to have no effect on the human 
environment, e.g., licensee requests concerning administrative, 
managerial, or organizational matters. For example, current ambiguities 
in the categorical exclusion regulations have created delays in 
licensee decisions when organizational name changes occur, because 
these decisions must await the completion of an EA/FONSI and 
publication in the Federal Register by the NRC.

III. Summary of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule to amend the categorical exclusions in 10 CFR 
51.22 was published on October 9, 2008 (73 FR 59540), with a 75-day 
comment period, which ended on December 23, 2009. The NRC received four 
comment submissions on the proposed rule. The commenters included a 
member of the public, one industry organization, and two State 
agencies. Copies of the public comments are available for review in the 
NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, or 
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2008-0269.
Analysis of Public Comments
    1. Comment. The commenter, a member of the public, stated that 
there should never be exemptions from any environmental review. The 
comment

[[Page 20251]]

submission also included other comments that are beyond the scope of 
this rulemaking.
    Response: Excluding categories of actions from environmental 
review, for which the agency has demonstrated that there will be no 
significant effect on the human environment, either individually or 
cumulatively, is an established, authorized NEPA practice. CEQ 
regulations expressly authorize and encourage the use of categorical 
exclusions by agencies to reduce ``excessive paperwork.'' \3\ According 
to the CEQ Task Force Report, CEQ ``strongly discourages procedures 
that require additional paperwork to document that an activity has been 
categorically excluded.'' \4\ The categorical exclusion process 
provides that if a certain type of regulatory action would not normally 
result in any significant effect upon the human environment, then it is 
unnecessary to spend time and effort to repeatedly document that fact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 40 CFR 1500.4(p). See also 40 CFR 1501.4(a)(2) (agency 
determines under its procedures whether action would be one that is 
normally subject to an EIS or is not subject to an EIS or EA and 
thus, a categorical exclusion); and 40 CFR 1508.4 (CEQ definition of 
categorical exclusion).
    \4\ CEQ, ``The NEPA Task Force Report to the Council on 
Environmental Quality: Modernizing NEPA Implementation'' (Task Force 
Report) 57-58 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, a categorical exclusion does not indicate the absence of 
an environmental review, but rather, that the agency has established a 
sufficient administrative record to show that the subject actions do 
not, either individually or cumulatively, have a significant effect on 
the human environment. Agencies establish sufficient administrative 
records to support categorical exclusions through the use of 
professional staff opinions, past NEPA records which show that the 
agency made a FONSI each time it considered the action, and the 
establishment of similar categorical exclusions by other agencies.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Task Force Report at 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to those categorical exclusions established by this 
final rule, the NRC has established a sufficient administrative record, 
consisting of professional staff opinions and past NEPA records, which 
shows that these actions, either individually or cumulatively, do not 
result in a significant effect on the human environment. The statements 
of consideration for this final rule summarize the NRC's administrative 
record for each categorical exclusion. Also, under 10 CFR 51.22(b), in 
the event that special circumstances are present, the NRC retains 
discretion to prepare either an EA or EIS for an action that is 
otherwise categorically excluded.
    2. Comment: The commenter, an industry organization, stated in its 
comment submission that it had reviewed the proposed revisions to 10 
CFR Part 51 as described in the proposed rule and agreed that the 
categories of actions included therein have been shown to have no 
significant effect on the human environment, either individually or 
collectively, and should be excluded in accordance with NEPA and as 
defined in NRC regulations. The commenter supported issuance of a final 
rule to implement the proposed revisions set forth in the proposed 
rule.
    Response: No response necessary.
    3. Comment: The commenter, a State Department of Health, stated in 
its comment submission that it had reviewed the proposed revisions to 
10 CFR Part 51 as described in the proposed rule and concurred with the 
recommendation that the NRC periodically examine its categorical 
exclusion regulations to identify potential revisions that would 
eliminate unnecessary and costly environmental assessments. The 
commenter also supported the concept that information from past actions 
be used to identify and modify or eliminate requirements that have no 
significant impact on humans or the environment. The commenter also 
agreed that the proposed revisions of the categorical exclusion 
regulations would minimize inefficiencies and inconsistencies in the 
implementation of NRC's regulatory program.
    Response: No response necessary.
    4. Comment: The commenter, a State Department of Environmental 
Conservation, raised concerns about the broadening of existing 
categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) to include power reactor 
licensee exemption requests from requirements concerning the 
installation or use of a facility component located within the 
restricted area of a Part 50 or 52 facility. The commenter stated that 
the fact that an EA and FONSI have been issued in the past is not 
sufficient justification to preclude all future requests for an 
exemption from Part 50 or 52 from a NEPA review. The commenter noted 
that Parts 50 and 52 regulate a broad range of activities at nuclear 
facilities and urged the NRC to take a hard look at the breadth of 
activities to be covered under the proposed revisions and to more 
carefully define the types of exception requests that qualify to be 
classified as a ``categorical exclusion.'' The commenter stated that 
the proposed revision to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) had two critical defects: 
(1) That the public will be deprived of an opportunity to comment on an 
exemption from one or more of the enumerated requirements that 
potentially impacts public health, safety or welfare, and (2) important 
technical reviews will be foregone because a permit or license holder's 
request for exemption is erroneously considered insignificant. The 
commenter concludes that the amendment to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) is overly 
broad and warrants additional, more refined conditioning language to 
ensure that the above two critical defects are avoided.
    Response: The commenter asserts that the fact that an EA and FONSI 
have been issued in the past is not sufficient justification to 
preclude all future requests for an exemption from Part 50 or 52 from a 
NEPA review under the amendment to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). As described in 
the CEQ Task Force Report, a consistent record of EA and FONSIs for a 
given category of actions is an acceptable basis to establish a 
categorical exclusion. In this regard, the NRC staff determined that 
during the 5-year period 2003 through 2007, over 50 EAs were prepared 
for licensee requests for exemptions, all of which resulted in a FONSI.
    Moreover, an environmental review is not precluded by the 
establishment of this categorical exclusion. Before the categorical 
exclusion is applied, the NRC staff must find that the exemption 
request involves no significant hazards consideration, there is no 
significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts 
of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no 
significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation 
exposure.\6\ The above findings would be made as part of the NRC's 
safety analysis for any licensee exemption request. If the NRC cannot 
make these findings, then the categorical exclusion will not apply and 
the NRC will prepare an EA, and if necessary, an EIS. Furthermore, the 
NRC can, in the event of special circumstances, as provided in 10 CFR 
51.22(b), choose to prepare an EA or an EIS. Thus, the NRC concludes 
that the broadening of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)(i)-(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter urges the NRC to take a ``hard look'' at the breadth 
of activities to be covered under the amendment to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) 
in order to more carefully define the types of exemption requests that 
``truly qualify'' to be classified as categorical exclusions. The 
amendment to this categorical exclusion, however, only covers exemption 
requests from a specified

[[Page 20252]]

subset of requirements under Part 50 or 52, namely, those exemption 
requests from Part 50 or 52 requirements related to the installation of 
or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as 
defined by 10 CFR Part 20. The land covered by the restricted area is 
typically improved or otherwise previously disturbed and restricted to 
plant personnel or other screened individuals.
    Given the 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)(i)-(iii) criteria and the nature of 
the restricted area, it is extremely unlikely that granting any such 
exemption request would create any significant impact on the aquatic or 
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the plant, or to threatened, 
endangered, or protected species under the Endangered Species Act, or 
impacts to essential fish habitat covered by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 
Similarly, it is extremely unlikely that there will be any impacts to 
socioeconomic, or historical and cultural resources. Thus, the NRC 
concludes that the amendment to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) is not overly broad, 
has sufficient protection, and is supported by an adequate 
administrative record.
    The commenter further asserts that the public will be deprived of 
an opportunity to comment on an exemption from one or more of the 
enumerated requirements that potentially impact public health, safety, 
or welfare. In response, the NRC has concluded that broadening the 
categorical exclusion to include exemption requests will not have a 
significant effect on the human environment and will reduce unnecessary 
agency work. The NRC has further concluded that this amendment will not 
adversely impact public health and safety. This conclusion is based on 
the NRC's administrative record and the findings that must be made 
before the exemption can be approved, as required by 10 CFR 
51.22(c)(9)(i)-(iii).
    The commenter also asserts that important technical reviews will be 
foregone because a permit or license holder's request for exemption is 
erroneously considered insignificant. The application of the 
categorical exclusion to any exemption request, however, is separate 
and distinct from the safety analysis of the exemption request that 
will be conducted by the NRC staff. Absent the EA, the staff will still 
review the plant's procedures and technical specifications as well as 
evaluate the exemption request against the significance criteria in 10 
CFR 51.22(c)(9)(i)-(iii).
    5. Comment: The commenter, a State Department of Environmental 
Conservation, raised a concern about one of the new categorical 
exclusions, 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), which covers exemption requests from 
administrative, managerial, or organizational requirements. 
Specifically, the commenter stated that the activities addressed in 
subparagraphs (C), (D), and (F) of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(vi)(25) \7\ appear 
to be more safety-related than administrative, or that the requirements 
were more than administrative. Subparagraph (C) covered exemption 
requests from inspection or surveillance requirements; subparagraph (D) 
covered exemption requests from equipment servicing or maintenance 
requirements; and subparagraph (F) covered exemption requests from 
safeguards plans, including materials control, accounting, or other 
inventory requirements. The commenter urged the NRC to remove these 
exemption requests from the list of activities eligible for listing as 
a categorical exclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The paragraph in question was designated as 10 CFR 
51.22(c)(25)(v) in the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The NRC makes a distinction between conducting a safety 
analysis and conducting an environmental analysis. The NRC has 
determined that granting exemption requests from the types of 
requirements described in subparagraphs (C), (D), and (F) will not have 
a significant effect on the human environment. The commenter asserts 
that these requirements are more safety-related than administrative. 
The NRC will conduct a safety review and must make findings similar to 
those required by 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). The proposed rule listed four 
findings, namely, that granting the exemption request would not result 
in a: (i) Significant change in the types or significant increase in 
the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (ii) 
significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational 
radiation exposure; (iii) significant construction impact; or (iv) 
there is no significant increase the potential for or consequences from 
radiological accidents.
    In response to this comment, the final rule adds a fifth required 
finding that there will be no significant hazards consideration, set 
forth in this final rule as 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i). In addition, the 
term ``procedural'' will be deleted from 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(I) 
(formerly subparagraph (c)(25)(v)(J) in the proposed rule) as the term 
``procedural'' could be misconstrued in this context to include the 
requirement for licensees to implement procedures for substantive 
requirements. Thus, with these changes, the NRC concludes that the 
requirement to make these findings as part of its safety analysis 
provides adequate protection of public health and safety and as such, 
the revised categorical exclusion is appropriate.

IV. Discussion of Amendments by Section

A. Why Revise the Description of Categorical Exclusions in 10 CFR 
51.22(a)?

    This rule amends Sec.  51.22(a) to clarify that the types of 
actions eligible for a categorical exclusion include ``administrative'' 
actions in addition to ``licensing'' and ``regulatory'' actions.

B. Why Revise the Categorical Exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1) Which 
Addresses Amendments to 10 CFR Parts That Pertain Solely to 
Organizational, Administrative or Procedural Matters?

    This rule amends Sec.  51.22(c)(1) to include references to 10 CFR 
Parts that were inadvertently omitted. The 10 CFR Parts referenced in 
this section relate to matters regarding Commission organization, 
administration, or procedure. They serve the dual purpose of making 
information readily available to the public and of establishing 
administrative procedures for the orderly conduct of Commission 
business. The NRC has established that these types of regulatory 
actions do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect 
on the human environment.
    This amendment updates 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1) to include references to 
the following Commission organizational, administrative, or procedural 
requirements in the following 10 CFR Parts:
    Part 5--Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs 
or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance. This part is 
designed to eliminate (with certain exceptions) sex discrimination in 
any education program or activity receiving Federal financial 
assistance.
    Part 12--Implementation of the Equal Access to Justice Act in 
Agency Proceedings. This part establishes regulatory requirements for 
awarding of attorney fees to eligible individuals and entities in 
certain administrative proceedings before the Commission.
    Part 13--Program Fraud Civil Remedies. This part establishes 
administrative procedures for imposing civil penalties and assessments 
against persons who make, submit, or present, false, fictitious, or 
fraudulent claims. It also specifies the hearing and appeal rights of 
persons subject to allegations of liability for such penalties.

[[Page 20253]]

    Part 15--Debt Collection Procedures. This part establishes 
administrative procedures for the Commission to collect the payment of 
debts owed to the United States Government in the form of money or 
property, unless a different procedure is specified in a statute, 
regulation, or contract.
    Part 16--Salary Offset Procedures for Collecting Debts Owed by 
Federal Employees to the Federal Government. This part establishes 
procedures for the collection by administrative offset of a Federal 
employee's salary without his or her consent to satisfy certain debts 
owed to the Federal Government.
    Part 26--Fitness for Duty Programs. This part prescribes 
requirements and standards for the establishment and maintenance of 
certain aspects of fitness-for-duty programs and procedures.
    Part 160--Trespassing on Commission Property. This part provides 
for the protection and security of NRC facilities, installations, and 
properties from unauthorized entry and from unauthorized weapons or 
dangerous materials.

C. Why the Commission Has Chosen Not To Revise the Categorical 
Exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2)

    The proposed rule proposed broadening the scope of 10 CFR 
51.22(c)(2) to include regulatory amendments that updated references, 
and to make other modifications to the language. Subsequent to the 
publication of the proposed rule, the NRC staff re-evaluated this 
proposed amendment and determined the proposed changes were overly 
broad, particularly regarding those amendments to the NRC regulations 
that incorporated by reference updates to American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) or similar codes. For example, it was 
determined that certain code cases for Section II of the ASME Boiler 
and Pressure Vessel code, ``Materials,'' could result in an alloy being 
altered to include a new material. Such new material, if in contact 
with the reactor coolant system, could become radioactively activated 
and could ultimately be released to the environment. Thus, the NRC 
staff concluded that such reference updates should be subject to an 
environmental review. The final rule will not amend 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2).

D. Why Revise the Categorical Exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3) Which 
Addresses Amendments to Administrative, Organizational or Procedural 
Requirements Within Other 10 CFR Parts?

    The final rule amends 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3) to delete the specific 
listing of 10 CFR Parts and to add a generic reference to reflect any 
part of CFR Chapter 10. This revision eliminates the need for changes 
due to new parts being added or deleted. As a result, efficiencies will 
be gained in the rulemaking process.
    This amendment redesignates the existing subparagraph (iv) as 
subparagraph (v) and adds a new subparagraph (iv) to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3) 
to expand the categorical exclusion to include amendments concerning 
education, training, experience, qualification, or other employment 
suitability requirements established in the regulations.

E. Why Revise Categorical Exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) Which 
Addresses Amendments to a Permit or License for a Reactor Under Parts 
50 or 52?

    The final rule amends 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) to broaden the scope of 
the categorical exclusion to include the granting of a power reactor 
licensee exemption request from a requirement pertaining to the 
installation or use of a facility component located within the 
restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. Under the previous 
provision, the granting of such an exemption request would not be 
covered by this categorical exclusion and therefore, would have 
required the preparation of an EA. The Commission has now determined 
that there is ample data in the form of EA and FONSIs to justify the 
categorical exclusion of the granting of these exemptions, provided 
that for each exemption request, the NRC first finds that the safety 
criteria set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) are met (i.e., the exemption 
involves no significant hazards consideration, there is no significant 
change in the types of, or significant increase in the amounts of any 
effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant 
increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure). 
During the period 2003 through 2007, at least 50 EA/FONSIs resulted 
from licensee requests for such exemptions.

F. Why Revise the Categorical Exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10) Which 
Addresses Administrative, Procedural, Organizational, or Editorial 
Changes to a Permit or License?

    The final rule amends 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10) to delete the specific 
listing of 10 CFR Parts and to add a generic reference to cover any 
part of 10 CFR, Chapter 1. This revision eliminates the need for 
changes due to new parts being added or deleted. As a result, 
efficiencies are gained in the rulemaking process.
    In addition, 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10) is revised to add new 
subparagraphs (iii), (iv), and (v) to clarify that changes to a license 
or permit that are administrative, organizational, or editorial in 
nature are not subject to environmental review. The NRC has conducted 
several EAs, each resulting in a FONSI, for minor administrative 
changes to licenses and permits because these actions were not 
specifically identified in 10 CFR 51.22(c). These types of amendments 
to a license or permit facilitate the orderly conduct of the licensee's 
business and ensure that information needed by the Commission to 
perform its regulatory functions is readily available. These amendments 
would also include the changing of references on licenses and other 
licensee documents (e.g., licensee's operational procedures) to reflect 
amendments to NRC regulations and updated NRC-approved guidance (e.g., 
NUREG documents). Under the previous provision, the NRC was required to 
prepare EA and FONSIs for the following administrative actions:
    (1) Amendments to reflect changes in ownership;
    (2) Amendments to reflect organization name changes;
    (3) Amendments to reflect corporate restructuring, including 
mergers;
    (4) Amendments to licenses to reflect changes in references; and
    (5) Amendments correcting typographical and editorial errors on 
licenses, permits, and associated technical specification documents.
    The Commission has consistently determined that these types of 
amendments have no significant effect on the human environment.

G. Why Revise the Categorical Exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(20) Which 
Addresses Decommissioning of Sites?

    The final rule adds a new subparagraph (iii) to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(20) 
to broaden the scope of the 10 CFR 51.22(c)(20) categorical exclusion 
to include Group 2 decommissioning activities. Decommissioning 
activities

[[Page 20254]]

are described in NRC's guidance, NUREG-1757, Vol. 1, Rev. 2, 
``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning.'' NUREG-1757 divides 
decommissioning activities into seven decommissioning groups, Groups 1-
7. Prior to this amendment, the 10 CFR 51.22(c)(20) categorical 
exclusion covered Group 1 decommissioning activities only. Group 2 
decommissioning activities are those activities that involve the 
decommissioning of sites where licensed operations have been limited to 
the use of radioactive materials in such a manner that a 
decommissioning plan is not required by 10 CFR 30.36(g)(1), 40.42(g)(1) 
or 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.
    Group 2 decommissioning activities cover:
    (1) Facilities where the licensee possessed and used only sealed 
sources, but the most recent leak tests indicate that the sources 
leaked or leak tests are not available; or
    (2) Facilities where the licensee used unsealed radioactive 
material and the licensee's survey demonstrated that levels of 
radiological contamination on building surfaces or surface soils meet 
the provisions for unrestricted use in 10 CFR 20.1402 by applying NRC-
approved decommissioning screening criteria, and the licensee is not 
required to submit a decommissioning plan.
    Group 2 decommissioning requests received by the NRC involve 
licensees who are authorized to possess and use sealed and/or unsealed 
radioactive materials with half-lives greater than 120 days. For 
example, the most common unsealed radioactive materials used by Group 2 
licensees are tritium (H-3) and Carbon-14.
    Normally, Group 2 licensees in the decommissioning process 
remediate their sites, as necessary, using their operating procedures. 
These licensees are required to keep records of material receipt, use, 
and disposal, enabling them to quantify past radiological material 
possession and use with a high degree of confidence. In order for the 
decommissioning action to meet Group 2 criteria, the licensee must 
maintain radiological survey records that characterize the residual 
radiological contamination levels present within the facilities and at 
their sites. In addition, Group 2 licensees must be able to demonstrate 
residual radiological contamination levels without more sophisticated 
survey procedures or dose modeling. These licensees are not required to 
have a decommissioning plan, but must demonstrate that their site meets 
the screening criteria of 10 CFR 20.1402.
    In many cases, the NRC conducts confirmatory surveys during the 
licensee's decommissioning activities to verify the accuracy of the 
measuring techniques used to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 
20.1402. The NRC uses a risk-informed process that assigns higher 
priority for conducting confirmatory surveys at sites that may pose a 
greater threat to the public health and safety. The results of this 
survey are used by the NRC to support a decision on whether to approve 
a licensee's request to terminate a license and release the site for 
unrestricted use.
    Prior to this amendment, 10 CFR 51.22(c)(20) categorically excluded 
from further NRC environmental review those activities which are 
defined in NUREG-1757 as Group 1 decommissioning activities, namely, 
the decommissioning of sites where licensed operations had been limited 
to the use of small quantities of unsealed short-lived radioactive 
materials or radioactive materials in sealed sources, provided there is 
no evidence of leakage of radioactive material from these sealed 
sources. The 10 CFR 51.22(c)(20) decommissioning categorical exclusion 
was added with the promulgation of the license termination rule, 
``Radiological Criteria for License Termination'' (July 21, 1997; 62 FR 
39058). The license termination rule, codified at 10 CFR Part 20, 
Subpart E, established a dose-based radiological criterion of 25 mrem/
yr in 10 CFR 20.1402 for the release of a decommissioned site for 
unrestricted use.
    In establishing the decommissioning categorical exclusion, the 
Commission relied on the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in 
Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination 
on NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities'' (GEIS; NUREG-1496, Vol. 1). The 
GEIS concluded that with the use of ``decay in storage'' for the short-
lived nuclides (those with a half-life of less than or equal to 120 
days) and the time involved in submitting the information necessary to 
terminate a license, the activity of licensed material would reach 
sufficiently low levels such that decontamination of the building or of 
soils would not be needed.
    However, the GEIS did not enable the Commission to determine that 
there would be no significant effect on the human environment from the 
use of unsealed radioactive materials with half-lives of more than 120 
days. Specifically, the Commission determined that the unique 
conditions of each licensee facility and the specific uses of unsealed 
radioactive materials at each site prevented the environmental impacts 
from being analyzed on a generic basis. Accordingly, the Commission 
relied on the GEIS to satisfy its obligations under NEPA regarding 
decommissioning decisions on sites that meet the 25 mrem/y (0.25 mSv/
yr) criterion for unrestricted use, but continued to require an EA for 
the decommissioning of any site on which unsealed radioactive materials 
with half-lives of more than 120 days are located. As such, based upon 
the 1997 Commission decision, EAs were performed for Group 2 
decommissioning activities.
    The Commission has now determined that there is ample data in the 
form of EA and FONSIs to justify the categorical exclusion of Group 2 
decommissioning activities. The data shows that, during the period 2003 
through 2007, each of the 73 EAs performed for a Group 2 
decommissioning action resulted in a FONSI. Thus, subparagraph (iii) is 
added to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(20) to categorically exclude from further 
environmental review the decommissioning of sites where radioactive 
material has been used in such a manner that a decommissioning plan is 
not required based on 10 CFR 30.36(g)(1), 40.42(g)(1), or 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. If further remediation or analysis is needed 
to meet 10 CFR 20.1402, the decommissioning activity would be 
considered a Group 3 or higher decommissioning activity in accordance 
with NUREG-1757, and would not be covered by this categorical 
exclusion.

H. Why Add a Categorical Exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(24) Which 
Addresses the Awarding of Education Grants?

    The final rule adds a new categorical exclusion, 10 CFR 
51.22(c)(24), which categorically excludes the issuance of grants, by 
the NRC, to institutions of higher education in the United States, for 
scholarships, fellowships, and stipends in science, engineering, or 
another field of study that the NRC determines is in a critical skill 
area related to its regulatory mission. These grants may also support 
faculty or curriculum development as well as other domestic 
educational, technical assistance, or training programs (including 
those of trade schools) in such fields. This categorical exclusion 
covers those actions that are specifically geared toward the 
development of teaching and educational programs in the nuclear field. 
The purpose of the

[[Page 20255]]

grant program is to foster a work force capable of supporting the safe 
design, construction, operation, and regulation of nuclear facilities, 
and the safe handling of nuclear materials.
    Sections 31.b.(2) and 243 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, constitute the statutory basis of this grants program. Section 
243 authorizes the creation of a scholarship and fellowship program to 
fund scholarships, fellowships, and stipends for the study of science, 
engineering, or another field of study that the NRC determines is 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. Section 31.b.(2) 
authorizes the NRC to provide grants, loans, cooperative agreements, 
contracts, and equipment to institutions of higher education to support 
courses, studies, training, curricula, and disciplines pertaining to 
nuclear safety, security, or environmental protection, or any other 
field that the NRC determines to be critical to its regulatory mission.
    This new categorical exclusion covers actions that the NRC has 
determined to be administrative in nature. The categorical exclusion 
contains prescriptive language (10 CFR 51.22(c)(24)(i)-(iv)) that 
limits its application to only those grants that will not have a 
significant effect on the human environment. In this regard, the 
categorical exclusion does not apply to those grants that may be used 
to directly support the construction of facilities, field work (except 
field work which only involves noninvasive or non-harmful techniques), 
or the testing and release of radioactive material. Furthermore, the 
categorical exclusion would not apply to those grants that would 
directly support any action that would lead to a major disturbance of 
the environment brought about by blasting, drilling, excavating, or 
other means.

I. Why Add a Categorical Exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25) Which 
Addresses the Granting of Exemptions From Regulatory Requirements?

    The final rule adds a new categorical exclusion, 10 CFR 
51.22(c)(25), which addresses the granting of licensee exemption 
requests from certain regulatory requirements. Various NRC regulations 
allow for the granting of specific exemptions from NRC regulations.\8\ 
Before an exemption may be granted, the NRC must satisfy certain 
criteria, namely, it must make findings that the exemption is 
``authorized by law,'' ``will not endanger life or property or the 
common defense and security,'' and is ``otherwise in the public 
interest.'' In the case of Part 50 and 52 exemptions, the exemption 
request must meet additional criteria.\9\ The NRC thoroughly evaluates 
each exemption request under these provisions, and only those exemption 
requests that meet these provisional criteria are granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ E.g., 10 CFR 20.2301, 30.11, 40.14, 50.12, 52.7, 70.17, 
72.7, and 76.23.
    \9\ 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2); 10 CFR 52.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to this final rule, 10 CFR 51.22 did not provide a 
categorical exclusion for the granting of exemption requests from 
administrative, managerial, or organizational regulatory requirements 
that will not have a significant effect on the human environment. The 
NRC has found that the majority of the exemptions it grants are 
administrative or otherwise minor in nature and do not trigger any of 
the significance criteria that are required findings under other 
categorical exclusions, such as 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)(i)-(iii). The NRC 
has prepared numerous EAs, each resulting in a FONSI, to support the 
granting of such exemption requests.
    This categorical exclusion contains prescriptive criteria that 
limit its application to only those exemptions that will not have a 
significant effect on the human environment. The categorical exclusion 
only applies to those exemption requests that meet all of the criteria 
enumerated in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i)-(vi). Thus, the requirements from 
which the exemption is sought must be one of those listed in 10 CFR 
51.22(c)(25)(vi). In addition, the granting of the exemption request 
cannot result in any:
    (1) Significant hazards consideration;
    (2) Significant change in the types or significant increase in the 
amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite;
    (3) Significant increase in individual or cumulative public or 
occupational radiation exposure;
    (4) Significant construction impact; or
    (5) Significant increase in the potential for or consequences from 
radiological accidents.
    The NRC has found that granting exemptions for the types of 
requirements listed in subparagraphs 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(A)-(I) are 
categories of actions that normally do not result in any significant 
effect, either individually or cumulatively, on the human environment. 
Thus, in order for the categorical exclusion to be applicable to a 
specific exemption request, the NRC staff must first make the safety 
findings described in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i)-(v) and then determine 
that the requirement is of a type listed in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi).

V. Agreement State Compatibility

    Under the ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of 
Agreement State Programs'' approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, 
and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 
46517), this rule is classified as a Compatibility Category ``NRC.'' 
The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate 
directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), or the provisions of Title 10 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations. Although an Agreement State may not 
adopt program elements reserved to NRC, it may wish to inform its 
licensees of certain requirements via a mechanism that is consistent 
with the particular State's administrative procedure laws but does not 
confer regulatory authority on the State. NEPA applies only to Federal 
agencies. This final rule will not have any impact on Agreement States' 
regulations. Therefore, Agreement States will not need to make 
conforming changes to their regulations.

VI. Voluntary Consensus Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 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 amending 10 CFR 51.22, the NRC's list 
of categories of actions that the NRC has determined to have no 
significant effect on the human environment. This action does not 
constitute the establishment of a standard that establishes generally 
applicable requirements.

VII. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability

    Under NEPA and the NRC regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, 
the NRC has determined that this rule would not be a major Federal 
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment 
and, therefore, an EIS is not required. The NRC prepared an EA and, on 
the basis of this EA, has made a FONSI. These amendments are based upon 
NRC review of environmental assessments conducted during the period 
2003-2007 that have consistently resulted in FONSIs. The amendments to 
the categorical exclusions are administrative, procedural, or otherwise

[[Page 20256]]

minor in nature (e.g., no significant increases in the amounts of any 
effluents that may be released offsite).
    The NRC sent a copy of the EA and the proposed rule to every State 
Liaison Officer and requested their comments on the EA. Two State 
comment submissions were received. The States' comments and the NRC 
responses thereto are described in the Analysis of Public Comments 
section of this final rule. The EA may be examined at the NRC Public 
Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1F23, Rockville, MD 20852.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements and, 
therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

IX. Public Protection Notification

    The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a request for information or an information collection 
requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid 
OMB control number.

X. Regulatory Analysis

    This rule is anticipated to be cost-effective. It would eliminate 
the need to prepare EAs for actions that have no significant effect on 
the human environment, and would eliminate the delays associated with 
the preparation of these documents. A regulatory analysis is not 
required because this rulemaking does not impose any new requirements 
on NRC licensees.

XI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

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

XII. Backfit Analysis

    The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (Sec. Sec.  50.109, 
70.76, 72.62, or 76.76) does not apply to this rule because this 
amendment would not involve any provisions that would impose backfits 
as defined in 10 CFR Chapter I. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not 
required.

XIII. Congressional Review Act

    In accordance with the Congressional Review Act of 1996, the NRC 
has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified 
this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.

List of Subjects in Part 51

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

0
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 proposes to adopt 
the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 51:

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:  Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, sec. 1701, 106 
Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953, (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2297f); secs. 201, as 
amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 
5842); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Subpart A 
also issued under National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, secs. 
102, 104, 105, 83 Stat. 853-854, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332, 4334, 
4335); and Pub. L. 95-604, Title II, 92 Stat. 3033-3041; and sec. 
193, Pub. L. 101-575, 104 Stat. 2835 (42 U.S.C. 2243). Sections 
51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.80, and 51.97 also issued under secs. 135, 
141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241, and sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-
203, 101 Stat. 1330-223 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161, 10168). Section 
51.22 also issued under sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688, as amended by 92 
Stat. 3036-3038 (42 U.S.C. 2021) and under Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
of 1982, sec 121, 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C. 10141). Sections 51.43, 
51.67, and 51.109 also under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec 
114(f), 96 Stat. 2216, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)).


0
2. Amend Sec.  51.22 by revising paragraphs (a), (c)(1), (c)(3), 
(c)(9), (c)(10), and (c)(20) and adding paragraphs (c)(24) and (c)(25) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  51.22  Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of 
licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or 
otherwise not requiring environmental review.

    (a) Licensing, regulatory, and administrative actions eligible for 
categorical exclusion shall meet the following criterion: The action 
belongs to a category of actions which the Commission, by rule or 
regulation, has declared to be a categorical exclusion, after first 
finding that the category of actions does not individually or 
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) 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, and actions on petitions for rulemaking relating to Parts 1, 
2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 25, 26, 55, 75, 95, 
110, 140, 150, 160, 170, or 171 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (3) Amendments to any part in this chapter which relate to--
    (i) Procedures for filing and reviewing applications for licenses 
or construction permits or early site permits or other forms of 
permission or for amendments to or renewals of licenses or construction 
permits or early site permits or other forms of permission;
    (ii) Recordkeeping requirements;
    (iii) Reporting requirements;
    (iv) Education, training, experience, qualification or other 
employment suitability requirements or
    (v) Actions on petitions for rulemaking relating to these 
amendments.
* * * * *
    (9) Issuance of an amendment to a permit or license for a reactor 
under part 50 or part 52 of this chapter, which changes a requirement, 
or grants an exemption from any such requirement, with respect to 
installation or use of a facility component located within the 
restricted area, as defined in part 20 of this chapter, or which 
changes an inspection or a surveillance requirement, provided that:
    (i) The amendment or exemption involves no significant hazards 
consideration;
    (ii) There is no significant change in the types or significant 
increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; 
and
    (iii) There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative 
occupational radiation exposure.
    (10) Issuance of an amendment to a permit or license issued under 
this chapter which--
    (i) Changes surety, insurance and/or indemnity requirements;
    (ii) Changes recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures 
or requirements;
    (iii) Changes the licensee's or permit holder's name, phone number, 
business or e-mail address;
    (iv) Changes the name, position, or title of an officer of the 
licensee or permit holder, including but not limited to, the radiation 
safety officer or quality assurance manager; or

[[Page 20257]]

    (v) Changes the format of the license or permit or otherwise makes 
editorial, corrective or other minor revisions, including the updating 
of NRC approved references.
* * * * *
    (20) 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), 40.42(g)(1), or 
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.
* * * * *
    (24) 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, 
except to the extent that such grants or programs include activities 
directly affecting the environment, such as:
    (i) The construction of facilities;
    (ii) A major disturbance brought about by blasting, drilling, 
excavating or other means;
    (iii) 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 and fauna; or
    (iv) The release of radioactive material.
    (25) Granting of an exemption from the requirements of any 
regulation of this chapter, provided that--
    (i) There is no significant hazards consideration;
    (ii) There is no significant change in the types or significant 
increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite;
    (iii) There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative 
public or occupational radiation exposure;
    (iv) There is no significant construction impact;
    (v) There is no significant increase in the potential for or 
consequences from radiological accidents; and
    (vi) The requirements from which an exemption is sought involve:
    (A) Recordkeeping requirements;
    (B) Reporting requirements;
    (C) Inspection or surveillance requirements;
    (D) Equipment servicing or maintenance scheduling requirements;
    (E) Education, training, experience, qualification, requalification 
or other employment suitability requirements;
    (F) Safeguard plans, and materials control and accounting inventory 
scheduling requirements;
    (G) Scheduling requirements;
    (H) Surety, insurance or indemnity requirements; or
    (I) Other requirements of an administrative, managerial, or 
organizational nature.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of April 2010.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-8921 Filed 4-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P