Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material; Updates and Clarifications, 44072-44093 [2010-18219]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 28, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44072-44093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-18219]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 110

[NRC-2008-0567]
RIN 3150-AI16


Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material; Updates and 
Clarifications

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 
amending its regulations that govern the export and import of nuclear 
equipment and material. This rule allows International Atomic Energy 
Agency Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive 
Sources Category 1 and 2 quantities of radioactive materials to be 
imported under a general license. This rule also revises the definition 
of ``radioactive waste'' and removes the definition of ``incidental 
radioactive material.'' In addition, this rule updates, clarifies, and 
corrects several provisions.

DATES: The rule is effective on August 27, 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 for documents filed under Docket ID [NRC-2008-0567]. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Ms. Carol Gallagher at 301-492-3668; e-
mail Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
    NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have 
copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC's PDR, Room 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 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to 
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brooke G. Smith, Senior International 
Policy Analyst, Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, MS-O4E21, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 
(301) 415-2347; e-mail: brooke.smith@nrc.gov, or Jill Shepherd, 
Licensing Officer, Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, MS-O4E21, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 
(301) 415-3635; email: jill.shepherd@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
II. Analysis of Public Comments on Proposed Rule
III. Section-by-Section Analysis

I. Background

    On June 23, 2009, the NRC published a proposed rule that requested 
comments on the proposed changes to 10 CFR part 110, Export and Import 
of Nuclear Equipment and Material (74 FR 29614). This final rule 
updates, clarifies, and corrects several provisions in 10 CFR part 110 
to improve NRC's regulatory framework for the export and import of 
nuclear equipment, material, and radioactive waste. It also clarifies 
and corrects the regulations addressing the general license for the 
export of byproduct material. In addition, changes are made to the 
regulations governing the export and import of International Atomic 
Energy Agency (IAEA) Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of 
Radioactive Sources Category 1 and Category 2 quantities of radioactive 
materials listed in appendix P to 10 CFR part 110 and the definition of 
``radioactive waste'' in 10 CFR part 110. A discussion of the most 
significant changes follows.

A. Category 1 and 2 Quantities of Radioactive Material Listed in 
Appendix P to 10 CFR Part 110

    The NRC reevaluated the need for a specific license for the import 
of Category 1 and 2 quantities of radioactive material to a U.S.-
licensed user in light of enhancements made to the NRC's domestic 
regulatory framework. As a result, the NRC is amending 10 CFR part 110 
to allow imports of Category 1 and 2 quantities of materials listed in 
Appendix P under a general license.
    After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Commission determined 
that certain licensed material should be subject to enhanced security 
requirements and safeguarded during transport, and that individuals 
with unescorted access to risk-significant quantities of radioactive 
material should be subject to background investigations. The results of 
vulnerability assessments performed by the NRC were used in the 
development of security enhancement orders that were issued to 
licensees using a graded approach based on the relative risk and 
quantity of material possessed by the licensee. (70 FR 72128; December 
1, 2005) These security orders specifically address the security of 
byproduct material possessed in quantities greater than, or equal to, 
Category 1 and 2 quantities. The orders provide for enhanced security 
measures for such things as license verification before transfer, 
intrusion detection and response, access control, and coordination with 
local law enforcement authorities. The orders also contain requirements 
for the licensee to determine the trustworthiness and reliability of 
individuals permitted unescorted access to risk-significant radioactive 
materials. The determination involves a background investigation of the 
individual.
    With the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 giving the NRC 
new fingerprinting authority, the Commission determined that 
individuals with access to Category 1 and 2 quantities of radioactive 
material warrant fingerprinting and FBI criminal history records 
checks.
    By the end of 2007, the NRC had issued orders to all NRC licensees 
that possessed Category 1 or 2 quantities of radioactive material (72 
FR 70901; December 13, 2007) to require fingerprinting and FBI criminal 
history

[[Page 44073]]

records checks for unescorted access to Category 1 or 2 quantities of 
radioactive material.
    For all these requirements, NRC Agreement States have also imposed 
legally-binding measures on their licensees possessing Category 1 and 2 
quantities of radioactive material.
    During the same time period, the NRC issued two sets of orders to 
licensees transporting radioactive material in quantities greater than, 
or equal to, Category 2. The additional security measures contained in 
the orders provide for enhanced security measures during transportation 
that are beyond the current regulations, including enhanced security in 
preplanning and coordinating shipments, advance notification of 
shipments to the NRC and States through which the shipment will pass, 
control and monitoring of shipments that are underway, trustworthiness 
and reliability of personnel, information security considerations, and 
control of mobile or portable devices.
    The security requirements put in place by the orders supplement the 
existing domestic regulatory requirements. A rulemaking is currently 
underway that, if promulgated, would incorporate security requirements 
for Category 1 and 2 quantities of radioactive material into the 
domestic regulations. (SECY-09-0181; December 14, 2009 (ML0928201950)).
    Another significant enhancement pertinent to these materials is the 
establishment of the National Source Tracking System (NSTS) that tracks 
from ``cradle to grave'' transactions involving Category 1 and 2 
radioactive sources (71 FR 65686; November 8, 2006). Licensees are 
responsible for recording the manufacture, shipment, arrival, and 
disposal of all licensed and tracked Category 1 and 2 sources. For 
every nationally tracked source that is imported, the facility 
obtaining the source is required to report the information to the NSTS 
by the close of the next business day after receipt of the imported 
source. With the NSTS in place, there is much more information about 
imported sources available to the staff.
    In light of the many security enhancements, the Commission had 
decided to eliminate the specific license requirement in Sec.  
110.27(f) for imports of radioactive material listed in Table 1 of 
Appendix P to 10 CFR part 110. Conforming changes have been made to 
Sec. Sec.  110.32, 110.43, and 110.50. Imports of radioactive material 
into the United States under a general license continue to be 
contingent on the consignee being authorized to receive and possess the 
material under a general or specific NRC or Agreement State license. 
See Sec.  110.27(a). Moreover, importers of Category 1 and 2 materials 
under a general license are still subject to the notification 
requirements prior to shipment as required by Sec.  110.50. The advance 
notification of imports of Category 1 and 2 quantities of material, 
Sec.  110.50 (c) is revised to require the exporting facility name, 
location, address, contact name and telephone number as part of the 
pre-shipment notification.
    Additionally, Sec.  110.50 (c) is revised to require advance 
notifications of imports to be submitted seven days in advance of 
shipment. This change will permit NRC staff adequate time to verify the 
information provided in the advance notification.

B. Import and Export of Radioactive Waste

    This final rule revises the definition of radioactive waste and 
incorporates aspects of the removed definition of incidental 
radioactive material (IRM). The revised definition of ``radioactive 
waste'' improves consistency with and eliminates some of the 
differences between the licensing requirements for export and import 
and the domestic licensing requirements for possession. The revised 
definition links the specific license requirement for the export and 
import of radioactive waste to those materials (in the form of waste) 
that require a specific license in accordance with NRC's domestic 
regulations. This eliminates the need for a specific license to export 
or import materials that, under NRC's regulations in 10 CFR chapter 1, 
do not require a specific license to possess them.
    These changes require a specific export or import license for any 
material that, in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR chapter 1, 
requires a specific NRC license to possess it domestically, which is 
exported or imported for the purposes of (1) disposal in a land 
disposal facility as defined in part 61, a disposal area as defined in 
appendix A to part 40, or an equivalent facility; or (2) recycling, 
waste treatment or other waste management process that generates 
radioactive material for disposal in a land disposal facility as 
defined in part 61, a disposal area as defined in Appendix A to part 
40, or an equivalent facility. This change simplifies the regulatory 
framework by clearly stating that exporting or importing material for 
recycling, waste treatment, or other waste management process that 
generates radioactive material for disposal in a 10 CFR part 40 or part 
61 facility (or the equivalent) requires a specific export or import 
license.
    The final rule removes the definition of ``incidental radioactive 
material'' from 10 CFR part 110. This rule does incorporate aspects of 
IRM into the revised definition of radioactive waste and the exclusions 
from that definition. The scope of the exclusion related to 
contamination on service equipment (including service tools) used in 
nuclear facilities (if the service equipment is being shipped for use 
in another nuclear facility and not for waste management purposes or 
disposal) is expanded and broadened to include some of the material 
that previously fell under the definition of IRM such as launderable 
protective clothing.
    In response to comments, the Commission clarified that the first 
exclusion to the definition of ``radioactive waste'' applies only to 
sources of U.S. origin. Disused sources that originated in a country 
other than the United States would be considered ``radioactive waste'' 
under 10 CFR part 110. Exclusion two is revised to clarify that the 
broader meaning of ``nuclear facility'' is intended and that the 
material must be shipped solely for recovery and beneficial reuse of 
the non-radioactive material. In addition, an illustrative list of 
activities that would meet the standard set forth in exclusion two is 
added to the Statement of Considerations. The Commission also added a 
sixth exclusion to the definition of ``radioactive waste'' to address 
the question of recycling activities that would not be considered as 
radioactive waste, such as utilizing depleted uranium in shielding 
applications or catalyst manufacturing. The six exclusions are set 
forth below:
    1. Radioactive material in sealed sources or devices containing 
sealed sources that are of U.S. origin and being returned to any 
manufacturer, distributor or other entity which is authorized to 
receive and possess them. This change allows the return of U.S. origin 
sources or devices to distributors and other appropriately authorized 
entities. A specific import license is required for the importation of 
sources originating outside of the United States for disposal in the 
United States. Licensing and notification requirements for Category 1 
and Category 2 quantities of material listed in Table 1 of Appendix P 
are applicable.
    2. A contaminant on any non-radioactive material (including service 
tools and protective clothing) used in a nuclear facility (an NRC- or 
Agreement State-licensed facility (or equivalent facility) or activity 
authorized to possess or use radioactive material), if the item

[[Page 44074]]

is being shipped solely for recovery and beneficial reuse of the non-
radioactive component in a nuclear facility and not for waste 
management purposes or disposal. The scope of the exclusion is expanded 
and broadened to include some of the material that previously fell 
under the definition of IRM such as launderable protective clothing. 
Other examples of materials meeting this exclusion include:
    (a) Importing contaminated metal for the purpose of recovery of the 
non-radioactive metal for beneficial reuse as shield blocks or other 
industrial/construction purposes in licensed facilities domestically 
and abroad is an import not ``solely'' for waste management or disposal 
purposes. This example is within the scope of exclusion two even though 
the recycling process will produce some waste that may require disposal 
at a part 61 disposal site. This is similar to the laundering of 
protective clothing, which also may have a waste stream to a 10 CFR 
part 61 facility.
    (b) Decontamination and repair of contaminated equipment such as 
pumps, valves, and motors that after recovery would be beneficially 
reused in a licensed facility.
    (c) Decontaminating shipping containers used to import radioactive 
material for the purpose of reusing the shipping containers.
    (d) Importing contaminated magnesium metal and using the recovered 
magnesium as a neutralizing agent for disposing of mixed waste in a 
licensed disposal facility.
    3. Materials exempted from regulation by the NRC or equivalent 
Agreement State regulations. This exclusion is consistent with the 
previously mentioned revision that links the requirement for a specific 
import or export license for radioactive waste to the specific 
licensing requirements in 10 CFR chapter 1 (e.g., 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 
and 70). This change eliminates some of the differences between NRC's 
export and import regulations and domestic regulation of the same 
material or equipment.
    4. Materials generated or used in a U.S. Government waste research 
and development testing program under international arrangements.
    5. Materials being returned by or for the U.S. Government or 
military to a facility that is authorized to possess the material. This 
exclusion recognizes that the U.S. Government or military will, in 
certain circumstances, seek to return material to the United States. 
Material returned must be to a facility that is authorized to possess 
the material.
    6. Materials imported solely for the purposes of recycling and not 
for waste management or disposal where there is a market for the 
recycled material and evidence of a contract or business agreement can 
be produced upon request by the NRC. This exclusion was added to 
address concerns regarding the legitimate recycling of radioactive 
material that might otherwise be seen as waste. For example, under 
certain circumstances, this exclusion would permit the import under 
general license of depleted uranium for use in shielding applications 
or catalyst manufacturing.
    In response to comments, the Commission revised Sec. Sec.  110.43 
and 110.45 to clarify that the NRC consults, as applicable, with the 
Agreement State in which the facility is located and low-level waste 
compact commission(s).

II. Summary of Public Comments

    The Commission received 14 letters from the public commenting on 
the proposed rule. The commenters represent a variety of interests. 
Comments were received from individuals, licensees, Federal and State 
agencies, and citizen, environmental, and industry groups. The comments 
addressed a wide range of issues concerning the proposed changes to 10 
CFR part 110. Many of those responding to the proposed rule commented 
on multiple sections; therefore, several comments have been separated 
by section and addressed. Likewise, similar comments have been 
consolidated. The following is a summary of all significant comments, 
along with the NRC's responses.

A. Section 110.2--Definitions

    Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed definition for 
``bulk material'' in Sec.  110.2 is confusing. The commenter seeks 
clarification on whether the definition is intended to cover ``raw'' 
material (material produced in reactors) that is then incorporated into 
sealed sources. The commenter also states that the proposed definition 
seems to imply that Category 3, 4 and 5 sources would be considered 
bulk material. The commenter asked how it is known when the quantity is 
deemed to pose a risk similar to or greater than a Category 2 source.
    Response: The definition of bulk material includes both ``raw'' 
material produced for encapsulation in sealed sources, as well as, 
Category 3, 4, and 5 sealed sources that, in aggregate, are equal to or 
exceed Category 2 activity thresholds. The NRC believes that no changes 
are necessary to the proposed definition for ``bulk material'' and it 
is unchanged in this final rule.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of 
``radioactive waste'' should include other disposal methods that are 
approved by the NRC and Agreement States such as alternative disposals 
under 10 CFR 20.2002.
    Response: The intent of the proposed changes to the definition of 
``radioactive waste'' is to align the NRC's export and import 
regulations with its domestic regulations; therefore, if a specific 
license is required for a domestic licensee to possess the material, 
then a specific license to export/import the material would also be 
required. The NRC and Agreement State licensees may request approval 
for alternative disposal methods for wastes held under their domestic 
possession license in accordance with 10 CFR 20.2002 or equivalent 
Agreement State regulations. Waste could not be imported and directly 
disposed of under 10 CFR 20.2002, as this type of authorization can 
only be granted to persons regulated by the NRC or the Agreement 
States. No change was made to the proposed definition of ``radioactive 
waste'' as a result of this comment.
    Comment: One commenter suggested revising the proposed definition 
of ``radioactive waste'' to clarify that it does not include spent 
fuel. The respondent noted that it is not clear from the definition 
what the term ``equivalent facility'' includes and therefore the 
definition could be construed to include a facility for the disposal or 
storage of spent fuel or material that results from recycling, 
treatment or processing of spent fuel. This commenter also stated that 
the term ``material imported for recycling * * *'' could be read to 
include spent fuel. Another commenter also noted that the term 
``recycling'' could be confused with the reprocessing of nuclear fuel.
    Response: The change to the definition of ``radioactive waste'' in 
10 CFR part 110 refers exclusively to low level radioactive waste 
(LLW). Spent or irradiated fuel is not considered to be LLW; therefore, 
the definition of ``radioactive waste'' in 10 CFR part 110 does not 
include spent or irradiated fuel. A sentence has been added to the 
proposed definition of ``radioactive waste'' to clarify in this final 
rule that it does not include spent or irradiated fuel.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern about implementation of 
the revised definition of ``radioactive waste'' and the correlation 
between the need for a specific export or import license and the need 
for a specific domestic license for the same material. This commenter 
asked if the NRC will make its determination based on whether the

[[Page 44075]]

conditions in the domestic specific license held by the potential 
exporter or importer allow possession of the foreign material. The 
commenter also asked if the NRC will judge the need for an export or 
import license only against NRC-issued specific licenses or against 
Agreement State-issued licenses as well. The commenter noted that the 
NRC and Agreement States have flexibility in writing license conditions 
and consequently, there may be a lack of national uniformity in the 
kinds of radioactive materials a domestic specific licensee may 
possess.
    Response: An NRC import license only allows material to be brought 
into the United States. Once the material is in the United States, the 
material is subject to the domestic authorization process and operates 
no differently than if the material were of domestic origin. The import 
license is not a mechanism to alter the established domestic 
authorization process, including Agreement State regulations. The NRC 
will not issue an import license for radioactive waste unless the U.S. 
importer is authorized to possess the material under the applicable 
domestic regulation, whether that regulation is an Agreement State's or 
NRC's. No change was made to the proposed definition of ``radioactive 
waste'' as a result of this comment.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the NRC's ``changes to 10 CFR 
part 110 will facilitate the licensing process for exports and imports 
of radioactive waste * * *'' This commenter suggested that the NRC 
complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to address the 
increased import of radioactive waste from foreign countries and their 
shipment within the United States. Further, this commenter would like 
the EIS to address cumulative impacts from shipments of all radioactive 
wastes from existing and new nuclear facilities, including shipments 
resulting from license extensions at existing facilities and the 
increased shipment of radioactive wastes expected as a result of 
proposed changes to 10 CFR part 110.
    Response: Under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1), amendments to 10 CFR part 110 
are categorically excluded from environmental review based on a 
Commission finding by rule that this category of action does not 
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
environment. In any event, the NRC does not anticipate an increase in 
imports or shipping of radioactive waste as a result of this revision. 
Therefore, no change was made to the proposed definition of 
``radioactive waste'' as a result of this comment.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the United States does not 
currently have an approved radioactive waste repository and questions 
how accepting imports of radioactive waste is consistent with the NRC's 
mission to protect human and environmental health. The commenter 
further stated that if Yucca Mountain were opened in the near future, 
the current stockpiles of radioactive waste in the United States would 
fill the repository. This commenter suggested a moratorium on imports 
of radioactive waste until an approved repository is opened.
    Response: The definition of ``radioactive waste'' in 10 CFR part 
110 refers exclusively to low-level radioactive waste. There are 
currently several low-level waste disposal facilities in the United 
States. High-level waste is not addressed in this final rule. 
Therefore, no change was made to the proposed definition of 
``radioactive waste'' as a result of this comment.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the term ``recycling'' in the 
proposed definition of ``radioactive waste'' be removed or defined 
further to clarify that recycling under the general license is 
authorized when the recycling provides for a beneficial re-use of the 
material. Another commenter noted that the proposed definition of 
``radioactive waste'' is ambiguous with regard to the import of 
radioactive materials imported and used as ``raw'' materials directly 
by manufacturing facilities as opposed to waste processing facilities. 
The commenter stated that the proposed definition includes 
``radioactive material'' that requires a specific license for 
possession and is intended for disposal, recycling, waste treatment or 
some other waste management process. As asserted by the commenter, the 
ambiguity is that as raw material, waste treatment or waste management 
would not apply to such non-waste; however, ``recycling'' without 
further clarification seems to inadvertently include non-waste, ``raw'' 
materials. The commenter suggested that the term ``recycling'' be 
modified to a more restrictive phrase such as ``waste component 
recycling'' which would clearly not apply to ``raw'' materials. As 
another possibility, the commenter suggested restricting the definition 
of radioactive waste to those imports that are consigned to licensed 
waste treatment and disposal facilities, so that imports of radioactive 
material going to licensed manufacturing facilities would not be 
included.
    Another commenter addressed the concept of recycling in the context 
of exclusion two to the proposed definition of ``radioactive waste,'' 
stating that the term ``recycling'' in the main part of the definition 
seems to conflict with ``recovery and beneficial use'' in the 
exclusion. In the commenter's view, recycling means the recovery and 
beneficial re-use of the recovered material. The commenter stated that 
it appears the intent of the proposed definition is to clarify that, in 
general, while radioactive material imported for the purpose of 
processing and disposal is waste, radioactive material imported for the 
purpose of beneficial re-use is not waste as long as the re-used non-
radioactive material is used in a nuclear facility. The commenter 
offered two suggestions to clarify this apparent conflict. First, the 
commenter suggested that we insert the word ``recycling'' prior to 
``for recovery and beneficial use'' in the text of the exclusion. 
Second, the commenter suggested that we include a clarifying statement 
in the Statement of Considerations for the final rule that says the 
intent of the exclusion is to provide an exception to the general rule 
that would permit recycling under the general license where the 
recycling provides for beneficial re-use of the non-radioactive 
material in an environment licensed by the NRC or an Agreement State.
    Response: In order to address the numerous concerns regarding the 
legitimate recycling of radioactive material that might otherwise be 
seen as waste, the NRC has decided to add a sixth exclusion to the 
proposed definition of ``radioactive waste'' to clarify that the 
definition does not include material imported solely for the purposes 
of recycling and not for waste management or disposal where there is a 
market for the recycled material and evidence of a contract or business 
agreement can be produced upon request by the NRC. An example of such 
material would be depleted uranium for use in shielding applications or 
catalyst manufacturing. An example of ``recycling'' that would be 
considered ``radioactive waste'' is the use of combustible material 
(such as wood or oil) as an energy source at an NRC- or Agreement 
State-licensed facility.
    An import for the purpose of recycling is similar to the 
importation of useable radioactive materials and products, which occurs 
routinely. With respect to recycling of materials, as with products 
that contain radioactivity, recycled materials have a beneficial use 
yet waste may be generated as they are recycled. In the United States, 
these wastes would be managed safely in accordance with domestic 
licensing requirements.
    The Commission is aware that there could be instances in which a 
person intends to import what is in fact

[[Page 44076]]

radioactive waste, but which is argued to be for recycling purposes 
(i.e., sham recycling). Any person who imports materials under a 
general license for recycling, but with the purpose of disposing of 
them in the United States, would be subject to NRC enforcement action. 
In addition, there may be instances in which some small value may be 
obtained from the materials that are imported, but the primary 
intention is for disposal. In such cases, to avoid possible enforcement 
action, the staff recommends that the Commission be consulted before 
any such imports are made. This final rule includes the six exclusions 
under the definition for ``radioactive waste.''
    The Commission does not accept the second commenter's suggestion to 
add the word ``recycling'' to exclusion two because the use of the word 
``recycling'' could potentially open exclusion two to other general 
forms of recycling, which would not meet the intent of the exclusion. 
The intent of exclusion two is exclusively for the importation of 
materials being recovered and reused in an NRC- or Agreement State-
licensed facility.
    Comment: Several commenters addressed the proposed changes to 
exclusion one to the definition of ``radioactive waste'' regarding 
sealed sources and devices. Two commenters expressed support for the 
proposed changes and stated that they will allow for sources to be 
transferred and transported easily to an entity that may be able to 
recertify the source or recycle the source for beneficial use rather 
than disposal. Another commenter suggested that the purpose of the 
exclusion should be clarified to indicate that it does not cover 
importing sources originating in other countries for disposal in the 
United States.
    Response: Exclusion one to the proposed definition of ``radioactive 
waste'' has been revised in this final rule to clarify that this 
exclusion only applies to sources of U.S. origin. Disused sources that 
originated in a country other than the United States would be 
considered ``radioactive waste'' under 10 CFR part 110. Therefore, in 
the case of an import, a specific license is required for the 
importation of sources (in the form of waste or disused sources) 
originating outside of the United States for disposal in the United 
States. Licensing and notification requirements for Category 1 and 2 
quantities of materials listed in Table 1 of appendix P to 10 CFR part 
110 are applicable.
    Comment: One commenter stated that importation of material destined 
for re-use should require a specific license. The application for a 
specific license constitutes a form of public disclosure and the public 
should be aware of radioactive materials, such as radioactive metals, 
that may be reused. This commenter asserted that reused radioactive 
metal could contaminate the general supply of reused scrap metal if it 
eventually makes its way back to unrestricted use. Consequently, the 
public should be notified and provided the opportunity to comment on a 
specific license for the import of radioactive materials proposed for 
reuse.
    Response: The intent of this change is to address the re-use and 
recovery of these materials for use in an NRC- or Agreement State-
licensed facility. Once imported to an NRC- or Agreement State-licensed 
facility the material and any waste generated as a result of the re-use 
or recovery process is subject to NRC or Agreement State domestic 
licensing requirements. Therefore, no change was made to the definition 
of ``radioactive waste'' as a result of this comment.
    Comment: Several commenters asserted that the second exclusion to 
the proposed definition of ``radioactive waste'' could be abused if 
only a small fraction of the import is for recovery or beneficial use 
of the non-contaminated material. Two commenters addressed the proposed 
language ``not solely for waste management purposes or disposal'' at 
the end of the exclusion. One commenter stated that this phrase should 
be further clarified, changed or replaced to indicate that the portion 
of the import destined for disposal must, at all times, be considered 
radioactive waste. Another commenter thought the closing phrase 
unnecessary because, if the import is for recovery and reuse of the 
non-radioactive material, then the import would never be ``solely'' for 
waste management purposes or disposal. This commenter speculated that 
the intent of the language is to ensure good faith intent for recovery 
and reuse of the material. This commenter recommended that this concern 
be addressed by stating that the purpose is ``primarily'' for recovery 
and re-use since all recovery efforts will likely have some waste 
processing or disposal aspects. The term ``primarily'' is proposed to 
make it clear that the recovery operation produces a product that is in 
fact useful and that the recovery operation is in good faith and not a 
pretense for waste management. The commenter recommended rewording the 
exclusion to read ``* * * if the material is being shipped primarily 
for recycling, i.e., recovery and beneficial use of the non-radioactive 
material in a nuclear facility.'' Another commenter asserted that some 
of the exclusions under the proposed definition of ``radioactive 
waste'' should be more restrictive. Specifically with regard to the 
second exclusion, the commenter stated that the disposable radioactive 
portion of the imported material should be recognized as ``radioactive 
waste'' at the time of import; otherwise, that disposable radioactive 
portion could simply appear to be domestic waste resulting from 
domestic processing.
    Response: In the definition of ``radioactive waste'' in this final 
rule, the word ``solely'' has been moved from its proposed location in 
front of ``for waste management'' to between ``shipped'' and ``for 
recovery'' in order to clarify the intent of the exclusion. Once items 
have been imported to an NRC- or Agreement State-licensed facility for 
beneficial recovery and/or re-use these items would then be subject to 
the NRC's or Agreement State's domestic licensing requirements. 
Circumvention of the specific licensing requirements for radioactive 
waste is subject to NRC or Agreement State enforcement action.
    Comment: One commenter noted that ``launderable protective 
clothing'' and ``service tools'' are the examples provided in the 
second exclusion to the definition of ``radioactive waste.'' This 
commenter suggested that the Statement of Considerations for the final 
rule expand on the discussion of examples in order to avoid confusion 
related to the use of the term ``incidental radioactive material.'' The 
commenter also asserted that an expanded discussion of examples would 
help define what satisfies the standard of ``primarily for recovery.'' 
The commenter recommended including, at a minimum, the following 
examples:
    (a) Importing contaminated metal for the purpose of recovery of the 
non-radioactive metal for beneficial re-use as shield blocks or other 
industrial/construction purposes in licensed facilities domestically 
and abroad is an import not ``solely'' for waste management or disposal 
purposes. The commenter noted that this example fits the language in 
the proposed rule even though the recycling process will produce some 
waste that will need to be sent to a 10 CFR part 61 disposal site. This 
is similar to the laundering of protective clothing, which also has a 
waste stream to a 10 CFR part 61 facility.
    (b) Decontamination and repair of contaminated equipment such as 
pumps, valves, and motors that after recovery would be beneficially 
reused in a licensed facility.

[[Page 44077]]

    (c) Incinerating contaminated wood or oil to generate steam in a 
licensed facility for process heat or electricity.
    (d) Decontaminating shipping containers used to import radioactive 
material for the purpose of reusing the shipping containers.
    (e) Importing contaminated magnesium metal and using the recovered 
magnesium as a neutralizing agent for disposing of mixed waste in a 
licensed disposal facility.
    In addition to the examples provided above, the commenter 
recommended that the NRC include any other examples that it has found 
acceptable in the past.
    Another commenter also requested the NRC provide such a list and 
went on to suggest amending Sec.  110.27 to add a paragraph (g) that 
reads:

    Persons importing material primarily for recovery and beneficial 
use under a general license on the basis that the import meets 
[exclusion] 2 of the definition of ``radioactive waste'' must submit 
Form 7 to the NRC seven days prior to the import. The submitted form 
need only address the provisions of paragraphs (a)-(f) of 10 CFR 
110.32. The Form 7 shall be submitted to the Deputy Director, Office 
of International Programs.

    The commenter stated that this proposed provision would be solely a 
notice provision. It would not establish an obligation for the importer 
to await any NRC action following submittal of the form to the NRC.
    Response: The first commenter's examples (a), (b), and (d) would 
meet the standard for ``primarily for recovery'' provided there is a 
market for the recovered product to be reused in an NRC or Agreement 
State licensed facility and evidence of a contract or business 
agreement can be produced upon request by the NRC. The commenter's 
example (e) would also meet the standard but it must be primarily for 
recovery and reuse of magnesium. Example (c) does not meet the standard 
for ``primarily for recovery'' because it is an example of a waste 
process with a small amount of energy produced as a byproduct. The NRC 
does not consider waste processes to be ``primarily for recovery.''
    In response to the second commenter's request for the provision of 
information on NRC Form 7, the NRC does not feel that placing an 
additional regulatory compliance burden on the public is warranted at 
this time. The NRC believes that any questions the public may have 
regarding compliance with exclusion two to the definition of 
``radioactive waste'' would best be addressed individually on a case-
by-case basis. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, the NRC will make 
examples of recovery activities under exclusion two to the definition 
of ``radioactive waste'' publicly available. No changes to the proposed 
definition of ``radioactive waste'' were made as a result of these 
comments.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that the term ``nuclear facility'' 
is unclear. The commenter asked whether the term is being used as in 
the Atomic Energy Act to mean a ``production'' or ``utilization'' 
facility, or is it intended to have a broader meaning to include any 
plant or activity which is licensed for use or possession of 
radioactive material? The commenter recommended that the term ``nuclear 
facility'' be defined as ``a plant or activity licensed by either the 
Commission or an Agreement State for possession or use of radioactive 
material.''
    Response: The NRC has revised exclusion two to the proposed 
definition of ``radioactive waste'' to clarify that the broader meaning 
of facility is intended in this final rule.
    Comment: Two commenters addressed exclusion five to the definition 
of ``radioactive waste'' regarding the U.S. government or military. One 
commenter stated that the purpose and intent of this new exclusion is 
not clear, and that the circumstance, or combination of circumstances, 
under which the U.S. government or military would need to return 
material to an authorized U.S. facility could be interpreted very 
broadly. Another commenter suggested that U.S. government waste 
research and development testing programs under international 
arrangements should be specifically identified, along with appropriate 
caps on the total amounts of relevant wastes to be imported and 
exported each year.
    Response: This is not a new addition to 10 CFR part 110. Current 
regulations at Sec.  110.27, General license for imports, only allow 
the return of material under a general license if the material was 
going to a military or government facility. In the proposed rule, this 
concept was moved from Sec.  110.27 to Sec.  110.2 as an exclusion to 
the definition of ``radioactive waste'' and expanded to include an 
allowance for the U.S. military to bring radioactive waste items back 
to a licensed facility in the United States. The proposed provision is 
unchanged in this final rule.

B. Section 110.6--Retransfers

    Comment: One commenter sought clarification on why the retransfer 
of byproduct material is not included in the requirements of Sec.  
110.6. The commenter also sought clarification on whether retransfers 
of special nuclear material produced through the use of U.S.-obligated 
material are subject to the requirements of this section.
    Response: Byproduct material is not covered by the requirements of 
Sec.  110.6 because there is no retransfer restriction on byproduct 
material in the Atomic Energy Act. Retransfers of special nuclear 
material produced through the use of U.S.-obligated material are 
subject to the requirements of this section.

C. 110.26--General License for the Export of Nuclear Reactor Components

    Comment: One commenter questioned the proposed revision to Sec.  
110.26(a) to cover ``components solely of U.S. origin'' for three 
reasons:

    (1) U.S. origin has many meanings in the United States today, 
but given the wording ``solely of U.S. origin'' or ``of U.S. 
origin,'' it is rather difficult to purchase anything which is only 
of U.S. origin. The commenter requested further definition.
    (2) While the commenter agreed with the authorization contained 
in proposed Sec.  110.26(a)(2), the commenter stated that the 
proposed wording conveys the authority to re-export nuclear 
components from such generally authorized countries as listed in 
Sec.  110.26(b) to each other. However, this is an authorization 
that U.S. companies would not be able to utilize if the component is 
required to be solely of U.S. origin.
    (3) Many nuclear components or parts are imported into the U.S. 
for ultimate end use as either a standalone nuclear component or for 
use in a larger nuclear component for future sale in either the U.S. 
or non-U.S. markets.

    The commenter noted that many U.S. companies have international 
markets as well as foreign-based manufacturing facilities or joint 
ventures. Such global companies will import nuclear spare parts or 
components for utilization in larger U.S.-built nuclear components for 
sale both within the United States as well as outside of the United 
States. The commenter stated that these U.S. imports and subsequent 
exports create and maintain U.S. jobs and should not be delayed or 
subjected to a new NRC component license application process and 
associated application fees. The commenter said that to do so would 
remove a vital part of the purpose of Sec.  110.26, which is to enable 
U.S. companies to export nuclear components quickly to a select list of 
generally authorized countries that do not require an NRC validated 
export license. These component exports are subject to NRC reporting 
requirements, but they enable the U.S. nuclear industry to sell our 
components in a very efficient manner to pre-approved countries. 
According to the commenter, the proposed change would penalize the

[[Page 44078]]

U.S. nuclear industry in the world marketplace and cause a giant step 
backwards in the U.S. nuclear industry's ability to freely sell these 
nuclear components or parts to pre-approved countries that are not 
subjected themselves subjected to similar restrictions.
    Response: The NRC believes the commenter makes a valid point 
regarding limiting the general license under Sec.  110.26 to 
``components solely of U.S. origin.'' With the increasing globalization 
of the nuclear industry, U.S. nuclear companies are outsourcing more 
and more items, including parts and components for reactor equipment 
and fuel assemblies. However, since the U.S. industry has been able to 
accept the current language of Sec.  110.26 which allows use of the 
general license for ``U.S. origin'' component exports to a select list 
of countries, even when the ``U.S. origin'' component includes non-U.S. 
content, the proposed language is retained in this final rule. Further, 
the NRC added clarifying language to Sec.  110.26 stating that ``U.S. 
origin'' includes components produced or finished in the United States, 
even with non-U.S. content unless the foreign content is obligated by 
supplier government conditions, such as a prior consent for retransfer 
condition.

D. 110.27--General License for Imports

    Comment: Two commenters addressed the proposed amendment to Sec.  
110.27 that would remove the paragraph that addresses activities 
conducted under a contract with the Department of Energy (DOE). The 
commenters suggested revising the Section-by-Section Analysis for Sec.  
110.27 to state that the NRC's import regulations do not apply to the 
DOE imports of source, special nuclear or byproduct material, including 
imports conducted on DOE's behalf by DOE contractors. The commenters 
also state that the Statement of Considerations for the proposed rule 
cites sections 54, 64, 82, and 91 of the Atomic Energy Act which govern 
exports, not imports, and are not applicable in this context.
    For purposes of clarification, one commenter, suggested that in 
Sec.  110.27(b), the words ``source or special nuclear'' should be 
inserted before ``material'' so that the sentence reads as follows:

    The general license in paragraph (a) of this section does not 
authorize the import of source or special nuclear material in the 
form of irradiated fuel if the total weight of the [source or 
special nuclear] material exceeds 100 kilograms per shipment.

    Response: The NRC's import regulations do not apply to DOE imports 
of source, special nuclear, or byproduct material including imports 
conducted on DOE's behalf by DOE contractors. The removal of Sec.  
110.27(a)(1) clarifies that DOE is not subject to NRC import licensing 
requirements. The Atomic Energy Act citations in the Statement of 
Considerations for the proposed rule apply to exports, not imports. The 
sections of the Atomic Energy Act that apply to imports of special 
nuclear, source or byproduct material are sections 53, 62, and 81. 
Section 110.27(b) has been rewritten in this final rule in response to 
the request for clarification.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the clear intent of the proposed 
rule, as expressed in the Statement of Considerations to the proposed 
rule, is to grant a general license for the import of materials that 
are exempt from domestic licensing (e.g., material exempted by 10 CFR 
40.13(a)) by the NRC. Section 110.27(a) of the proposed rule would 
grant a general license for the import of byproduct, source, and 
special nuclear material if the U.S. consignee were authorized to 
possess such material under a general or specific license from the NRC 
or an Agreement State. The commenter asserted that while the new 
definition of ``radioactive waste'' in the proposed rule would exclude 
``exempt'' material such as 10 CFR 40.13(a) material, the controlling 
provision for the import of material under proposed Sec.  110.27(a) 
seems to be the possession of an existing general or specific license. 
The commenter stated that under the framework for the domestic 
licensing of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material, general 
licenses are not synonymous with ``exemptions'' for material: No 
license is required for the possession of exempt material. The 
commenter stated that Sec.  110.27(a)(2) of the current regulations 
does grant a general license for the import of ``exempt'' material; 
however, this section would be deleted under the proposed rule, and the 
commenter suggested that original language be retained.
    Response: The NRC's revisions to the definition of ``radioactive 
waste'' in 10 CFR part 110 are designed, in part, to align export/
import licensing criteria with domestic regulations that are 
implemented by the NRC and the Agreement States. If a specific license 
is required domestically, a specific import or export license would 
also be required. The changes to the definition of ``radioactive 
waste'' and the deletion of Sec.  110.27(a)(2) are consistent with the 
intended alignment in that if the material (meaning any exempt 
material, not just material in the form of waste) is exempt from 
requiring a license domestically (e.g., 10 CFR 40.13(a) is only one 
example of an exemption), then that same material would be exempt from 
requiring a general import license as well. Therefore, an additional 
provision to provide authorization to import under a general license is 
redundant and unnecessary. As proposed, Sec.  110.27(a)(1) and (a)(2) 
are removed in this final rule.
    Comment: Two commenters generally addressed the proposal to allow 
imports of Category 2 quantities of materials under a general license. 
Specifically, they noted that imports conducted under the authority of 
a general license are not subject to the same public notification and 
comment requirements as imports conducted under specific licenses. One 
respondent stated that the general license could be used for unlimited 
imports without public knowledge.
    Response: While it is correct that imports under a general license 
are not subject to the same public notification requirements as a 
specific license, the NRC is aware of and continues to regulate such 
imports. In accordance with Sec.  110.50, pre-shipment notification is 
still required by the importer. Additionally, domestic licensees must 
report receipt of Category 1 and 2 radioactive sources to the NSTS. 
Imports of radioactive material into the United States are contingent 
on the consignee being authorized to receive and possess the material 
under a general or specific NRC or Agreement State license.

E. 110.43--Import Licensing Criteria

    Comment: One commenter recommended that the NRC require more 
specificity in the application for a specific license to import 
radioactive waste and that foreign waste retain its ``country of 
origin'' attribution from import through disposal. With regard to the 
specificity in an application, this commenter is primarily concerned 
with the concept of waste characterization versus waste classification 
prior to its import. Specifically, the commenter noted that under the 
proposed rule, the NRC would only require an applicant to classify the 
radioactive waste in accordance with 10 CFR 61.55 when the waste is 
being imported for direct disposal. The commenter stated that this 
provision is too narrowly written and most waste would escape 
classification. The commenter asserted that if the imported waste was 
first processed or managed and then disposed of, under the proposed 
rule, the waste would not be classified prior to import. This commenter 
also stated that by allowing

[[Page 44079]]

the importer to characterize the waste rather than classify it prior to 
import, the NRC may allow the import of radioactive waste that cannot 
be disposed of in this country. Further, the host state or compact 
would have insufficient information to make an informed decision about 
the appropriateness of the waste for disposal at facilities under its 
jurisdiction. Another commenter stated that in the past, there have 
been situations where all the disposition pathways for waste resulting 
from the processing of imported radioactive wastes were not clearly 
identified in the original import license application. The commenter 
recommended that the NRC require license applications for the import of 
radioactive waste to include a list of all facilities that are 
projected to receive wastes for disposal that result from imported 
wastes. This should include licensed low-level waste disposal 
facilities as well as landfills that are licensed to accept materials 
such as those surveyed for bulk release (exempt wastes). The commenter 
stated that this would ensure that parties responsible for evaluating 
the application have the information necessary to conduct a thorough 
review.
    Response: As discussed above in Section I.B of this document, the 
NRC's revisions to the definition of ``radioactive waste'' in 10 CFR 
part 110 are designed, in part, to align export and import licensing 
criteria with domestic regulations that are implemented by the NRC and 
the Agreement States. Therefore, if a specific license is required to 
possess the material domestically, a specific license would be required 
to import or export that waste material. In accordance with domestic 
regulations, the NRC, when processing applications for the import of 
radioactive waste, would follow the waste attribution approaches used 
in the United States, which are, in almost all cases, developed by the 
Agreement States and compacts.
    Under domestic licensing requirements, waste disposed of at a 10 
CFR part 61 or equivalent Agreement State-licensed facility must be 
classified in accordance with 10 CFR 61.55. Under the shipping manifest 
requirements in Appendix G to 10 CFR part 20, waste must be classified 
when it is being shipped for disposal. It is not required to be 
classified before shipment for disposal, i.e., waste being sent to a 
processor need not be classified, but waste being shipped directly for 
disposal must be classified in accordance with 10 CFR 61.55. The waste 
classification requirements are designed to provide for protection 
against an inadvertent intruder into a waste disposal site 100 years or 
more after the site is closed. For higher concentrations of waste (and 
higher waste classes), additional measures are required at the disposal 
site to ensure that the intruder is protected even from wastes that 
pose a greater hazard. Thus, the classification of waste at 
intermediate points in its processing is not relevant to the purpose of 
waste classification.
    The final rule does not require classification of waste being 
imported to a waste processor because such classification would have no 
safety relevance at that time. The licensed waste processor, after 
processing the waste, must classify the waste which would ensure that 
the disposal site facility requirements are met. This approach is 
consistent with domestic requirements. It should be noted that the NRC 
Chairman, on October 8, 2009, requested a vote paper from the NRC staff 
addressing blending of low-level radioactive waste. While blending is 
not related to the import of waste, the issue of when waste is to be 
classified will be addressed in the paper. Current regulations require 
that waste be classified when shipped for disposal. If, as a result of 
this current review, changes are made in classification requirements or 
practices, the staff will implement review procedures for waste import 
applications consistent with new domestic practices or requirements.
    While it is agreed that it is undesirable to import waste that 
cannot be disposed of in the United States, the NRC will ensure, in its 
review of license applications, that when there is uncertainty 
regarding the final waste classification of waste to be disposed of, 
that an export license application has been applied for to ensure that 
no waste is left in the United States without a disposal option. This 
ensures that any waste without a domestic disposal option will not be 
orphaned in the United States, but will be returned to the country of 
origin.
    With respect to Agreement States and compacts making informed 
decisions, the NRC will ensure in its consultations with States and 
compacts, as applicable, that the waste to be processed and disposed of 
meets the classification requirements of the disposal facility and the 
license conditions of any intermediate facilities, such as a waste 
processor. The final rule notes that license applicants would need to 
characterize the waste before import to ensure that it meets the 
license requirements for a domestic processor. However, consistent with 
domestic regulations, classification is not required, since waste 
classification is designed to ensure safety of waste to be disposed of, 
and is not related to safety of the waste at intermediate points in its 
processing.
    In response to the concerns raised by the second commenter 
regarding clearly identifying an imported waste's disposition pathway, 
the NRC will consult with the Agreement State and, if applicable, the 
low-level waste compact commission to ensure that an appropriate 
facility is authorized to accept waste for management or disposal.
    With respect to the commenter's recommendation that import license 
applications include a list of all facilities projected to receive 
imported waste, under domestic regulations a waste processor receiving 
foreign waste could only transfer processed waste to authorized 
recipients. Thus, there would be no safety or security concerns, once 
waste was received by an authorized waste processor.
    It is possible that other waste management or disposal facilities 
receiving waste from a processor could be subject to laws or 
regulations applicable to foreign wastes; however, assurances that 
foreign waste could be accepted at these facilities would be needed. 
Such assurance could come from consultations with the States and 
compacts. In cases where foreign waste is attributed to the foreign 
low-level waste generator, the NRC will consult with other affected 
States and compacts that receive processed waste. Section 110.32(f)(6) 
places an obligation on the foreign waste import applicant to identify 
where the waste, not attributed to the processor (i.e. foreign waste 
that remains attributed to the foreign low-level waste generator), will 
be disposed of within the United States. Again, in accordance with 
domestic regulations, the NRC will follow the waste attribution 
approaches developed by the Agreement States and compacts in its 
processing of applications to import foreign waste. There, the 
applicable provisions of the proposed rule are unchanged in this final 
rule.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed support for the proposed 
revisions to Sec. Sec.  110.43 and 110.45, that provided clarification 
that the NRC consults (with respect to the import of radioactive waste) 
with the host State(s), and, if applicable, the appropriate low-level 
waste compact commission(s) to confirm that an appropriate facility has 
agreed to accept and is authorized to possess the waste for management 
or disposal. However, one commenter suggested that the NRC should 
codify the requirement to obtain the consent of

[[Page 44080]]

any host State that is the proposed destination for imported 
radioactive waste before approving an import application by adding a 
new paragraph (g) to Sec.  110.43.
    Another commenter sought clarification regarding what the NRC 
intends to do if there is an impasse between the NRC and a host State 
or compact concerning whether an appropriate facility is authorized to 
accept foreign radioactive waste for disposal.
    A third commenter suggested that the NRC should distinguish between 
Agreement States that should be consulted to determine if the site is 
licensed for disposal and host States under the compact system that are 
consulted to determine if the disposal is allowed under compact rules. 
Citing EnergySolutions, LLC v. NW Interstate Compact on Low-Level 
Radioactive Waste Mgmt., No. 2:08-CV, D. Utah, June 17, 2009, this 
commenter stated that for a non-compact site such as the 
EnergySolutions Clive site, the concepts of host States and compacts do 
not apply. For a non-compact site, consultation with the State in which 
the site is located should only address the authorization for disposal 
under the State's Agreement State authority. This commenter recommended 
that Sec. Sec.  110.32(f)(6), 110.43(d), and 110.45(b)(4) should be 
changed to address these distinctions.
    Response: The NRC revised Sec. Sec.  110.43 and 110.45 in this 
final rule to further clarify those contacted and the intent of the 
proposed change. In response to the commenter's question regarding the 
NRC's actions in an impasse, the NRC believes that such an impasse is 
unlikely because the appropriateness and authorization of a facility 
will be determined by the regulatory authority (i.e. the NRC or 
Agreement State) and compacts as applicable.

F. 110.44--Physical Security Standards

    Comment: One commenter sought clarification of the intent and 
purpose of the incorporation by reference of the current INFCIRC/225/
Rev. 4 (corrected), June 1999, in Sec.  110.44(a). The commenter stated 
that it is their understanding that INFCIRC/225/Rev. 4 (corrected), 
June 1999, is currently undergoing review and revision by the IAEA and 
international community; incorporation by reference of the current 
INFCIRC document may not address the applicability of substantial 
INFCIRC changes underway that could be potentially incorporated in the 
future. The commenter stated that changes to INFCIRC/225/Rev. 4 
(corrected), June 1999, may have a significant impact on physical 
security standards, policy, and guidance, both domestic and 
international.
    Response: The NRC is aware of the current review by the IAEA and 
the international community and will make any necessary changes to this 
section once that document is finalized. Therefore, INFCIRC/225/Rev. 4 
(corrected), June 1999, ``The Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials 
and Nuclear Facilities'' continues to be incorporated by reference in 
Sec.  110.44(a) of this final rule.

G. 110.50--Terms

    Comment: Currently, notifications for imports are required to be 
submitted at least seven days in advance of each shipment, to the 
extent practical, but in no case less than 24 hours in advance of each 
shipment. Several commenters addressed the proposed amendment to Sec.  
110.50(c) that would require advance notification for imports to be 
submitted seven days in advance of shipment. Specifically, one 
commenter stated that a seven-day advance notification requirement 
would cause many importers of Category 2 sources to be out of 
compliance with the proposed regulation. This commenter noted that 
there are many instances where his customers do not tell him when a 
source is being returned.
    Another commenter stated that it is unclear why the NRC now needs 
seven-days advance notice. The commenter stated that the only 
explanation is to allow NRC adequate time to verify information. The 
commenter questioned the verification information if the importer is an 
established licensee and routinely receives returned sources. This 
commenter also noted that the NSTS would account for imported sources 
once received under an NRC or Agreement State license. The commenter 
recommended that the NRC have no requirement for advance notification 
for the import of Category 2 sources because the sources will be 
accounted for in the NSTS and there is no documented benefit to the 
advance notification requirement.
    One commenter noted that with regard to imports of Category 1 
quantities of material, which are typically bulk and raw material 
shipments, 24-hour advance notification is currently received and that 
seven-day advance notification is not provided because final shipping 
arrangements often change on a daily basis. The commenter recommended 
that the NRC retain the current requirement that allows for 24-ho