SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

A. Need for Regulatory Action

On May 23, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” E.O. 14300 requires the NRC to undertake a review and wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance documents, after which it must issue notices of proposed rulemaking by February 23, 2026. Final rules and guidance to conclude the revision process must be issued no later than November 23, 2026. In accordance with E.O. 14300 the NRC identified changes across title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) parts 30, 31, 32, 34, 39, 40, 70, and 150. These changes would yield significant efficiencies and reduce regulatory burden for licensees, NRC, and Agreement States while upholding our shared commitment to public safety.

B. Major Provisions

Major provisions of this proposed rule include the following changes:

• Revised the table of radionuclide activity values used for determining decommissioning financial assurance (DFA) for sealed and unsealed radioactive materials.
• Established a new class of general licenses (GLs), called standard general licenses (SGLs), to address anti-competitive barriers.
• Streamlined requirements for the distribution of exempt byproduct material and source material.
• Established distribution pathways for microsources.
• Revised the definition of consortium to address anti-competitive barriers.
• Revised administrative requirements for industrial Radiography to reduce anti-competitive barriers and modernized the radiography regulations.
• Modernized well logging regulations.
• Streamlined requirements for Agreement State Licensees in10 CFR part 150.

C. Costs and Benefits

The NRC prepared a draft regulatory analysis to determine the expected quantitative costs and benefits of this proposed rule, as well as qualitative factors to be considered in the NRC's rulemaking decision. The conclusion of the analysis is that this proposed rule and associated guidance would result in net savings to Industry, Agreement States, and the NRC of $2,987,000 using a 7-percent discount rate.

The draft regulatory analysis also considers, in a qualitative fashion, regulatory efficiency, and public confidence. This rulemaking will reduce the effort that applicants and licensees would need to expend to generate exemption requests and consider alternative means to accomplish the goals of current regulation. This rulemaking demonstrates the NRC's ability to effectively regulate applicants and licensees, including appropriate responses to statutory requirements.

The regulatory analysis is available as indicated in Section XVII, “Availability of Documents,” of this document.

Table of Contents

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

B. Submitting Comments

II. Executive Order 14300: Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

III. Background

IV. Discussion

V. Specific Requests for Comments

VI. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification

VII. Regulatory Analysis

VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality

IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation

X. Plain Writing

XI. Environmental Assessment

XII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

XIII. Coordination With NRC Agreement States

XIV. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations

XV. Coordination With the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes

XVI. Voluntary Consensus Standards

XVII. Availability of Guidance

XVIII. Executive Orders

XIV. Availability of Documents

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-1205 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2025-1205.
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/​reading-rm/​adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Search.” For problems ( printed page 28917) with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.
• NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Public Meeting: The NRC may conduct a public meeting to describe the proposed amendments and answer questions from the public on the proposed rule. If the NRC determines it will hold a public meeting, NRC will publish a notice of the location, time, and agenda of the meeting on the NRC's public meeting website within 10 calendar days of the meeting. Stakeholders should monitor the NRC's public meeting website for information about the public meeting at: https://www.nrc.gov/​public-involve/​public-meetings/​index.cfm.

B. Submitting Comments

Comments must be submitted electronically using https://www.regulations.gov no later than 11:59 p.m. eastern time on July 2, 2026. Please include Docket ID NRC-2025-1205 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. Executive Order 14300: Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

On May 23, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed E.O. 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” Section 5, “Reforming and Modernizing the NRC's Regulations,” requires the NRC to undertake a review and wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance documents as guided by the policies set forth in section 2 of the E.O. This rulemaking addresses section 5, which requires the NRC to “undertake a review and wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance documents.”

III. Background

Within the National Materials Program, the NRC regulates the use of byproduct material, source material, and special nuclear material in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass for a variety of uses as authorized by Sections 53, 63, and 81 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA) and pursuant to 10 CFR parts 19, 20, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 70 and 150. For the purposes of this document, “byproduct material,” “source material,” and “special nuclear material” describe three broad categories of radioactive material regulated under the AEA: (1) radioactive material created, made radioactive, or generated as waste from nuclear processes (byproduct material); (2) naturally occurring uranium and thorium (source material); and (3) processed or enriched nuclear materials used for reactor fuel or other applications (special nuclear material). These categories are defined in NRC regulations, §§§ 30.4, 40.4, 70.4. These materials have many different uses, including use in industrial radiography, moisture-density gauges, medical applications, and well logging. Currently, the NRC has approximately 2,700 active specific licenses for the use and possession of byproduct, source, and certain quantities of special nuclear material. The applicable NRC regulations and specific license conditions establish the requirements for the safe handling, use, and storage of these materials. The NRC inspects facilities to ensure compliance with regulations and takes action when violations occur. The public also uses exempt quantities of byproduct material and source material in consumer products such as smoke detectors, static eliminators and self-luminous products.

Under Section 274b of the AEA, States can enter into Agreements with the NRC that allow States to assume, and the NRC to discontinue, regulatory authority over byproduct, source, and small quantities of special nuclear material. Known as Agreement States, these States can then regulate byproduct, source, and certain quantities of special nuclear materials that are covered in the Agreement, using their own legislation, regulations, or other legally binding provisions. The NRC enters into an Agreement if the Commission finds the State program adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRC's regulatory program. The NRC ensures that an Agreement State program remains adequate and compatible through periodic review and assessment under the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP). There are currently 40 Agreement States, which regulate approximately 20,000 materials licensees.

In response to several recent E.O.s, including E.O. 14300, the NRC identified requirements within 10 CFR parts 30, 31, 32, 34, 39, 40, and 150 that could be revised, deleted, or modified in order to meet the E.O. objectives. The following sections provide background information on the affected parts. Section IV of this document provides discussion on the specific proposed changes for each of the affected parts.

A. Part 30 Reducing Anti-Competitive Barriers in Consortium Definition

The NRC is proposing to revise its definition of consortium to remove the anti-competitive barrier limitation that a positron emission tomography (PET) radionuclide production facility must be in the same geographical area as the medical use licensee to be considered a consortium. The limitation that the PET production facility had to be located in the same geographical area as the medical use licensee severely limited licensees from locating their PET radionuclide production facility in the most cost-effective location and was based primarily on the short half-life of PET radionuclides, making distant transport impracticable.

B. Part 30 Modernizing Appendix B and Part 70 Quantities of Licensed Material Used To Assess Financial Assurance for Decommissioning

The NRC is proposing to revise the table of radionuclide activity values used for determining decommissioning financial assurance (DFA) for sealed and unsealed radioactive materials. The proposed rule would revise the current table in appendix B, “Quantities of Licensed Material Requiring Labeling,” to 10 CFR part 30, “Rules of General ( printed page 28918) Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material,” by replacing its applicable values from the table in appendix C, “Quantities of Licensed Material Requiring Labeling,” to 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for Protection against Radiation.” This would add radionuclides not currently listed in appendix B to 10 CFR part 30, including radionuclides associated with industrial technologies and current and emerging medical uses. These changes would generally reduce DFA requirements for most licensees and eliminate the need for certain exemptions. In addition, the NRC would remove all radionuclides with a half-life of 120 days or less from the appendix, since these radionuclides are not considered when developing DFA, and amend the title of the table to “Quantities of Licensed Material Used to Assess Financial Assurance for Decommissioning,” to more accurately reflect its current use for DFA. The default values would remain at their current values. The NRC is proposing to revise § 70.25 to match the proposed changes to appendix B to part 30.

C. Part 31 Creating New Classes of General Licenses and Modernization of Current Classes of General Licenses

The NRC is proposing to establish a new class of general licenses (GLs), called standard general licenses (SGLs), to address anti-competitive barriers. The proposed framework would permit GLs for portable gauges, additional fixed gauges, a subset of diagnostic medical uses, additional analytical instruments, and additional in vitro testing. The SGLs would be granted by regulation, and requires submission of a registration, fee, and certification of understanding. Proposed rule language, found in §§ 31.13 through 31.18, is based on standard license conditions and essential standard commitments related to programs necessary for radiological safety and security. Conforming changes are proposed in other parts of 10 CFR parts 30 and 32 to ensure radioactive materials can be distributed to and from the standard general licensees. The SGL pathway would create a second option for licensing such that entities could select between a SGL or a specific license for certain activities. The specific license pathway for entities wishing to conduct activities in a non-standard manner or outside of the normal conditions would be preserved so as to not limit flexibility. However, licensees could select the lower regulatory burden standard general licensing pathway if they are able to conduct activities within the framework of the SGL for their specified activity.

Additionally, the NRC is proposing to amend requirements in 10 CFR part 31, “General Domestic Licenses For Byproduct Material,” to permit electronic transmission of registrations for § 31.5 registerable devices, harmonize holding periods with decommissioning timelines in § 30.36, align physical inventory frequencies with equivalent physical inventory limits for specific licenses, and harmonize in vitro test vial limits with labeling limits in 10 CFR part 20.

D. Parts 32 and 40 Reducing Reporting Requirements for Consumer Products Containing Small Quantities of Radioactive Material

The NRC is proposing to amend several regulations governing the distribution of exempt byproduct material and source material. This proposed rule would eliminate the requirements under 10 CFR part 32, “Specific Domestic Licenses to Manufacture or Transfer Certain Items Containing Byproduct Material,” and 10 CFR part 40, “Domestic Licensing of Source Material,” that require licensees to submit an annual report of transfers to the NRC. The elimination of these requirements would reduce the licensee's burden of preparing and providing records and would reduce the burden of the NRC to collect, manage, and store the reports while still remaining protective of public health and safety given that the NRC will still maintain access to the information.

E. Part 32 Expanding Distribution Pathways for Microsources

The NRC is proposing to amend requirements in § 32.72 to include microsources, such as radioactive microspheres, within its scope, which would allow commercial radiopharmacies to prepare and distribute these materials. The proposed rule would expand eligibility to any applicant legally authorized under applicable Federal or State law to manufacture, compound, prepare, or distribute radioactive drugs or medical devices, providing flexibility for future distribution pathways authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or State regulatory bodies. In addition, the NRC is proposing to revise § 32.74 to clarify that it may also be used to distribute microsources and authorize distribution to any licensee authorized to use the source or device under 10 CFR part 35, “Medical Use of Byproduct Material,” without limitation to specific subparts. These changes would allow for smooth distribution of microsources to medical use licensees.

F. Part 34 Reducing Anti-Competitive Barriers and Administrative Requirements for Industrial Radiography

The NRC is proposing to amend the requirements associated with industrial radiography operations in 10 CFR part 34, “Licenses for Industrial Radiography and Radiation Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Operations.” These revisions to the proposed rule would address anti-competitive barriers due to overly prescriptive performance requirements for industrial radiography equipment, provide clarity regarding ambiguous language in the two-person rule, and reduce or remove administrative and obsolete requirements. These proposed changes would reduce the regulatory burden on licensees and applicants by reducing or eliminating administrative requirements for recordkeeping and notifications. Additionally, revisions to the performance requirements for industrial radiography equipment would remove the need to meet the requirements in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N432-1980, “Radiological Safety for the Design and Construction of Apparatus for Gamma Radiography” and replace them with requirements to register the device in accordance with § 32.320 of this section. These changes will ensure that radiation safety is maintained while reducing anti-competitive regulatory barriers and allowing for innovation in the design of radiography equipment.

G. Part 39 Modernizing Well Logging Regulations

The NRC is proposing to amend the rules associated with well logging in 10 CFR part 39, “Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Well Logging.” These revisions to the proposed rule would remove or modify redundant and unnecessary regulations regarding the use of nuclear material in well logging operations that support the oil and gas exploration industry. The proposed rule would revise leak testing requirements to allow for the sealed source leak testing frequency in accordance with the Sealed Source and Device Registration (SSDR), extend the survey meter calibration frequency in § 39.33 from 6 months to 12 months, and eliminate unnecessary notifications. These changes would reduce the regulatory burden on licensees by reducing or eliminating administrative requirements and notifications while maintaining safety. ( printed page 28919)

H. Part 150 Modernizing Requirements for Agreement State Licensees in Part 150

The NRC is proposing to amend the rules in 10 CFR part 150, “Exemptions and Continued Regulatory Authority in Agreement States and in Offshore Waters Under Section 274,” to remove the requirement for Agreement State licensees using special nuclear material of low strategic significance to meet the physical protection requirements in 10 CFR part 73, “Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.” Forty years of operational experience has demonstrated that this material is adequately secured under the Agreement State oversight. Additionally, the NRC is proposing to amend the requirements in § 150.20 to reduce the amount of time an Agreement State licensee has to file for reciprocity before initiation of work activities in an NRC jurisdiction, eliminate the need to notify the NRC of location changes for work in offshore waters, and allow SGLs to be recognized by the NRC for the purposes of reciprocity. This action would reduce administrative burden on the applicant and the NRC while maintaining safety.

IV. Discussion

The NRC, as directed in E.O. 14300, Section 5, undertook a review of its regulations of the use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear material. The NRC's goal in its review was to identify in its regulations areas that could be modernized while ensuring the continued safe, effective, and efficient use of byproduct material. The NRC has identified changes which would yield significant efficiencies and reduce regulatory burden for licensees, NRC, and Agreement States while upholding our shared commitment to public safety. These actions would reduce the burden of the NRC's licensing process, eliminate the need for certain exemptions from existing regulations, and eliminate unnecessary requirements

Each section presents information on a different part impacted by the proposed rule, detailing what action the NRC is proposing and whom the action affects and how.

The NRC prepared an unofficial redline strikeout version of the proposed changes to regulatory text that is intended to help the reader identify the proposed changes. The unofficial redline strikeout version of the proposed rule is publicly available and is listed in the “Availability of Documents” section.

Part 30 Reducing Anti-Competitive Barriers in Consortium Definition

On October 1, 2007, the NRC published a final rule (72 FR 55864) to amend 10 CFR part 30 to implement provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). The amendments included a revision to § 30.4 to add a definition for the term “consortium.” Under the definition in 10 CFR 30.4, a consortium was an association of medical use licensees and a PET radionuclide production facility located at an educational institution, Federal facility, or noncommercial medical facility “in the same geographical area” that jointly own or share the operation and maintenance costs of the facility. The rule provided regulatory relief to consortia engaged in the noncommercial production and distribution of PET radionuclides for medical use, including authorization for noncommercial transfers under § 30.32(j) without requiring a separate distribution license under § 32.72. The geographical limitation was included due to the short half-lives of PET radionuclides, such as fluorine-18 (1.8 hours) and carbon-11 (20 minutes), which require rapid production and delivery to ensure timely medical use. However, there was no safety reason provided for the limitation and it was based on the supply chain difficulties associated with short-lived radionuclides. While some changes in the medical use of byproduct material have introduced longer lived PET radionuclides into use, such as copper-64 (12.7 hours), the NRC has determined that licensees and regulators have found the phrase “geographical area” lacks clarity as to when consortium relief applies. In addition, requiring the PET production facility to be located in the same geographic area, when safe transfer of PET radionuclides can occur following all other applicable requirements, unnecessarily inhibits licensees' ability to establish or participate in cost-effective, collaborative PET radionuclide production arrangements.

The NRC proposes a revision to § 30.4 to change the definition for the term “consortium.” The definition would support the regulation of accelerator-produced radioactive materials, including PET radionuclides used in medical imaging. Under the proposed definition, a consortium would be an association of medical use licensees and a PET radionuclide production facility that jointly own or share in the operation and maintenance cost of the PET radionuclide production facility that produces PET radionuclides for use in radioactive drugs within the consortium for noncommercial distribution among its associated members for medical use. The proposed rule would remove the requirement to be in the same geographical area and would provide regulatory relief to consortia engaged in the noncommercial production and distribution of PET radionuclides for medical use, including authorization for noncommercial transfers under § 30.32(j) without requiring a separate distribution license under § 32.72.

Part 30 Modernizing Appendix B and Part 70 Quantities of Licensed Material Used To Assess Financial Assurance for Decommissioning

Decommissioning financial assurance is a guarantee or other financial agreement provided by a licensee to ensure that sufficient funds are available to complete decommissioning activities in a safe and timely manner. The NRC's regulations in §§ 30.35 and 70.25, “Financial assurance and recordkeeping for decommissioning,” provide tables of required funds that need to be saved by each licensee. These regulations rely on the values provided in appendix B to 10 CFR part 30 when determining the amount of DFA required for unsealed and sealed byproduct material and unsealed special nuclear material. As noted in §§ 30.35(a)(1) and 70.25(a)(2), a decommissioning funding plan (DFP) must be submitted when unsealed radionuclide activities exceed 1 × 10⁵ times the applicable quantities listed in appendix B to 10 CFR part 30 and fixed amounts of DFA are required when unsealed radionuclide activities exceed 1 × 10³ times the applicable quantities listed in that appendix B to part 30. Individuals with licenses authorizing the possession and use of sealed sources or plated foils at quantities 1 × 10¹² times the values in appendix B to 10 CFR part 30 must also submit DFPs and fixed amounts of DFA are required when radionuclide activities in sealed sources or plated foils exceed 1 × 10¹⁰ times the applicable quantities listed in appendix B to part 30. The potentially affected licensees are those authorized to possess licensed materials above these limits.

Appendix B to 10 CFR part 30 includes default possession values for radionuclides not specifically listed. The default possession values are equal to the lowest values listed in appendix B to 10 CFR part 30 for specific alpha, beta, and gamma-emitting radionuclides. Use of the default values may result in licensees needing more DFA than is warranted based on the risk to public health and safety. For example, a licensee possessing more ( printed page 28920) than 0.1 millicurie (mCi) but less than 1 mCi of an unsealed non-alpha-emitting isotope, would be required under § 30.35(d) to provide $225,000 in DFA. To possess more than 1 mCi of the non-alpha-emitting isotope, a licensee would be required to provide $1,125,000 in DFA, and a DFP would be required to possess more than 10 mCi. However, if the NRC revised appendix B to 10 CFR part 30 to adopt the values in appendix C to 10 CFR part 20, the minimum possession threshold for DFA or a DFP would increase 100-fold for accelerator-produced radioactive material (NARM) isotopes germanium (Ge)-68, gold-195, and sodium-22. Therefore, the application of the current generic default possession values creates a regulatory burden by requiring licensees to provide decommissioning funding that is not commensurate with the risk of isotope-specific possession values.

In a petition for rulemaking (PRM) docketed as PRM-30-66, the Organization of Agreement States (OAS) requested that the NRC provide specific possession values for naturally occurring and NARM radionuclides that are not currently listed in appendix B to 10 CFR part 30 so that licensees using these isotopes, especially medical licensees, would not have to apply the appendix's default values to calculate decommissioning funding requirements. The OAS stated that patient health and safety are being compromised due to delays in licensing important diagnostic and therapeutic products that use radionuclides not listed in appendix B to 10 CFR part 30, and that these licensing obstacles could discourage the development of new medical and industrial applications. The OAS also suggested that, rather than issuing exemptions on a case-by-case basis, the more appropriate way to address the inconsistency in appendix B to 10 CFR part 30 is to amend the regulation to add appropriate radionuclides and their corresponding activities.

The NRC is proposing to update appendix B to 10 CFR part 30, “Quantities of Licensed Material Requiring Labeling,” with radionuclides and values from appendix C to 10 CFR part 20, “Quantities of Licensed Material Requiring Labeling” for values that are equal to or higher than the current default value in appendix B to 10 CFR part 30. This would add radionuclides not currently listed in appendix B to 10 CFR part 30, including radionuclides associated with industrial technologies and current and emerging medical uses.

The proposed revisions to the list of radionuclides in appendix B to 10 CFR part 30 would align with the NRC's regulatory authority under the EPAct. The EPAct amended the definition of byproduct material to include NARM radionuclides and provided the NRC authority over this new category of byproduct material. Germanium (Ge)-68 and gallium (Ga)-68, radionuclide generators are of particular concern to those in the medical field since Ge-68 is not listed in appendix B to 10 CFR part 30 and the default values resulted in overly conservative decommissioning financial assurance requirements. In the report, “Germanium-68 (Ge-68) Decommissioning Funding Plan (DFP) Final Report,” dated August 12, 2015, the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) concluded that the restrictive aspects of a DFP for Ge-68/Ga-68 generators that arise from the current 10 CFR part 30 regulations were preventing or deterring the use of promising Ga-68 diagnostic imaging agents for patients and recommended that the NRC address the DFP concerns relative to Ge-68/Ga-68 generators through rulemaking. The NRC has granted a limited number of exemptions for licensees that use Ge-68/Ga-68 generators under certain conditions. These exemptions were approved in advance of this rulemaking. By providing a regulatory solution through rulemaking, the NRC would create a more stable regulatory framework for applicants, licensees, and regulators. In cases where the values in appendix C to 10 CFR part 20 are lower than the values currently listed in appendix B to 10 CFR part 30, the NRC proposes maintaining the current values in appendix B to 10 CFR part 30. This means the values listed in appendix B to part 30 would align with the majority of values listed in appendix C to part 20 except for americium-241, cadmium-109, plutonium-239, uranium-233, uranium-234, uranium-235, zirconium-93, the default value for any alpha-emitting radionuclide not listed or mixtures of alpha emitters of unknown composition, and the default value for any radionuclide other than alpha emitting radionuclides not listed or mixtures of beta emitters of unknown composition which would remain at their current values.

Each of the values that would remain at their current values are a factor of 10 higher than what is listed in appendix C to 10 CFR part 20. If the values for these radionuclides were adopted from appendix C to 10 CFR part 20, then the values would decrease, and several licensees would become subject to DFA requirements. This would result in an undue burden to this population of licensees in obtaining DFA or requesting an exemption from the requirements. Since implementing DFA requirements in 1988, the NRC has not identified any instance where a licensee with these radionuclides has had insufficient DFA or any negative safety consequences because of insufficient DFA.

Because there is no safety related reason to decrease any values listed in appendix B to 10 CFR part 30, the NRC proposes maintaining status quo for the values for americium-241, cadmium-109, plutonium-239, uranium-233, uranium-234, uranium-235, zirconium-93, the default value for any alpha-emitting radionuclide not listed or mixtures of alpha emitters of unknown composition, and the default value for any radionuclide other than alpha emitting radionuclides not listed or mixtures of beta emitters of unknown composition in appendix B to 10 CFR part 30. The default values in appendix B to 10 CFR part 30 remain at their current values. These changes will either reduce or not affect the amount of DFA required for licensees, depending on the mixture of radionuclides the licensee possesses.

Finally, the NRC would remove all radionuclides with a half-life of 120 days or less from the updated appendix B to 10 CFR part 30 because these radionuclides are not considered when developing DFA. Additionally, the NRC is also proposing a revision to § 70.25(a)(2) and (b) to specify unsealed special nuclear material “of half-life greater than 120 days.” NRC experience shows that short-lived radionuclides do not require major decommissioning efforts, as radionuclides with half-lives of 120 days or less naturally decay to negligible levels within a few years.

This rulemaking also includes changing the title to appendix B to 10 CFR part 30 to clarify the intent and purpose of the appendix. Appendix B to 10 CFR part 30 is used solely for the purpose of calculating the required amounts of DFA. Therefore, this proposed rule would change the title of appendix B to 10 CFR part 30 from “Quantities of Licensed Material Requiring Labeling” to “Quantities of Licensed Material Used to Assess Financial Assurance for Decommissioning.”

These proposed revisions address the changes requested in PRM-30-66 from the OAS requesting that the NRC conduct rulemaking to provide an expeditious solution to the DFA concerns of applicants and licensees who currently use, or plan to use, the unlisted NARM radionuclides, especially in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. ( printed page 28921)

Under current requirements, licensees may choose to submit either a DFP under § 30.35(e) or a certification that financial assurance for decommissioning has been provided in the amount prescribed by § 30.35(d). Although medical licensees generally possess smaller quantities of radioactive material than major nuclear facilities and typically use certifications under § 30.35(d), they may possess unsealed radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days and thus could develop facility-specific decommissioning cost estimates in accordance with § 30.35(e). While the review and approval of DFPs under § 30.35(e) could be resource intensive for both the applicant or licensee and the regulatory agency, some licensees might find the submission of a DFP more cost effective than the certification of financial assurance for decommissioning using DFA values based on the default radionuclide threshold values in appendix B to 10 CFR part 30. The proposed changes to radionuclide values in appendix B to 10 CFR part 30 would decrease, or maintain, the amount required for decommissioning financial assurance for an individual NRC 10 CFR part 30 licensee. After evaluating the impact of the proposed provisions on their decommissioning financial assurance mechanism, a licensee may be required to make revisions that lead to additional costs. However, the NRC expects that most 10 CFR part 30 licensees would benefit from these changes. This was demonstrated both by the petition that initiated the rulemaking and by the public responses to the draft regulatory basis supporting a rulemaking on decommissioning financial assurance for sealed and unsealed radioactive materials (87 FR 25157).

NRC licensees under subpart H of 10 CFR part 70, as required by § 70.25(b) must submit DFPs. The changes to appendix B to 10 CFR part 30 would not impact 10 CFR part 70 licensees, as their possession quantities exceed the threshold identified in § 70.25(d).

Under the proposed rule all affected licensees would be required to review the updated appendix B to 10 CFR part 30 to determine whether changes are needed. Licensees that no longer require DFA or a DFP or could decrease their DFA, could do so voluntarily at their discretion after the effective date of the rule. Licensees would need to request NRC approval when making any changes to their DFAs or DFPs. For licensees where no change is required, the NRC would verify compliance during triannual reviews and as part of routine inspection activities.

Part 31 Creating New Classes of General Licenses and Modernization of Current Classes of General Licenses

A. Standard General Licenses (SGL)

Consistent with its authority under the AEA, the NRC may issue general or specific licenses for the use of byproduct, source, and certain quantities of special nuclear material. A specific license is issued to a named entity after the filing of an application with the Commission. Additionally, amendments to specific licenses are required when a variety of changes occur. In the case of applications and amendments, the NRC and licensee engage in back and forth communication until a licensing basis is solidified and documented in a licensing document. Specific licenses cover a wide range of activities of byproduct material and have a variety of associated risk profiles. Some activities are conducted in a standard method across the industry, while others are conducted in a non-uniform manner. The specific licenses for standard operations use consistent license authorizations and conditions, such that, these specific licenses appear almost identical across the industry with the exception of individuals named on the license and the locations authorized by the license. For example, the majority of specifically licensed portable gauge licensees operate under the same license conditions and have the same license commitments. The burden associated with applying for a specific license and maintaining a specific license is unnecessarily high for low risk, standard operations when the specific license follows the standard format.

A GL is issued by regulation and grants authority to entities conducting the activities specified in the regulation issuing the GL. Requirements for general licensees appear in the regulations and are designed to be commensurate with the specific activities covered by the GL. A GL is effective without the need for a user to file an application with the Commission or the issuance of a licensing document to a particular person. However, certain GLs may require registration with the Commission. Under 10 CFR part 31, the Commission grants GLs for certain uses of byproduct material and provides the requirements associated with these GLs. This regulatory framework has proven to be effective and a low burden for many low risk, standard activities.

The NRC is proposing to create a new class of GLs within subpart C of 10 CFR part 31 for a subset of low-risk activities that are currently specifically licensed, including fixed gauging, portable gauging, certain medical uses, certain analytical equipment uses, and certain in vitro testing uses. The impacted groups would be permitted to choose between two licensing pathways. An SGL would require submission of a registration, fee, and certification of understanding for five types of technology. The NRC is proposing that each type of technology has requirements codified in a separate regulation. For example, the NRC is proposing requirements for a Standard General License for Certain Fixed Gauging in § 31.14, a Standard General License for Portable Gauging in § 31.15, a Standard General License for Certain Medical Uses in § 31.16, a Standard General License for Certain Analytical Equipment Including Electron Capture Detectors, X-Ray Fluorescence Devices, and Ion Generators in § 31.17, and a Standard General License for Certain In Vitro Testing in § 31.18. The NRC is proposing administrative requirements, such as notifications and decommissioning, applicable to each of the SGLs in § 31.13.

The proposed rule language is based on standard license conditions and essential standard commitments related to programs necessary for radiological safety and security. The standard license conditions and essential standard commitments were derived from risk significant elements of NUREG-1556, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses”. Elements taken from program specific NUREG-1556 Volumes and codified in the rule come from the “Response from Applicants” sections of NUREG-1556 and revolve around establishing programs, processes, and procedures to safely conduct licensed activities. These sections are tied to regulatory requirements in 10 CFR that are general in nature so NUREG-1556 provides methodologies to meet the general requirements for the safe conduct of licensed activities.

The proposed rule language requires, by reference, compliance with applicable regulations found in other applicable parts of 10 CFR to ensure the new general licensees comply with all applicable provisions that they are currently subject to by their specific licenses. In addition, the NRC is proposing inventory limitations in § 31.13(c) that would prohibit a single general licensee from aggregation of materials requiring implementation of requirements contained in 10 CFR part 37, materials requiring a decommissioning plan or financial assurance, and materials requiring an emergency plan. The GLs would not be ( printed page 28922) subject to any requirements beyond what is currently required to obtain a specific license. Under this proposed rule, entities would still have the flexibility to choose to obtain a specific license.

The NRC is proposing conforming changes in other parts of 10 CFR to ensure radioactive materials can be distributed to and from the new GLs. Conforming changes include: the definition of principal activities in § 30.4, addition of SGLs to § 30.6, addition of SGLs in § 30.34(h)(1), addition of SGLs to § 30.35(g), addition of SGLs to § 30.41(d)(1), addition of Standard General License for Certain Medical Uses to § 32.72(a), addition of Standard General License for Certain Medical Uses to § 32.74(a), and addition of SGLs in § 150.20.

Overall, the SGL pathway would reduce the burden on the licensee as well as the NRC while maintaining adequate safety, security, and oversight of these licensed activities. The current licensing pathway would exist as it does today, so no impact may be observed to licensees who chose to remain specifically licensed. However, licensees could select the SGL pathway if they are able to conduct activities within the framework of the SGL for their specified activity. The SGL option would have a lower application fee, lower annual fee, and would eliminate the need to submit licensing correspondence such as amendment requests. Instead of amendments, a notification process would be used for specified program changes. The SGLs would be subject to an inspection program that is equivalent to the inspection for the same specifically licensed activities. As part of the NRC's response to the ADVANCE Act of 2024, the NRC is reviewing current inspection programs including the frequency of inspection conducted under Inspection Manual Chapter 2800, “Materials Inspection Program”.

B. Current Classes of General Licenses—10 CFR 31.5 Licensees

General licenses in § 31.5 currently authorize use of certain devices. The NRC is proposing changes to these requirements to reduce burden while maintaining protection of public health and safety.

Currently, registrations for generally licensed devices as required by § 31.5(c)(14) must be submitted to the Commission by mail. However, most entities subject to this requirement use electronic communications as their primary communication method. The NRC is proposing to amend § 31.5(c)(14) to add electronic communication methods, such as email, as permitted communication methods. Additionally, the NRC is proposing to add a mailing address that is compatible for signature required correspondence should an entity wish to send their registration as signature required.

Currently, § 31.5(c)(15) permits general licensees to hold devices for a period of no longer than 2 years. The term hold is used to describe a licensee's action of keeping a device in its possession that is no longer in use and no longer planned to be used; this is typically the period where a device is out of service prior to disposal of the device. This has shown to be constraining to business operations since entities may need to hold devices for longer than 2 years. For example, an entity may take a device out of service with the intention of disposing of it. However, it may take longer than 2 years to solicit bids for disposal, obtain a contract, and complete the disposal. The NRC is proposing to amend § 31.5(c)(15) to revise the holding period for GLs from 2 years to 36 months. Additionally, holding periods for generally licensed devices are based on decommissioning time periods for many types of specific licensees. Currently, the time period in § 30.36(d) and § 31.5(c)(15) is 2 years. However, as part of its response to E.O. 14300, the NRC is considering increasing this time period to 3 years.

Currently, § 31.5(c)(15) requires general licensees to perform quarterly physical inventory on devices that are placed on standby. The term standby is used to describe a licensee's action of keeping a device in their possession that they plan to return to service and use in the future. However, the regulatory framework for sealed sources that have fewer inherent safety features require physical inventories every 6 months. For example, sealed sources possessed by medical licensees are subject to § 35.67 which requires physical inventories of sealed sources at a semi-annual periodicity. Similarly, licensed materials in well-logging activities are subject to § 39.37 which requires physical inventories of licensed material at a semi-annual periodicity. Additionally, the majority of sealed sources possessed by specific licensees are subject to semi-annual physical inventories through license conditions based on the applicable volume of the NUREG-1556 series, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses.” A quarterly physical inventory is overly burdensome and restrictive in comparison to the Commission's holistic regulatory framework related to physical inventories. The NRC is proposing to amend § 31.5(c)(15) to change the physical inventory frequency from quarterly to semi-annually for devices on standby. By changing the periodicity to semi-annually, the NRC would ensure consistent requirements are imposed across various licensee populations in regard to physical inventory requirements. Specifically, the risk profile for generally licensed devices is lower than the risk profile for specifically licensed devices for which a semi-annual inventory is required for sealed sources. Since the inception of the generally licensed device program in the 1970s, the NRC has obtained sufficient operating experience to demonstrate that this population of licensees generally has adequate material control and accountability such that quarterly inventories are not necessary.

These changes would affect entities required to register devices under § 31.5. Affected entities currently include holders of certain generally licensed devices. The changes would provide flexibility to the communication methods permitted, which increase efficiency, and save entities the cost of mailing physical copies. Additionally, the changes to holding periods would provide flexibility to entities by allowing them to hold devices for a longer time period before disposal is required, should the time period for decommissioning increase. Finally, the change to physical inventories would reduce the number of times per year that an entity must conduct a physical inventory of their generally licensed devices. This would cut the time spent on physical inventories in half.

C. Current Classes of General Licenses—10 CFR 31.11 Licensees

Currently, § 31.11(a) limits the total activity per vial for in vitro clinical or laboratory testing for certain persons, including physicians. The limit for carbon-14 is 10 microcuries, the limit for hydrogen-3 is 50 microcuries, the limit for selenium-75 is 10 microcuries, and the limit for cobalt-57 is 10 microcuries. Meanwhile, 10 CFR part 20 only requires labeling for quantities that are above these activities. Specifically, 10 CFR part 20 appendix C requires labeling for carbon-14 at 100 microcuries, hydrogen-3 at 1,000 microcuries, selenium-75 at 100 microcuries, and cobalt-57 at 100 microcuries. Additionally, § 30.71 Schedule B provides exempt quantity thresholds that are higher than the GL limits. Specifically, § 30.71 Schedule B states the exempt quantity limit for carbon-14 is 100 microcuries, hydrogen-3 is 1,000 microcuries, selenium-75 is ( printed page 28923) 10 microcuries, and cobalt-57 is 100 microcuries. The conflict between exempt quantities in § 30.71 Schedule B and the values in § 31.11(a) pose an unclear regulatory framework for entities working with quantities above the vial limit, but below the exempt quantity limit.

The NRC is proposing to amend § 31.11(a) to increase the prepackaged unit limit from 10 microcuries to 100 microcuries for carbon-14, from 50 microcuries to 1,000 microcuries for hydrogen-3, from 10 microcuries to 100 microcuries for selenium-75, and from 10 microcuries to 100 microcuries for cobalt-57.

The proposed change would affect entities that are currently required to obtain a specific license for in vitro testing to use prepackaged units above the current limits and instead would allow entities to handle prepackaged units with higher activity under a GL. Additionally, it would provide clarity to the licensee community since the current limits in § 31.11 for carbon-14, hydrogen-3, selenium-75, and cobalt-57 are below the exempt quantity limits in 10 CFR part 30 Schedule B or below the limits requiring labeling in 10 CFR part 20 appendix C.

Finally, physician is currently defined in §§ 30.4 and 35.2. With various rulemakings in progress to meet the requirements of E.O. 14300, divergent definitions across the byproduct material regulatory framework could emerge if the definition in 10 CFR part 35 is revised without also revising the definition in 10 CFR part 30 in parallel. The NRC is proposing conforming changes in § 30.4 to remove the definition of physician as it is already defined in 10 CFR part 35 and not used in 10 CFR part 30. This would increase regulatory clarity and ensure one single definition is present within the NRC's byproduct material regulatory framework.

Part 32 and 40 Reducing Reporting Requirements for Consumer Products Containing Small Quantities of Radioactive Material

In this rulemaking, the NRC is proposing to remove certain reporting requirements, while still requiring the information be maintained and available for review by the NRC, to ensure regulatory requirements are commensurate with risk and information needs. On March 24, 1983, the NRC published a final rule (48 FR 12331) to amend 10 CFR part 32. The amendments to 10 CFR part 32 included modifications to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for licensees authorized to distribute consumer products containing small quantities of byproduct material (exempt items). Prior to this change, these regulations required licensees to submit an annual report to the NRC specifying the total quantity of byproduct material transferred to each type of consumer product and the total number of each product transferred during the reporting period. An annual report was required even if a licensee made no transfers during the reporting period. Under the rule, licensees were required to submit a report every five years, or at the time of application for renewal of the specific license, or at the time the licensee notifies the NRC that it is discontinuing distribution of these consumer products.

On October 16, 2007, the NRC published a final rule (72 FR 58473) to amend 10 CFR part 32, changing the reporting requirements back to an annual basis and to include details on what information should be included in the report. The rationale provided in the 2007 final rule was that changing back to annual reporting cycle, instead of a 5-year-cycle, would provide timely information for the NRC to fully determine the products and amount of byproduct material distributed annually which impacted the efforts of developing the NUREG-1717, “Systematic Radiological Assessment of Exemptions for Source and Byproduct Materials,” and contributed to uncertainties in the results.

With respect to source material, on May 29, 2013, the NRC published a final rule (78 FR 32310) to amend 10 CFR part 40. The amendment required licensees to obtain a specific license rather than be permitted to operate under a GL. The amendment also included conditions for the initial distributor such as requirements for reporting and recordkeeping. The rule required that initial distributors of products used under an exemption in § 40.13(c) submit a report of transfer each year, following the same practice as consumer products distributed under 10 CFR part 32.

Since 2013, the NRC has not received complete or timely information regarding products and materials containing byproduct material and source material distributed for use under exemptions from licensing, despite the annual reporting frequency required under the 2007 and 2013 final rules. While the reevaluation of the reporting requirements suggested that annual reporting and additional information to be provided would improve inefficiencies in data collection, these issues have not been resolved. Licensees have not provided information clearly and consistently. There are also programmatic implementation issues in the collection, management, and storage of these reports. The intent of the information was to have readily available data to assess public exposure to radiation from these products and inform the Commission on the extent of distribution, if needed. However, this information, while useful, has been seldomly used. The NRC maintains the same access to the data by requesting information from the licensee when the need arises, instead of requesting a formal report to be submitted annually. Furthermore, the NRC has decades of data that can be used to support gaps in assessing public dose.

The NRC is proposing updating the regulations in §§ 32.12, 32.16, 32.20, 32.25(c), 32.29(c), and 32.32(c) to remove the annual reporting requirements. With this proposed change, licensees would be required to maintain the records of transfer per the record retention policy in § 30.51 and make the information available to the NRC upon request.

The elimination of the reporting requirements would reduce the licensee's burden of preparing and providing records and would reduce the burden of the NRC to collect, manage, and store the reports while still remaining protective of public health and safety given that the NRC will still maintain access to the information. This change would also be applicable to exempt products under 10 CFR part 40 and the required reporting under § 40.53(c). For exempt products under 10 CFR part 40, records would need to be maintained in accordance with § 40.61 and made available to the NRC upon request.

This proposed change would affect specific licensees who maintain a license under §§ 32.11, 32.14, 32.22, 32.26, 32.30, and 40.52 for distribution of consumer products under 10 CFR part 30 or 10 CFR part 40. Licensees would no longer have to submit an annual report to the NRC. Record retention policy would follow the regulations in §§ 30.51 and 40.61, for byproduct and source material respectively. This would allow the NRC to have access to information when needed, while at the same time reducing the burden on licenses in preparing and submitting the reports. Requesting the information when needed may introduce some burden due to unscheduled data collection, but it would be outweighed by the reduction in burden of annually preparing, submitting, and maintaining the records of the report on an annual basis. ( printed page 28924)

Part 32 Expanding Distribution Pathways for Microsources

The NRC regulates the distribution of byproduct material for medical use under 10 CFR part 32. Specifically, § 32.72 governs the commercial distribution of radioactive drugs, while § 32.74 governs the distribution of sources and devices containing byproduct material. However, recent developments in clinical practice have highlighted the need to allow both distribution pathways to be available to microsources, which include radioactive microspheres used for intravascular brachytherapy. The proposed amendments to 10 CFR part 32 in this rulemaking would allow additional authorizations for the preparation and distribution of radioactive microspheres.

Microspheres are regulated by the FDA as medical devices and they are not considered radioactive drugs. As such, manufacturing, preparation and transfer of microsources is not addressed under § 32.72 and must be authorized under § 32.74, even though the radiation safety considerations between microsources and radioactive drugs are similar. This requirement has become a burden following the implementation of United States Pharmacopeia (USP) General Chapter <825>, which included standards for the preparation, compounding, dispensing, and repackaging for radioactive microspheres similar to radiopharmaceuticals.

The USP sets quality, purity, strength, and identity standards for medicines, food ingredients, and dietary supplements used in the United States. USP standards are enforceable by the FDA and State Boards of Pharmacy. As such, USP standards are widely adopted in healthcare and pharmaceutical practice. USP <825> requires that sterile radioactive microspheres be prepared in International Organization of Standardization (ISO) Class 5 environments if they are to be used more than one hour after puncture. To comply with these requirements and accommodate patient-specific treatment schedules, medical use licensees have increasingly relied on commercial radiopharmacies to prepare and distribute patient-ready doses of microspheres. As radiopharmacies historically focused their activities on radioactive drugs, they are licensed under § 32.72. However, the current regulatory framework does not authorize commercial radiopharmacies for preparing and distributing microspheres under § 32.72.

The proposed rule would revise § 32.72 to include microsources within its scope, which would allow commercial radiopharmacies that are licensed under this provision to prepare and distribute microspheres. In addition, the proposed rule would expand those who can use the § 32.72 pathway to any applicant who is legally authorized, under applicable Federal or State law, to manufacture, compound, prepare, or distribute radioactive drugs or medical devices to allow flexibility for future pathways allowed by states or the FDA to distribute radioactive drugs and medical devices safely.

The NRC is also proposing to revise § 32.74 to provide provisions specific to microsources, including microspheres. The revised language ensures clarity that licensees can use either § 32.72 or § 32.74 to distribute microsources. The amendments to § 32.74 also clarify that the regulation allows distribution to any licensee authorized to use the source or device under 10 CFR part 35 and does not limit distribution to specific types of medical facilities listed under specific subparts to avoid unnecessary limitations. A conforming change to § 30.32 would be made based on the changes in the structure of § 32.72.

These changes are intended to reduce regulatory burden and improve clarity for regulators and, radiopharmacy licensees, medical device manufacturing licensees, and medical licensees. By allowing both §§ 32.72 and 32.74 to serve as licensing pathways for the distribution of microsources, the NRC is allowing licensees to select the most appropriate regulatory framework based on their business model and operational needs. This flexibility supports compliance with USP <825>, enables timely access to microspheres for patient care, and maintains public health and safety.

Part 34 Reducing Anti-Competitive Barriers and Administrative Requirements for Industrial Radiography

The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 34 establish the specific requirements for industrial radiography. The proposed changes to 10 CFR part 34 in this rulemaking aim to provide greater flexibly in the use of codes and standards, clarify the two-person rule; and update prescriptive administrative requirements to allow for a more performance-based approach, while continuing to ensure the protection of public health and safety.

Current NRC regulations in §  34.20(a)(1) require that radiographic equipment meet the standards in ANSI N432-1980, “Radiological Safety for the Design and Construction of Apparatus for Gamma Radiography.” ANSI N432 was incorporated into NRC regulations on January 10, 1990 (55 FR 843) because manufacturers of radiography equipment were not all consistently using ANSI N432, nor were they uniformly or fully implementing the performance criteria intended to improve radiation safety for workers. However, ANSI N432 has been superseded by ANSI N43.9-1991, “For Gamma Radiography—Specifications for Design and Testing of Apparatus.” Additionally, other applicable industry standards have also been developed. Pursuant to the SSDR program in § 32.210, radiographic exposure devices, source assemblies, and sealed sources are evaluated using accepted industry standards to provide reasonable assurance that the radiation safety properties of the source or device are adequate to protect health and minimize danger to life and property. The NRC is removing requirements that incorporate specific standards to stay current with the industry as these standards may become obsolete or superseded. The proposed rule would remove the prescriptive and outdated reference to ANSI N432-1980 and instead require that radiography devices, source assemblies, and sealed sources be evaluated and registered in the SSDR. Additionally, since § 34.20 also discusses associated equipment that is not evaluated under the SSDR, the proposed rule would also require that this equipment meets the manufacturers' specifications and instructions. Manufacturer specifications include design elements and criteria necessary for the safe function of the associated equipment. This change will conform § 34.20 with § 32.210 while continuing to ensure that radiography licensees use and maintain the radiography device, sealed source, and associated equipment in accordance with the industry standards and manufacturer requirements it was designed to meet. The removal of the incorporation by reference of an industry standard will also prevent this requirement from becoming superseded and needing to be revised in the future. Further § 34.20(a)(2) will remain to provide a pathway for licensees to use alternative standards on a case-by-case basis. Finally, NRC is proposing a conforming change to § 34.3 to define SSDR for 10 CFR part 34. These changes will ensure that radiation safety is maintained while reducing anti-competitive regulatory barriers and allowing for innovation in the design of radiography equipment. ( printed page 28925)

On May 28, 1997, the NRC issued § 34.41(a) “Licenses for Industrial Radiography and Radiation Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Operations,” commonly called “the two-person rule,” which requires a second qualified individual (radiographer or radiographer's assistant) to be present during industrial radiography operations at temporary jobsites (TJS) (62 FR 28948). The purpose of the second individual is to provide immediate assistance when required and to prevent unauthorized entry into the restricted area.

Prior to 2021, the NRC had consistently interpreted § 34.41(a) to require both the radiographer and the second qualified individual to maintain direct observation when radiographic operations are being conducted at a TJS. Through operating experience, this interpretation was found to be unnecessary to protect public health and safety, and on June 1, 2021, the NRC reinterpreted the requirement (86 FR 29173).

Since 2021, NRC has interpreted § 34.41(a) such that the requirements contained in the sentence, “[t]he additional qualified individual shall observe the operation and be capable of providing immediate assistance to prevent unauthorized entry” are met if the second qualified individual is in sufficiently close proximity to the operation and sufficiently aware of the ongoing activities to be able to provide assistance or take charge when necessary and to prevent unauthorized entry. The second individual may perform other tasks nearby so long as they are cognizant of the site-specific circumstances when radiographic operations are in progress. In 2021, the NRC also determined that this interpretation makes §  34.41(a) consistent with the requirement in §  34.51 that at least one of the two individuals present at a TJS must “maintain direct observation of the operation,” the NRC discontinued planned rulemaking after determining that the reinterpretation resolved the issues raised in PRM-34-6 which requested that 10 CFR part 34 clarify requirements related to the responsibilities of the second individual required to be present during radiographic operations.

The proposed rule would combine the requirements in §  34.51 into §  34.41(a) to create a single, concise requirement regarding the availability and surveillance responsibilities of the qualified individuals performing industrial radiography at TJSs. This change seeks to eliminate ambiguity, allowing for technological innovation in the implementation of the requirement, all while maintaining the integrity of the performance requirements. Combining § 34.41 and § 34.51 into a single simplified requirement enhances regulatory clarity by plainly aligning the requirement with the reinterpretation from 2021.

Part 34 of 10 CFR currently contains obsolete and overly prescriptive administrative requirements dating from its last significant revision in 1997 (62 FR 28948). Many of these requirements are not consistent with the NRC's modern and performance-based approach to oversight. For example, the operational history of § 34.101(c), which requires notification when work activities at a TJS exceed 180 days, is unnecessary because the information is collected during routine inspections and does not provide value to the NRC's performance based oversight program. The proposed rule would also reduce administrative burden on licensees by reducing the record keeping requirements in § 34.89(b) to remove duplicative records and by eliminating the notification requirement in § 34.101(c) which required licensees to notify the appropriate NRC Regional Office prior to exceeding 180 days at a TJS in a calendar year. The notification requirement can be eliminated because it can be reviewed through the routine inspection program.

The proposed rule would align leak testing requirements in § 34.27(c) with the SSDR. The sealed source leak testing frequency in the SSDR is based on the specifications of the sealed source specific to the design of the device for which it is used. This proposed change could reduce administrative burden on radiography licensees while ensuring that radiation safety is maintained and the leak testing frequency used is specific to the source model.

The proposed changes would further streamline 10 CFR part 34 by removing the obsolete legacy requirements related to previous rules that are no longer applicable and that were put in place to allow legacy incorporation for certain requirements in §§ 34.13(b)(2), 34.27(e), 34.41(d), 34.43(a)(2),(h), and (i).

The proposed revisions to 10 CFR part 34 would affect industrial radiographic license holders. The changes would reduce the administrative burden on license holders and the changes to streamline and clarify which would enable greater comprehension of the rule and increased compliance. Additionally, the changes to § 34.20 would allow greater flexibility to industrial radiography equipment manufacturers by removing the overly prescriptive performance design criteria that the equipment must currently meet.

Part 39 Modernizing Well Logging Regulations

The NRC is proposing to streamline 10 CFR part 39 to by amending requirements related to instrument calibration intervals (§ 39.33(c)(1)), leakage testing for each sealed source (§ 39.35(c)(1)) and certain notification requirements.

Current NRC regulations in § 39.33(c)(1) require that the licensee shall have each radiation survey instrument calibrated at intervals not to exceed 6 months and after instrument servicing. The proposed rule would extend this frequency from 6 months to 12 months to be consistent with other regulations regarding the calibration of survey instruments found in 10 CFR parts 35 and 36. It is necessary that well logging licensees use equipment that has been calibrated to ensure accuracy of radiation emitted and associated radiation detection practices, however, this should be consistent with other regulations. This would ensure that radiation safety is maintained while decreasing administrative and financial burden on the licensee.

The NRC regulations in § 39.35(c)(1) require that each sealed source (except an energy compensation source (ECS)) must be tested for leakage at intervals not to exceed six months. However, other parts of this chapter allow for leak tests to be conducted at frequency outlined in the SSDR, which may list periods longer than six months. The proposed rule would align the leak testing provisions in other parts of NRC regulations and would be consistent with the intervals approved by the NRC or an Agreement State on the SSDR. It is necessary that well logging licensees ensure sealed sources are not leaking; however, this should be consistent with the source design specifications of the SSDR. This would ensure that radiation safety is maintained, and the leak testing frequency used is specific to the source model while reducing administrative and financial burden on the licensee.

Current NRC regulations in § 39.77(c)(1) require that the licensee shall notify the appropriate NRC Regional Office by telephone of the circumstances that resulted in the inability to retrieve the source and obtain NRC approval to implement abandonment procedures. These procedures are reviewed and approved by the NRC during the licensing process. The proposed rule would reduce administrative burden on applicants and licensees by eliminating ( printed page 28926) the notification requirement in § 39.77(c)(1). The notification requirement can be eliminated because it is not needed for the licensee to implement operating and emergency procedures for abandonment that have already been approved by the NRC during the licensing process. The NRC's approval is for the licensee to implement the procedures that were approved during licensing, which is unnecessary, because the NRC's approval at the time of notification does not change the previously approved procedures. The removal of § 39.77(c)(1) would eliminate the notification and duplicative approval process for implementing abandonment procedures.

Part 150 Modernizing Requirements for Agreement State Licensees in Part 150

The proposed changes 10 CFR part 150 concern (1) regulation of special nuclear material of low strategic significance (SNM-LSS), and (2) reciprocity, which allows the NRC to recognize Agreement State licenses in certain circumstances, and vice versa.

First, consistent with Section 274 of the AEA, Agreement States may assume regulatory authority over SNM in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass, including SNM-LSS. SNM-LSS includes gram quantities of plutonium or uranium-233 or uranium-235, or certain combinations of the three. These materials are used in research or in the manufacture of certain radiation detectors. Currently, there are 10 Agreement State licensees that possess SNM of low strategic significance (SNM-LSS). While otherwise Agreement State licensees, the NRC reserved regulation over SNM-LSS under its common defense and security authority. Thus, Agreement State licensees possessing SNM-LSS must follow § 73.67 pursuant to § 150.14.

Prior to 2023, the NRC had not exercised any oversight over Agreement State licensees for compliance with § 73.67. On March 6, 2023, a Temporary Instruction (TI) 2800/044,“Assessment of Physical Protection Requirements under § 150.14 For Agreement State Licensee Processing, Using, or Transporting Special Nuclear Material of Low Strategic Significance,” was issued to evaluate, through inspection, whether Agreement State licensees had adequate physical protection processes and procedures in place for the possession, use, and transport of SNM-LSS consistent with the requirements of § 73.67. The NRC inspectors identified, through TI 2800/044 inspections, that Agreement State licensees in possession of SNM-LSS store the material in secure areas where other radioactive materials are stored. Considering the low safety and security significance of SNM-LSS and the results of TI 2800/044 inspections, the NRC determined that security requirements in § 20.1801 “Security of stored material” and § 20.1802 “Control of material not in storage” are adequate to secure SNM-LSS.

The current regulatory approach for SNM-LSS Agreement State licensees means that these licensees are subject to oversight by both the NRC and their Agreement State regulator (NRC currently oversees physical protection of SNM-LSS and the Agreement State oversees control of radiation hazards associated with the SNM to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety). In addition, the NRC does not have a pathway to recover inspection costs from these Agreement State licensees and the additional cost for these inspections is shouldered by NRC licensees.

The proposed rule would delete § 150.14, which requires Agreement State licensees that possess SNM-LSS to meet the physical protection requirements in § 73.67. The deletion of § 150.14 would affect Agreement State licensees possessing SNM-LSS by removing the requirement to implement the physical protection requirements in § 73.67. Under this change, the NRC would no longer have oversight of SNM-LSS in Agreement States and the Agreement States would continue to maintain oversight of the security of this material under their current programs based on security requirements found in 10 CFR part 20. There would also be a minimal resource savings for the NRC by no longer having regulatory oversight of this requirement.

The proposed rule also addresses reciprocity, which is the NRC's recognition of Agreement State licenses for work performed in areas of NRC jurisdiction, without the licensee having to obtain a specific license from the NRC. Under reciprocity, the NRC grants a GL to Agreement State licensees for work in NRC jurisdiction for periods not exceeding 180 days in a calendar year (except for activities performed in offshore waters which does not have a time period limit). The provisions in § 150.20 require a specific license from an Agreement State as the basis for the GL to be granted. Areas of NRC jurisdiction include non-Agreement States, areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, and offshore waters. The term reciprocity is also used in Agreement States to identify Agreement State recognition of an NRC license and licenses from other Agreement States for work performed in their jurisdiction. Some types of activities conducted under reciprocity include radiography, portable gauge use, well logging, leak testing, and calibration.

Activities conducted by Agreement State licensees in an NRC jurisdiction must meet the GL provisions of § 150.20, “Recognition of Agreement State Licenses.” Pursuant to this provision, prior to engaging in licensed activities an agreement state licensee must provide an NRC Form 241 “Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States,” a copy of its Agreement State specific license, and the appropriate fee as prescribed in § 170.31. Currently, Agreement State licensees provide these materials at least 3 days before engaging in an activity for the first time in a calendar year. Additionally, Agreement State licensees must file an amended NRC Form 241 to request approval for changes in work locations, radioactive materials, or work activities different from the initial request. Work performed under reciprocity is limited to 180 days in any calendar year, except for offshore activities, which are authorized for an unlimited period in the year. The NRC has published guidance in NUREG-1556, Volume 19, “Guidance for Agreement State Licensees About NRC Form 241 “Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States, Areas of Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, or Offshore Waters.”

Between 2020 and 2024, the NRC annually processed on average 180 initial reciprocity filings and 1,386 amended reciprocity filings. Most initial reciprocity requests create a significant workload on NRC regional staff to review and approve the requests within the three-day time window. The majority of, if not all, reciprocity initial applications are approved. Additionally, there is an administrative burden on the licensee to ensure timely filing for initial reciprocity and ensure that amended forms are filed when required ( i.e., changes in work location, radioactive material, or different work activities).

The information collected on NRC Form 241 provides the NRC an opportunity for oversight including the conduct of inspections. The NRC conducts approximately 21 of these inspections each year. Each year, NRC staff processes hundreds of reciprocity amendments related to offshore work, mostly for changes in location. Due to logistical challenges and expense required to perform inspections offshore, the NRC has not performed ( printed page 28927) any inspection of offshore work in several years.

The NRC is proposing to revise § 150.20(b)(1) to reduce the notification time for submitting an initial reciprocity filling from three days before engaging in an activity to the day of the activity. The revision would also delete § 150.20(b)(1)(i)-(iii), which currently allows for submittals with less than three days for emergent reasons, as it would be superfluous. The proposed revisions to § 150.20(b)(1) would allow licensees greater flexibility in scheduling licensed activities that require reciprocity with minimal impact on public health and safety. This change would affect Agreement State licensees performing work in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction by reducing the administrative burden to file for reciprocity prior to conducting work activities. Specifically, for reciprocity submitted less than three days prior to engaging in the initial work activities, Agreement State licensees would no longer be required to provide additional justification regarding the emergent nature of the work.

For amended reciprocity filings pursuant to § 150.20(b)(2), the proposed revisions would remove the requirement that Agreement State licensees engaging in activities offshore amend the NRC Form 241 for changes in work locations. This proposed change would affect Agreement State licensees working in offshore waters by significantly decreasing the number of amended NRC Form 241s submitted. Correspondingly, this change would also lessen the administrative burden on NRC staff by reducing the number of NRC Form 241s that are required to be processed.

Finally, to allow SGLs from Agreement States to be recognized by the NRC for the purposes of reciprocity, the proposed rule would revise §§ 150.20(a)(1), 150.20(a)(2), 150.20(b), 150.20(b)(1), and 150.20(b)(5) to include SGLs from Agreement States in addition to specific licenses throughout the requirement. These changes would allow Agreement State licensees, that have been granted an SGL, to work in NRC jurisdiction for up to 180 days without obtaining a specific license or SGL from the NRC. This would ensure that SGLs are not precluded from the ability to use the provisions of § 150.20 which would ensure parity between businesses conducting similar licensed activities but operating under a standard general licensees or specific license.

V. Specific Requests for Comments

The NRC is seeking feedback from the public on the proposed rule. We are particularly interested in comments and supporting rationale from the public on the following:

• The NRC is seeking comments on how many persons that currently possess a specific license for portable gauge activities, fixed gauge activities, limited medical uses, analytical equipment uses, and in vitro testing would transition to a SGL that is described in the changes to10 CFR part 31 subpart C. The NRC is also seeking comments on the costs and the benefits of the new SGL. Please provide a basis for your response.
• The NRC is seeking comments on possible impacts to small entities. The regulations in § 2.810, “NRC size standards,” provide specific size standards to determine whether a licensee qualifies as a small entity in its regulatory programs.
• As part of the wholesale review of regulations the NRC reviewed all reporting and notification requirements that reside within10 CFR parts 30-39. The NRC is proposing changes to some of these requirements as part of this rulemaking. During the review, the NRC considered revising notification and reporting requirements in § 30.50(b)(2) to exclude the reporting for certain circumstances that fixed gauge licensees may encounter. This requirement currently requires a 24-hour notification and a 30-day written report for a variety of incidents including when a fixed gauge shutter is found to be inoperable and stuck in the open position. During the review, the NRC considered whether the reporting of fixed gauges with stuck shutters in the open position, when the open position is the normal operating mode, and the stuck position has been found by the licensee to pose no radiation hazard to workers, the public, or the environment was necessary. The NRC considered exploring whether it could issue a generic communication to exclude these events by reinterpreting what is meant in § 30.50(b)(2)(ii) by “the equipment is required to be available and operable when it is disabled or fails to function.” Alternatively, the NRC considered revising § 30.50 to provide the exclusion for these circumstances related to fixed gauges. Ultimately, the NRC determined that the impacts to the wide range of circumstances that are reported under § 30.50 warrants further review to ensure all consequences are understood. The NRC is seeking comments on whether inoperable fixed gauges that operate with open shutters but have shutters stuck in the open position, that pose no radiation hazard, warrant reporting and notification to the NRC. If reporting and notifications are warranted, the NRC is seeking comments on the appropriate timeline and content of the reports and notifications. Additionally, the NRC is seeking comments on what criteria, related to fixed gauges with stuck shutters, should be included to determine whether a hazard to the workers, the public, or the environment exists as a result of the stuck shutter. Please provide a basis for your response. Finally, the NRC is seeking comments on all event reporting and notification requirements in 10 CFR parts 30-34, 39, 40, and 150 related to the burden, content, and required timeframe associated with each report or notification. Please provide a basis for your response.

VI. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, in accordance with section 605(b), the NRC is not preparing a regulatory flexibility certification analysis. This proposed rule would affect a small number of “small entities” as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (§ 2.810), but it would not be a significant impact.

Any small entity subject to this regulation that determines, because of its size, it is likely to bear a disproportionate adverse economic impact should notify the Commission of this opinion in a comment that indicates—

(a) The licensee's size and how the proposed regulation would impose a significant economic burden on the licensee as compared to the economic burden on a larger licensee;

(b) How the proposed regulations could be modified to take into account the licensee's differing needs or capabilities;

(c) The benefits that would accrue or the detriments that would be avoided if the proposed regulations were modified as suggested by the licensee;

(d) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would more closely equalize the impact of NRC regulations or create more equal access to the benefits of Federal programs as opposed to providing special advantages to any individual or group; and

(e) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would still adequately protect public health and safety.

Comments should be submitted as indicated under the ADDRESSES caption. ( printed page 28928)

VII. Regulatory Analysis

A. Introduction

The NRC has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed rule. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the NRC. The NRC has preliminarily determined that the proposed action in this rule is expected to reduce regulatory burden and generate cost savings for licensees, the NRC and the Agreement States, when compared to the no-action alternative. The NRC requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis. Comments on the draft regulatory analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES caption of this document.

B. Identification and Preliminary Analysis of Alternative Approaches

The NRC identified two alternatives for this action: (1) no action ( i.e., maintaining the status quo regulatory baseline), and (2) the proposed rulemaking to revise language for the licensing of byproduct material.

The assessment of total costs and benefits discussed previously leads the NRC to the conclusion that the proposed rule, if implemented, would result in quantifiable net cost savings for industry, the NRC and Agreement States. In addition, the NRC concludes that the rule provides nonquantified benefits of regulatory clarity and improved consistency in the regulatory program. The proposed rule is also responsive to stakeholder feedback and aligns with E.O. 14300.

VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality

The NRC has determined that this proposed rule would not constitute backfitting as that term is defined in the NRC's backfitting provisions in §§ 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, and 76.76, all titled “Backfitting,” or affect the issue finality of an approval issued under 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” The proposed amendments would not include any provisions that would impose new or modified requirements on existing licensees, applicants, or certificate holders that are within the scope of a backfitting or issue finality provision. The proposed changes would not inextricably affect activities of licensees that are within the scope of the backfitting or issue finality provisions. Additionally, 10 CFR part 70 licensees within the scope of § 70.76 would not be impacted by this proposed rule. Each of these licensees is already required to submit a site-specific financial assurance plan because their authorized possession limits already exceed the proposed table values. For these reasons, the proposed rule would not meet the definition of “backfitting” under § 50.109, § 70.76, § 72.62, or § 76.76, or affect the issue finality of an approval issued under 10 CFR part 52.

This proposed rule also includes the draft guidance documents described in section XIV, “Availability of Guidance,” These documents if finalized, would not constitute backfitting as defined in § 50.109, § 70.76, § 72.62, or § 76.76 or affect the issue finality of any approval issued under 10 CFR part 52 because the guidance would not inextricably affect activities of licensees that are within the scope of the backfitting or issue finality provisions. The guidance would not impose new or modified requirements on existing licensees, applicants, or certificate holders that are within the scope of a backfitting or issue finality provision.

IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation

The NRC seeks to minimize potential negative consequences resulting from the cumulative effects of regulation (CER). The NRC believes that the de-regulatory impacts of this rulemaking activity are unlikely to cause implementation challenges for stakeholders. In addition, during the pendency of this rulemaking, the NRC is deprioritizing issuance of regulatory actions that might influence the implementation date for the new rule requirements ( e.g., orders, generic communications, license amendment requests, and inspection findings of a generic nature).

To fully understand any potential CER implications that could result from this rulemaking, the NRC is asking the following questions. Response to these questions is voluntary and any input will be considered during development of the final rule.

1. The NRC is proposing an effective date that will be 30 days after the date of publication of a final rule. Does this provide sufficient time to implement the proposed requirements? Please provide a rationale for your response.

2. Are there unintended consequences related to this rulemaking and how should they be addressed? Please provide a rationale for your response.

3. Please comment on the NRC's cost and benefit estimates in the regulatory analysis that supports this proposed rule.

X. Plain Writing

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC requests comment on this document with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used.

XI. Environmental Assessment

A. Introduction

The NRC has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) of the proposed rule amending regulations for byproduct, source, and special nuclear material use to determine the significance of the environmental effects of the proposed agency action in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) and the NRC's NEPA implementing regulations in 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” As explained below, the NRC has preliminarily determined that the proposed agency action to modernize the NRC regulations for byproduct, source, and special nuclear material use would have no significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

B. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would amend multiple NRC regulations in 10 CFR parts 30, 31, 32, 34, 39, 40, 70, and 150 regarding licensed material use. Conforming changes would also be made to guidance consistent with the changes to regulations. Table B-1 lists the sections of the regulations that would be updated and the affected guidance documents. ( printed page 28929)

Conforming changes are administrative actions with no physical environmental effect and provide for the appropriate administrative and regulatory framework for byproduct material use under 10 CFR. An example would be adding a reference to a newly created subsection in an existing regulation. Most of the amendments to NRC regulations in the proposed rule occur within the affected regulation. The proposed rule includes conforming changes to NRC regulations in 10 CFR parts 30, 32, and 34.

B.1 Rule Amendments Addressed Under Categorical Exclusion

The NRC has determined that some of the changes to the regulations identified in this proposed rule meet the criteria for categorical exclusion under § 51.22, “Categorical Exclusions.” Categorical exclusions provide a mechanism to identify Federal actions that normally do not have a significant environmental effect on the human environment and for which neither an EA nor environmental impact statement is normally required. This ensures that resources are not expended on the environmental analysis of proposed actions that do not present the potential for significant environmental effects. Rule amendments with applicable categorical exclusions are presented in Table B-2 below and no further NEPA analysis is required.

These proposed rule amendments belong to categories of actions which the Commission, by rule or regulation, has declared to be a categorical exclusion, after first finding that the category of actions do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. In reviewing list of regulations in Table B-1, the NRC staff have determined that several of the rule amendments under consideration are actions eligible for categorical exclusion under § 51.22(a)(1) or § 51.22(a)(3). The following rulemaking actions meet the criterion for categorical exclusion under § 51.22(a)(1) or § 51.22(a)(3):

These proposed rule amendments clarify NRC regulations and would not change radiation protection and emergency preparedness requirements while continuing to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety.

B.2 Rule Amendments Requiring Environmental Assessment

The NRC also evaluated rule amendments that have the potential to affect the human environment and determined that the proposed agency action (rulemaking) would not have a significant environmental effect. These rule amendments would clarify NRC regulations, would not change existing radiation protection and emergency preparedness requirements or overall risk, would continue to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety, and would result in no new or different environmental effects. The following table presents the basis for why these proposed rule amendments would have no significant environmental effects. ( printed page 28930)

These proposed rule amendments would modernize existing NRC regulations while ensuring the continued safe, effective, and efficient use of byproduct material to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety. As noted in Table B-3, these amendments either consist of administrative and procedural changes, or would have no significantly different environmental effects than those in the current regulatory framework. The table also provides rationale supporting the conclusion that these proposed rule amendments would not result in any significant environmental effects.

C. Summary of the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

Implementation of the proposed rule would result in no physical changes to the environment, and, therefore, the NRC has determined that this proposed agency action would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Proposed rule amendments include changes that: (1) are administrative in application and matters of procedure, (2) clarify record keeping and reporting requirements, and (3) would provide an equivalent level of safety and security as current NRC regulations.

In addition, the proposed rule would not affect any threatened or endangered ( printed page 28931) species or historic properties, as no physical changes to the human environment would occur as a result of this proposed agency action. Accordingly, the NRC finds that the proposed rulemaking would have no significant environmental impact.

D. Environmental Impacts of the Alternative to the Proposed Agency Action

Under the no-action alternative ( i.e., the status quo), NRC regulations would remain unchanged. As stated in section B of this draft EA, the proposed rule would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the no action alternative and the proposed agency action ( i.e., proposed rulemaking) would have the same environmental effect, although there would be costs attributable to reviewing the environmental effects of exemption and license amendment requests under the no action alternative. Licensees would continue to comply with existing NRC regulations or request regulatory relief (exemption) from the regulations. The NRC would continue to evaluate the environmental effects of exemption and license amendment requests. The averted costs (benefits) of the rulemaking would not occur. The Regulatory Analysis for the proposed rule provides information about the costs and benefits of the no action alternative and the proposed agency action (ADAMS Accession No. ML26125A393).

E. Agencies and Persons Consulted

The NRC developed the proposed rule and is requesting public comment on this draft EA. The agency will consider comments received on the docket as it develops the final rule and the final EA. The NRC will issue the final EA when it publishes the final rule. The proposed rule is one step in the rulemaking process.

As discussed in section B, the proposed rule provisions would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. For this reason, the proposed rulemaking would not impact threatened or endangered species or critical habitat, and the NRC has determined that section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, is not necessary. The proposed regulatory changes do not involve any ground disturbing activities or visual effects that would adversely affect historic properties. Therefore, the NRC has determined that consultation is not required under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.

F. Draft Finding of No Significant Environmental Impacts

The NRC has prepared this EA to determine the environmental effects of the proposed agency action ( i.e., a rulemaking to update NRC regulations). Proposed rule amendments are primarily administrative or procedural in nature and thus would not have any physical environmental effect. As explained in the EA, the NRC has determined the proposed rulemaking would not change radiation protection and emergency preparedness requirements or overall risk, would continue to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety, and would result in no new or different environmental effects. Therefore, the NRC concludes that the proposed regulatory changes would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Based on this conclusion, the NRC finds the proposed agency action would have no significant environmental impact. Accordingly, the NRC has determined there is no need to prepare an environmental impact statement.

Concurrent with the publication of this proposed rule, the NRC has sent a copy of the draft EA and this proposed rule to every State Liaison Officer and has requested comments.

XII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This proposed rule contains new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This proposed rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the information collections.

Type of submission: New.

The title of the information collection: Modernizing NRC Regulations for Byproduct Material Use.

The form number if applicable: NRC Forms 241, 313, 483, and 1003.

How often the collection is required or requested: Once, on occasion, and annually.

Who will be required or asked to respond: Applicants and licensees licensed to use byproduct, source, and special material.

An estimate of the number of annual responses:

10 CFR part 30: 570 (423 reporting responses + 147 recordkeepers)

10 CFR part 31: 1,449 (354 reporting responses + 1,095 recordkeepers)

10 CFR part 32: −109 (−109 reporting responses + 0 recordkeepers)

10 CFR part 34: −577 (−29 reporting responses + −548 recordkeepers)

10 CFR part 39: −8 (−8 reporting responses + 0 recordkeepers)

10 CFR part 40: −27 (−27 reporting responses + 0 recordkeepers)

NRC Form 241: −425 (−425 reporting responses + 0 recordkeepers)

NRC Form 313: −398 (−398 reporting responses + 0 recordkeepers)

NRC Form 483: 60 (60 reporting responses + 0 recordkeepers)

NRC Form 1003: 1,289 (1,289 reporting responses + 0 recordkeepers)

Total: 2,221 (1,528 reporting responses + 693 recordkeepers)

The estimated number of annual respondents:

10 CFR part 30: 423 respondents

10 CFR part 31: 1,095 respondents

10 CFR part 32: −109 respondents

10 CFR part 34: −548 respondents

10 CFR part 39: −2 respondents

10 CFR part 40: −27 respondents

NRC Form 241: −25 respondents

NRC Form 313: −398 respondents

Form 483: 60 respondents

NRC Form 1003: 398 respondents

Total: 897 unique respondents to the requirements in this proposed rule

An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request:

10 CFR part 30: 23,736.6 (23,590 reporting + 146.6 recordkeeping)

10 CFR part 31: 1,490.3 (118.55 reporting + 1,371.8 recordkeeping)

10 CFR part 32: −34.55 (−34.5 reporting + 0 recordkeeping)

10 CFR part 34 −288.5 (−14.5 reporting + -274 recordkeeping)

10 CFR part 39: −4 (−4 reporting + 0 recordkeeping)

10 CFR part 40: −13.5 (−13.5 reporting + 0 recordkeeping)

NRC Form 241: −106.3 (−106.3 reporting + 0 recordkeeping)

NRC Form 313: −1,711.4 (−1,711.4 reporting + 0 recordkeeping)

NRC Form 483: −10.2 (−10.2 reporting + 0 recordkeeping)

NRC Form 1003: 881.55 (881.5 reporting + 0 recordkeeping)

Total: 23,960.4 (22,716.2 reporting + 1,244.4 recordkeeping)

Abstract: The NRC is proposing to amend its regulations to modernize the safe, effective, and efficient use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear material. This action would reduce licensing burden and the need for exemptions from existing regulations; address other deregulatory issues deemed relevant by the NRC; and support the NRC's Principles of Good Regulation, including openness, clarity, and reliability. This effort is consistent with, and implements direction in, the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, ( printed page 28932) Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024 (ADVANCE Act), and recently issued E.O. 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”

The proposed rule covers a wide range of topics, including the following that would result in a reduction in recordkeeping and reporting requirements:

• Establishing a low burden class of standard GLs.
• Revising the decommissioning financial assurance tables.
• Addressing anti-competitive barriers.
• Reducing reporting of distribution to exempt persons.
• Removing or modifying redundant and unnecessary regulations.
• Reducing the burden for filing amended NRC Form 241's for work activities conducted in offshore waters.

This information collection includes burden reduction associated with revised information collection in 10 CFR parts 30, 31, 32, 34, 39, 40, and Forms 241, 483, and 313. It also includes burden associated with new information collection in proposed 10 CFR part 31 and proposed NRC Form 1003 that would create a low burden licensing option for licensees currently licensed under 10 CFR part 30 who use NRC Form 313.

The NRC is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the information collections contained in this proposed rule and on the following issues:

1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the information will have practical utility? Please explain your response.

2. Is the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection accurate? Please explain your response.

3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? Please explain your response.

4. How can the burden of the proposed information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?

A copy of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance package and proposed rule are available in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document or may be viewed free of charge by contacting the NRC's Public Document Room reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. You may obtain information and comment on submissions related to the OMB clearance package by searching on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2025-1205.

You may submit comments on any aspect of these proposed information collection(s), including suggestions for reducing the burden and on the above issues, by the following method:

Federal rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2025-1205.

Submit comments by June 17, 2026. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC staff is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

Public Protection Notification

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

XIII. Coordination With NRC Agreement States

On September 3, 2025, the NRC held a Government-to-Government meeting with the OAS to discuss this rulemaking. The rulemaking working group that prepared this proposed rule also included representatives from OAS. Comments from the Agreement States were taken into consideration during the development of this proposed rule.

XIV. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations

On the basis of the “Agreement State Program Policy Statement” approved by the Commission on October 2, 2017, and published in the Federal Register (82 FR 48535; October 18, 2017), NRC program elements can be placed into six categories (A, B, C, D, NRC, or health and safety (H&S)) to form the basis for evaluating and classifying the program elements. Under the Policy Statement, a program element means any component or function of a radiation control regulatory program, including regulations and other legally binding requirements imposed on regulated persons, which contributes to implementation of that program.

Compatibility Category A are those program elements that include basic radiation protection standards and scientific terms and definitions that are necessary to understand radiation protection concepts. Compatibility Category A program elements adopted by an Agreement State should be essentially identical to those of the NRC to provide uniformity in the regulation of agreement material on a nationwide basis.

Compatibility Category B pertains to a limited number of program elements that cross jurisdictional boundaries and should be addressed to ensure uniformity of regulation on a nationwide basis. For Compatibility Category B, the Agreement State program element shall be essentially identical to that of NRC.

Compatibility Category C are those program elements that are important for an Agreement State to have in order to avoid conflict, duplication, gaps, or other conditions that would jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of agreement material on a national basis. An Agreement State program shall embody the essential objectives of the Category C program elements. Under Category C, Agreement State program elements may be more restrictive than NRC program elements; however, they should not be so restrictive as to prohibit a practice authorized by the AEA, as amended, and in the national interest without an adequate public health and safety or environmental basis related to radiation protection.

Compatibility Category D are those program elements that do not meet any of the criteria of Category A, B, or C, above, and are not required to be adopted by Agreement States for purposes of compatibility. An Agreement State has the flexibility to adopt and implement program elements within the State's jurisdiction that are not addressed by the NRC or that are not required for compatibility ( i.e., Compatibility Category D). However, such program elements of an Agreement State relating to agreement material shall (1) not create conflicts, duplications, gaps, or other conditions that would jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of agreement material on a nationwide basis; (2) not preclude a practice authorized by the AEA and in the national interest; and (3) not preclude the ability of the NRC to evaluate the effectiveness of Agreement State programs for agreement material with respect to protection of public health and safety.

Compatibility Category NRC are those program elements that address areas of regulation that cannot be relinquished to the Agreement States under the AEA, or provisions of 10 CFR. The NRC maintains regulatory authority over these program elements and the Agreement States must not adopt these NRC program elements. However, an Agreement State may inform its licensees of these NRC requirements through a mechanism under the State's administrative procedure laws, as long ( printed page 28933) as the State adopts these provisions solely for the purposes of notification, and does not exercise any regulatory authority as a result.

Category H&S program elements embody the basic health and safety aspects of the NRC's program elements. Although H&S program elements are not required for purposes of compatibility, they do have particular health and safety significance. The Agreement State must adopt the essential objectives of such program elements to maintain an adequate program.

This proposed rule is a matter of compatibility between the NRC and the Agreement States, thereby providing consistency among Agreement State and NRC requirements. In this proposed rule, the NRC is not proposing to change the compatibility categories for requirements that are being amended. Therefore, for any requirements that are currently designated as Compatibility A or B, States would have to amend their rules to be essentially identical to the amended rule language.

However, for requirements that are designated as Compatibility C or Category H&S, States may not necessarily have to revise their rules so long as their current rule meets the essential objective for the amended requirement. For instance, the essential objective for § 150.20, is for Agreement States to provide reciprocal recognition of a specific license issued by the NRC or another Agreement State. However, proposed changes to § 150.20 include permitting SGLs to be used for the basis of reciprocal recognition. The NRC is proposing that the Compatibility Category of § 150.20 remain Category C, but to continue to meet the essential objective for the amended requirement, all Agreement States would be required to provide reciprocal recognition of a specific license or SGL issued by the NRC or another Agreement State. The State would have flexibility in the administration and requirements for reciprocity and would not need to revise their current program to remain compatible with the proposed revision to § 150.20.

The NRC is also proposing to remove requirements in §§ 34.20(d) and (e), 34.41(d), 34.43(a)(2), 34.43(h) and (i), 34.51, 34.101(c), and 39.77(c)(1). Except for 34.20(e), these requirements pertain to grandfathering and duplicative requirements and, as such, Agreement States are not required to also remove those regulations; Agreement States keeping their equivalent to the listed regulations (except for § 34.20(e)) would not lead to a disorderly pattern of regulation on a nationwide basis. However, Agreement States should remove their equivalent to § 34.20(e) to remove superseded standards and requirements. Failure to remove this would result in gaps and conflicts between programs in the National Materials Program that would negatively impact the uniformity of regulation on a nationwide basis because only radiographic equipment that meets the appropriate standards and requirements can used by licensees.

In developing the new SGL pathway, the NRC recognizes that Agreement States may not want to adopt the new subpart C of 10 CFR part 31, and it would therefore not be required for purposes of compatibility. For States that choose to adopt this pathway, some of the requirements would be required for either compatibility or H&S purposes. To ensure that transferors of devices and byproduct material are permitted to transfer materials to an SGL, the requirement in § 30.41(d)(1) is being revised.

The NRC is proposing that the Compatibility Category of § 30.41 remain Category C, but the NRC is proposing to clarify that to meet the essential objective for the amended requirement, all Agreement States must ensure that a validated SGL is an acceptable method of verification for § 30.41(c). Since a validated SGL is a verification method for transferring byproduct material under § 30.41(d), the requirement in § 31.13(a)(2), regarding issuing the validated SGL, is proposed to be designated as Compatibility Category C for Agreement States that adopt the SGL pathway. To meet the essential objective for § 31.13(a)(2), an Agreement State would need to issue a document validating an SGL. The SGL pathway codifies the minimum legally binding requirements needed to ensure health and safety that are required to obtain a specific license into the regulations, and it is therefore necessary that the State meet the essential objective for those requirements that have been designated as Compatibility Category C.

Provisions specifying the specific sealed sources and devices that are permitted under the SGL pathway are based on the SSDR use codes and have a proposed designation of Compatibility Category B since there is need for consistency across jurisdictions when using SSDRs for licensing purposes. The SGL for Certain Medical Uses includes an exhaustive list of the radionuclides authorized pursuant to 31.16(a)(2). Because 31.16(a)(2) is proposed to be designated Compatibility Category C, Agreement States would have the flexibility to permit other radionuclides than those authorized under the SGL to be used. However, authorizing additional radionuclides such as PET or generators other than Molybdenum-99/technetium-99m generators would not meet the essential objective for this requirement as these radionuclides or uses require additional licensing requirements to ensure an adequate level of safety. Administrative requirements, such as recordkeeping, are not required for purposes of compatibility and would be Compatibility Category D.

The proposed compatibility (A, B, C, D, and NRC) and adequacy (H&S) categories are designated in the following table.

Please Note: The bracket “[ ]” around a compatibility category designation means that the section may have been adopted elsewhere in a State's rules and it is not necessary to adopt it again.

XV. Coordination With the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes

The ACMUI established a subcommittee to review and comment on the draft proposed rule. The subcommittee will make its recommendations to the full committee on this proposed rule at a publicly held teleconference during the public comment period.

XVI. Voluntary Consensus Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The NRC's goals in amending these regulations are to modernize the safe, effective, and efficient use of byproduct material. This action would reduce licensing burden and the need for exemptions from existing regulations and address other deregulatory issues deemed relevant by the NRC. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

XVII. Availability of Guidance

The NRC expects to update NUREG-1556 series “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses”, NUREG 1757, Volume 1, “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance,” various Inspection Procedures, and certain Inspection Manual Chapters to make changes to conform with this rulemaking effort. To support an accelerated development schedule for this proposed rule, the updates will be made in a future revision of the guidance, rather than concurrently with this rulemaking. However, for the new SGL program that is proposed in 10 CFR part 31 subpart C, the NRC has drafted interim guidance to aid licensees and the NRC in implementation of the new licensing option. The NRC has also drafted interim staff guidance to address the revised reciprocity requirements in § 150.20, using a Frequently Asked Questions format. The interim guidance will be added to the NRC's public website. You may submit comments on the draft interim guidance by the methods outlined in the ADDRESSES section of this document

XVIII. Executive Orders

The following are Executive orders that are related to this proposed rule:

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review (as Amended by Executive Order 14215, Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies)

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this proposed rule is a ( printed page 28937) significant regulatory action. Accordingly, the NRC submitted this proposed rule to OIRA for review. The NRC is required to conduct an economic analysis in accordance with section 6(a)(3)(B) of E.O. 12866. More can be found in Section VII, of this document, “Regulatory Analysis.”

B. Executive Order 14154: Unleashing American Energy

NRC has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154.

C. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation

This action is tentatively determined to be a deregulatory action as defined by E.O. 14192. Details on the estimated costs of this proposed rule can be found in Section VII, of this document, “Regulatory Analysis.”

D. Executive Order 14267: Reducing Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers

E.O. 14267 requires the NRC to identify anti-competitive regulations for recission or modification. It also serves an important regulatory goal. The NRC identified § 30.4 because this regulation creates a barrier to market participation by creating artificial barriers to facility location related to consortiums and PET radionuclide production. In addition, NRC identified §  34.20(a)(1) because this regulation creates a barrier to market participation by limiting the universe of acceptable radiography designs. The NRC identified 10 CFR part 31 because this regulation creates a barrier to market participation by increasing the compliance requirements on all market participants. The proposed changes to 10 CFR part 31 support the objectives of E.O. 14267 by adding standard general licensing pathway and thereby expanding the scope of general licenses for byproduct material to include additional devices and more activities.

E. Executive Order 14270: Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting To Unleash American Energy

E.O. 14270, “Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy,” requires the NRC to insert a conditional sunset date into all new or amended NRC regulations provided the regulations are (1) promulgated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA); (2) not statutorily required; and (3) not part of the NRC's permitting regime. The NRC determined that the regulatory changes proposed in this rule are required because they would be necessary for providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and provide for the common defense and security, and would be part of the NRC's permitting regime authorized by the AEA. Therefore, the NRC views this rulemaking to be outside the scope of E.O. 14270 and did not insert conditional sunset dates for the regulatory changes in this proposed rule.

XIX. Availability of Documents

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.

The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2025-1205. In addition, the Federal rulemaking website allows members of the public to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2025-1205); (2) click the “Subscribe” link; and (3) enter an email address and click on the “Subscribe” link.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is proposing to amend 10 CFR parts 30, 31, 32, 34, 39, 40, 70 and 150:

1. The authority citation for part 30 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act secs. 81, 82, 161, 181, 182, 183, 186, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2111, 2112, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act secs. 201, 202, 206 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 549 (2005).

Section 30.7 also issued under Energy Reorganization Act sec. 211, Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 2902 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 30.34(b) also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 184 (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 30.61 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 187 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

2. In § 30.4, remove the definition of “ Physician” and revise the definitions of “ Consortium” and “ Principle activities ” to read as follows:

3. In § 30.6, revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:

4. In § 30.32, revise paragraph (j)(2) to read as follows:

5. In § 30.34, revise paragraph (h)(1) to read as follows:

6. In § 30.35, revise paragraph (g) introductory text to read as follows:

7. In § 30.41, revise paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:

8. Revise appendix B to 10 CFR part 30 to read as follows:

Appendix B—Quantities of Licensed Material Used To Assess Financial Assurance for Decommissioning

9. The authority citation for part 31 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act secs. 81, 161, 183, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2111, 2201, 2233, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act secs. 201, 202 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act of 2005, sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 806-810 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111).

10. Add subpart A, before § 31.1 to read as follows:

11. In § 31.4, revise paragraph (b) and add paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:

12. Add subpart B, before § 31.5, and revise paragraphs (c)(14) and (15) to read as follows:

13. In § 31.11, revise paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6) and (a)(8) to read as follows:

14. Add subpart C, consisting of §§ 31.13 through 31.18, to read as follows:

15. Add subpart D, before § 31.21 to read as follows:

16. Add subpart E, before § 31.22 to read as follows:

17. The authority citation for part 32 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act secs. 81, 161, 181, 182, 183, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2111, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act of 2005, sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 806-810 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111).

18. Revise and republish § 32.12 to read as follows:

19. Revise and republish § 32.16 to read as follows:

20. Revise and republish § 32.20 to read as follows:

21. Revise and republish § 32.25 to read as follows:

22. Revise and republish § 32.29 to read as follows:

23. Revise and republish § 32.32 to read as follows:

24. Revise and republish § 32.72 to read as follows:

25. In § 32.74, revise section heading, paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(2) introductory text, (a)(2)(ii), (a)(2)(viii), (a)(3) and (b)(1) to read as follows:

26. The authority citation for part 34 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act secs. 81, 161, 181, 182, 183, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2111, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704, (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Atomic Energy Act of 2005 sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 806-810 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111) Section 34.45 also issued under Energy Reorganization Act sec. 206 (42 U.S.C. 5846).

27. In § 34.3, add in alphabetical order the definition for Sealed Source and Device Registry to read as follows:

Sealed Source and Device Registry means the national registry that contains all the registration certificates, generated by both the NRC and the Agreement States, that summarize the radiation safety information for the sealed sources and devices and describe the licensing and use conditions approved for the product.

28. In § 34.13, revise paragraph (b) and remove paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2). The revision reads as follows:

29. Amend § 34.20 by:

a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2);

b. Removing paragraph (c)(8) and redesigning paragraph (c)(9) as paragraph (c)(8); and

d. Removing paragraphs (d) and (e).

The revisions read as follows:

30. In § 34.23, in paragraph (a) remove the phrase “§ 34.51” and add in its place the phrase “§ 34.41”.

31. Amend § 34.27 by:

a. In the first sentence of (c)(1), add the phrase “or at other intervals approved by the Commission or an Agreement State in the Sealed Source and Device Registry”, after the phrase “6 months”;

b. In paragraph (e), removing the phrase “Licensees will have until June 27, 1998, to comply with the DU leak-testing requirements of this paragraph”.

32. In § 34.33, in paragraph (b) remove the phrase “§ 34.51” and add in its place the phrase “§ 34.41”.

33. Revise and republish § 34.41 to read as follows:

34. Amend § 34.43 by:

a. Revising paragraph (a) and removing paragraphs (a)(1) and (2); and

b. Removing paragraphs (h) and (i).

The revision reads as follows:

35. Remove and reserve § 34.51.

36. In § 34.89, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

37. In § 34.101, remove and reserve paragraph (c).

38. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act secs. 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 82, 161, 181, 182, 183, 186, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2112, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act secs. 201, 202, 206 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note).

39. In § 39.33, in paragraph (c)(1), remove the phrase “6 months” and add in its place the phrase “12 months”.

40. In § 39.35, revise paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:

41. In § 39.77, remove paragraph (c)(1) and redesignate paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) as paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2).

42. The authority citation for part 40 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act secs. 11(e)(2), 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 161, 181, 182, 183, 186, 193, 223, 234, 274, 275 (42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2), 2092, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2111, 2113, 2114, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2243, 2273, 2282, 2021, 2022); Energy Reorganization Act secs. 201, 202, 206 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 594 (2005). Section 40.7 also issued under Energy Reorganization Act sec. 211, Public Law 95-601, sec. 10, as amended by Public Law 102-486, sec. 2902 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 40.31(g) also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 122 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 40.46 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 184 (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 40.71 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 187 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

43. Revise and republish § 40.53 to read as follows:

44. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57(d), 108, 122, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 193, 223, 234, 274, 1701 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077(d), 2138, 2152, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2243, 2273, 2282, 2021, 2297f); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 135, 141 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

45. Amend §  70.25 by:

a. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the phrase “unsealed special nuclear material” and add in its place the phrase “unsealed special nuclear material of half-life greater than 120 days and”; and

b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, remove the phrase “unsealed special nuclear material” and add in its place the phrase “unsealed special nuclear material of half-life greater than 120 days”.

46. The authority citation for part 150 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act sec. 161, 181, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2021, 2231, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).

Sections 150.3, 150.15, 150.15a, 150.31, 150.32 also issued under Atomic Energy Act secs. 11e(2), 81, 83, 84 (42 U.S.C. 2014e(2), 2111, 2113, 2114). Section 150.14 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 53 (42 U.S.C. 2073). Section 150.15 also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 135 (42 U.S.C. 10155). Section 150.17a also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 122 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 150.30 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 234 (42 U.S.C. 2282).

47. Remove and reserve § 150.14.

48. Revise and republish § 150.20 to read as follows:

91 FR 28916