SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

B. Submitting Comments

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

III. Background

IV. Discussion

V. Specific Request for Comment

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

VII. Regulatory Analysis

VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality

IX. Plain Writing

X. National Environmental Policy Act

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

XII. Executive Orders

XIII. Availability of Guidance

XIV. Availability of Documents

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0478 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-2025-0478.
• 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 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 using https://www.regulations.gov by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on August 21, 2026. Please include Docket ID NRC-2025-0478 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 ( printed page 42087) 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 significantly streamlines NEPA review requirements, reduces unnecessary regulatory burden, and expands licensing efficiencies and flexibilities in accordance with section 5(c), which requires the NRC to “[r]evise, in consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality, NRC regulations governing NRC's compliance with NEPA to reflect the Congress's 2023 amendments to that statute and the policies articulated in sections 2 and 5 of Executive Order 14154 of January 20, 2025 (Unleashing American Energy).”

III. Background

NEPA sets forth a national policy for promoting environmental stewardship and ensuring that humans and nature can coexist in productive harmony. It requires Federal agencies to prepare detailed statements for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, aiming to inform both agency decision-making and the public. NEPA emphasizes process over outcomes, focusing on informed decisions rather than mandating specific results. The proposed revisions to the NRC's regulations in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” implement NEPA in a manner which is consistent with the NRC's domestic licensing and related regulatory authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.

These proposed updates to streamline NEPA reviews would reduce regulatory burden and retain and expand licensing efficiencies within 10 CFR part 51 as required by Presidential directives in E.O.s, in consideration of amendments made to NEPA by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA) and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21, 139 Stat. 72 (2025) (OBBBA), and the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 605 U.S. 168 (2025), which has clarified the law governing NEPA analysis in multiple significant respects. In addition, the proposed revisions address Commission direction in Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM)-SECY-24-0046, “Implementation of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 National Environmental Policy Act Amendments,” and SRM-SECY-25-0007, “Withdrawing the Environmental Justice Policy Statement and Environmental Justice Strategy.” These directives are discussed below.

1. Executive Orders

E.O. 14300 section 5(c) directs the NRC to revise its regulations consistent with “the policies articulated in sections 2 and 5 of Executive Order 14154.” E.O. 14154 rescinded E.O. 11991, “Relating to Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality,” issued by President Carter and previously cited by CEQ as the basis for its authority to engage in rulemaking under NEPA. Shortly thereafter, the CEQ rescinded its NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), effective April 11, 2025, “Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations.” The CEQ subsequently issued guidance on September 29, 2025, with its “Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies: Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act,” and its associated “Agency NEPA Procedures Template” (“CEQ Guidance”).

E.O. 14154 instructs agencies, consistent with applicable law, to “prioritize efficiency and certainty over any other objectives . . . that do not align with the policy goals set forth in section 2 of this order or that could otherwise add delays and ambiguity to the permitting process.” The NRC is revising its NEPA implementing regulations in 10 CFR part 51 to be consistent with these E.O.s and to enhance the efficiency, clarity, and predictability of its environmental review process. The NRC developed this proposed rule consistent with the CEQ Guidance.

2. Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, National Environmental Policy Act Amendments

Congress passed the FRA, Public Law 118-5, signed into law on June 3, 2023, to add substantial details to streamline NEPA and codify procedural requirements, with modifications, including procedures that the NRC had previously addressed in its own regulations in 10 CFR part 51. The NEPA amendments became immediately applicable to the NRC (and other agencies subject to NEPA) upon FRA's enactment.

On May 30, 2024, the NRC staff provided SECY-24-0046, “Implementation of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 National Environmental Policy Act Amendments,” to the Commission for consideration. In SECY-24-0046, the NRC staff included recommendations to streamline the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 51 to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the NRC's environmental reviews in light of the FRA. On July 28, 2025, the Commission issued SRM-SECY-24-0046, in which it approved the NRC staff's recommendations. In the SRM to SECY-24-0046, among other things, the Commission directed the NRC staff to conduct rulemaking for 10 CFR part 51 to make NRC's environmental reviews more efficient. The Commission directed the staff to examine narrowing the scope of the NRC's NEPA reviews to only those environmental effects with a direct connection to radiological impacts (see SRM-SECY-24-0046). The Commission also directed the staff to consider establishing categorical exclusions for actions beyond those currently listed in § 51.22, including but not limited to subsequent license renewals, power uprate license amendments, microreactor licensing, advanced demonstration projects, site envelopes for specific reactor technologies, and site decommissioning.

Additionally, the Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendations to modify the purpose and need statements in NEPA reviews to focus on the agency action, typically issuance of a license; authorize project sponsor preparation of environmental assessments (EA) or environmental impact statements (EIS); consider additional options in rulemaking to streamline and enhance NEPA review efficiencies related to deadlines and ( printed page 42088) extensions, bifurcated application submittals, detailed acceptance criteria for environmental information, and opportunities for preapplication interactions; and update guidance to include reevaluations of generic analyses without rulemaking.

3. Executive Order 14173: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity

E.O. 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” issued on January 21, 2025, revoked E.O. 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” issued on February 11, 1994, among other things. In response to E.O. 14173, the Commission directed the staff, in SRM-COMSECY-25-0007, “Withdrawing the Environmental Justice Policy Statement and Environmental Justice Strategy,” to undertake a comprehensive review of the NRC's environmental regulations, guidance, and training materials to remove references to environmental justice (EJ). The Commission also directed the staff to refrain from explicitly addressing EJ in its reviews under NEPA and ensure that those reviews fully comply with the requirements of NEPA. On April 30, 2025, the NRC withdrew its Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (Environmental Justice Policy Statement) and its Environmental Justice Strategy.

4. Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado

On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 605 U.S. 168 (2025). The Court emphasized that NEPA does not require agencies to evaluate potential environmental effects arising from “future or geographically separate projects,” “particularly” those over which the agencies do not “exercise regulatory authority.” Id. at 186-190; see also id. at 186-87 (“[T]he textually mandated focus of NEPA is the . . . project at hand.”). More directly relevant to the NRC's activities and this proposed rule, the Court also reaffirmed the holding of Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004), reiterating that “agencies are not required to analyze the effects of projects over which they do not exercise regulatory authority.” Seven Cnty. Infra. Coal. v. Eagle Cnty., 605 U.S. at 188-189.

5. One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, Sponsor Opt-In Fees

Congress again amended NEPA in 2025 through section 60026 of the OBBBA, adding section 112 of NEPA, titled “Project Sponsor Opt-in Fees for Environmental Reviews.” This provision allows project sponsors to pay a fee to obtain shortened NEPA review deadlines.

6. Council on Environmental Quality Consultation

Consistent with section 102(2)(B) of NEPA and E.O. 14300, the NRC consulted with the CEQ during the development of this proposed rule to ensure consistency with Federal government-wide policies and practices.

The changes in this rulemaking would address recently issued E.O.s and the Commission's direction in SRM-COMSECY-25-0007 and SRM-SECY-24-0046. Details of the proposed revisions are provided in the “Discussion” section.

IV. Discussion

A. What action is the NRC taking?

In this rulemaking, the NRC is proposing to streamline and modernize 10 CFR part 51 regulations and associated guidance to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burden, expand licensing efficiencies and flexibilities, address executive actions, and ensure compliance with NEPA. The NRC is proposing to remove portions of 10 CFR part 51 that are not required to be in regulation because they are codified in NEPA or established in caselaw, and thus can instead be addressed in guidance, allowing for greater flexibility without reducing efficient resolution of procedural issues in hearings.

The elements proposed to be revised in 10 CFR part 51 would include:

1. Definitions (§ 51.4):

The NRC is proposing to revise the definition of effects in 10 CFR part 51 (or impacts, which are used interchangeably for the purposes of 10 CFR part 51 consistent with general NEPA practice) to align with the definition of effects in the CEQ Guidance and in response to recent efforts to streamline NEPA and the NRC's permitting processes ( e.g., the FRA amendments to NEPA, the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear For Clean Energy Act of 2024, and recent executive orders). Specifically, the NRC is redefining the scope of the environmental effects to those effects from the proposed agency action that are within the agency's substantive authority to take action to address ( e.g., by denying or conditioning a license).

The CEQ's recommended definition of “effects” explains that a “but for” causal relationship is insufficient to make an agency responsible for a particular effect under NEPA as recently interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Seven County. The definition also excludes “effects that the agency has no ability to prevent due to the limits of its regulatory authority,” consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Public Citizen and reaffirmed in Seven County. This proposed definition is also consistent with the Commission's consideration in 2022 that “[u]nder NEPA, `[a]n agency has no obligation to gather or consider environmental information if it has no statutory authority to act on that information.'” NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC (Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2), CLI-22-5, 95 NRC 97, 104-05 (2022) (quoting Sierra Club v. FERC (Sabal Trail), 867 F.3d 1357, 1371-73 (D.C. Cir. 2017)).

The NRC's regulatory authority is generally limited to matters with a reasonable nexus to radiological health and safety or the common defense and security, except concerning AEA § 11e.(2) byproduct material (72 FR 57416; Oct. 9, 2007, and 76 FR 56961; Sept. 15, 2011). This interpretation has been reviewed and upheld repeatedly by the courts. In 1969, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed this issue in New Hampshire v. the Atomic Energy Commission [AEC], 406 F.2d 170 (1st Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 962 (1969). The First Circuit, after noting that the scope of the terms “public health and safety” were not specifically defined in the statute, reviewed the legislative history. Id. at 173-75 (citing as examples “[AEA] Sections 53(b), 63(b), 69, 81, 103(d), 104(d), 161(b), and 161(i)”). Based upon its review, the First Circuit concluded that the AEC's (the NRC's predecessor agency) regulatory authority was limited to the scrutiny of and protection against radiation hazards. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit similarly agreed that the AEA limits the NRC's consideration of health and safety to the special hazards of radioactivity. People Against Nuclear Energy v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 678 F.2d 222 (D.C. Cir. 1982), rev'd on other grounds, Metropolitan Edison Company v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766 (1983). It is important to note that while the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) amended the AEA to give the NRC the authority “to protect the public health ( printed page 42089) and safety and the environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with the processing and with the possession of such material” with respect to certain byproduct material (§ 84.a.(1) of the AEA), the NRC's authority over nonradiological hazards is limited to those hazards specifically associated with the processing and possession of byproduct material. The NRC's authorizing statutes and other legislation express a Federal policy to restore, protect, or enhance environmental quality ( e.g., Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 § 2(a), ADVANCE Act § 501). This policy direction is reflected in the NRC's mission statement, “The NRC protects public health and safety and advances the nation's common defense and security by enabling the safe and secure use and deployment of civilian nuclear energy technologies and radioactive materials through efficient and reliable licensing, oversight, and regulation for the benefit of society and the environment.” However, the NRC's ability to take action to meet these policy directives is limited by the scope of its statutory authority to implement these goals; this proposed rule would ensure that the NRC's NEPA activities align the scope of its reviews with the scope of its authority to carry out its environmental protection mission.

Therefore, under this proposed rule, the NRC's evaluation of reasonably foreseeable effects of the proposed agency action and reasonable range of action alternatives ( e.g., the no-action alternative) would focus on those radiological effects that the NRC has the substantive statutory authority to regulate ( e.g., radiological impacts and, in some cases, the impact of chemical hazards of radiological materials), as described in the definition of “effects” in § 51.4. This means that while certain activities and their associated effects may have a close-causal relationship with the proposed agency action, the NRC may not have legal authority to prevent or mitigate the effects and therefore, will not consider those effects in its NEPA reviews. See Seven County, 605 U.S. at 199-200 (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (“NEPA requires consideration of environmental impacts only if such consideration would result in information on which the agency could act.”) For example, although the NRC has the statutory authority to issue a construction permit, it does not have the authority to condition or deny the permit to mitigate the non-radiological impacts—such as dust, noise, non-radiological water and air quality impacts, non-radiological ecological impacts, etc., during construction. See72 FR 57416. The exception to this narrowed NEPA scope would be NEPA reviews for actions related to AEA § 11e.(2) byproduct materials ( e.g., mill tailings), for which the NRC has additional regulatory authority to protect the public health and safety and the environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with the processing and the possession of such material. See76 FR 56961. In practice, this change would mean that contested hearings adjudicating NEPA contentions would focus solely on those radiological effects that the NRC has the substantive statutory authority to regulate. Finally, the proposed definition of effects would not preclude appropriate consideration of environmental effects for activities for which the NRC has discretion to consider broader environmental effects, such as when issuing grants or procuring research.

The NRC is also proposing a number of changes to certain terms and definitions to provide clarity. The NRC is proposing to revise the definition of construction in 10 CFR part 51 to reference the definitions in other parts of the chapter to avoid inconsistencies if the NRC considers changes to the definitions in those parts ( e.g.,10 CFR part 53, “Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Commercial Nuclear Plants”). The term “construction” in NRC regulations is generally used to separate activities that require NRC authorization ( i.e., construction that could affect radiological health and safety) from those that do not, which are often described as “pre-construction” activities.

In response to revisions to NEPA regarding the uses of the terms “head of agency” and “responsible official,” the NRC is defining both “head of agency” and “responsible official” to mean the NRC's Executive Director for Operations. The Executive Director for Operations may also delegate its authority under 10 CFR part 51 to any appropriate NRC staff director.

Finally, the NRC is updating its definitions in § 51.4 for consistency with the terms and definitions in the CEQ Guidance. In addition, the NRC is removing the terms defined in NEPA section 111 and, instead, referring directly to that NEPA section ( e.g., categorical exclusion, cooperating agency, EA, environmental document, EIS, finding of no significant impact).

2. Determining When NEPA Applies (§ 51.19):

As a first step in the NEPA review process, the NRC must determine whether NEPA applies to a proposed agency action. The NRC is proposing to revise 10 CFR part 51 to codify in new § 51.19 criteria for determining when NEPA does not apply or when NEPA review is not required in accordance with NEPA sections 106(a) and 111, consistent with CEQ Guidance. For example, NEPA would not apply when the proposed agency action does not result in final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 704), and NEPA review is not required in circumstances where Congress, by statute, has prescribed decisional criteria with sufficient completeness and precision such that the NRC retains no residual discretion to alter its action based on the consideration of environmental factors, that is, the action is considered nondiscretionary within the meaning of NEPA sections 106(a)(4) or 111(10)(B)(vii), respectively. Additionally, NEPA does not apply when the proposed agency action is not a “major Federal action” as defined in NEPA section 111. The NRC is proposing to include in § 51.19 an illustrative list of the types of actions that are generally considered “major,” such as an application for a new license or permit and application for renewal of a license or permit, to help clarify when an action is a “major Federal action.” Furthermore, NEPA does not apply to “non-Federal actions,” that is, those actions with no or minimal Federal funding, or no or minimal Federal involvement whereby a Federal agency cannot control the outcome of the project (NEPA section 111(10)(B)(i)). The proposed new regulation at § 51.19 also identifies actions that do not meet the definition of a “major Federal action” such as actions initiating or relating to administrative or judicial civil or criminal enforcement actions or proceedings.

3. Purpose and Need of the Proposed Agency Action:

In alignment with the FRA's amendments to NEPA, SRM-SECY-24-0046, and recent case law, the NRC's proposed revisions to 10 CFR part 51 would significantly streamline NEPA reviews by (1) redefining the scope of the proposed agency action, ( e.g., to approve an applicant's request) and (2) narrowing the scope of the purpose and need and, thus, reducing the number of alternatives to those within the NRC's substantive authority.

Modifying the purpose and need to focus on the agency action is based on amendments to NEPA in the FRA, which inserted the word “agency” into the phrase “proposed agency action.” In ( printed page 42090) SRM-SECY-24-0046, in which the Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation to pursue this change through rulemaking, the Commission further clarified that the “staff should limit the alternative analysis to avoid analysis of forms of generation outside the NRC's regulatory and licensing authority.” Consistent with this Commission direction and FRA amendments, the proposed rule would add the word “agency” to the phrase “proposed action” throughout NEPA. As a result, the agency action at the NRC will typically be the regulatory or licensing decision ( e.g., whether to issue an operating license) for the purposes of NEPA and 10 CFR part 51. The proposed agency action drives the scope of the purpose and need, and thus, the alternatives to the proposed agency action. Therefore, in most cases, the reasonable range of alternatives to the NRC regulatory or licensing decision would be defined as and limited to the no-action alternative ( e.g., not issuing the license) because not engaging in regulatory or licensing decisions is the only reasonable alternative to the agency action. That is, the NRC would not consider alternatives to the proposed agency action that the agency does not have the authority to implement ( e.g., facility siting and other technology or energy alternatives). The reasonably foreseeable effects of the no-action alternative would continue to include the negative environmental impacts of not implementing the proposed agency action.

4. Level of NEPA Review (§ 51.20):

The NRC is proposing to revise 10 CFR part 51 to provide more flexibilities in determining whether to prepare an EA or EIS, which will help streamline the NEPA review process. This change would incorporate NEPA section 106(b), added by the FRA, which establishes threshold determinations for when a Federal agency should prepare an EA or EIS and is based on a determination of the significance of the reasonably foreseeable effect of the proposed agency action on the quality of the human environment. As such, the NRC is proposing to revise 10 CFR part 51 to eliminate the list of specific agency actions requiring the preparation of an EIS in § 51.20 and reflect NEPA section 106(b), except where an EIS is required by statute, and add procedures for determining the appropriate level of NEPA review. Removing the list of actions in § 51.20(b) that automatically require an EIS would provide greater flexibility to consider and implement streamlined environmental review approaches, where appropriate, and would eliminate the need for exemptions to allow the preparation of an EA where an EIS is currently required by NRC regulations. The exception is the issuance of a license for construction and operation of a uranium enrichment facility, for which section 193 of the AEA requires preparation of an EIS.

Therefore, after determining that NEPA applies, the NRC would analyze and determine whether to apply an established categorical exclusion to the proposed agency action pursuant to § 51.22. If the NRC cannot apply a categorical exclusion, the NRC will consider the proposed agency action's reasonably foreseeable effects to determine whether to prepare an EA or EIS. The NRC has historically used the term “special circumstances” to describe situations in which information is present that indicates an activity that would normally be categorically excluded could have significant environmental effects. In this rulemaking, the NRC is proposing to adopt the term “extraordinary circumstances,” which is identical in meaning. This change in terminology would bring the NRC's NEPA regulations and procedures more in line with the rest of the Federal government but does not reflect a substantive change. In addition, NRC may apply a categorical exclusion to a proposed agency action when extraordinary circumstances are present when the NRC determines that despite the extraordinary circumstance, the proposed agency action is not likely to result in reasonably foreseeable adverse significant effects or the proposed agency action is modified to avoid adverse effects.

Once the NRC determines the level of NEPA review required for a proposed agency action, the NRC will provide a unique identification number for tracking purposes on all associated environmental review documents prepared for the proposed agency action. The NRC will coordinate with CEQ and other Federal agencies to ensure uniformity of such identification numbers across Federal agencies.

5. Establish new categorical exclusions (§ 51.22):

Categorical exclusions are an essential tool for reducing the regulatory burden for categories of actions that can be shown to have no significant effect on the quality of the human environment. As previously discussed, the NRC is proposing to revise § 51.20 to use the CEQ Guidance for determining the appropriate level of NEPA review. The first step in determining the level of NEPA review is consideration of whether to apply a categorical exclusion. The NRC is proposing four enhancements to its use of categorical exclusions.

First, the NRC is proposing to increase the number and types of categorical exclusions listed in § 51.22. Second, the NRC is proposing to revise its regulations to allow for adoption of categorical exclusions established by other federal agencies in accordance with NEPA section 109. While this process has been available since prior to the FRA, the NRC is now proposing to explicitly incorporate this pathway within its regulations and guidance. Third, the NRC is proposing a process to establish new categorical exclusions by listing them on the NRC's website at https://www.nrc.gov/​NEPAcatex. Last, the NRC is proposing to expressly use the petition for rulemaking process in § 2.802 to allow any interested party, including licensees and prospective or current applicants, to propose a new categorical exclusion for the NRC to consider. This expanded framework for categorical exclusions is consistent with the direction in E.O. 14154 to streamline the permitting process and addresses the direction in SRM-SECY-24-0046 to consider establishing categorical exclusions for actions beyond those currently listed in § 51.22, including but not limited to subsequent license renewals, power uprate license amendments, microreactor licensing, advanced demonstration projects, site envelopes for specific reactor technologies, and site decommissioning. The following discussion provides additional information under each pathway.

Enhancement 1. Establishing New Categorical Exclusions Under § 51.22: During the NRC's evaluation to identify and establish new categorical exclusions beyond those listed in § 51.22, the NRC, (i) consistent with SRM-SECY-24-0046, defined parameters for the categories of actions to clarify limiting characteristics for each categorical exclusion; (ii) considered the proposed new definition of “effects,” which limits the scope of the effects the NRC would consider under NEPA to those effects that the NRC has the substantive statutory authority to mitigate; and (iii) considered the new definition of “categorical exclusion” in NEPA section 111(1). The NRC is proposing to expand the categories of actions that normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment to the list of categorical exclusions in § 51.22, such as categorical exclusions related to license renewal, construction permits, early site permits, and other common licensing activities. The bases for the new categorical exclusions and revised ( printed page 42091) existing categorical exclusions can be found in “U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Written Record of Support of Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR 51.22 in Accordance with Executive Order 14300 and SRM-SECY-24-0046,” which is available as indicated in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document. Additionally, in a separate proposed rulemaking for 10 CFR part 57, “Licensing Requirements for Microreactors and Other Low Consequence Reactors,” the NRC is considering a new categorical exclusion, one related to general licenses for the construction of certain structures, systems related to the construction and operation of low-consequence reactors, respectively; while this rule proposes a new categorical exclusion, it has a separate basis and purpose that the NRC has determined do not need to be combined with this rulemaking.

Enhancement 2. Adopting a Categorical Exclusion from Another Agency. In accordance with NEPA section 109, the NRC may adopt a categorical exclusion established by another federal agency. While adopting a categorical exclusion from another agency has been available to Federal agencies previously, the NRC's current regulations and guidance do not consider or address the possibility of adoption. Therefore, the NRC is proposing to revise § 51.22 to allow for the adoption of categorical exclusions listed in another agency's NEPA procedures. The process for adopting another Federal agency's categorical exclusion is described in NRC staff's draft guidance, which aligns with the NEPA section 109 and the CEQ Guidance. Under NEPA section 109, the NRC may rely on categorical exclusions adopted from other agencies prior to incorporating them into § 51.22; however, § 2.335, “Consideration of Commission rules and regulations in adjudicatory proceedings,” which requires a waiver to challenge NRC regulations in an individual adjudicatory proceeding, would not apply until the categorical exclusion is added to the NRC's regulations in § 51.22.

Enhancement 3. Establishing New Categorical Exclusions Outside of Rulemaking: The NRC recognizes that the current process for establishing categorical exclusions by regulation might pose some challenges in establishing new categorical exclusions in the future, including those that the NRC could adopt from other agencies. Therefore, the NRC is also revising § 51.22 to add another option for publishing categorical exclusions established or adopted by the NRC to provide greater flexibility and increase efficiency. Specifically, the NRC is proposing to establish categorical exclusions outside of the rulemaking process via public notification on the NRC's website at http://www.nrc.gov/​NEPAcatex. Categorical exclusions noticed and published on NRC's website will be incorporated via rulemaking at appropriate intervals. As with categorical exclusions adopted from other agencies, § 2.335, “Consideration of Commission rules and regulations in adjudicatory proceedings,” would not apply until the categorical exclusion is added to the NRC's regulations in § 51.22. The NRC has developed corresponding guidance in NUREG-2270 outlining the process for establishing categorical exclusions outside of rulemaking on its website, which includes consultation with CEQ and notice to the public.

Enhancement 4. Prospective Applicant or Interested Party-Proposed Categorical Exclusions: Prospective applicants or any interested party would also be able to propose a new categorical exclusion for a category of actions that normally does not significantly affect the quality of the human environment by submitting a petition for rulemaking in accordance with § 2.802. Using the existing petition for rulemaking process provides clarity to the submission process and ensures the requestor is entitled to updates and a formal response. To avoid undue delay in establishing a new categorical exclusion, if requested by the petition, the NRC will consider using the process for establishing categorical exclusions via publication on NRC's website. To ensure that the NRC is able to conduct an efficient and timely review, and that the categorical exclusion is established, if appropriate, and available when the application is submitted, prospective applicants and interested parties should submit proposed categorical exclusions, along with the supporting rationale and bases, to the NRC at least six months in advance of the expected application submittal or authorization request.

Finally, the NRC is proposing to revise the definition of categorical exclusion in 10 CFR part 51 to align with the definition in NEPA section 111(1) and the definition of previously disturbed areas in 10 CFR part 51 to clarify its meaning is within the context of categorical exclusions in § 51.22.

6. Application framework: Expand from one to two environmental information preparation approaches for applicants (§ 51.46):

In alignment with the FRA's amendments to NEPA and SRM-SECY-24-0046, the NRC's proposed revisions to 10 CFR part 51 expand the options that applicants and petitioners for rulemaking would have for providing environmental information that the NRC requires to comply with NEPA. If an action does not fall under an established categorical exclusion, the proposed revisions to 10 CFR part 51 will allow applicants and petitioners (in case of a petitioner for rulemaking) to either submit an environmental report for the NRC to use in developing an environmental document, or alternatively, applicants and petitioners for rulemaking can prepare a draft environmental document under NRC's supervision in accordance with NEPA section 107(f). The latter approach increases licensing flexibility for applicants and petitioners.

The NRC proposes to add new § 51.46 to establish the procedures for applicant-prepared or petitioner-prepared draft environmental documents in accordance with NEPA section 107(f), which requires Federal agencies to prescribe procedures to allow a project sponsor to prepare an EA or an EIS under the supervision of the Federal agency. The proposed procedures in § 51.46 would establish the roles and responsibilities of applicants and petitioners and the NRC. A prospective applicant or petitioner for rulemaking would opt-in by submitting a written request to the NRC prior to beginning preparation of the draft environmental document or environmental report. The NRC would in turn evaluate the request and, at its discretion, authorize an applicant-hired or petitioner-hired contractor to prepare the draft environmental document. Because the NRC will be responsible for the contents and findings of the environmental document including any final determinations and findings, the NRC has defined the term “draft environmental document” in § 51.4 to mean an applicant-prepared EA or applicant-prepared EIS that does not include an agency-prepared final impact finding, determination, or other agency decision document, to distinguish it from the term “environmental document,” which is defined in section 111(5) of NEPA and the NRC is reserving for NRC-prepared EAs, EISs, and findings of no significant impacts, consistent with the statutory definition.

Paragraph (a) of § 51.46 would establish the commitments that a prospective applicant or petitioner must commit to in its request, including providing the contractor(s) qualifications to the NRC and ensuring that the contractor(s) will have no financial or other interest in the outcome of the proposed agency action ( printed page 42092) by providing a disclosure statement. To avoid a potential conflict of interest, the proposed regulations would establish that if a prospective applicant or petitioner wants to use this process, the prospective applicant will not be able to prepare the draft environmental document itself but will need to hire a qualified contractor because the prospective applicant does have a vested interest, including a financial interest, in the proposed agency action. The proposed commitments would also require that the relevant procurement documents specify that the draft environmental document must meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 51 and to authorize the NRC to conduct oversight of the draft environmental document preparation process. Similarly, a prospective applicant or petitioner and its contractor must commit to cooperate with the NRC's supervision of the draft environmental document preparation process and meet the set schedule. The schedule will be established by the NRC, in accordance with NEPA deadlines, as proposed in § 51.15, and E.O. 14300 deadlines, which the NRC intends to codify in a separate rulemaking. The NRC will consult with any cooperating agencies and the applicant when setting the schedule, as the lead agency determines appropriate.

The NRC, however, would be responsible for determining the level of NEPA review, providing supervision of and guidance for the prospective applicant or petitioner and applicant-hired contractor. While an applicant-hired contractor would prepare a draft environmental document under this process, the NRC would be responsible for conducting all consultations required by other environmental statutes unless the NRC authorizes the prospective applicant or petitioner (or applicant- or petitioner-hired contractor) to do so, as appropriate, and the prospective applicant or petitioner (and applicant- or petitioner-hired contractor, if it is the case) accepts such responsibility. Finally, the NRC will independently evaluate and take responsibility for the content, accuracy, and scope of the final environmental document, including by issuing any final determinations and the final agency decision on the application.

In addition to being a voluntary process, the NRC is proposing that participation in the applicant-prepared draft environmental document process under § 51.46 would occur prior to the submittal of the application and, specifically, prior to beginning preparation of the applicant-prepared draft environmental document or environmental report. The NRC staff believes this timeframe supports an efficient, timely, and predictable review and decisionmaking by avoiding or mitigating potential challenges to the NEPA statutory deadlines in NEPA section 107(g)(1) and, consequently, the milestones called for in Section 5(a) of E.O. 14300. A prospective applicant or petitioner opt-in request submitted at the same time as an application could impact the NRC's review schedule considering the steps the applicant and the NRC have to take, including hiring and authorizing a qualified contractor(s), respectively. While the NRC will be supervising the applicant-hired contractor, the NRC is ultimately responsible for the contents and findings in the environmental document and would thus need to independently evaluate the applicant-prepared draft environmental document. Additionally, consistent with proposed § 51.46(e), the NRC may terminate the applicant-prepared draft environmental document at any time and would, thus, have to complete or fully prepare the environmental document itself. In these instances, the likelihood of challenging the NEPA statutory deadlines is high, thus, requiring the need to evaluate an extension of the NEPA deadlines. Extending the NEPA deadlines, however, would increase the likelihood of challenging the milestones in Section 5(a) of E.O. 14300. Accordingly, the NRC is proposing that a prospective applicant's request to participate in the applicant-prepared draft environmental document process proposed § 51.46 be submitted prior to beginning preparation of an applicant-prepared draft environmental document or environmental report.

7. Deadlines (§ 51.15):

In accordance with NEPA section 107(g), which establishes the deadlines for the publication of EAs and EISs and the process for extending those deadlines, the NRC is proposing to revise § 51.15 to codify the EA and EIS statutory deadlines, the start date and completion date for calculating these deadlines, and the process to extend those deadlines. Accordingly, proposed §§ 51.15(a)(1) and 51.15(a)(2) provide that the NRC must publish EAs no later than one year, and EISs no later than two years, after the sooner of when the NRC determines that NEPA requires the preparation of an EA or EIS or the date the NRC issues a notice of intent to prepare an EA or EIS ( i.e., start date), respectively. The proposed regulations also establish that for applications and petitions for rulemaking, the NRC's determination that an EA or EIS is required coincides with the docketing of a complete application or petition, or with the publication of an EA determining that an EIS is required as proposed in § 51.15(a)(2)(iii). If, after initially beginning with preparation of an EA, the NRC determines that a finding of no significant impact cannot be reached, the NRC may publish either a notice of intent to prepare an EIS, an EA determining that an EIS is required, or both. Publication of an EIS in this case would be no later than two years following publication of the notice of intent to prepare an EIS or the EA determining that an EIS is required.

The proposed § 51.15(a)(3) provides that the completion date of an EA or EIS will be the date the NRC publishes the EA or EIS in ADAMS or the Federal Register . In accordance with NEPA section 107(g), if the NRC determines it is not able to meet the deadlines in § 51.15(a), the NRC will consult with the applicant, if any, prior to establishing a new deadline, as indicated in proposed § 51.15(a)(5).

Lastly, in accordance with NEPA section 112, the NRC proposes to add new paragraph (b) in § 51.15 to describe the process that should be used when licensees or applicants opt to pay a fee for an expedited EA or EIS deadline.

8. Requirements for Environmental Information Supporting Environmental Documents and Categorical Exclusions (§ 51.45):

The NRC would retain the general requirement for an applicant or petitioner for rulemaking to submit an environmental report in § 51.45. However, to support the NRC's enhanced approach to the use of categorical exclusions, the NRC would allow applicants and petitioners for rulemaking to provide the bases and rationale to justify the applicability of a categorical exclusion listed in § 51.22 or on the NRC website, including supporting analyses (see § 51.45(b)) in lieu of an environmental report. The level of evidence and supporting analyses to justify the applicability of an established categorical exclusion will vary depending on the proposed agency action. For example, certain categorical exclusions (§§ 51.22(a)(1) through (a)(16)) do not have threshold criteria that have to be met for the categorical exclusion to apply and may not need a justification based on the type of license requested. For example, nuclear laundries, which collect and launder items such as coveralls contaminated with radioactive materials, are a specific type of license at the NRC ( e.g., nuclear laundries have a specific fee category under 10 CFR part 170, “Fees for Facilities, Materials, Import and Export Licenses, and Other Regulatory Services Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, ( printed page 42093) As Amended”) that is categorically excluded under § 51.22(a)(10)(xiv) without additional criteria. If an applicant submits a request for a license to operate a nuclear laundry, no additional information is needed to determine that the categorical exclusion applies, unless extraordinary circumstances are present ( e.g., the applicant is proposing to use novel technologies or to accept items for laundering that have substantially higher levels of contamination than nuclear laundries have previously handled).

Those categorical exclusions that do require additional or more complex criteria to be met, such as §§ 51.22(d) through 51.22(l), require information to be submitted as part of the application to justify the applicability of the categorical exclusion. For example, new reactor applications may meet the proposed new categorical exclusion in § 51.22(i), but only if the application meets the plant parameter and site parameter envelopes in Table C-1 of appendix C to 10 CFR part 51 and no new and significant information has been identified that would change the conclusions listed in the appendix. Demonstrating that those criteria are met requires substantial supporting information that may not otherwise be included in the application.

The NRC is also proposing to incorporate in the regulations at § 51.45(a) for environmental reports and in § 51.45(b) for information justifying the applicability of a categorical exclusion, a provision consistent with its longstanding practice of requiring an applicant or petitioner for rulemaking to submit information to the Commission relevant to NRC's compliance with other statutes, including but not limited to, the Endangered Species Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and Marine Mammal Protection Act. The purpose of these provisions is to maintain the NRC's ability to collect information relevant to compliance with these other statutes, which has historically been integrated with the NRC's NEPA procedures; however, the NRC is not revising procedures for or otherwise addressing any compliance obligations it may have with respect to statutes other than NEPA as part of this rulemaking.

While the NRC is proposing to remove the regulations at §§ 51.54 and 51.55, which describe the information applicants must include in an environmental report for a manufacturing license and a standard design certification, respectively, such information would continue to be required in new paragraphs § 51.45(c), for standard design certifications, and § 51.45(d), for manufacturing licenses. These proposed new regulations also address the requirement to provide information to justify the applicability of a categorical exclusion for an application for a standard design certification and manufacturing license, respectively. The NRC is also proposing to incorporate the environmental report requirements in § 51.56 for non-power production or utilization facilities into § 51.45.

The NRC is proposing to retain § 51.60 as modified to conform with the proposed revisions to § 51.45(a) and to incorporate the requirements in § 51.68, which address the environmental information that petitioners for rulemaking must submit to the NRC when requesting amendments of 10 CFR parts 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40 or 70 of this chapter. This would ensure that references in existing categorical exclusions, which are not being changed, to the list of materials actions listed in § 51.60 are not affected. The NRC is proposing to retain the environmental report requirements in § 51.62 for land disposal of radioactive waste licensed under 10 CFR part 61, “Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste,” as modified to conform with the proposed revisions to § 51.45(a). While the NRC is proposing to remove § 51.61 regarding environmental reports for independent spent fuel storage installation and monitored retrievable storage installation licenses, such required information would now be included in § 51.60(d).

Lastly, information regarding environmental considerations and environmental analysis in § 51.45 would be removed as part of this rulemaking because the information is addressed in other sections of 10 CFR part 51 ( e.g., requirements that the environmental report includes a description of the proposed agency action, purpose and need, affected environment, and environmental impacts) or in guidance ( e.g., how the environmental impacts should be presented in the environmental report); or the information is no longer required consistent with the definition of “effects” in § 51.4 ( e.g., impacts of preconstruction activities or other impacts without a reasonable nexus to radiological health and safety or the common defense and security).

9. Preparation Requirements for Environmental Documents (§§ 51.30, 51.31, 51.32, 51.70, 51.71, 51.75, 51.76, 51.92, and 51.95).

In SRM-SECY-24-0046, the Commission directed the staff to focus on standardization of the environmental document preparation process and agency interactions with the applicant to enable consistent and efficient completion of environmental reviews and approval of the underlying agency action. Consistent with this direction, the NRC staff is proposing to retain most of the procedures in §§ 51.30, 51.31, and 51.32 related to the preparation of EAs and findings of no significant impact, and most of the procedures in §§ 51.70 and 51.71 related to the preparation of EISs. The proposed revisions to the regulations for preparing EAs and EISs align with the applicable procedures established by CEQ in the CEQ Guidance. The NRC is also proposing to incorporate language from the CEQ Guidance to add new paragraph § 51.32(a)(8) to codify the option of a finding of no significant impact based on mitigation. While the NRC has historically had the option to reach a finding of no significant impact based on mitigation, the option has not previously been codified in the NRC's NEPA procedures. The NRC does not consider this proposal to be a change in its NEPA practice.

In addition to containing the regulations for preparing EAs and findings of no significant impact, the NRC would retain §§ 51.30, 51.31, and 51.32 regarding when to prepare an EA for a standard design certification or a manufacturing license under 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,” and 10 CFR part 53, “Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Commercial Nuclear Plants,” the scope of these EAs, and the findings of no significant impact associated with these EAs. Although the proposed regulations would eliminate references to the specific option of publishing a draft finding of no significant impact for public comment, the NRC would continue to have the option of requesting public comment, in certain circumstances, to assist in preparation of an EA under proposed § 51.30(f).

Under this proposed rule, the NRC would discontinue preparation and publication of draft EISs as currently outlined in 10 CFR part 51, including the routine solicitation of public comments on draft EISs under § 51.73 because NEPA does not require the preparation and publication of draft EISs. Therefore, the proposed regulations at §§ 51.70 and 51.71 solely focus on the preparation of and general ( printed page 42094) content requirements for EISs, respectively, rather than on the preparation and general content requirements of draft EISs as the regulations currently provide. In accordance with NEPA section 107(c), the NRC will continue to include a request for public comment in each notice of intent to prepare an EIS. Although the proposed regulations would eliminate § 51.73, the NRC would have the option of additional requests for public comment, in certain circumstances, to assist in preparation of an EIS, under proposed § 51.70(a).

The NRC is proposing to retain the provisions regarding the preparation of a concise public decision document for proposed agency actions for which the NRC has prepared an environmental impact statement. In accordance with proposed § 51.102(a), the NRC will prepare and timely publish a concise public decision document or joint decision document notifying the public that the decisionmaker has certified that the NRC has considered all relevant information raised in the NEPA process and that the NEPA process has closed. This publication allows the NRC to comply with its obligations under NEPA and its decision-making process under the AEA. The required contents of this concise public record of decision in § 51.103 have been integrated into proposed § 51.102(b), as applicable. Alternatively, the NRC may integrate its considerations under NEPA into another decision-making document without meeting the formal requirements for a record of decision under § 51.102(b). This integrated consideration would perform the same function as a formal record of decision.

To further streamline and standardize the requirements addressing the contents of environmental reports and environmental documents, the NRC is proposing to combine, as appropriate, the environmental report requirements in §§ 51.49, 51.50, and 51.53 regarding limited work authorizations (LWAs); construction permits (CPs), early site permits (ESPs), and combined licenses (COLs); operating licenses, operating license renewals, and postoperating licenses; respectively, with the applicable environmental document content requirements in §§ 51.71, 51.75, 51.76, and 51.95. The resulting new regulations would be housed under §§ 51.75, 51.76, and 51.95 for LWAs; CPs, ESPs, and COLs; operating licenses, operating license renewals, and postoperating licenses; respectively. These regulations would apply to the preparation of both EAs and EISs. Accordingly, the regulations at § 51.96 addressing the requirements for environmental documents relying on a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) for licensing new nuclear reactors would also be incorporated into § 51.75. These proposed regulations also address the environmental information that NRC and licensees and applicants need to use when relying on the codified environmental impact findings in §§ 51.51, 51.52, appendix B, or appendix C of 10 CFR part 51.

Lastly, the proposed environmental report requirements in § 51.45(a) would also require that applicants address the matters specified in the proposed § 51.75, § 51.76, or § 51.95, as applicable.

In combining the requirements addressing the contents of environmental reports in §§ 51.49, 51.50, and 51.53 and contents of environmental documents in §§ 51.71, 51.75, 51.76, and 51.95 for LWAs, CPs, ESPs, and COLs, operating licenses, operating license renewals, and postoperating licenses, the NRC is also proposing to remove some of the environmental information requirements in consideration of the proposed revision to the definition of “effects” in § 51.4. For example, the requirement at § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G) to provide an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on public health from thermophilic organisms would be removed because nonradiological human health impacts are not within the NRC's substantive regulatory authority ( i.e., the NRC could not impose or enforce mitigation for human health impacts from thermophilic organisms). The conditions and considerations listed in § 51.53(c)(3)(ii) with continuing relevance would be incorporated into the proposed new paragraph (5) in § 51.95(c). Paragraphs 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A)-(C), (E)-(K), (M)-(O), and (Q) would be eliminated because they are outside the scope of the NRC's statutory authority relating to renewing operating licenses for utilization facilities.

Additionally, the NRC is proposing to revise § 51.76(a) for LWA requests submitted as part of complete CP or COL applications to remove the option of preparing a partial environmental document in light of the statutory NEPA deadlines because it is not feasible for the NRC to prepare two environmental documents, one for the LWA and another for the CP or COL application in the same timeframe ( e.g., one year for an EA). Therefore, the NRC is proposing to only keep the option of preparing one environmental document for complete applications submitted in accordance with § 51.75(a) (for CPs) or § 51.75 (c) (for COLs) that include a request for a LWA. Paragraph 51.76(b) addresses phased applications for LWAs under § 2.101(a)(9), in which an applicant for a CP or a COL submits a partial application requesting an LWA. To ensure alignment with the statutory NEPA deadlines defined in § 51.15, in the case of a partial application including a request for an LWA, the NRC is proposing to prepare an environmental document for the LWA only for which the statutory deadline will start upon acceptance for docketing of part one of the application. The statutory deadline for part two of the application ( i.e., the full CP or COL), would begin upon NRC acceptance for docketing of part two of the application. Finally, the NRC is proposing to remove the requirement for preparation of a single environmental document to address both the LWA and CP or COL in cases where the applicant submits an environmental report that contains complete information for both phases. This would ensure the NRC has the flexibility to develop the appropriate environmental documents based on the circumstances for each application.

10. Effects on existing GEISs and codified environmental information:

The proposed 10 CFR part 51 would retain codified environmental impact conclusions within the scope of the NRC's regulatory authority in the following sections: § 51.23, “Environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor,” § 51.51, “Uranium fuel cycle environmental data—Table S-3,” § 51.52, “Environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste—Table S-4,” appendix B of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant,” and appendix C of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Effect of Issuing a Permit or License for a New Nuclear Reactor.” Retaining the codified conclusions on effects within the NRC's substantive statutory authority ( i.e., radiological impacts on health and safety and the common defense and security) would allow NRC staff, and licensees, applicants, and petitioners, to cite and incorporate the codified conclusions in environmental review documents, which would avoid duplication of these analyses and requires contentions to meet a heightened standard under § 2.335, “Consideration of Commission rules and regulations in adjudicatory proceedings,” to be admitted on these items. In consideration of the proposed new definition of “effects” in § 51.4, the NRC is proposing to remove codified conclusions for environmental effects ( printed page 42095) that are beyond the NRC's substantive statutory authority from these sections and tables. For the purposes of § 51.23, only the effects of continued storage within the scope of the NRC's regulatory authority will be deemed incorporated into future environmental documents, if applicable. The original analysis of the effects of continued storage included analysis of environmental effects beyond the scope of the NRC's statutory authority to regulate. The NRC's proposed definition of effects would apply to that term as used in § 51.23; however, the NRC is not proposing to make changes to the Continued Storage Generic Environmental Impact Statement as part of this proposed rule. In a separate rulemaking, the NRC is considering updates to the values in Table S-3 and Table S-4 to address effects related to fuels with increased enrichment; while these rules both propose changes to the tables, they have separate bases and purposes that the NRC has determined do not need to be combined.

Additionally, the NRC's EISs have used significance levels of SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE for environmental effects or impacts, but have not indicated whether the impact would necessarily be considered significant for the purposes of an EA. Rather, these significance levels for environmental impacts generally consider the potentially affected environment (previously referred to as “context”) and degree (previously referred to as “intensity”) in determining if the environmental effect is noticeable and destabilizing:

• SMALL is defined as environmental effects that are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
• MODERATE is defined as environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not destabilize, important attributes of the resource.
• LARGE is defined as environmental effects that are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

The NRC originally established the three levels of significance as part of the amendments to its regulation in 10 CFR part 51 for the NEPA review of applications for renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses (61 FR 28467) and codified in them Table B-1 of appendix B to 10 CFR part 51. These definitions were adapted to accommodate the environmental resource attributes of importance. Significance impact levels have been applied across the NRC's EISs since they were established in 1996 to help readers compare impacts across multiple environmental issue areas. Historically, the NRC has not defined a SMALL impact as significant or not significant. As part of this rulemaking, the NRC has reviewed the technical basis documents and codified conclusions in § 51.23 and Tables B-1 and C-1 of 10 CFR part 51 and determined that a SMALL conclusion in these documents means that there is no significant impact. For instance, for the purposes of assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that impacts are of small significance if doses to individuals and releases do not exceed the permissible levels in the Commission's regulations (61 FR 66543). The AEA requires the NRC to promulgate, inspect, and enforce standards that provide an adequate level of protection of the public health and safety. Health impacts on individual humans are the focus of NRC regulations limiting radiological doses. Numerous EAs developed by the NRC have concluded a no significant impact with respect to radiological human health if doses to individuals and releases do not exceed the permissible levels in the Commission's regulations. Therefore, if doses to individuals and releases do not exceed the permissible levels in the Commission's regulations, the impacts are not significant.

For those environmental impacts outside of human health ( e.g., exposure of radionuclides to nonhuman biota), when a SMALL impact is concluded, the NRC has determined that the environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource and this is comparable to a no significant impact determination. This is demonstrated in the evaluations presented in the license renewal GEIS (NUREG-1437, Rev 2, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants—Final Report”). NUREG-1437 divides environmental issues into generic issues (termed Category 1 issues) and nuclear power plant- or site-specific issues (termed Category 2 issues). The findings for the Category 1 issues resulting in a SMALL impact identified that impacts from license renewal were insignificant, not expected to be significant, or would not be affected. Therefore, the Commission has determined that a SMALL impact means no significant impact for these areas.

The practical effect of this determination is that in the proposed revisions to §§ 51.22 and 51.23, Table B-1, and Table C-1 of 10 CFR part 51, actions that fall within the bounds of those generic analyses would meet the criteria for a categorical exclusion, or the basis for a finding of no significant impact if the NRC prepares an EA.

The proposed § 51.51 would also remove the caveat that only environmental reports submitted “on or after September 4, 1979” must use Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data within environmental reports for the construction permit stage or early site permit stage or combined license stage of a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor. The NRC has removed the caveat regarding “on or after September 4, 1979,” since it is no longer relevant and all specified environmental reports would be required to use of Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data.

The NRC recognizes that, following these revisions, there would no longer be any Category 2 issues in Appendix C. Nonetheless, the NRC proposes to retain references to Category 2 issues in Appendix C within the rule text to account for the possibility that future updates may identify Category 2 issues.

11. Removing references to environmental justice (§ 51.53 and Table B-1 of 10 CFR part 51):

In SRM-COMSECY-25-0007, the Commission directed the NRC to remove environmental justice (EJ) references in regulations, guidance and training materials. Thus, the scope of rulemaking with respect to EJ would be limited to amending NRC's regulations at § 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports,” which identifies EJ information to be included in license renewal applicant's environmental reports, and 10 CFR part 51, subpart A, appendix B, Table B-1 which require license renewal environmental reviews to include an EJ analysis for the Category 2 issue.

12. Other changes to conform with the FRA Amendments to NEPA and the CEQ Guidance:

The NRC is proposing revisions in 10 CFR part 51 to update the regulations for consistency with the FRA NEPA amendments, such as inserting the word “Federal” before “resources” in the phrase “irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources,” incorporating terms like “technically and economically feasible” when addressing reasonable alternatives, and the requirement to evaluate negative environmental impacts from the no action alternative. With respect to the evaluation of negative impacts from the no-action alternative, the NRC has, in general, considered such impacts; however, this consideration would now be explicitly codified in the regulations. ( printed page 42096)

The NRC is also proposing to codify the page limits for EISs and EAs in accordance with NEPA section 107(e). Paragraph 51.30(e) would establish that an EA must not exceed 75 pages, not including any citations or appendices. Paragraph 51.70(b) would establish that except for an EIS for a proposed agency action of extraordinary complexity, EISs must not exceed 150 pages, not including any citations or appendices. Proposed § 51.70(c) also explains that an EIS for a proposed agency action of extraordinary complexity must not exceed 300 pages, not including any citations or appendices. The NRC will determine at the earliest possible stage of preparation of an EIS whether the conditions for exceeding the 150-page limit are present.

The NRC is also proposing to remove its procedures for scoping in §§ 51.26-51.29 and appendix B and appendix C of 10 CFR part 51. Instead, the NRC is proposing to incorporate the relevant procedures into the NRC's draft guidance. Removing the scoping procedures from 10 CFR part 51 does not eliminate the requirement to publish a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and include in this notice a request for public comment on alternatives or effects and on relevant information, studies, or analyses with respect to the proposed agency action pursuant to NEPA section 107(c). The NRC is proposing that as soon as practicable after determining that an EIS will be prepared by the NRC in connection with a proposed agency action, the NRC will publish a notice of intent to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register and include a request for public comment on this notice. This requirement is reflected in proposed § 51.70. The NRC may consider, in certain circumstances, requesting comments on additional topics in the notice of intent or otherwise if it determines that scoping would assist in the preparation of an EIS. The NRC would address any substantive comments that are within the scope of the proposed agency action, as appropriate, in the development of the EIS. The NRC would continue to describe appropriate methods to collect comments in the notice of intent. The NRC may consider publishing a notice of intent to prepare an EA or conducting scoping for an EIS or EA if it determines that issuing a notice of intent to prepare an EA or conducting scoping for an EA or EIS would assist in the preparation of these documents.

To streamline and enhance environmental review efficiency, the NRC will, to the fullest extent possible and when it would be most efficient to do so, continue to prepare EAs and EISs concurrently and integrated with analyses and related surveys and studies required by other environmental Federal statutes. The NRC will also continue to coordinate, to the fullest extent possible, the preparation of EAs and EISs with any other agency document to streamline those reviews.

Additionally, to reduce duplication and increase efficiency between NEPA and State, Tribal, and local requirements, the NRC is proposing to add §§ 51.30(g) and 51.70(d) providing for the NRC to cooperate with State, Tribal, and local agencies that are responsible for preparing environmental documents.

13. Public hearings

The NRC is proposing to remove the regulations in 10 CFR part 51 related to public hearings, mainly §§ 51.104 through 51.108, except for the regulations addressing public hearings in proceedings for issuance of materials license with respect to a geologic repository at § 51.109. The procedures governing public hearings are included in 10 CFR part 2, “Agency Rules Practice and Procedures,” and do not need to be repeated in 10 CFR part 51.

Additionally, participation in the NEPA process, for example, as part of a scoping process for an EIS, does not entitle the participant to become a party to the proceeding to which the environmental document relates. Participation in an adjudicatory proceeding is governed by the procedures in §§ 2.309 and 2.315 of this chapter. Participation in a rulemaking proceeding in which the Commission has decided to have a hearing is governed by the provisions in the notice of hearing.

14. Lead Agencies, Participating Federal Agencies, and Cooperating Agencies

The FRA amendments to NEPA revised or created the definitions and requirements for “lead agency,” “joint lead agency,” “cooperating agency,” and “participating Federal agency.” These amendments require that agencies identify in writing the lead agency when there are two or more participating Federal agencies and require that the head of the lead agency lead the consultation process. In many instances, a proposed agency action or decision is undertaken that may include other actions or decisions undertaken by other Federal agencies. These actions and decisions are “related actions,” in that they are each the responsibility of a particular agency, but they are all interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. In such instances, NEPA section 107(a)(1)(A) requires that the multiple agencies involved determine which of them will be the lead agency based on consideration of the magnitude of agency's involvement; project approval or disapproval authority; expertise concerning the action's environmental effects; duration of agency's involvement; and sequence of agency's involvement. When serving as the lead agency, the NRC is ultimately responsible for completing the NEPA process and will determine and document the scope of the proposed agency action. When a joint lead relationship is established pursuant to NEPA section 107(a)(1)(B), the NRC and the other joint lead agency or agencies are collectively responsible for completing the NEPA process. These agreements should be documented in memoranda of understanding or other means of documentation and should be signed by representatives of each agency. If the NRC and another Federal agency are unable to agree on which agency will be the lead agency, the affected agency may request that CEQ designate a lead agency pursuant to NEPA section 107(a)(5). In accordance with NEPA section 102(2)(C), during the preparation of an environmental impact statement, the NRC is required to consult with and obtain comments of any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact of the action or is authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards that govern proposed agency action. The NRC will conduct this consultation during the comment period opened for the notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. The NRC will address any substantive comments that are within the scope of the proposed agency action, as appropriate.

15. Conforming Changes and Editorial Corrections

The NRC is proposing to make conforming changes to 10 CFR parts 2, 30, 40, 50, 52, 53, 54, 61, 70, 72, 76, and 110 to ensure that the environmental requirements discussion in those sections reflected the revised requirements in 10 CFR part 51 and to make editorial corrections to citations.

B. Why do the requirements need to be revised?

The NRC must revise its requirements in 10 CFR part 51 to comply with Presidential directives in E.O. 14300 to (1) streamline implementation of NEPA, (2) alleviate unnecessary regulatory burden, and (3) expand flexibilities for applicants and licensees while complying with environmental requirements. The proposed rulemaking ( printed page 42097) also addresses amendments to NEPA made by the FRA and OBBBA, recent case law relevant to the interpretation of NEPA, and Commission direction in SRM-SECY-24-0046 and SRM-COMSECY-25-0007.

C. Whom would this action affect?

The regulatory changes proposed in this rule would affect all persons and entities conducting activities subject to regulation by the NRC or potentially affected by NRC regulated activities. This includes, but is not limited to, applicants for permits, licenses, license amendments, license renewals, certifications, and other forms of regulatory approval; petitioners for rulemaking; and recipients of NRC grants, cooperative agreements, or other financial assistance.

D. When would this action take effect?

The requirements proposed in this rule would take effect 30 days from the date of publication of the final rule. New applications submitted to the NRC must comply with the requirements within six months from the effective date of the final rule. No environmental report or any supplement to an environmental report filed with the NRC, and no EA, or EIS or finding of no significant impact or any supplement to any of the foregoing issued prior to the effective date of the final rule, need be redone and no notice of intent to prepare an EIS or notice of availability of these environmental documents need be republished solely by reason of the promulgation of these revisions to 10 CFR part 51.

V. Specific Request for Comment

The NRC is seeking advice and recommendations from the public on the proposed rule. The NRC is particularly interested in comments with clear justifications and supporting rationale from the public on the following:

1. Considering the NRC's substantive statutory authority and the NRC's obligations under NEPA as amended by the FRA and OBBBA and as shaped by recent case law and E.O.s, has the NRC proposed removing the assessment of any environmental impacts from the scope of its NEPA reviews that should continue to be addressed (in Table S-3, Table S-4, appendix B, or appendix C to 10 CFR part 51; or as discussed in the associated draft staff guidance, NUREG-2270, “Environmental Review Guidance for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Actions”)? Beyond radiological impacts, are there other environmental effects that have a close causal relationship to an NRC licensing decision and that are not remote in time, geographically separate, or the result of an attenuated causal chain that the NRC should consider in is environmental reviews? Please provide detailed rationales.

2. E.O. 14154 directs all agencies, consistent with applicable law, to “prioritize efficiency and certainty over any other objectives.” Does the proposed rule prioritize efficiency and certainty over other objectives in a manner consistent with applicable law? Are there potential unintended consequences or increases in regulatory uncertainty that could result from the proposed changes in this rule, such as the need for additional NEPA reviews by other agencies? Please identify the regulatory requirement with your response and be as specific as possible regarding potential unintended consequences or increases in uncertainty.

3. Are there NEPA procedures that the NRC proposes to eliminate from the regulations—either by deletion or by moving them into guidance—that should be retained in the regulations? If so, why? Please identify the specific procedures, regulatory requirement, or other related items with your response.

4. What additional specific licensing or regulatory actions should the NRC consider for categorical exclusion from further NEPA review and why? Please describe actions you believe normally result in no significant environmental impacts and explain the basis for your recommendation. Furthermore, please provide any parameters that clarify limiting characteristics for each categorical exclusion. Please also provide comments on the newly proposed categorical exclusions in terms of whether the actions would normally result in no significant environmental impacts.

5. What additional NRC actions should the NRC consider developing generic environmental documents for ( e.g., technology- or application-specific) that could further streamline future environmental reviews?

6. Considering the NRC's obligations under NEPA as amended by FRA and OBBBA and as shaped by recent case law and E.O.s, are there additional approaches that the NRC should consider to preserve meaningful public engagement in the NRC's environmental review process—either within the context of NEPA or at other stages during review of an application ( e.g., pre-application engagement, ad hoc public briefings, listening sessions, etc.)? If so, what are they?

7. What additional information on the procedures for applicant-prepared EAs and EISs can the NRC provide to inform prospective applicants' decision on whether to pursue that process? Should the NRC consider moving more information on applicant-prepared EAs and EISs from the regulation to the guidance document to allow for greater flexibility in the program? What changes, if any, should the NRC consider to make the process for applicant-prepared NEPA documentation clearer or more efficient? Do the requirements in § 51.46 appropriately balance agency compliance with NEPA with the goal of realizing efficiencies for applicants?

8. How can interagency coordination on environmental matters be improved to foster more effective and efficient environmental reviews that meet statutory requirements under NEPA and other environmental statutes such as the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Coastal Zone Management Act, and Endangered Species Act, consistent with the NRC's statutory authority? What effect, if any, does the NRC's proposal to narrow the scope of its environmental reviews have on interagency coordination? How might the proposed changes affect NHPA section 106 consultations with State Historic Preservation Officers, Indian Tribes, and interested parties including the public? The NRC is particularly interested in feedback from Tribes and state agencies on these matters.

9. Can the NRC improve the organization, accessibility, or usability of its draft consolidated NEPA guidance document, NUREG-2270, issued with this rule? Should additional information be provided as to how an applicant would use the guidance document for common licensing actions?

10. What environmental topics or issues are missing from the NRC's draft NEPA guidance document, NUREG-2270?

11. Given the new draft consolidated environmental review guidance, NUREG-2270, should the NRC sunset or retain existing NEPA guidance ( e.g., NUREG-1555, “Environmental Standard Review Plan,” NUREG-1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs”, Regulatory Guide 4.2, “DG-4037 (RG 4.2 Rev 5) Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations”)?

12. It is not feasible for the NRC to prepare separate environmental documents for both actions in response to a complete application requesting both an LWA and a CP or COL in the same timeframe ( e.g., one year for EAs) as currently provided in § 51.76(a). Therefore, the NRC is proposing that it ( printed page 42098) would prepare a single environmental document to address the full CP or COL requested, which would also provide the required NEPA review of actions under an LWA. What other feasible alternatives or procedural changes could address these timeframes to ensure efficient, timely, and predictable decisionmaking for LWAs requested as part of a complete application for a CP or COL?

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, in accordance with section 605(b), the NRC is not preparing a regulatory flexibility certification analysis. The rule will in fact apply to some small entities that are among the NRC licensees, applicants, and petitioners for rulemaking. The rule will revise the existing NEPA regulations, however, it will impose no new burden on those small entities.

VII. Regulatory Analysis

The NRC has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. This proposed rule is considered to be a deregulatory action that would alleviate unnecessary regulatory burden and expand flexibilities for applicants and licensees, while maintaining compliance with environmental requirements. Over a 10-year analysis period (fiscal year 2027-2036), the proposed revisions to NEPA requirements are projected to generate cumulative, undiscounted cost savings of $134.8 million. Using 2024 as the base year, the net present value of these savings is estimated at $108.4 million when discounted at 3 percent, or $82.7 million when discounted at 7 percent. The annualized cost savings would be $7.9 million discounted at 3 percent, or $7.3 million discounted at 7 percent. These figures represent net savings, as the one-time implementation costs are expected to be minimal.

In addition, the NRC estimates cost savings in 2024 dollars to be $8.10 million discounted at 7 percent in perpetuity.

The NRC requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis, including the assumptions in the uncertainty analysis and the numbers presented in Appendix A. The regulatory analysis is available as indicated in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES caption of this document.

VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality

The NRC has determined that the proposed changes to 10 CFR part 51 do not meet the definition of “backfitting” in § 50.109, § 53.1390, § 70.76, or § 72.62, all entitled “Backfitting,” or affect the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR parts 52 or part 53 because the proposed changes relate to procedures for future NRC activities and do not involve changes to existing requirements or impose new requirements on current applicants or licensees.

IX. Plain Writing

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885). The NRC requests comment on this document with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used.

X. National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA does not require agencies to prepare a NEPA analysis before establishing or updating agency procedures for implementing NEPA. Agency NEPA implementing procedures are not themselves subject to NEPA ( Heartwood v. U.S. Forest Serv., 230 F.3d 947, 954-955 (7th Cir. 2000)). Therefore, the NRC did not further conduct a NEPA analysis of this proposed rule.

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Type of submission: New.

The title of the information collection: Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act Proposed Rule.

OMB Approval Number(s): (3150-0021).

The form number if applicable: N/A.

How often the collection is required or requested: Justification for categorical exclusions, environmental report, or applicant- or petitioner-prepared EAs or EISs are required upon submittal of an application for a combined license, construction permit, operating license, operating license renewal, early site permit, design certification, decommissioning or license termination review, or manufacturing license, or upon submittal of a petition for rulemaking.

Who will be required or asked to respond: All persons and entities seeking action from the NRC. This includes, but is not limited to, applicants for permits, licenses, license amendments, license renewals, certifications, and other forms of regulatory approval; petitioners for rulemaking; and recipients of NRC grants, cooperative agreements, or other financial assistance.

An estimate of the number of annual responses: 21.

The estimated number of annual respondents: 21.

An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 44,016.

Abstract: The NRC is proposing to amend its regulations in 10 CFR part 51 to: (1) streamline implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), (2) alleviate unnecessary regulatory burden, and (3) expand flexibilities for applicants and licensees while complying with environmental requirements. The revisions are necessitated by and consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” E.O. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” and Commission direction in SRM-SECY-25-0007, “Withdrawing the Environmental Justice Policy Statement and Environmental Justice Strategy,” dated April 10, 2025, and SRM-SECY-24-0046, “Implementation of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 National Environmental Policy Act Amendments,” dated July 28, 2025. During its comprehensive review and revision of the 10 CFR part 51 regulations, the NRC identified certain information collection requirements that should be amended under this proposed rule to streamline the regulations and improve efficiency.

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 ( printed page 42099) 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-2025-0478.

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-2025-0478. Submit comments by August 6, 2026.

Public Protection Notification

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

XII. Executive Orders

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

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

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action. Accordingly, 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

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

C. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation

This action is 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 14270: Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting To Unleash American Energy

E.O. 14270, “Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy,” requires the NRC to insert a conditional sunset date into all new or amended NRC regulations provided the regulations are (1) promulgated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, or the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (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 necessary for compliance with NEPA. Therefore, the NRC views this rulemaking to be outside the scope of Executive Order 14270 and did not insert conditional sunset dates for the regulatory changes in this proposed rule.

XIII. Availability of Guidance

The NRC is issuing new draft guidance NUREG-2270, “Environmental Review Guidance for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Actions,” for the implementation of the proposed requirements in this rulemaking. The draft guidance is available as indicated in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document. You may obtain information and comment submissions related to the draft guidance by searching on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2025-0478.

The draft guidance document provides general procedures for determining the level of environmental review and documentation required for NRC actions. The draft guidance document is written in general terms to accommodate the NRC's broad variety of regulatory actions and regulated facilities. The draft guidance document provides staff, licensees, prospective applicants, and petitioners for rulemaking with methods to meet the requirements established by legislation and the 10 CFR part 51 regulations. The guidance will not be a substitute for legislation and regulations, and compliance with the guidance document is not required. Methods different from those set out in the guidance document will be acceptable if they provide a basis for concluding that the NRC's regulations have been met.

You may submit comments on this draft regulatory guidance by the methods outlined in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

XIV. 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-2025-0478. 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-2025-0478); (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 2, 30, 40, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 61, 70, 72, 76, and 110.

1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 29, 53, 62, 63, 81, 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 189, 191, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2239, 2241, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 206 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5846); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 114(f), 134, 135, 141 (42 U.S.C. 10134(f), 10154, 10155, 10161); Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 552, 553, 554, 557, 558); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note. Section 2.205(j) also issued under Sec. 31001(s), Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-373 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note).

2. In § 2.101:

a. Revise paragraphs (a)(3)(ii), (a)(4), and (b);

b. In paragraphs (a)(3)(i), (e)(1), (e)(5), remove the phrase “subpart A of”;

c. In paragraphs (a)(3)(iii), (f), (f)(1), (f)(2)(i)(D), and (f)(4), remove the phrase “environmental report” and add in its place the phrase “information required under part 51 of this chapter”;

d. In paragraph (a)(9)(ii)(a-1), remove the phrase “§ 51.20(b)” and add in its place the phrase “part 51”;

The revisions read as follows:

3. In § 2.309, revise paragraphs (f)(1)(vi) and (f)(2) to read as follows:

4. In § 2.332, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:

5. In § 2.337, revise paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2)(iv) and (g)(3)(iv) to read as follows:

6. In § 2.605, remove paragraph (b)(1) and redesignate paragraph (b)(2) as paragraph (b)(1) and remove and reserve (b)(2).

7. In § 2.606, wherever it may appear, remove the phrase “subpart A”.

8. In § 2.625, remove paragraph (b)(1) and redesignate paragraph (b)(2) as paragraph (b)(1) and remove and reserve (b)(2).

9. In § 2.627, wherever it may appear, remove the phrase “subpart A”.

10. In § 2.649, remove the phrase “subpart A of”.

11. In § 2.802, revise paragraph (c)(1)(viii) to read as follows:

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

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 81, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2111, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

13. In § 30.32, in paragraph (f) wherever it may appear, remove the phrase “subpart A”.

14. In § 30.33, in paragraph (a)(5) remove the phrase “subpart A of”.

15. 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, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).

Section 40.7 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 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).

16. In § 40.31, in paragraph (f), wherever it may appear, remove the phrase “subpart A” and revise paragraph (k) to read as follows:

17. In § 40.32, in paragraph (e) remove the phrase “subpart A of”.

18. In appendix A to part 40, in Criterion 3 remove the phrase “reports” and add in its place the phrase “information required by part 51 of this chapter”; and revise Criterion 9(c) to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 40—Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material From Ores Processed Primarily for Their Source Material Content

Criterion 9: * * *

(c) The licensee shall submit this plan in conjunction with the environmental information required by part 51 of this chapter. The plan must include a signed original of the financial instrument obtained to satisfy the surety arrangement requirements of this criterion (unless a previously submitted and approved financial instrument continues to cover the cost estimate for decommissioning). The surety arrangement must also cover the cost estimate and the payment of the charge for long-term surveillance and control required by Criterion 10 of this section.

19. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 122, 147, 149, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2131, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2138, 2152, 2167, 2169, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec. 306 (42 U.S.C. 10226); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

20. In § 50.10, revise paragraphs (d)(3)(ii), (e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii) and (f) to read as follows:

21. In § 50.30, revise paragraph (f) to read as follows:

22. Revise and republish § 50.36b to read as follows:

23. In § 50.40, in paragraph (d) remove the phrase “subpart A of”.

24. In § 50.82:

a. In paragraph (a)(4)(i), remove the phrase “environmental impact statements” and add in its place the phrase “environmental documents or categorical exclusions”; and

b. Revise paragraph (a)(9)(ii)(G).

The revision reads as follows:

25. In § 50.83, revise paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:

26. In § 50.135, revise paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:

27. In Appendix N to part 50, in paragraph 2., remove the phrase “§ 51.50” and add in its place the phrase “part 51” and in paragraph 3., remove the phrase “§ 51.53” and add in its place the phrase “part 51”.

Appendix Q to Part 50 [Amended]

28. Amend appendix Q to part 50 by:

a. Wherever it may appear, remove the phrase “§ 51.20b” and add in its place the phrase “part 51”;

b. In paragraph 7., remove the phrase “subpart A of”; and

c. Remove paragraph 7.(a) and redesignate paragraph 7.(b) as paragraph 7.(a) and remove and reserve 7.(b).

29. Revise and republish part 51 to read as follows:

30. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 103, 104, 147, 149, 161, 181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2167, 2169, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2235, 2236, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

31. In § 52.17, revise paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

32. In § 52.18, in the second sentence, remove the phrase “environmental impact statement during review of the application,” and add the phrase “environmental document” and remove the phrase “during review of the application.

33. Revise and republish § 52.21 to read as follows:

34. In § 52.24, in paragraph (a)(8) remove the phrase “subpart A of 10 CFR part 51” and add in its place the phrase “part 51 of this chapter”.

35. In § 52.47, revise paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

36. In § 52.54, in paragraph (a)(7) remove the phrase “subpart A of”.

37. In § 52.80, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

38. In § 52.97, in paragraph (a)(1)(vi) remove the phrase “subpart A of”.

39. In § 52.110, revise paragraphs (d)(1) and (i)(2)(vii) to read as follows:

40. In § 52.158, revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:

41. Revise and republish § 52.163 to read as follows:

42. In § 52.167, in paragraph (a)(7) remove the phrase “subpart A of”.

43. In appendix N to part 52, revise paragraph 6. to read as follows:

Appendix N to Part 52—Standardization of Nuclear Power Plant Designs: Combined Licenses To Construct and Operate Nuclear Power Reactors of Identical Design at Multiple Sites

6. If a categorical exclusion under part 51 of this chapter does not apply, the NRC staff shall issue environmental documents for each of the applications under part 51 of this chapter. If the applications reference a standard design certification, then the environmental document, if required under part 51 of this chapter, for each of the applications must incorporate by reference the design certification environmental assessment. If the applications do not reference a standard design certification, then the NRC staff shall prepare supplemental environmental documents which address severe accident mitigation design alternatives for the common design, which must be incorporated by reference into the environmental document prepared for each application.

44. The authority citation for part 53 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 101, 103, 108, 122, 147, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2131, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2138, 2152, 2167, 2169, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec. 306 (42 U.S.C. 10226); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note; Pub. L. 115-439, 132 Stat. 5571.

45. In § 53.1070, revise paragraph (i)(2)(vii) to read as follows:

46. In § 53.1080, revise paragraphs (b)(5) and (d)(3)to read as follows:

47. In § 53.1100, revise paragraph (f) to read as follows:

48. In § 53.1112:

a. In paragraph (a), remove the phrase “environmental report or draft document” and add in its place the phares “environmental information” and remove the phrase “§ 51.50” and add in its place the phrase “part 51”; and

b. Revise paragraph (b).

The revision reads as follows:

49. In § 53.1130, revise paragraphs (a)(3)(ii), (b)(1)(i) and (c). The revisions read as follows:

50. In § 53.1146, revise paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

51. In § 53.1149:

a. Revise paragraph (a); and

b. In paragraph (b) remove the phrase “impact statement” and add in its place the phrase “document”.

The revision reads as follows:

52. In § 53.1241, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

53. In § 53.1282, revise and republish paragraph (b) to read as follows:

54. In paragraph (b) remove the phrase “impact statement” and add in its place the phrase “document”.

55. In § 53.1312, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

56. In § 53.1372, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

57. In § 53.1419, revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(1)(i) to read as follows:

58. In § 53.1470, revise paragraphs (d) and (f) to read as follows:

59. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 102, 103, 104, 161, 181, 182, 183, 186, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2136, 2137, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

Section 54.17 also issued under E.O. 12829, 58 FR 3479, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 570; E.O. 13526, 75 FR 707, 3 CFR, 2009 Comp., p. 298; E.O. 12968, 60 FR 40245, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 391.

60. Revise and republish § 54.23 to read as follows:

61. In § 54.29, in paragraph (b) remove the phrase “subpart A of”.

62. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 81, 161, 181, 182, 183, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5846, 5851); Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, sec. 2 (42 U.S.C. 2021b); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

63. Revise and republish § 61.10 to read as follows:

64. In § 61.23, in paragraph (l) remove the phrase “subpart A of”.

65. In § 61.28, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

66. 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.

Sections 70.1(c) and 70.20a(b) also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161).

Section 70.21(g) also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 122 (42 U.S.C. 2152).

Section 70.31 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 57(d) (42 U.S.C. 2077(d)).

Sections 70.36 and 70.44 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 184 (42 U.S.C. 2234).

Section 70.81 also issued under Atomic Energy Act secs. 186, 187 (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237).

Section 70.82 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 108 (42 U.S.C. 2138).

67. In § 70.21, revise paragraph (f) and (h) to read as follows:

68. In § 70.23, in paragraph (a)(7) remove the phrase “subpart A of”.

69. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

70. Revise and republish § 72.34 to read as follows:

71. In § 72.40, in paragraph (b) remove the phrase “subpart A of”.

72. In § 72.90, revise paragraph (e) to read as follows:

73. The authority citation for part 76 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 122, 161, 193(f), 223, 234, 1701 (42 U.S.C. 2152, 2201, 2243(f), 2273, 2282, 2297f); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5846, 5851); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

Section 76.22 is also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 193(f) (42 U.S.C. 2243(f)).

Section 76.35(j) also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 122 (42 U.S.C. 2152).

74. In § 76.35, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:

75. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 51, 53, 54, 57, 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 82, 103, 104, 109, 111, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 133, 134, 161, 170H, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2071, 2073, 2074, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2111, 2112, 2133, 2134, 2139, 2141, 2151, 2152, 2153, 2154, 2155, 2156, 2157, 2158, 2160c, 2160d, 2201, 2210h, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 552, 553); 42 U.S.C. 2139a, 2155a; 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

Section 110.1(b) also issued under 22 U.S.C. 2403; 22 U.S.C. 2778a; 50 App. U.S.C. 2401 et seq.

76. In § 110.43, in paragraph (c) remove the phrase “subpart A of”.

77. In § 110.45, in paragraph (b)(3) remove the phrase “subpart A of”.