ML20056H458
| ML20056H458 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/23/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Foley T HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056H459 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR21662, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 CCS, NUDOCS 9309090367 | |
| Download: ML20056H458 (3) | |
Text
_
f.'
l
~
,e$
7 i E
UNITED STATES
'i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
Q( w,r*...
f WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001 i
August 23, 1993
)
The Honorable Thomas S. Foley United States House of Representatives i
Washington, D.C. 20515 F
l
Dear Congressman Foley:
j I am responding to your letter of August 5,1993, written on behalf of your
}
constituent, Mr. Bob Smith, of Washington State University, regarding the-
.j Commission's recent decision to assess annual fees to nonprofit educational decision was in response to a U.S. Court of Appeals' decision on the FY 1991
~
institutions that hold NRC licenses or other approvals.
This Commission NRC fee regulations.
As you may be aware, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (0 BRA-90) requires that the Commission recover 100 percent of its budget authority, less appropriations from the Department of Energy (DOE) administered Nuclear Waste l
Fund, for Fiscal Years 1991 through 1995 by assessing license and annual' fees.
The Commission was required to collect approximately $445 million for FY 1991-approximately $493 million for FY 1992; and approximately $519 million for FY 1993. To recover the budget, the Commission published rules in FY 1991, FY 1992, and recently published a rule for FY 1993.
In the FY 1991 and FY 1992 rules, nonprofit educational licenses, such as the one held by Washington State University, were exempt from fees.
l l
On March 16, 1993, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided Allied-Sianal. Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission and i
the United States of America, No. 91-1407 and Consolidated Cases.
In this decision the court remanded for reconsideration parts of the NRC's FY 1991 l
annual fee rule, codified at 10 CFR Part 171. The court questioned the.
)
Commission's decision to exempt nonprofit educational institutions from Commission fees on the grounds (in part) that they are unable to pass through the costs of those fees to their customers, without attempting a similar "passthrough" analysis for other licensees.
l The Commission proposed a response to the Court decision in its FY 1993 fee rule that was published in the Federal Register on April 23, 1993.
Public i
comments were invited on whether to discontinue the educational exemption entirely. Comments were received which supported both sides of the issue, that is, keeping the exemption and removing the exemption.
t Upon review of the comments, the Commission found the choice before it on this issue a difficult one. The Commission reluctantly concluded that_in view of the court decision and the administrative record developed during the comment period, it could not justify a generic " educational" exemption for FY 1993, nor could it adequately rationalize the generic exemption previously allowed in FY 1991 and FY 1992.
f' Il i
Tl 9309090367 930823
/-
h PDR PR J
l 170 58FR21662 PDR h
o Co'ngressman Thomas S. Foley The Commission, however, is sympathetic to the problems this new course of action is likely to cause many formerly exempt nonprofit educational institutions. Because this is a change in policy, the Commission brought to the attention of affected licensees the possibility of paying the annual fee on an installment basis under 10 CFR 15.35(b), subject to agency approval and demonstrated need on the part of the requesting licensee.
Affected nonprofit educational licensees can request individual exemptions under 10 CFR 171.11(b) or (d) for university research reactors or materials licenses.
In this regard, the Commission decided that any licensee seeking an individcal exemption under the "public interest" standard in f 171.11(b) would be expec ted, as part of its showing that exceptional treatment is justified, to demon trate severe financial hardship resulting from the newly imposed annual fr es as well as significant " externalized benefits," which could include benefits to other NRC licensees.
Fees may be deferred pending a decision on the exemption request As directed by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the NRC is taking a broader look at our fee policies and the impact on licensees. As a part of this review, the Commission will be examining the general issue of exempting nonprofit educational institutions. The comment period was extended to provide-sufficient time for comment on the recent decision regarding fees for nonprofit educational institutions. We expect his review to be complete by November 1993.
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely, es M. Ta r
ecutive birector for Operations 6
t
'~
August 23, 1993 Congressman Thomas S. Foley DISTRIBllTION:
Congressional Correspondence FY 1993 GJackson JFunches DC-93-293 CRC-93-0717 OC R/F LFDCB tt/F (2)
DDandois i
EBlack RScroggins EDD-9235 SECY-93-0717 DAF R/F EDO R/F 0FFICE:
C DAF h / DAF OC OC '
ED' NAME:
D. ois EB1 cf LH er JFunches
- RSc, gins JMT ylor DATE:
Q,/93
/93 p
f/g/93 g/;y/93 5'/g 93 jmm:edo9235.ltr cp55