ML20056H536
| ML20056H536 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/02/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Slattery J HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056H537 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR21662, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 CCS, NUDOCS 9309100001 | |
| Download: ML20056H536 (3) | |
Text
h o
b i
gg
/
.\\
$s E
UNITED STATES tjj j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION usmuotow o.c mswe 3 '....,. 'y August 2, 1993 The Honorable Jim Slattery l
United States House of Representatives l
Washington, D.C. 20515-1602
Dear Congressman Slattery:
I am responding to your letter of July 1,1993, submitted on behalf of your constituent, Kansas State University, regarding the Commission's recent decision l
to assess annual fees to nonprofit educational institutions that hold NRC licenses or other approvals. This Commission decision was in response to a U.S.
Court of Appeals' decision on the FY 1991 NRC fee regulations.
I As you may be aware, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90) l requires that the Commission recover 100 percent of its budget authority, less appropriations from the Department of Energy (DOE) administered Nuclear Waste 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; l
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, l
nonprofit educational licenses, such as the one held by Kansas State University, l
were exempt from fees.
On March 16, 1993, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided Allied-Sional, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Requlatory Commission and 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 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 j
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.
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 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.
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.
1 l
9309100001 930802
[^
g g
PDR PR 0>
b 170 SBFR21662 PDR d
e v
2 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.
I also note that, like all other licensees, affected nonprofit educational licensees can request individual exemptions under 10 CFR 171.ll(b) or (d) for university research reactors or materials licenses.
In this regard, the Commission decided that any licensee seeking an individual exemption under the "public interest" standard in s 171.ll(b) would be expected, as part of its showing that exceptional treatment is justified, to demonstrate severe financial hardship resulting from the newly imposed annual fees as well as significant " externalized benefits," which could include benefits to other NRC licensees.
The NRC has solicited public comment on changes to our fee policy and associated legislation in response to the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which requires the NRC to recommend to the Congress such changes in existing law as are needed to prevent the placement of an unfair burden on certain NRC licensees. The Commission will be examining the general issue of exempting nonprofit educational institutions as part of this review, and may choose following that review to modify further its policy in this area or to recommend Congressional action. The comment period has recently been extended and will now expire on August 18, 1993, so as to provide sufficient time for comment on the recent decision regarding fees for nonprofit educational institutions.
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
/
.TIkIor E.ecutive ' Director for Operations
.- - ~ - - -
P V
l Congressman Jim Slattery.
l I also note that, like all other licensees, affected nonprofit educational licensees can request individual exemptions under 10 CFR 171.ll(b) or (d) for research reactors or materials licenses.
In this regard, the l
university %ecidedthatanylicenseeseekinganindividualexemptionunderthe Commission l
"public interest" standard in f 171.11(b) would be expected, as part of its i
r l
showing that ex'ceptional treatment is justified, to demonstrate severe l
l financial hardship'resulting from the newly imposed annual fees as well as significant "externalhed benefits," which could include benefits to other NRC licensees.
\\
i N
The NRC has solicited public comment on changes to our fee policy and associated legislation in respons' ego the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which requires the NRC to recommend to the'tqngress such changes in existing law as.
l are needed to prevent the placement of ansynfair burden on certain NRC 1
licensees. The Commission will be examininpt.he general issue of exempting nonprofit educational institutions as part of this review,.and may choose l
following that review to modify further its policy' this area or to recommend Congressional action. The comment period h cently been extended
-l and will now expire on August 18, 1993, so as to provide (sficient time for i
comment on the recent decision regarding fees for nonprofit educational i
institutions.
N If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
f Sincerely, on;inalsignedby ans#:W&
1 Executive Director i
for Operations i
DISTRIBUTION:
Congressional Correspondence FY 1993 GJackson
}
JFunches OC-93-249 l
CRC-93-0608 OC R/F LFDCB R/F (2) i DDandois EBlack RScroggins
[
E00-9121 i
l SECY-93-0608 DAF R/F EDO R/F OC[
OC l EDO DDan@dth s DAF [
DAF 0FFICE:
LFDC EBlack LF JFunc es RScr ggins JMT Cor NAME:
DATE:
q/d/93 9 /;tT/93 3
-7/g93 q/g/93
']/'</43 b
CDM:edo9121.ltr i
f.
(8/r 51 TTE ry jac/ g pJ
-