ML20125E236
| ML20125E236 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/02/1992 |
| From: | Norry P NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Scroggins R NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20125E155 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-57FR32691, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-171 AE20-2-013, AE20-2-13, NUDOCS 9212160264 | |
| Download: ML20125E236 (65) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ ,, ._. _ _ _ _ . .. . ._
\ .
(g Do -d 4 3'j " 3 c. i UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o, [ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20585
%, *** " /
JUL 2 1832. 4 MEMORANDUM FOR: Ronald M. Scroggins, Deputy Chief Financial Officer / Controller FROM: Patricia G. Norry, Director Office of Administration
SUBJECT:
OFFICE CONCURRENCE ON FINAL RULE ENTITLED,
" REVISION OF FEE SCHEDULES; 100% FEE RECOVERY, i
FY'1992" The Office of Administration (ADM) concurs on the final rule that i amends the regulations governing the assessment of license and annual fees. The final rule establishes the licensing, inspection, and annual fees which.are necessary to recover the NRC budget authority in FY 1992. We have attached a marked copy 4 of the final rule package that presents our comments and editorial corrections. If you have.any questions concerning this matter, please have a
- member of your staff contact Michael T. Lesar, Regulatory Publications Branch, ADM (extension 27758).
' PktriciaG.&'h Norry, Direc r i Office of Administratio
Attachment:
As stated. i 9212160264 921113 h N5 R32691 PDR'
- . . - _ . . ,_ - . ~
t . 1S MEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Taylcr
- Executive Director for Operations FROM: Ronald M. Scroggins Deputy Chief Financial '
Officer / Controller g t/t6
SUBJECT:
FINAL .m. m v. . _ . ., m . . a -- 100% FEE REC 0VERY, FY 1992
- Enclosed for your signature is the _ Final Nctice- Rule that would amend the fee regulations to recover approximately 100 percent o ,
the FY 1992 budget # less the appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Fund / Thee-{r finalred.er.t[imkl'ementpreviousCommissionpolicydecisionsregarding license and annual fees. That A The finalJoe ru e d^7^s-nc,tch;ng[thebasic eT approach, policies, and methodology d in FY l 91 for determining the Part 170 professional hourly rate, the Part 170 materials licensing and inspection flat fees and the Part 171 annual feesI ((y'[ j, 'jj,, h,*
/bbh: com ,s i,J.
ineteen public comments were received by the close of the comment period on May 29, 1992. An additional ten comments which were receivea by the close of business on June 22,_1992, have been evaluated for a total of twenty-nine - comments. These comments have been summarized in Enclosure 2._ _ ono Ofthetwenty-ninecomments,htenty-sevenwerefrompersonsconcernedwith YP*s c4 /h e*J*e r other thr pe=. se cto,f,, including eleven fro,$m the uranium industrx;) and wo , Nere e from power reactor _ licensees or their representative [ Many of the comments were similar in nature. The comments fall into two major areas. The first area involves questions relating to the NRC budget increase for FY 1992 which has resulted in higher fees for licensees particularlyjin light of the significant number of licensees who eith'er terminated or combined their licenses in FY 1991. The other area includes comments relating to the methodology used for calculating fees and the hourly rate. The comments are addressed in- the final rule, Section II, Response to Comments. There were also four groups of comments that wera not within the scope of the proposed rule, and therefore, were note3e evaluated
< c ,,,m for the purposes _ of issuing
,, n n ,.w,, ,
the final rule. Briefly, the :(1) the legality of the fe'es to be assessed
- - . . . _.. _.- - - . _ _ _ . ~ . . -
t , t .-
- by the NRC;[2) the appropriateness of the NRC budget and regulatory program; (3) the impact of the fees on licensees; and(4) the annual _ fee should be based on the amount of material, or the size-of the licensee's operation. These types of comments were addressed in the final _ rule published July 10, 1991.
Based on an evaluation of the comments, no changes to the proposed rule are being recommended. However, most of the annual fees in the ffnal, rule are lower than those shown in the proposed rule because of the bule p % effective May 18, 1992, which permits the NRC to bill licensees for Part 170 fees on a quarterly rather than a semiannual basi { gj/ jp, /?N U'NN
- Amem/m n N .
3 The final amendments to Part 170 (1) amend s 170.20 to change the cost per professional staff-hour from $115 per hour to $123 per hour; (2) increase all flat fees for radioisotope programs by seven percent based on the increased hourly rate; (3) further refine the existing fee categories for export and import licenses; and (4)-codify the definition of " nonprofit educational i_nstitution" that has been used by the Commission in addressing exemption ! requests. , 1 l The final amendments to Part 171 (1)' increase the amount of the annual fees-assessed to operating reactprs, fuel cycle licensees and materials licensees;_ (2) further refine the uranium recovery class of licensees by dividing Class I facilities into two classes ~to_be consistent with exemption decisions that recognize those licensees who do not_ generate-uranium mil _1 tailings; (3)' amend the exemption provisions of 9-171.11 to require that licensees who wish to be-considered for-an exemption _ from the annual fees must file the exemption request within-90 days from the effective date of the rule establishing annual fees; and (4) codify the definition of " nonprofit educational ins'itution" that has been used by the-Commission in-addressing exemption requests.
- &c in ueore . ))an c
, Under the final rule, FY 1992 fees for most licensees nereaseko/. mpared to FY 1991 fees because:
(1) The amount that must_be recovered has increased from approximately
$445M to $492.5M.
2 v y -r -- e w -w -v.-,,-~wq.,v ---e- --. a y , ,-.y -,. .- ',,,,- y 4.v- ,,~,,e , v e = , , . . - , . . , .
s . k - (2) Fewer licensees are available to pay for the higher costs of regulatory activities not covered under 10 CFR Part 170. For example, approximately 2,000 of 9,000 material licensees have requested that their licenses be terminated or combined since the FY 1991 final rule was adopted in July 1991, and one of the three HEU fuel facilities has requested a POL. pc con'!sa "i ,
, k ccmpari;cr. ef be FY 1992 annual fees o those assessed for FY 1991 l fol l owp----- ),,s f J/n 1
a Range of Annual Fees Class of Licensees FY 1991 FY 1992
-i Operating Power Reactors $2.8M to $3.lM $3.0M to $3.lM Fuel Facilities $0.7M to $1.6M $0.5M to $2.3M Uranium Recovery Facilities $67,100 to $100,100 $58,800 to $167,500 Transportation Approval Holders $1,800 te $29,100 $1,660 to $62,960 Materials Users (srall entity) $1,800 $400 to $1,800 Materials Users (other) $390 to $10,800- $580 to $16,550 Other Licensees $50,000 to $222,500 $55,700 to $336,150
[ gzino/e,-Ar mede. l W nmmed that ;;; sivu a f;nol rule et Dcicaure-1 for publicaticr, ir, t"c-
-F i.r:1 t g; der; , The 7pc mc final rule dbecome effective 30 days from the date
, of publication. Wfwillsen[s.Ha bill for the amount of the annual fee to the- e*#;'
, ' I)fs" d licensee or certificate, registrat.ipn or approval holder upon publication of the final rule. Paymentwev3[bIdueontheeffectivedateoftherule. R l uppreyed f r on klicatinna nntico is attached me E:1c3urc 2 2M d otice to the Commission that the E00 has signed this final rule is enclosad f-
/
\
~. Adin' inclusion in the next Daily Staff notes (Enclosure ).3 le e note t - t th D p\v1 d Comm sio was i ormed ,that you w uld issup2 h propo ed rule -107 C l
/ which dressed t
/ /
mited rule ch ngy'c'oncerni ower-ti SECY-r'h smal tity T s[ /k / \ / V A/ d ie z. ( 3 -
t . t { D1 ~ - ' c act: t%t-khe House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the Budget and Appropriation Committees will be notified by letter (Enclosure b). tj A public announcement will be issued when the final e"mnne v filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication 1 js l (Enclosure 6). \ uf A Stic cc,nti.6.n3 7ile final Hv uidw I be mailed to NRC licensees and holders of Certificates of Compliance, sealed source and device registrations, QA program approvals and approved ~ topical reports. q
. (The final rule contains no information collection requirements and \
therefore is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork i Reduction Act.of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Action required under this final rule would'be administrative and Y would not affect the environment; therefore, neither an >( environmental impact statement nor an environmental-assessment has [ been prepared for this final rule (10 CFR 51.22(c)(1)). .
- f. The economic impact on small entities has been addressed in the g
final ruler
~
sprni om,4w_ . 7A" l}}[ y,,,,,,,mf y/jaf e, }n S' t
,,. c vos x sud -rGo Mih 1%) nuA* be ca.a e ')O g /he finds ,zruleisadminlsfrativeandwoul.dassessfgsfor _L ,
regulatory services provided by the NRC to applicants and licensees. Accordingly, the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109) does not j apply to the final rule, f M j The Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, International Programs,
/ and Administration concur in the final amendments. The Office of the General Counsel has no. legal objection,
-lf (acw c/ h a lion.
l ( v. V l
t . t - Ronald M. Scroggins Deputy Chief Financial Of ficer/ Controller
Enclosures:
- 1. Final M ica Rulemaking -L
- 2. Summary of Comments
- 3. ^ p p ro ,Muv i i co c i vii y
Daily Staff Notes
] 4.
y
--4.
Congressional letters Draft Public Announcement f-6. !
s . 6
- DISTRISVTION:
DDandols, GJacksonOC R/F, OC S/F, RScroggins, JFunches, JHolloway, DAF OFFICE :oC ,oc
- Oc NAME :JHolloway :JFunches .RScroggins DATE :6/ /92 :6/ /o2 6/ /92 4
f
s , m+= = 3 (2> Approved for Publication The Commission delegated to the E00 (10 CFR Part 1.31(c)) the authority to develop and promulgate rules as defined in the APA (5 U.S.C. 551(4)) subje to the limitations in NRC Manage'nent Directive 9.17, Organization and Functions, 038, Office of the Executive Director for Operations, Paragraphs 0213 039 and 0310. , The enclosed final rule amends 10 CFR Parts These necessary to implement the requirements of Public Law 170 amendments and 171. are percent of the FY 1992 budget authority through license 101-508 to recover and annual100 fees The final rule is consistent with previous Commission fee policyanddecisions does not constitute a significant question of policy, nor does it amend regulations of policy. contained in 10 CFR Parts 7, 8 or 9 Subpart C concerning s matter rulemaking authority and am proceeding to issue it.I, therefore, find that this D' ate ~ James M. Taylor Executive Director J N sfor Uperatlons _________._-___u
t..
, ENCLC$'JPE
[7590-_01] r NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts'170 and 171 RIN: 3150-AE20 Revision of Fee Schedules; 100% Fee Recovery, FY 1992 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending.the licensing, inspection, and annual fees charged to-its applicants
, and_ licensees. The amendments are necessary to. implement-Public Law 101-508, signed into law on November'5, 1990,'which mandates that the NRC recover approximately 100 percent of its budget 4 authority in Fiscal Year-(FY) 1992 less amounts appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF). . The: amount to be recovered for FY
- 1992-is approximately $492.5 million.
EFFECTIVE =DATE: (30 days after publication)'
- FOR'FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C.-James Holloway, Jr.,. Office .
- of theEcontroller, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone-_301-492-4301.
e 4
~
i- - _ . ' . ~ , . _ . - ..-,c. 6,. .
.n,. , , ,,,m..,,,%.,,,,,_,,...,,-7,r.,py,,%.yc.,7-m.n7 , .. w - vviMv a v ir = w - =-=+wwe' t
I L . j budget. -The July 10, 1991, final rule became effective August 9, 1991. In addition to establishing the FY-1991 fees, the t August 9, 1991,: final rule established the underlying basis and method for determining the Part 170 hourly rate and fees and the-Part 171 annual fees. i This final-rule includes the limited changes made.to 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 which were issued as a final rule on-April 17, 199 i , (57FR13625(with-aneffectivedateofMay18, 1992. The limited change to Part 170_ allows the NRC to bill f quarterly for thoseflicense fees-that are currently billed every f six: months. 1 The limited change to Part 171 adjusts the maximum-i i I annual fee assessed-a materials licensee who qualifies as-a small i entity under the NRC's size standards. The maximum annual fee of'
$1,800 per licensed-category is continued for FY 1992. However,-
a lower tier small entity fee of $400 per licensed category has l-L been established for small businesses and non-profit 1 organizat' ions with gross receipts of less-than;$250,000 and-small I governmental jurisdictions with a population of'less than'20,000. i On April 29,_ 1992 i I (57 FR 18095), the NRC published the proposed rule that presented the licensing,. inspection, and i annual fees necessary:for the~NRC to recover.approximately 100
~
{ percent of its: budget authority for FY-1992 less the
- appropriation received from the-NWF.-
The basic methodology used. i. in the proposed' rule was unchanged ~from that used-to' calculate . . ! 3-l 4 9 I y--., ,,r- --w,,, ,-r,-e -rw",,.,., -,e- ,we,,m,-y+ s ,v. r.Ewy ,,,-vn am..',.--e,a ,m, - erm-,we-, .-3-,.,-wr----,-er-~$.*,,*%- -w.e e--~ *wv+ ---- , . - - - -
l . . 6 . the Part 170 professional hourly rate, the specific materials licensing and inspection fees in Part 170, and the Part 171 annual fees in the final rule published July 10, 1991 (56 FR 31472). Because the public was provided an opportunity to comment on the basic approach, policies, and methodology _used in - the July 10, 1991, final rule and because these-comments were fully addressed in that final rule, the NRC requested public comment only on the issue of whether the methodology adopted in FY 1991 was properly applied to the FY 1992 budget authority . II. Responses to Comments The NRC received nineteen public comments by the close of the comment period on May 29, 1994andanadditionalten MF comments by the close of business on June 22, 1992. These yr comments were evaluated in the development of this final rule . of the twenty-nine comments, two were from power reactor licensees or their representativesg and twenty-seven were from 3r persons concerned with other types.of licenses, including eleven-comment letters!from the uranium industry or their representatives. Copies of all comment letters received'are available for' inspection in the NRC-Public Document Room, 2120 L - - Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington,-DC.. Many of the comments were similar in nature. For evaluation 4 4
-. -. . ... . . - - . - - . . ~ _ . - . . - . -- . .. -~
4
- purposes,'these comments have been. grouped, as appropriate, and addressed in the context of_the narrow focus of this final-rule ~.
A. Comments Regarding Application of the Methodology.
- 1. Comment.
A few commenters indicated that the NRC has not provided sufficient information on which to evaluate the fees to be assessed for FY 1992. These commenters stated that the NRC violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to provide an explanation of-how it arrived at its final determination of the annual fees,.particularly as they apply to-fuel cycle facilities. They also stated that the NRC did not provide sufficient detail concerning the NRC budget to verify the significant changes in the-proposed rule. Commenters recommend s , e,(
)f" thatfNRC make publicly available its Five Year' Plan or other documents with an equivalent level of detail to provide the information necessary to allow an effective evaluation of and i
permit affected licensees to--provide constructive comments on the proposed rule. Response. The NRC believes it has provided sufficient information concerning the FY 1992 budget to-allow effective . evaluation.andconstructivecomment/onftheproposed-rule. In JY Part III, the Section-by-Section Analysis of the proposed rule published April 29, 1992{ (57 FR 18097)jthe NRC-provided a 24 detailed explanation'of:the FY 1992 budgeted costs for-the 5 l
-- -_ . . . . - ..__..,--__.._.__.._-._.,m.._ _ - _ . . .. - - . . _ . . . .~ . . ,, ..
4 various classes of licensees being assessed fees. In addition, the NRC workpapers pertinent to the development of the fees to be assessed were placed in the Public Document Room (PDR) on April 29, 1992, for public review. The workpapers provide additional information concerning the development of the fees, including the FY 1992 budgeted resources at the subactivity level for the major programs. The resources shown in the workpapers are the same as those identified in the Five Year Plan for FY 1992 and are displayed at the lowest level, the subactivity level, as in the Five Year Plan.
- 2. Comment. A few commenters indicated that the, hourly rate of $123 for FY 1992 (a seven percent increase over FY 1991) is not justified, and that the NRC had not indicated'that it is incurring an increase in the area of salaries, benefits, and overhead but rather an increase in total NRC spending. The ecl commenters point out that the NRC professional rate has increased by approximately 115 percent over a seven year period while the i
Consumer Price Index (CPI) has shown an inflation rate of about ed 22 percent for the same period. The commenters recommend hat the NRC bring its FY 1992 hourly rate back in line with the l increase in the CPI and the average wage increases in the industry it regulates. This would be three to four percent a year or an hourly rate of $119 for FY 1992. These commenters ( ded suggesc that it is inappropriate to raise the professional rate ged I and inspection fees by 7 percent. The commenters recommendithat s 6 l
increased by only three to four percent over the FY 1991 levels, the NRC could not meet-the requirement of OBRA-90 to recover- 1 i approximately 100 percent of the NRC budget authority through ! fees.
- 3. Comment. Several commenters indicated that the
- i imposition of the annual fees in certain instances bears no
" reasonable relationship to the cosr. of providing regulatory ;
services" and therefore the fees violate OBRA-90 in that they have not been "f airly and equitably" allocated among licensees.
/
Commenters argue ( or 4xample, that the NRC should not charge two i' fees for one process cavered by two licensees or that i higher amount of generic safety costs thould not have been allocated to high enriched uranium facilities as compared t low enriched
)i' d uranium facilities. Another commenter state that it is not fair i
and equitable to assess a UF, converter a higher fee than for a ded 7 mill license. One commenter suggests that it is not considered 3
" practicable" to assess all-licensees of a class to compensate for revenue lost from other classes of licensees because of license terminations and that he should be provided an accounting of the component costs for NRC generic activities, e.g.,
rulemaking, upgrading safeguards requirements, modifying standard review plans, overseeing regional programs and developing inspection programs. Resoonse. - 8 + ~- .pe v.. ._%a-.r.iwy.wwwrwe,-,-g-----rn,r, ,4u.,,ry.ve-g#--.,_4- ,-,eb4.,--,- v. .s . , , , , - - . - ~,- -r,mw.,-e -,,b,,,,+ 4 -,, . , - y,m.- e-
l
/
- cl lI I
}I(D ,"
In the(July 10, 199 tir.al rules the NRC indicated that it is
' not practical to allocate costs on the basis of such factors as difference in processes and whether or not the facility has more safety problems than another facility at a specific point in time 6 FR 314 It must be recognized that NRC generic safety and safeguards costs that are included in the annual fee are not related to a specific individual licensee. Costs related to a specific application, license or approval that provide an identifiable service are recovered under the fee regulations of 10 CFR Part 170. For the generic and other regulatory costs not recovered under 10 CFR 170, the NRC, in compliance with the requirements of OBRA-90, has allocated these costs to major classes of licensees. The law permits and the NRC has established a schedule of annual charges that assesses different annual charges for different licensees or classes of licensees.
To the extent practicable and where necessary for a more fair and equitable allocation of costs, a major class of licensees was divided into subclasses. Within a class or subclass of licensees, the costs were uniformly allocated to each licensee in the class or subclass based on the premise that there is no 1 significant difference in the generic and other regulatory I services provided to each licensee within a class or subclass. This approach and principle were used for all classes of licensees. Therefore, the NRC cannot provide each licensee an i accounting of the component costs for the NRC generic and other 9
. . l l
i 1 regulatory activities. However, the activities associated with a specific class of licensees are summarized in this rule and detailed in the fee workpapers. With respect to license ! terminations that occurred during FY 1991, it must be recognized that for FY 1992 the base or total number of licensees has decreased in some classes of licensees and therefore the fees must be increased in FY 1992 in order for the NRC to recover , approximately 100 percent of the budget. Because the costs are allocated to a class of licensees, any terminations that occur within the class oil!
- herefer affect the remainder of the licensees within that class.
- 4. Comment. A few commenters indicated that the NRC may have inappropriately included certain budgetod costs in the fee base. One commenter indicated that the proposed rule did not show any offsets to FY 1992 salaries and expenses from revenues received from cooperative nuclear safety research programs, ,
services rendered to foreign governments and international organizations, and the material and information access authorization program. This commenter noted that the FY 1992-
- authorization language indicates-that_ money from these programs may be ratained and used for salaries r.nd e xpenses associated Ned with thone activities, one commenter recourends'that NRC review , )f'
- its-FY-1992-allocation-of. funds.and confirm that the. Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) appropriation of about $20 million includes $1.7 l million in administrative costs for high level waste activities L 10 w tr'-- g i 'fye w- yr yr w-g y*ww---w' v 4 y y-wvi vty **y-v' **--- y g- 9 e r g--W i -t y @T y-'Wt g --MM y rwy-wwe w9 g yww yr3r'yry-y=y<D$ ywyy vt W y til yet W p gy Ww M-
- . . )
i ! s i ,
- in order to avoid double payment by util4. ties, once through eir th I
mill / kwhr payment to the NWF and again through the annual charge that recoups total NRC administrative costs. - l 3 Response. The NRC provides some technical asmi<tance to a foreign governments and international organizations on a i reimbursable basis and participates in cooperative research programs. For example, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, FY j 1987, requires that the NRC certify containers that will be used ' k _ to transport plutonium through United States air space and that all costs incurred for this certification be' reimbursed by the foreign country involved. Examples of international cooperative research include the participation of Finland and Spain in severe accident research, Austria on source term research, and Korea on piping integrity research. These costs are not included.in NRC's budget request but are paid for by the foreign government'or international organization for which the work is being performed hese activities a
~
ot included in the-computation of 100 percent fee recovery-for the funds appropriated to th e NRC and are therefore not charged to licensees through the assessment of user fees. . These monies are separately identified in the agency's financial systems, : and are deposited and disbursed for the performance of-the functions for which they are collected . With respect to the NWF appropriation for the FY 1992; budget, $1'.7 million of-the.NRC's total administrative support l 111 i
. . , ~ . . ~ , , , , . .,--.,.w, ,,-._,e-. ,_,,-,...m, ,,,..i..,~, . - , s -m,.....- , _ , , _ , . . . , . . . . . _ , , , , . _.m.,,_ c,,,,-_._,, _ . - . -
I J . . i } e
- 1 i
j funds was allocated to the High-Level Waste Regulation program a j based upon the full-time equivalent staffing budgeted for that ! program. Funds for the NRC High-Level Nuclear Waste Regulation j program are appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund. Licensees i ! are not charged fees for the administrative support costs which i are allocated to the Nuclear Waste Fund.- I i i 5. Comment. One commenter indicated that to assess fee-Category 2.'A.(2), Class I, fees for sites-undergoing-reclamation l l amounts to double charging because these types of facilities are already charged-fees under Part 170 for the full cost of { regulatory services associated with the reclamation-process. i t Resnonso: To recover 100 percent of the budget, the NRC assesses two types of fees. First, license and inspection fees are assessed under 10 CFR Part 170 to recover the costs to the NRC of providing_ individual services to specific applicants for,
- and holders of, NRC licenses and approvals. The Part 170 fees
? l are billed for specific _ services rendered in response to an application filed with-the NRC for review or an inspection
- conducted by the NRC. Second, annual fees are_ assessed under 10 CFR Part 171 to_ recover NRC generic and other regulatory custs
- not recovered under 10 CFR Part 170. This is the process used to a-4 charge uranium recovery licensees. Thus, there is-no_ double charging of fees to uranium recovery. licensees because the annual'
~ fee recovers only those costs not recovered under 10 CFR Part 12 Y '" i e- w+-c,,-+~v,,ve,- - - - - - . - ,s,q-m-- ~,w'w's- e -
*W~ ev ve - w w w - we w w r + mm -c- - r we w ~nr s y 'm--w n -= wes-* -s~- 'd~e-s*-* -eeW"'*"**wtv- uwy s*v v =g
- w v'm'y=vW*
l I k , 1
/ T/ 170.
j
! (
j (g/,/(d
- 6. Comment.
i A few ccamenters submitted comments on the { methodology used by the NRC to develop the lower tier small i ! entity fee of $400 established by the NRc effective May 18, 1992. i
? While applauding the NRC for developing a lower tier small entity 4
4 fee, commenters believ- that/NRC r- /Mech:21.y--
-e 1 1
/ WCnw16)/n/ l
} (1) i Expand the criteria as to what constitutes a "small entity" and that a sliding scale fee should be considered based : 1[- on ability to pay; i 1 ! (2) i Reexamine the method of allocation of costs ! particularly the lower tier small entity fee of $400 because 1 these commenters believe that it is inherently unfair to enable } i " mom and pop" operations to remain in business but forces-modest i companies, i with ca.mparably small radiographic testing } departments, to subsidize them; i (3) Clarify the question as to whether the gross annual , receipts are considered the income generated only from the i- activities pertaining _to the license or income generated from the i . entire entity composed of various departments; and i - (4)- i Allow small county governmental jurisdictions to; deduct j the population of incorporated cities and villages not within the 13
within the county. The NRC finds no basis to modify our approach in this area.
- 7. Comment.
One commenter indicated t.nat he had submitted a petition for rulemaking to the.HRC to review the FY 1991 methodology so that medical licensees could be treated like similar licensces. The commenter believes the NRC is obligated to address the concerns raised in the petition in terms of whether the proposed fee schedule for FY 1992 is consistent with the methodology adopted in FY 1991. The commenter suggests that the NRC institute an immediate moratorium freezing fees at FY 1991 levels until the petition is considered in its entirety. MAC Response. The Cr rir-in is not obligated to address the concerns raised in the petition of rulemaking filed with the NRC before adopting the final rule establishing fees for FY 1992 . The NRC clearly stated when it published receipt of the petition - for rulemaking in the Federal Register-that "NRC intends to-consider the issues raised by.the petitioners after the l
.rulemaking action necessary to establish the license and annual fees for FY 1992 is completed . i
.. . . The_ petitioners' concerns t
will be considered within the context of the' review and evaluation of the fee program for FY 1993 which will be conducted as part- of the NRC's continued implementation of- Public Law 101-508" (57 FR 20213;.May 12, 1992). The NRC has notLyet completed that-evaluation. l To adopt an immediate moratorium freezing fees 15 y - - , r,~..- 3 #. +_, w, _n..m,.,-, ,, . _ m y w. - , ._.y.., ,n., ., , ,m._, m. m, - ,, -
- _ . . - . - . - - - - . - - . _ _ - - - - - . ~ . _ . ~ _ _ . . . - . - . - - .- .- .
1 l 1 . 3 1 at the FY 1991 level until the petition is considered would result in the NRC not meeting the statutory requirements of OBRA - 4 90 that NRC recover approximately 100 percent of its bu dget authority for FY 1992.
- 8. Comment, i
s one commenter indicated that the NRC did not properly apply the methodology in FY 1991 to one of its licensees who conducts multiple activities under a-single license The- . commenternoted at one UF, converter operates multiple activities under a single license and therefore a substantially larger sharc of NRC budgeted costs _ allocated to UF
)/ fens *r t}a l 15 6_ converters shouldbeassessedtotheone[conductingmultipleactivities For the same reason,bth{ licensee should be assessed
/hr rennn were ine/ic a 4/ Jhr/ a .
JS substantially larger portion of the low level. waste (LLW) surcharge. Resoonse. costs to the UF s conversion The NRC has reexamined the allocation of licenses. This reexamination has been accomplished-within;the framework of the Public LaJ' gewA"to - a accompanying Conference' Report, . and([ and the fundamental-principles used by the Commission in establishing annual fees'for all _ classes of licensees. (26'A S - P O P""'4- L: i-and the accompanying Conference Report provide that to the maximum extent practicable, the annual fee-
- shall have_a reasonable relationship to the cost of providing 16 b-i,-v,-+--v=wc v w e -+ w--y-o -
, , - -,,w... ,w- ,.g. . . , , -,---,y.-+,-s-. , 9w-- -rvwe ' tir w --
*me +
(e.g., Regulatory Guides) and policies are applicable to both the license which authorizes deconversion activities(UF6 to Ur g) and UF 6 conversion and the license that only authorizes UF 6 conversion. In The 10 CFR Part 40 generic safety regulations are applied [the same ko/7141//)f ( t each of the two licenses in the subclass independent of the source material activities authorized by the two licenses. Ac ir.dicated by t.Lc_ abs ~.; dircursiA h e NRC costs attributable to the UF6 subclass are ralcted to the fact that a license existsg not to the UF m: 6 fr.cturing process. Thus a uniform allocation of costs to each license results an in annual fee that has a reasonable relationship to the generic and other regulatory services provided. pp /200 The surcharge of the annual fee includes NRC budgeted costs that are not attributable to the UF6 subclasg btt it /4w eves n assessed to the licensees in the subclass for policy reasons . For the UF 6 subclass of licensees, the surcliarge includes a portion of low-level waste costs and costs not recovered from small entities. In the Conference Report, Congress indicated that these types of costs "may be recovered from such lic ensees as the Commission, in its discretion, determines can fairly, equitably, and practicably contribute to their payment." Following this guidance, the NRC decided to uniformly allocate these costs to each fuel facility resulting in the same su rcharge 18
~
1 for each license.
- 9. Comnent.
Several commenters indicated that it appeared i as if uranium licensees are being billed for agency overhead that is not attributable to the regulation of the uranium mining industry. pohd These commenters be+4av6'that a considerable amount o the agency resources are likely dedicated to interagency work fo r the Department of Energy (DOE) such as NRC review of DOE's reclamation plans for Title 5 uranium mill tailings sites, and interaction with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the promulgation of regulations. The commenters noted that these agencies are not billed for these NRC activities which are associated with uranium recovery. The commenters disagreed witn the NRC's position that all substantive review at DOE sites i s essentially completed prior to the application for a general license for that site. The commenters also disagreed with NRC's interpretation of OBRA-90 that in order to be billed f or annual fees one must be a licensee of the NRC. The commenters arque o f that the test is whether "any person" receives a service or thing , ! of value from the Commission because OBRA-90 allows the
" collection of fees from any person" and "all licenses" . That person, whether a licensee or not, d l-commenters argue, is required to pay fees to cover the NRC's cost of providing the service s.or thing of value.
Resoonse. With respect to the 10 CFR Part 170 fees 19 l l n
l 1 regulatory programs, primarily as a result of the clean Air Act Thus, . some of these costs are for NRC generic regulatory activities for uranium recovery facilities and have been appropriately included in the annual fee. B. Other comments.
- 1. Comment.
A few commenters stated that the short time frame (30 days) allowed by the NRC for comment on the proposed rule did not provide an adequate opportunity to comment on the proposea rule. Resoonse. The NRC indicated in Section I, Background, of the proposed rule published April 29, 1992, that a 30 day public comment period was being provided because OBRA-90 requ that NRC collect the r.evised FY 1992 fees by September 301992, , and that in order to comply with the public law, fees would have to be assessed on an expedited basis to ensure collecti on of the required fees by the end of the fiscal year (57 FR 18095). Thirty days represents a sufficient time to provide comm ents beraus c particularly s&ncl~the NRC is not changing the approach or methodology for assessing fees that it adopted in FY 1991 .
- 2. Comment.
One commenter indicated that sections of-the proposed regulation should be included within President Bush's moratorium of new regulations. This commenter argue hat the 21
j fees for settree material licenses, especially fee Category 2.A.(2), Class I, ' do not meet key aspects of President Bush's regulatory initiative because they are burdensome, impede economic growth, do not incorporate market mechanisms and do not provide a otrong, systematic cost benefit realization. Resnonse. OBRA-90 requires the NRC to promulgate each i year a user fee schedule that will result in the collection by the end of the fiscal year a sum approximating 100 perc ent of its budget, minus the appropriation received from the Nuclear Waste Fund. Any delay in the publication of this rule would result in the NRC's inability to meet its statutorily imposed deadli ne for collecting FY 1992 user fees. Therefore, the NRC must publish this rule at this time.
- 3. CommeDt.
Several commenters addressed the proposed change to the S171.16, Category 2. A. (2) for uranium recovery licensees. The commenters indicated that dividing the current Class I facilities into two classes, which has the effect of increasing the annual fee for a mill by 138 percent ov 1991 levels, er the FY does not seem justified or reasonable and that the proposed rule does not distinguish between active and inactive facilities. dd The commenters state that because inactive mill sites undergoing reclamation do not generate uranium mill tailings but are included in fee Category 2 .A. (2) Class I, the NRC has overstated the costs for the entire category and 22 w , e--
appropriate adjustments must be made. Commenters believe that i any licensed facility that is serving solely as a cost center and not generating revenues should be exempt from fees. A few I commenters indicated that the assessment of annual fees for Part 71 Quality Assurance (QA) Plans that have increased 200 percent over 1991 levels have no reasonable relationship to the cost of providing regulatory services, particularly when the licensee pays separately on an hourly basis for all ther services received from the NRC. Commenterspoint[outthatnoother licensees or class of licensees is subject to the same exorbitant level of increase as fee Category 10.B, QA Program Approval 4 Holders. Resconse. OBRA-90 and the accompanying Conference Report provide that to the maximum extent practicable, the annual fee shall have a reasonable relationship to the cost of providing regulatory services to the licensees. Consistent with the law and the guidance in the Conference Report, the NRC allocated its budgeted generic and other regulatory costs not recovered from 10 CFR Part 170 license fees to the major classes of licensees. To the extent practicable and where necessary for a more fair and equitable allocation of costs, a major class of licensees was further subdivided into subclasses. For example, NRC costs for the uranium recovery class of licensees were allocated further to
" Class I," Class II," and "Other" facilities. Within a subclass, the cost was uniformly allocated to each license in the subclass 23
2 1 i 4 based on the premise _that there is.no significant difference in l l the generic and other regulatory services provided to each j license within a subclass. This approach and principle were used 1} for all classes of licensees. 1 4 The costs allocated to the licenses within the Class I ! subclass are for the safety generic and other regulatory I activities that are attributable to this subclass of licensees and that are not recovered by 10 CFR part 170 license and inspection fees. These costs were allocated uniformly to each of the seven licenses within the clacs I-subclass. Uniform allocation is based on the premise that there is no significant difference in the generic-and other regulatory services provided i
- to each of the seven licenses. The NRC has reexamined the i
allocation of costs to the Class I uranium recovery facilities. This reexamination has 08/C4 been accomplished within the framework of
- ?9 p 'h c
( the Publi- t =7*. end accompanying Conference Report, and the fundamental--principles used by the NRC in establishing annual - fees for all classes of licensees._ The NRC' generic and_other regulatory costs attributable.to the Class I facilities. subclass. are cosag elated to the fact that a-license authorizing' operation exists,andg not to whether the mill is active or inactive. Thus, a' uniform allocation of~ costs to each license-results in an annual _ fee that has a reasonable relationship _to the generic and other. regulatory services provided. 24
With respect to QA plan approvals, the NRC experienced a significant number of requests from QA approval holders to change their plans during the past year. Many QA approval holders amended their plans, V 7hne G4 within the window of opportunity provided by v vn. ed hd&n the NRQ3 96 downgrade the authorized use of the plan from Ls a
" fabrication and use" to "use" only. These changes have resulted in a significant decrease in the number of plans authorizing
" fabrication and use" and an increase in the number of plans authorizing "use only". Therefore, in order to recover the costs for plans authorizing " fabrication and use" from fewer approval holders, it is necessary to assess a much higher annual fee than was assessed in FY 1991. Similarly, to recover the costs for plans authorizing "use only" from an increased number of plan holders has resulted in a lower annual fee for these approval holders.
- 4. Comment.
One commenter objected to the NRC proposal to exempt from the FY 1992 annual fee those licensees who filed for termination or possession only during the period October 1 1991, , through December 31, 1991. sqpe* sed This commenter indicated that it [ feactedarbitrarytoestablishsuchadeadlinewhenchange licensewtigoccurthroughouttheyearandthatlicenseesshould be permitted to file exemption requests related to the FY 1992 fees after December 31, 1991. Another commenter indicated that in cases where the fees have substantially increased, licensees should now be given the optier, of canceling the license or 25
_ _ _ - _ ~ --- - - - . - . . _ . 4 l approval and thus avoid the annual fee for FY 1992. ResDonse. In the proposed rule, the Commission indicated that during the one month period from the publication of the FY 1991 final rule on July 10, 1991, to August 9, 1991, the effective date of the rule, many licensees filed requests for termination with the NRC and were not subject to the FY 1991 annual fees. Many other licensees have either called or written to the NRC since the final rule became effective requesting further clarification and information concerning the annual fees assessed. The NRC is responding to these requests as quickly as possible but it was unable to respond and take appropriate action on all of the requests before the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 1991. Therefore, based on the number of requests filed, the Commission will exempt from the FY 1992 annual fees those licensees, and hplders of certificates, registrations, and approvals who either filed for termination of their licenses or approvals or filed for possession only/ storage only licenses prior to January 1, 1992. All other licensees and approval holders who held a license or approval on October 1, 1991, will' be subject to the FY 1992 annual fees. This would not, however, preclude a licensee from filing a specific exemption request with respect to the FY 1992 fees after December 31, 199gandwithin ninety days of the effective date of this rule as specified in 10
- CFR 171.11.
An exemption request would be handled on a case-by-case basis. As in FY 1991, the NRC plans to continue a very high l 26 y r-:-.y.,. ,, - m y.y__r., , _ , . . 3 3 _
, _ - , . . . . , . , , , , , , . _ _ , , _ , . , , , y
i . threshold of eligibility for exemption requests and reemphasizes its intent to grant exemptions sparingly. With respect to the comment that licensees now be given the option of canceling the. license or approval and avoid the FY 1992 fee, the NRC notes that ' licensees were put on notice in the proposed rule published April j 12, 1991, l and again in the final rule published July 10, 1991, that the NRC would assess annual fees that would significantly I impact a substantial number of its licensees in order to recover 100 percent of its budget authority for FY 1991 through FY 1995. The NRC mailed a copy of thes* m* to each licensee, bs/); //> e ,a cijws esl N 5. flixo/ sde Comment. A few commenters claimed that NRC intends to make the final rule establishing the FY 1992 license and annual fees effective upon publication l i in violation of the section 1 553(b) of the Administration Procedure Act. Resconse. The NRC clearly stated in Section I, Background, of the proposed rule that, as in FY 1991, the final rule would become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The NRC will send a bill for the amount of the annual fee-to the licensee or certificate, registration or approval. holder upon publication of the final rule. Payment is due on the effective date of the rule (57 FR.18095; April 29, 1992). This fully satisfies all legal requirements. (s ' [Csnsr j u)1 SC'yonc/ Oc SCCJ w . - There were four groups of comments that were not within the 27.
-r,,v rm,,.w., e ,,9 ,-e r ev. ,,-g w. ,, .s r . w. .%,.r...U.,%..%,,,,www.w- r,- w r yr ,- - ui w m. w , E,--ry+w-,+,.ww.,.,pm v . mms y ,-w F o r ,. c %- ...r . 4 w . i
scope of the proposed rule, and therefore, were not evaluated for the purposes of issuing this final rule. Briefly, they are -- (1) The legality of the fees to be assessed by the NRC; 4 (2) The appropriateness of the NRC budget and regulatory program; (3) The impact of the fees on licensees; and (4) The annual fee should be based on the amount of material, or the size of the licensee's operation.
- 1. Lecality of Fees.
J Comnent. Commenters indicate that OBRA-90 fails to set forth adequate standards to guide NRC's discretion in setting annual charges under Part 171. Therefore, the pee l 1 amount to a " tax" rather than a " fee" and NRC lacks legal authority to promulgate and assess the charges. t Resnonse. The legal issues, including the issue of " tax" vs. " fee", involved in the assessment of annual fees were fully addressed in the final rule published by
- e Cermirc Q July 10, 1991 (Section III, Responses to Comments, item A., Legal 28
1 I issues (56 FR 31473-31475). The NRC's approach satisfies all i legal requirements. i 2. Annrocriateness of NRC Bydaet ? and Reaulatory Proaram. ) Comment. There were several commenters who questioned the size of the NRC budget and regulatory program. Some commenters indicated that they would expect a decrease in the NRC get bud } because of the significant reduction in the number of lic ensees i within the past year and the fact that Maine became an ement Agre State during FY 1992. Other commenters do r.ot believe the 42 percent increase in the budget for uranium recovery activities i over the previous year is justified given the current size of the licensed uranium industry. dd These commenters notelthat th no active conventional uranium mines and e mills in th states and only three commercially operating in-situ leach facilities. Theyargua[ at the fee of $238,700 appears grossly out-of-line with the' degree of NRC involvement for uranium recovery sites. Commenters sugges that NRC-- i (1) ! Freeze fees at FY 1991 levels; (2) Distribute copies of the NRC budget to licensees for approval or disapproval; and (3) Appoint an outside reviewer to evaluate the scope and i 29
3. Imoact of Fees on_ Licensees. Comment. Several commenters expressed concern about the impact of the fees. shoula Some commenters indicated that an exemption Cbe offered to nonprofit medical institutions similar to nonpro educational institutions and that the previous exemption from fees for State and local governments be reestablished . Resoonse. The impact issues regarding the assessment of the annual fees were fully addressed by the Commission in the final rule published July 10, 1991 (see Section III., Response to comments, item B2. Major Policy Issues - Consideration of non-safety impacts in assessing fees.) The NRC continues to believe that the previous assessment of impacts and resulting conclusions era rti' appropriate., . A?/h ei r) 4. ! Fees based on material oossessed and size of onoratio ._ Comment. Commenters suggested that the NRC assess fees based on the amount of throughput of material facility, the size of the the amount or type of material posaessed, the sales generated by the licensed location, the conpetitive condition of certain markets including the assessment ol' fees to Agreement States and the effect of fees on domestic and foreign competition. Another commenter indicated that it is not fair and 31
equitable, as well as contrary to the intent of Congress, to assess UF6 converters a fee that is larger than assessed for a mill. Another commenter stated that the methodology the NRC has applied is unjustified because it results in increased fees of over 2,000 percent over 1990 fee levels to some medical licensees while the risk to the patient remains the same. The commenter suggest[thatsomeconsiderationbegiventothecommensurate risk to the patient before exercising such exorbitant fees on the industry which has not increased the risk of radiation exposure to the public or to its patients. Response. The issues of basing fees on the amount of material possessed, the frequency of use of the material, and the size of the facilities, were addressed by commission in the Regulation Flexibility Analysis, which was Appendix A to the final rule published July 10, 1991 (56 FR 31511-31513). The Commission did not adopt that approach, and finds no basis f or altering its approach at this time. III. t Final Action -- Changes Included in Final Rule OBRA-90 requires that the NRC recover approximately 100 i percent of its FY 1992 budget authority, including the funding of l its-office of the Inspector General, less the appropriations received from the NWF, by assessing license.and annual fees. 32
. . _ w y.--, , .--,.~.,,-y , - - - - - - - - ~ _ _ ,
- l For FY 1992, the NRC's budget authority is $512.5 million, of which approximately $20.0 million has been appropriated from the NWF. Therefore, OBRA-90 requires that the NRC collect approximately $492.5 million in FY 1992 through Part 170 licensing and inspection fees and Part 171 annual fees. The NRC estimates that approximately $105 million will be recovered in FY 1992 from the fees assessed under Part 170. This estimate represents an increase of $15 million over that estimated in the proposed rule because of one additional quarterly billing in FY 1992. This is the result of the rule change effective May 18, 1992 A which permits the NRC to bill licensees on a quarterly
,--- (djvil /7,/79.sj 31// /HaS rather than a semiannual basist Theremaining$387.5million) would be recovered through the FY 1992 Part 171 annual fees.
The Commission has not changed the basic approach, policies, and methodology for calculating the Part 170 professional hourly rate, the specific materials licensing and inspection fees in Part 170, and the Part 171 annual fees set forth in the final rule published July 10, 1991 (56 FR 31472). The public was provided an opportunity to comment fully on the basic approach, policies, and methodology used in the July 10, 1991, final rule. Those comments were fully addressed by the Commission in its final rule. That rule has been challenged in Federal court by several parties and those lawsuits are pending. Under this final rule, fees for most licenses will increase because -- 33
analysis, the NRC is continuing for FY 1992
- a maximum annual fee 4
of $1,800 per licensed category for those licensees who qualify as a small entity under the NRC's size standards. ! The lower tier small entity annual fee of $400 per licensed category for certain anc/ be an c materials licensees, which was adopted by the NRC/ effectivecs at-ef / May 18, 1992, will apply for FY 1992 (57 FR 13625; April 17, L gr) 1992). ~ The amounts to be collected through annual fees in the 4 amendments to Part 171 are based on the increased professional hourly rate. The Part 171 annual fees have been determined using
)k the same method ac vs-sed to determine the FY 1991 annual fees.
O I These amendments to Part 171 do not change the underlying basis for Part 171; that is, charging a class of licensees for NRC l costs attributable to that class of licensees. The changes are consistent with the Congressional guidance in the Conference Committee Report, which states that the " conferees contemplate that the NRC will continue to allocate generic costs that are attributable to a given class of licensee to such class" and the
" conferees intend that the NRC assess the annual charge under the
' principle that licensees who require the greatest expenditures of the agency's resources should pay the greatest annual fee " 136 . Cong. Rec., at H12692-93. C. FY 1992 Budaeted Costs. 38
. l I
. l 1
$1.9 million to fuel facilities; and
$1.9 million to other materials licensees.
In addition, approximately $6.2 million must be collected as a result of continuing the $1,800 maximum fee for small entities and the lower tier small entity fee of $400 for certain licensees. In order for the 00:51""i NR. C to recover 100 percent of its budget authority in accordance with OBRA-90, the cvami-sion( >/4 C will recover $5.4 million of the $6.2 million from operating power reactors and the remaining S.8 million from large entities . that are not reactor licensees. This distribution results in an additional charge (surcharge) of approximately $272,000 per operating power reactor; $155,100 for each HEU, LEU, and UF fuel facility; 6
$38,800 for each other fuel facility licensee and waste disposal licensee in Category 4A; $1,600 for each materials licensee in a category that generates a significant amount of low level waste; and $150 for other materials licensees. When added to the base annual fee of approximately $2.8 million per reactor, this will result in an annual fee of approximately $3.1 million per operating power reactor. The total fuel facility annual fee would be between approximately $0.1 million and $2.3 million.
The total annual fee for materials licenses would vary depending on the fee category (ies) assigned to the license. 40 _ _ ,.r *"'"
- ... _ . . _ - . - . . . - - . _ - . _ _ . = - - - ._.
These additional charges not directly or solely attributable to a specific class of NRC licensees or costs not recovered from all NRC licensees on the basis of previous Commission policy decisions would be recovered from the designated classes of licensees previously identified. A further discussion and breakdown of the specific costs by major classes of licensees are shown in Section IV of this final rule. gAC i TheGemmiceioNn{otesthatinpriorlitigationoverN annual fees, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the NRC "did not abuse its a discretion by failing to impose the annual fee on all licensees " , Florida Power & Licht Co. v. NRC, 846 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 1952 (1989). As noted earlier, the conferees on Public Law 101-508 have acknowledged the D C ' Circuit's holding that the Commission was within its legal discretion not to impose fees on all licensees. I IV. Section-by-Section Analysis The following analysis of those s.ctions that are affected under this final rule provides additional explanatory information. All references are to Title 10, Chapter I, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. 41
, ,- - . - - - - _ - -.-,-,v. - - .-:.- ,
1 - 1 1 1 L 1 1 which review costs have reached the applicable fee ceiling j established by the July 2, 1990, rule, the costs incurred after i any applicable ceiling was reached through August 8, 1991, will not be billed to the applicant. Any professional hours expended 4 for the review of topical report applications, amendments, i i
- revisions or supplements to a topical report on or after
-m August 9, 1991, 1
are-assessed at the applicable rate established
/ b
) /0 ~
.r ' d> y 5 170. 2 0.
1: if- / Section 170.31 ! \' ' Schedule of= Fees for Materials Licenses and-Other Regulatory Services, including Inspections and Import and Export-Licenses. 4 I 1 l l 5 i The-licensing and inspection fees in this section are i modified to recover more completely the FY 1992 costs incurred by j i the commission in providing licensing and inspection services to i 1 identifiable recipients. Those flat fees, which are based on the-
- average time to review an application or conduct an inspection, l
4 are increased by seven percent across the board to reflect the - I increase in the professional hourly rate from $115 per hour in FY ! 1991 to $123 per hour in FY 1992. 1 1 After application of the.seven 1
! percent increase _to the-flat materials fees, the amounts were i rounded, as in-FY 1991, by applying standard rules of arithmetic 4
so that the amounts rounded would be deminimus and convenient to theiuser. - Feessthat are-greater than $1,000 are rounded to the
~
i s nearest $100. Fees under $1,000 are rounded to the nearest $10. k 1 47 7 e e 5 w-* = e 1 w ~ y v e < ,- v w. w e ,,. y -+.,em----e..y, y, , n- w .w; w. y e r-pw w m -, w w - e, ,.,,-,nd . yr y,. . ,-,,mt-
.ca.,.,s- + we. ,- ..,%.-y v e , w , y-e rf-
J t . i i } The definition of a nonprofit educational institution is i added to provide clarification and to more specifically identify , } those licensees that are exempt from the annual fees under ! S 171.11(a). Since the final rule was published, many licensees ] have commented that NRC has not defined the term and that the
- - criteria used by the NRC to classify licensees as nonprofit l4 educational institutions are not clear. The NRC is defining the j term " nonprofit educational institution" as a public or nonprofit . ;.
i
- educational instituti n_whose primary function is education,-
I whose programs are accredited by a' nationally recognized lo accrediting agency or association,-who is legally authorized to 1
- j. provide a program of organized instruction or study, who provides 1
an educational program for which it-awards academic degrees, and l A l whose educational programs are-available to the public. i i lI Section 171.11 Exemptions. i I f Paragraph (a) of this section is anended to require that 4 requests for exemption fron the annual fees.musq be filed by the -
- licensee within ninety_ (90l days;from
- the effective date of the-1 final: rule establishing the annual. fees.. Based on'the NRC's '
i experience with the filing of exemption' requests under the FY. 1991-final rule, a defined time period must be established for NAC-3 -'
.r-the prompt filing of exemption requests._ The er--4-eid, is , .
. therefore, limiting the-filing of exemption-requests to the-90 49 4 i _-._.-._.____.._..,______,._,.-.,_.-,_-_,.~.a._..-
day period immediately following the effective date of the rule establishing the annual fees. Absent extraordinary circumstances, any exemption requests filed beyond that date will ,, NRC R ' not be considered. The GommissloE in making this change, is not ; intending to change its exemption policy. As in FY 1991, the Commission plans to continue a very high eligibility threshold for exemption requests and reemphasizes its intent to grant-NRC f exemptions sparingly. Therefore, the semmin=4mb~strongly , discourages the filing of exemption requests by licensees who have previously had exemption requests denied unless there are significantly changed circumstances. Exemption requests, or any requests to clarify the bill,. will not, per se, extend the interest-free period for payment of the bill. Bills are due on the effective date of the final rule. Therefore, only payment will ensure avoidance of interest, administrative, and-penalty charges. NIK These==4 erie.[.notesthatduringtheonemonthperiodfrom the publication of the FY 1991 final rule on~ July 10, 1991, to August 9, 1991, the effective date of the rule, many licensees filed requests for termination with the NRC and were not subject-to-the FY-1991 annual fees. Many other licensees have either i called or written to the NRC since the final rule became ' effective requesting further clarification and information-l concerning the annual fees. assessed.- -The NRC is responding to 50 I I 1
--_ _ _.. _ _.,_. _ _- .. .._.2. . _ . - . _ , - . . - _ -_.._.._....._._..,_~_,.~...a...._.-.O
these requests as quickly as possible but it was unable to respond and take appropriate action on all of the requests before , the end of the fiscal yeal on September 30, 1991. Therefore, r 4/fC
/
based on the number of requests filed, the Gemmiss M is exempting from the FY 1992 annual fees those licensees, and holders of certificates, registrations, and approvals who either filed for termination of their licenses or approvals or filed for i possession only/ storage only licenses during the period October 1, 1991, through December 31, 1991. All other licensees and approval holders who held a license or approval on October 1, 1991, are subject to the FY 1992 annual fees. Section 171.15 Annual Fee: Reactor operating licenses. The annual fees in this section are revised <.) reflect the FY 1992 budgeted costs 5 Paragraphs (b) (3) , (c) (".J , (d) , and (e) are revised to comply with taa requirer.ent of OBRA-90 to recover approximately 100 percent of the NRC budget for FY 1992. Table IV shows the budgeted costs that have been allocated to operating-power reactors. They have been expressed in terms of the NRC's FY 1992 programs a.-d program elements. The resulting total base
- annual fee amoun. for power reactors is also shown. On the average, the power reactor ? case annual fees for FY
)
1992 have increased about seven percent above the FY 1991 annual fees. It is noted that the power reactor annual fees have decreased from the amount shown in the proposed rule. The decrease in power reactor 51
annual fees is the result of additional collections which are estimated from Part 170 power reactor fees because of the rule change effective May 18, 1992 which permits the NRC to bill licensees on a quarterly rather than a semiannual basis. l l t I I l 52
h i 4 l included ir the fee base because historically they have been i i granted oither full or partial exemptions from the annual fees.
- 'With re spect to Big Rock Point and Yankee Rowe, the commission, F NM-
} in this final rule, hereby grants partial exemptions from-the FY l 1992 annual fees based on requests filed with the G^-~4eeked in accordance with 5 171.11. The total amount-of $781,300.to be k
- s paid by the two licensees has been subtracted from the total
- amount to be assessed operating reactors as a surcharge. The gt Oczni&&ien, in this final rule,-hereby grants full exemptions
- i. from the FY 1992 annual tees for Rancho Seco and.Three Mile i
4 Island 2 based on the fact that these reactors are either i j ! permanently or prematurely shutdown and'do not intend to operate l in the future. i Paragraph (b) (3) is revised to change the-fiscal year r' r references from FY 1991 to FY 1992. Paragraph (c) (2) is amended e to show the amount of the surcharge fcr FY11992, which is added to the base -annual fee for each ope) atirs power reactor shown in 4 Table V. i This surcharge' recovers tlose NRC budgeted costs that. [ are'not directly-or solely attributable to_ operating power 4 1 reactors, but nevertheless must be' recovered to comply.with the
~
< requirements of OBRA-90. The Oc;aission has N/C . t continued its l-1 previous policy' decision to recover-these costs from operating. power reactors. . i -. 4 i The FY 1992 budgeted. costs related to the additional charge l and the amount-of the charge are-calculated asLfollows: i s n 63
- 4 of the agency service.
The meaning of the IDAA was further clarified on December 16, 1976, by four decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, National cable Television Association v. Federal Communications CpmniEal2D, 554 F.2d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 1976); National Association of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications Commission, 554 F.2d 1118 (D.C. Cir. 1976); Electronic Industries Association v. Federal i i Communications Commission, 554 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1976) and i Capital Cities Communication. Inc. v. Federal Communications i Commission, 554 F.2d 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1976).- These decisions of the Courts enabled the Commission to develop fee guidelines that are still used for cost recovery and fee development purposes. The Commission's fee guidelines were upheld on August 24, 1979, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Mississioni Power and Licht Co. v. U.S. Nuclear Reculatory __ i Commission, 601 F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1 1102 (1980). The Court held that (1) the NRC had.the authority to recover the full cost of providing services to identifiable beneficiaries; (2) the NRC could properly assess a fee for the costs of providing routine inspeutions necessary to ensure a licensee's compliance with the Atomic Energy Act and with I applicable regulations; (3) the NRC could charge for costs incurred in conducting environmental reviews required by NEPA; (4) the NRC properly included
~_ lnthefeeschedule)thecostsof I uncontested hearings and of administrative and technical support
-services;
~J (5) the NRC could assess a fee for renewing a license to operate a low-level. radioactive ~ waste burial site; and (6) the 76
_,,..g,4- ' ~ ' '
NRC's fees were not arbitrarf or capricious. , With respect to Part 171, on November 5,.1990, Congress- I passed Public Law 101-508, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation-Act of 1990 (OBRA-9 0) . 'l For FYs 1991 through 1995, OBRA-90-requires tha approximately 100 percent of the NRC budget authority be recos* red. To accomplish this statutory requirement, the NRC,: fin accordance with 5 171.13,-is publishing the final amount of-the ' FY 1992 annual fees for operating reactor licensees fuel cycle , licensees, materials licensees, Compliance, and holders of certificates of registrations of sealed source and devices and QA program approvals, and' Government agencies. OBRA-901and the Conference Committee Report specifically state that (1) the annual fees q e based on the Commission's FY 1992 budget of -
$512.5 million less the amounts collected from Part 170 the funds directly appropriated from the NWF to cover th e r
- Commission's;high level waste program; (2)_the-annualLfees shall, to the maximum extent practicable,-have a reasonable rela ti onship. .
to the cost of regulatory services provided by the Commi ssion; _ andL(3) the annual. fees be assessed to those licensees the Conmission,-in it's discretion, determines can fairly equitably, , ani practicably-contribute'to their payment. Therefore, when developing-the annual fees for operating power reactors the-
. Commission continued to consider the_various reactor _
, the vendors types of containment, andLthe location of the" reactor.- .The -
annual fees for fuel-cycle' licensees, materials licensees, and holders of certificates,. registrations and approvalsLand for licenses issued to-Government agencies take into account - pe the ty I 77. I l -
- . --_.-~.____,..,..-,....--_...m_ . - . _ , _ _ , _ . _ . , _ . . - . . . . , . . . . - . _ , , . . . . . _ , . _ , . . . . . . . , - . . . -
power plants and reactors, Source material, special nuclear material, Holders et certificates, registrations, approvals, Penalties. For Vhe reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of tLa Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendm'snts _hk to 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171. PART 170 -- FEES FOR FACILITIES, MATERIALS, IMPORT AND EXPORT LICENSES, ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED AND OTHER REGULATORY SERVICES UNDER THE A 1. The authority citation for Part 170 continues t o as follows: read Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701, 96 Stat. 1051; sec. 301, Pub. L. 92-314, 86 Stat. 222 (42 U.S.C. 2201w); sec. 201, 88 Stat.-1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841).
- 2. In S 170.3, the definition nonorofit educational institution is added to-read as follows:
S 170.3 Definitions. Nonorofit educational institution means a public or non-77 i _ _ _ _ - - --- - -----------~ --
Spent Fuel, High Level Waste and N/AE/ E plutonium air packages Other Casks N/AI/ i B. Approvals issued of 10 CFR Part 71 quality assurance programs. Users and Fabricators $62,800 Users
$1,500 Surcharge . . . . . . . .
. $150 11. Standardized spent fuel facilities. N/AE/
- 12. Special Projects N/AI/
- 13. A.
. Spent fuel storage cask Certificate N/A5/ of Compliance. B. General licenses for storage of $43,000 spent fuel under 10 CFR 72.210. Surcharge .
. . . . . . . $150 14.
Byproduct, source, or special nuclear N/A1/ material licenses and other approvals 137
-7 i: -
- . certificate, j registration, or approval of a
- QA program will be sent a bill for the full amount of the annual fee upon .
1 publication of the final rule. ! Payment.is due on-the effective date of the final rule and interest shall accrue from the T f' effective date of the final rule. -However, interest will be waived if. payment is received within 30 days-from the effective date of the final rule. E i (c) For FYs 1992 through 1995,
- . $100,000 annual fees in the amount of l or more and described in the Federal Register Notice i pursuant to S 171.13, 25 percent.
shall be paid in quarterly installments of
- =
i A quarterly installment is due on October 1, . January 1, j April 1 and July 1 of each fiscal year. Annual-fees of less than $100,000 4 shall be paid once a year. e 1 I Dated at Rockville, Maryland this _ day of
, 1992.
t For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, f i. ? i j James.M. Taylor,.
. Executive Director j % Operations.A i
1-e i 142 * ] i
- . ._. . . _ . _ - . , ~ _ . _ . - . _ , . , _ - . _ .-__._ __~- a ..- ,~. ._,_, ~_..
. 6 APPENDIX A TO THIS FINAL RULE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR THE
- AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 170 (LICENSE FEES) AND 10 CFR PART 171 (ANNUAL FEES)
I. BACKGROUND j The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) i establishes as a principle of regulatory practice that agencies endeavor to fit regulatory and informational requirements, consistent with applicable statutes, to a scale 4 commensurate with the businesses, organizations, and government jurisdictions to which they apply. To achieve this principle, the Act requires that agencies consider the. impact of their d actions on small entities. If the agency cannot certify that a rule will not significantly impact a substantial number of small entities, then a regulatory flexibility analysis is required to examine the impacts on small entities and the alternatives to i minimize these impacts. To assist in considering these impacts under the Regulatory , Flexibility Act, the NRC adopted size standards for determining which NRC licensees qualify as small entities (50 FR 50241; December 9, 1985). These size standards were clarified November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56672). The NRC size standards are as follows: (1) A small business is a business with annual receipts of 143
. - - - . - - . _ . .. ~ . . . . . - . - ... --
5
- t entities, i .the NRC requested comments from small entities on the 4
preposed FY 1991 rule. i Comments were-specifically requested on (1) { how the proposed regulations would affect each class of , 1 licensee and (2) how the regulations-could be structured to ( l further minimize the economic impact on the licensee but still meet the statutory mandate of OBRA-90. l' i
- i. For-materials licensees, j the increase in fees assessed in FY 1991 consisted of (1) an-increase.of 25 percent in the license and inspection fees assessed under 10 CFR Part 170a new and (2) annual fee assessed under 10 CFR Part 171 that ranged from $290
{ to over $10,000. i A number of small entities indicate'd that the 25 percent increase in license and inspection fee s, desirable, although not i { would not have a significant economic impact on them . j However, many other materials licensees commented . a th t the new i annual fee would have & negative economic impact on em. th Therefore,
- the regulatory flexibility analysis prepared for the July 10, 1991, i
analysis, final rule, as well as this regulatory-flexibility i concentrates on the annual-fee.
& yp ff /F IIpcfo"; yGe / *'N fees Thecommentersfindicatedthefollowingresultsifth 9gannual or ?.g il 12,-
3 were not modified:- Large firms would gain an unfair competitive ad vantage i- over small entities. 3 i-One-commenter noted.that a-small well-logging company (a-" Mom and Pop" type of . . operation) would find it difficult to absorb the annual fee, while a large corporation would find-it easie r..
- 146-A G
i
. ., , , , . , , , . . - , , . _ , . . . , - . , , - . ~ , . . - , - . - . , - , , . . . . - . . . . . - - . - - -
for these " Mom and Pop" type businesses. Therefore,-even the reduced annual fee could have a significant impact on the ability of these types of businesses to continue to operate. Members of Congress, in many of the more than 100 Congressional letters the NRC has received since the July 10 , 1991, I final rule was_ published, have expressed concern about the size of the_NRC annual fees and their economic impact ~on small entities. Some of these letters have suggested that the Commission should act to further reduce the economic impact on those licensees who conduct limited operations. The Small Business Administration (SBA), while commending the Ccamission for complying with and using the RFA in the final rulemaking , suggested that the Commission should act to further alleviate the impact of the fees on small businesses. The American, Nuclear Society (ANS) also expressed' concern about the impact of the { i annual fees'on small entities and suggested that the Commission ' examine alternatives to further reduce the impacts. Therefore, the.NRC eencl"dae that it chcui consider /~ M ! additional alternatives,_ in accordance-with the RFA, her"2e^ ^f 40 f hjn') ' the continuing significant impact of the annual-fees on a substantial number.of small entities. III. ATTERNATIVES -
-Commenters on the proposed rule published' April 12,- 1991,
$gguk comments received subsequent to publication of the' final rule
! 149
/ ,p,9pper /f /* ' r
* ,g,/ ein e/# ~!// I
;,p/7
, ,p/e or on July 10, 1991,
/'U/unal'/) / ; sy ,yga f 1 7 / A J W r suggested alternatives to reduce the impact on small entities.
These comments are categorized as follows: Base fees on some measure of the amount of radioactivity possessed by the licensee (e.g., number of sources). 9 Base fees on the frequency of use of the licensed
- radioactive material (e.g., volume of patients).
s Base fees on the NRC size standards for small es. entiti The first alternative would result in the annual e ng fee b i in direct proportion to the amount of radioactivit y (e.g., number of radioactive sources) possessed by the licensee, independent of whether Thus, business. the licensee meets the size standard for a small a large diversified firm that owns one source would get a reduced fee, while a small entity, whose business may depend solely on the use of radioactive materials , would pay a larger fee because it has more than one source Thus, this alternative does not necessarily-achieve the goal of thetoRFA minimize the impact on small entities. The NRC also believes that this approach would not result in a fair and equitable allocation of its generic and other costs not recovered CFR Part 170. under 10 Therefore, the NRC rejected this approach. For similar reasons, the second suggested alternative, basing the fee on the frequency of use of the license d 150
1 ' 50 percent) of the proposed fee for each specific category of ( materials license, k regardless of how small or large the fee is, - j This option could result in a reduction in annual fees th at are i already relativelylsmall and that do-not have a significant i impact on a substantial number of small entities , } However, for 1 those fee categories assessed large annual fees 4 , the percentage of reduction may result in assessing small entities licensed under those fee categories relatively large annual fees. j i Option 3 would establish a maximum fee for all small
. entities.
! Under this option, a small entity would pay either the smaller of the annual fee for the category or the maximum small entity fee. i This alternative strikes a balance between the i requirements of OBRA-90 and the RFA, which are to consider and reduce, as appropriate, the impact of an agency's regulatory actions on small entities. { Therefore, the NRC has adopted Option I 3 as the most appropriate to reduce'the impact on G mipei,/-s; ps. O small entities. \
. /)r? f p pii;L a//q,yafAo/wsecl f&; M'h he h "M l k' k A O NU W/ A L-
;M cemes/y, V" PMW's W IV. MAXIMUM FEE i
4 i To implement Option-3,! L the NRC established a maximum annual fee for small entities. The RFA and its implementing guidance do I not provide specific guidelines on what constitutes ~a significant economic impact on alsmall entity. Therefore, the NRC has no- )
; benchmark to assist in determining the amount or the percent of -
gross receipts that should be charged to a small entity To ..
. determine a maximum annual fee for a small entity
, the NRC :
-i l
i ' 152
- 1 4
,- . , . - - , .--,m, - -,5-- .-~ -, -,...--,-,,-,m -,,-,...,w . , ~ . . . - ~ , w..,,vr .,
._ - . - _ . _ _ _ - . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ . ~ . _ . _ _ . - . . . _ . . . . _ . .
~
-4 examined the NRC 10 CFR Part 170 license and inspection s fee established in 1991 and the 1991 Agreement State fees for ose th fee categories that are expected to have a substantial num ber of -
small entities. Because these fees have been charged to small entities, the NRC believes-that these fees do not have a significant impact on them. In fact, the NRC concluded, in issuing the July 10, 1991, final rule, that-the existing' materials license and inspection fees do not have a significant impact on small entities. f 7/7jf e o ,,c / irs 4 e pin ni); &/4/ No f})e // /PfJ h&N* The maximum fees per year charged in 1991 by several l Agreement States and by the NRC for materials license f ee . categories with a significant number of small entities are sh own below. 1991 Maximum Average Total Fee Per Year-Washington
$3,760 Texas
$2,100 Illinois
$2,000 NRC
$1,590 Nebraska.
'$1,460 New York ~
$1,030 Utah
$440-Table 1-presents'the estimated. total fees (Part 170 plus Part 171) for: materials licensees,-assuming maximum annual' fees -
for small entities of $2',000 or $1,500 and an-average numb er . of L i 153 4
i , ij governmental jurisdiction. l Using 1990 data from the National i Association of Counties, the distribution.for counties located in non-Agreement States with-a population of less than 50,000 shows [ i that a population level of less than 20,000 would ensu - re that at-4 ' least 50 percent of the small counties would be eligible f or reduced fees (See the data presented below). This would also ensure that at least 50 percent of other governmental jurisdictions (cities, towns, villages, school districts,-etc.) t 4 could also receive the benefits because these other jurisdiction s are typically smaller than counties. 4 4
- Poculation Percent i of Total i Less than 5,000 g 5,000 - 9,999 10%
4 10,000 - 14,999 18
- 15,000 - 19,999 16 20,000 - 24,999 14 25,000 - 50,000 9 l
a 33 i
- The NRC also determined the amount of thee-that annual fe should be assessed tas lower tier small entities
$250,000 .(less than
' for small businesses and small non-profit' organization s, or less.than.20,000 populationL i for small governmental jurisdictions). In establishing the annual fee for lower' tier small entities,
- j. the Commission retained a-balance between the objectives of the RFA and OBRA{. - 90 M (1)
This balance can be measured:by ' the amount of costs attributable to small entities transferred to larger entities a s th t i (the small entity-subsidy);-(2) the total annual-fee small entities pay, relative to thi s . subsidy; and (3) 1 how much~the annual fee is-for.a lower tier l 157-i 3 -y ri v- -- *i -- r y gu *9w-d y'w v*W*M y Wy
4 . - _ small entity.. s l Nuclear gauge users were used to measure the reduction in fees because they represent about 40 percente of th I materials licensees and most likely would-include a larger t percentage of lower tier small entities than would other clas ses of materials licensees. i l ! Before. presenting alternative fees, ! the NRC notes that the i i number of licensees filing small entity. certifications for the FY~ l 1991 annual fees is lower than originally estimated } . The NRC estimated-3,000 certifications in the July 10, 1991, rule, which i. would have resulted in an estimated cost of about $5 m ! n f the_small entity subsidy.- ) On the basis of the response to the FY ? 1991 billings, 2,000 small entities. the NRC's estimate is now that thereLare about - i f The following data shows four-different lower tie r small entity fees, i their impact on the licensees, _and their impact on
~ ?O
- p. the balance between OBRA((nd a RFA.
j
- Alternative. Estimated FY 1992 Estimated
!. Lower Tier ' Reduction
.Small Small t-Entity _
in Fee Entity FY 1992 Annual i for Gauge Fees' Paid Subsidy by.Small AnnualLFeel _ Users (%) l$ Mi-51,200
' Entities (S Mi
[ _900-
.30% $5.0 $4.5 i 50 '5.3 l
700 60 ' _4 . 2. l400 5 .' 5
-75 - 4. 0 6.0 3.5 i-Each of the_ alternative lower tier annualuces feesthered l
- annual feeffor qualifying nuclear gauge licensees. However, the-
\ i 158 i
-m- --...--.......__._..:.....,..-..-.-.._.....:-._..c......_._..,_.
.A-- ,. _-m -_-- -.- .
4 Commission established an annual fee of $400 for the lower tier l small entities because this amount should ensure that the lower tier small entities receive a reduction (75 percent for small gauge users) substantial enough to mitigate any severe impact. The amount of the small entity subsidy resulting from this fee is equivalent to the amount estimated in the July 10, 1991; final rule, increased by 20 percent to account for the FY 1992 budget increase and the reduced number of materials licensees-resulting
- from license terminations after the FY 1991 rule became effective. 'Although the other reduced fees would result in lower subsidies, the Commission believes that the amount of the associated annual fees, when added to the license and inspection fees, would still be considerable for small businesses and organizations with gross receipts that are less than $250,000 or for governmental entities in jurisdictions with a population of less than 20,000.
V.
SUMMARY
cnmmante rocci / d en *ka propered rule dated April 12, ' col _ _ _ and imn1====titic.,.. a we ifnal rule op July ~10W91, p Wide- - -- 7hc MM kn of+/nojrs' - t
?"4d^--a +"rtbtheannualfeeeculdsignificantlyimpact[a -
substantial number.of small entities. A maximum fee for small entities strikes a balance between the requirement to collect 100 percent of the NRC budget:and the requirement /'to consider.means of reducing the impact of the proposed-fee on small entities. On the basis of its regulatory flexibility analysis and the April 17,11992, final rule the NRC conclude,s that a maximum annual fee . 159 c/- l
+
m: g e - - - - - , , - . ,- y -,w'y,, e i,--,--v-, u.--% --,--w- .-ww.-,-4,w% - . -. -,...--c -,r ,,-
~
g,, c/ f sdP os s #* '" Y N ""
- Y.Ql s/L ,pn,re4+/Ak h' 0" /dLs5 war
- )
vl A es-ne e& r e f& Jv de fon'H"No. -
/
- Endlosure 4 j .
DAILY STAFF NOTES TO THE COMMISSION
/
l
/ OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER I
~
~ ~~~
Final Rule aned by E00 - s j i w I N This con:;tituth notice tdhe Commission that, in accordance with tho \
\
authority delegated to the ED0 -(-14-GPr PartMl(:)(Sty, the EDO has signed a-M'I '
, final ruleJer guvi'cction r in the Feder:1-Mi3ter. The f h:1 ule will tr := cffecti c 30 dan fivm the dete of public th '
- -/
, ' On 1992, the Executive Director for Operations approved a final rule that amends 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171. These amendments to the Commission's fee regulations-are necessary to implement the requirements of Public Law 101-508 to recover 100 percent of the FY 1992 budget authority through fees. i ' The final amendments to Part 170 (1) amend s 170.20 to change the cost per professional staff-hour from $115 per hour to $123 per hour; (2) increase a?1
- flat fees for radioisotope programs by seven percent based on the increae
hourly rate; (3) further refine the existing fee categories for export. aw import licenses; and (4) codify the definition 'of " nonprofit educational institution" that has been used by the Commission in addressing exemption j requests. 1 The final amendments to Part 171 (1) increase the amount of the annual fees assessed to operating reactors, fuel cycle licensees and materials licensees; (2) further refine the uranium recovery class of licensees-by dividing Class I facilities into two classes to be consistent with exemption decisions that l ' recognize those licensees who do not' generate uranium mill tailings; and (3) amend the exemption provisi_ons of s 171.11 to require that licensees who wish
- to be considered for an exemption from the annual fees must file the exemption request within 90 days from the effective date of the rule establishing annual i
fees; and-(4) codify the definition of " nonprofit educational institution" that has been used by the Commission in addressing exemption reouests.
#nder The fi=1 r:1-M1992:feesformostlicenseesdincrbaedcompared g to FY 1991 fees because:
(1) The amount that must be recovered-has increased from approximately
$445M to $492.5M.
(2) Fewer licensees are available to pay for- the higher costs of regulatory activities not covered under 10 CFR Part 170. For example, approximately 2,000 of 9,000 material licensees have requested that their licenses be terminated or combined since the FY 1991 final rule was adopted in July 1991; and one of the three HEU fuel facilities has requested a possession only license (POL). l
- i e
i-i- i t a t I
- 2. .
. (or'O" i
Age 4:H ::r c' he FY 1992 prep;s- annual fees to those assessed for FY 1991
'-a
- l. ' f:ll;;;:
jo fp,. follCwio') . h'blC i t Ranae of Annual Fees l Class of licensees FY 1991 FY 1992 i Operating Power Re' actors $2.8M to $3.lM $3.0M to $3.1M " Fuel Facilities $0.7M to $1.6M $0.5M to'52.3M Uranium Recovery
- Facilities- $67,100 to $100,100 $ to S 4' Transportation Approval ..
Holders- $1,800 to-$29,100- $1,660 to 562,960
' Materials Users (small entity)' $1,800 $400 to $1,800
{ . Materials Users (other)_ $390 to $10,800- $580 to.516,550 Other Licensees ,$50,000 to $222,500 $55,700 to $336,150. 1
- A i --
L b cm / > k 4-4 2
,- . . . =. -. .. - . -- -_- . - ~ - - - - . - .. j . t.
- 1 - .
1 Enclosure 5 j The Honorable Bob Graham, Chairman i Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation ! Committee United Stateson Senate Environment and Public Works. j' Washington, D.C. 20510 I.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
j Public Law 101-508,
- the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 , requires that the NRC recover 100 percent of its budget authority, less the appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Fund, for fiscal years 1991 throu9h i
by assessing license and annual fees. . For FY 1992, the NRC must colle { approximately for FY 1991. $492.5 million through these fees as compared to $445 milli 4 s On April 27, 1992, f_ we informed you of the issuance of the;goposed . j rule relating to 100 Federal Reaister on April percent fee recovery for FY 199?gdwas ' publfsheYin th I 29, 1992 for public comment. The comment period expired on May 29, 1992. I through June The NRC reviewed a total of 29 comments received f 22, 1992 and in order to comply with the Public Law
, the NRC is amending its fee regulations in 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171.
1: F
- _ The final amendments to 10 CFR Part 170, which assess c on license
- a fees for specific identifiable services:
(1) irerease the cost per professional staff-hour for all full; cost fees; (2) increase all flat' fees r { radioisotope programs by seven percent based on the increase I refine the categories of fees for export and import licenses; and ( the definition of nonprofit educationallinstitution. i- [ The final amendments to-10 CFR Part 171, which. assess - s-annual fees >
- not recovered through 10'CFR Part 170,_ establish the amount of ~ the F -
annual fees to; be assessed to operating reactors, fuel ~ cycle licensees . F including fuel fabrication facilities, uranium recovery- facilities , ! transportation certificate holders, and. materials' licensees . The FY 1992 annual fees are increased as compared to c"a" FY 199gaed ofTiieFY' thd L f. I
1992 annual fees are summarized as follows: c Class of licensees Operating power reactors Ranoe of Annual _-Fees . - k
$3,082,000 to $3,138,000 -
3; Fuel Facilities N\
$536,250 to $2,325,250 Uranium Recovery Facilities
$58,800 to $167,500 k0 p U' TransportationCertificate/ S Approval Holders
$1,660 to $62,960 Materials Users
$e
$580 to $16,550 >c Other Licensees [O
$55,700 to $336,150 Those NRC licensees that ef, ualify as a small entity under the NRC's size g
standards are eligible to pay reduced annual fees. For example, a licensee withgrossannualreceiptsof$250,000to_$3.5millionhya-maximumannual fee of $1,800 per licensed category. Those licensees with gross annual receipts of less than $250,00 pay an annual fee of $400 per licensed category.
, , ,.y ,pe,s /ip; po,whNx t
,f A ss /Jon .: o, G d "
Enclosed is a copy of the- ;-~1ared o - vi A ,/inal ;phf w etic: d)dlerNMm} ke W /b. which is being transmitted to the/ Federal Reoister for publication - The Y amendmente t; t6 Tea ,;;&tien- become, effective 30 days from the date of publication, VS fjf 4 Sincerely, Dennis K.-Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs cc: The Honorable John J. Rhodes
Enclosure:
Final Revision l to 10 CFR Parts l 170 and 171 l e ae .q4-_1,.. yA m- yy-.,Q9y-g*ce-,-y 3-, .,y.-.g3-e-apg ni4, .q. g y..r> ,.4.g. .y 1--- 99 .m
'- 9
j ^ e
- 3 , ENCLOSURE 6
\
- KRC REVISES FEE SCHEDULES 1
i-The Nuclear Regulatory Commission i < i inspection and annual fee schedules t s revising its licensing, { 1
. o permit recovery of i approximately 100 percent of its fiscal year 2 budget.
199 1 The revisions implement the requirement a Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990lwhi -r- ( /k Whh Jons of the omnibus c /c4- 97) requires the NRC to recover approximately 100 percent of its bud { get authority, less-I appropriations from the-Nuclear waste n, Fu d through 1995 by assessing licens - for-fiscal years 1991 ' i e and annual fees. be recovered in fiscal year 1992 is $5 The amount to l-j amount appropriated from the Department 12.5 million less the of Energy-administered i Nuclear Waste Fund which on. is $20 milli
- The revisions include an increaseLi fees assessed licensees operating n the amount of annual
! S2.8 to about $3.1 million and increa: nuclear power plants from ab L 1 paid by other NRC licensees. se the-annual fees to be ) In addition, the amendments: 1) i fpereasetheagency-wideprofessionalhou is used to determine Part 170 licensi ng and inspection fees, from
$115-to 5123-per-hour; -
2) i Iberease the all -3)- applicants and licensees _ ercent; by seven pcurrent licen I furtherrefinethe-existing.feecategoriesfor and export license applications and a
- 4) mendments; iconsees; rther refine the-uranium-recovery" classes of F
-me- o s- gw--- e ggs + -er- %r,, , sw.-- , - , . e m c .v.-, ,, e -v , e m- e ,e- e ~-s - w ,wm , muwn a w.~-, -w e - or ~,m .e s - ww-e-- n.w,-.ne
-5) quire licencocs who wish to be considered for an exemption from annual fees to file an exemption request within 90 days from the effective date of the amendments;. and
- 6) hfinea"nonprofiteducational. Institution".
The amendments to Parts 170 and 171 of the Commission's regulations will become effective on (date). i 5 h 4 i I i W I e
~
E. A kj
. - . _ - . . - . - - -- - - - - - - - - -- -- - ~ ~ ~ ~
. A
- 5) quire licensees who wish to be cons'idered for an exemption from annual fees to file an exemption request within 90 days from the effective date of the amendments; and l
! 6) Mefinea"nonprofiteducationalinstitution". 1 The amendments to Parts 170 and 171 of the Commission's . regulations will become affective on (date). 1 i i 1 l-I b l l t I a...,... - s a. g u rc
. - . - , . - - . , , - - . . ~ , . , , . , . . . . , , , . , -}}