ML20210F673
| ML20210F673 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | National Bureau of Standards Reactor |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1994 |
| From: | Scroggins R NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER |
| To: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210F661 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9908020095 | |
| Download: ML20210F673 (8) | |
Text
..
MAR.2 31994 INPORTANT NOTICE T0:
ALL PARTS 30, 40, 50, 61, 70, 71, 72, 73. AND 110 LICENSEES.
APPLICANTS AND REACTOR VEND 0RS
SUBJECT:
RESTORATION 0F THE GENERIC EXENPTION FRON ANNUAL FEES FOR NONPROFIT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS As you are aware, in the final FY 1993 fee rule issued July D, 1993 (58 FR 38666) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) revoked its annual fee exemption for nonprofit educational institutions.
Following that i
action, the Commission began to reevaluate its decision in response to concerns raised by colleges and universities. The Commission also received a petition for reconsideration of the revocation filed by a number of affected educational institutions.
The Commission granted the petition for reconsideration and issued for public comment a proposed rule reinstating the exemption (September 29, 1993, 58 FR 50859). The Commission received over 200 comments on the proposed rule, the majority from colleges and universities in favor of reinstating the exemption.
After careful consideration, the Commission has decided to reinstate the annual fee exemotion for nonprofit educational institutions. The Commission's decision was published in the Federal Reaister March 17, 1994 (59 FR 12539).
The reinstated annual fee exemption provision is identical to that contained in the FY 1991 and FY 1992 final fee rules. A copy of the March 17, 1994, Federal Reoister notice is enclosed for your convenience. No new fee schedule is being published for FY 1993.
The NRC will cancel the FY 1993 annual fee invoices for those licensed activities exempt under this final rule. Accordingly, refunds will be made by the Commission, without further application or request from the affected licensees, within approximately 30 calendar days following the effective date of this final rule to those licensees who paid the FY 1993 annual fees and who now are exempt under'this final rule. No further action will be taken on nonprofit educational institutions' exemption requests which have been held in abeyance pending this final rule.
Some r.onprofit educational institutions filed applications requesting termination, dou grade, possession-only or combined licenses to avoid the FY 1993 annual fees If those applications are still pending, the licensees should notify the,1propriate NRC Headquarters or Regional Office processing the application within 30 calendar days from the effective date of this rule, which is April 18, 1994, if they wish to rescind their applications due to the exemption's reinstatement. Otherwise, NRC will continue to process the applications as filed. There are instances where the NRC has completed final action on some of the applications in question.
The affected nonprofit 9908020095 990729 PDR ADOCK 05000184 P
r.-
2 educational institutions are advised that if they wish to reinstate their previous license authority, they must file an application ~to do so with the NRC. Such applications for reinstatement of previous license authority are exempted from fees under 10 CFR 170.11(a)(4) as appropriate.
W w
Ronald M. Scroggins Deputy Chief Financial Officer / Controller
Enclosure:
March 17, 1994, Federal Reaister notice l
e f
I Federal Registir / Vol. 59. No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 1994 / Rults and Regulations 12539 s
Ctene s*
Sdstanne Purpme Piones Amowit I. Background should propose to retractthe new soon aAw-M'u--its Analrule annual fees (562.100 per research establishing the NRC's'FY 1993 fee reactor lionnae; lassar amounts for each schedules (la FR 34866: July 20.1963),
maurials hceneek Accordingly on which included for the Aret time annual S*Ptamber 29.1993 (58 FR 50449). he fees for previously onesapt nonproSt Commission published in the Federni educadonalinstitutions a, b r a nouce granting the peution an proposing to restore b annualles Commission received a peution for reconsidwauonof thatrule.no exemption for nonproSt educational NUCLEAR REOULATORY
("1 g h**
Re Co ntuion received our 200 00tM000N t
change. requested bt b NRC comments on b propoud rule, with 10 CFR Part recumsider its decision to charge annual b nst maWty in favor of motoring l
l l
Ims to such insututions.De ution the annual fee exmption. (This number asurted that b extern @aed nonu include enmments on the educational and public good resultir*g imm use of
- Ption provided to the Comratamian RIN 318tLAE83 Restmuon oN Mc Esempton (
,Fd w
be lost one man e st d o as in 1
RAhnu8 *** MonProm Educagonalinactutions fees were imposed upon college and Policy. see 68 FR 21116: April it.1993).
j university bana== (See Pouuon for Afier careful review of the comments.
Reconalderation of Final Rule Oul 30 and after studying the views of a AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 1993) (sppended to the Proposed fLule
{r fessional economist engaged to amnist Co=rai a for the Restoration of the Annual Fee analyzing b comments (see note 2
- N "*I'*I'*
Exemption to NonproSt Educadenal infra), the Commission has decided to make Anal y pond reinstatament of sumuARY:On September 29.1993 (58 Institutions. 58 FR 50859; September 29 FR 50459),the Nuclear Regulatory 1993.)) The petition pointed to research g **gP P
uW Commission O'NRC" or Commission") in such Belds as nuclear safety, g
I*
[",,
i d
o ub c for iemakin a
ya
. number of colleges ank universities nuclear matters. and to various beca8ts 3f th mon tary ofeducation.
shortfall produced by the Commission's
% NRClicenses b petition a~-
requested that the NRC reinstate the D' Petition rolled upon s letter from change in policy on the educational
~
economist Alfred Kahn to counsel for pu d h fw FY m u
%n nonpmfit educationalbmviously exempuan imm annual fees li s&
d d&M b Come ninrsity a peudon signatory.
ein eensees.
N I'tter re erred to ' pure to compensate for the restored proposed rule requested public pu d add h h h comment solely on that issue.%e
,I'Q.,'(gI,Yda le educadonal axempuon is being restored exempuen had been eliminated in a I r FYs 1991-02, there will be no finalrule published in the Federal Pubhc fre,e of cb a,s the refunds to power reactor licensees who y
c,} p g
nomic l
Register on July to.1993. After careful terms.
essendale aracteristic of Paid increased annual fees in those considereuen, the Commission has decided to reinstate the annual fee which is that, once produced. it can be yean due to the exemption of nonproSt exemption for nonymfit educational made evallable more.and more widely at educational insututions (a point also zero economic cost.
detailed in the proposed rule).
Instituhna.
While considering whetherto grant II. Responses to Cosaments EFFECTWE DATE: April 18.1994.
the peution for reconsideration, or in Although the comment period expired F084 FVRTHEA aA'>r,#,ATOi CcWTa0T:L.
the alte=s*.fve to pr.nt sc=e nonprofit on October 29'1953, the NRC reviewed Michael Rafky.OfEas of b General educational institutions ladividual allcomments received tha==1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory "public intest" exemptions imm the November 13.1993.% prior to e Commission Commission. Washington, DC 20555 new annual fees,the NRC sent staff I
telephone 301-604-1974.
members to a number of cmileges and smind over 200 commnu imp to the pro osed rule.Co les of all SUPPL.ShtGBITARY BsPORMATION.
universides to learn more about the use
. comment etters receive are evallable of nuclear materials in edmtional l
L Bedaround forinspection in the NRC Public B7 m omvamenu.
Programs and the benefits that resulted Document Room ("PDR"). 2120 L Street.
EL Fin'ai estion-changes tecluded to Real from those materials
- use.De NW. (Lower level). Washington. DC rule.
Commission concluded, on the basis of 20555 IV. e-man.by4emion analysis.
these visits and the arguments made in
- 1. Comtnent. Most commenters were v En bepacu categorical the peudon for reconsideretion. that it educauenal insutuuons, who argued g t 3,et g g =, j ad y,=>ch l
vte. - ea,ed.co ecisi.ieme..
...e.n. se,em. e.
Vll Regulatory sealysis, ymmpiad in pan t>y a coun decision questioning VUL Regutatory Deutbility cerufication.
in..mmon, town. es,d.s,anel v. Nnc.
materials will have to be ww4ly IX. Becifit osalysis.
ses r.re sea (occie.seest.
curtailed or halted altogether if the L
l 12540 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No 52 / Thursday, March 17, 1994 / Rules and Regulati:ns annual fw exem uan is not motored.
abould its fair share. Others They claimed th t the annual fees briormed outside educational titutions, the Commission does not believ that for.proSt entides bene 51 would,la many cases, entirely subsume believe that it is an adequate substitute the public as well and should not be the budpt for operation of b research for academic mesarch.
Penalized braune they pnerate proDts.
i reactor or use of nuclear material. Many In the Commission's view,a me}or Certain nonproSt commenters and commenten also stated that there was beneSt resulting from educeuonal medicallicensees argued that if the no posalbihty of obtaining mom money insutudons' une of nuclear ructors and exemption wm stained it abould be a
for their operating budgets, and that the materials is the production of new expanded to include nonproSt inevitable result of annual few would knowledy through research, which the institutions and medical hcensees that therefore be an across b-board Commission would term a "public are not now exempted from fees. A low reduction in nuclear.related studies.
good," as defined in economic theory.:
commenters stated that in certain Belds Aesponse.The Commission is aware Two c.baracteristics of a public good like of study, schools and university
. of the effecs annual fees could have on pure knowledy are its nondepletabihty hospitals compete with private snearch nonproSt educadonal insututions, not and nonexcludability That is,one laboratories and nonproSt hospitals, only from their comments but also from peon's acquisition of knowledy does mePectively, and thus would receive an l
Its own site visits.The Commission not mduce the amount available to unfair subsidy from an annual fee believes that much of b work done by othm; further, it is not of5cient-end exemption. One commenter went on to these institutions with nuclear often is impossible, as a pracdcat argue that such a subsidy amounted to materials,in both nuclear and non-matter-4o pmvent others from an unlawful promotion of atomic energy nuclear Belds of study,is extremely acquiring it. nese characteristics make by the NRC. Another commenter valuable and should not be impeded or it difBeult to scoup the costs of requested that the proposed rule be halted due to the new annual fees.
producing pure knowledge. Because the changed to exempt it from th's annual 4
Further, for reasons discussed later.
value of a pubhc good may be very fee, noting that it was the only subsidies for such activities are both Ersst.but the costs of producing it Federally-owned remarch reactor not so necessary and desirable.
impossible to recapture,it may be exempted, due to the lent ofits power
- 2. Comment. A number of comrnents neelved from nonproSt educadonal necessary to subsidize that good's output.
produedon for produedon to occur at A number of other commenters insututions stated that their work a!!. In the Comrn!ssion's view, that is supported rutorsuon of the educational Produced externalized bene 5ts to society.in the words used in the DC true of 6 pure knowledge produced by exemption.but believed it abould be nonproSt educationalinstitutions, and funded in a different manner.De two Circuit's Allied Signaldecision."not b Commission has therefore decided alternatives most popular with captured in ruidon or other market to exempt them from fees.
camemm wm fun &ng b pnoes." Among the benefits cited were Restoring the educational enemption exemption out of general mvenues, research in Belds such as nuclear safety, wil have additional bene 5cial which would mean removingit from the neutron activadon analysis. neutron consequences. Colleges and univmides fm base, w fading H via a surcharge on "S*8'* logy. Much of this research,y h
P y, archaeology, art histor and bio not only produce ruearch results and all licensees, not Just power reactor pure knowledge (what we have termed licensees. Those commenters favonns some commente claimed,was basic
.. ublic goods"), but also other bene 5ts removalof the educadonalexemption research done to advance science, not afgreat value to both the nuclear from the fw bue acknowledged that for rofit or commercial use (although suc an outcome might occur). One community and society as a whole. For such an outcome would require instance, many of the students trained Congressionallegislation.
commenter noted that it does not accept on research reactors will likely become Re8Ponse. Afier delibersting over research rants and contreets without B
the next generation of nucleer reactor whether the educadonal exemption makin bm public,and ublishes operators and engineers. no knowledge should be restored,the Commission virtual y allits findings. e commenters asserted that this neoarch, they gain from their education in these behens de winnt pobey decisim is to if halted due to new fees,would not fields will allow them to operate 8"mPt nonproSt educational licensees likely be duplicated or replaced by the ruct rs and other nuclear facilities once afain. Since the Commission piivate sector.
safely and effeedvely. Knowledge publis edits final rulein July 1993 Response.%e Commluion agrees anaind eingh educadon wm alsobe huMag b Wmuualsumpue with commenters that much of the work of vala to sose capanin or has devoted an extnordinary amount of done with nuclear materials in Government agencin, including the time and attention to b question of academia,if halted, would simply not armed forces, who him these students to whether to reverse that decision. it has be continued in the private sector. In p e!c m nue nlated work Web nyiewed bundrods ofle ters on the particular, b Commlulu wu ohen cannot be done without extensive inue. 5elded numerous phone Impressed by the arguments made educede in b area.
comments and inquiries, and sent staff regarding basic research.ne
- 3. Comment. A number of members to study the issue by visiting college and univmity licensees. In b Commission believes that such research, eminentm argwd, fw a miety of Commission's view, the evidence taken done in the spirit of academic inquiry, reasons, that the educational exmption as a whole leans stronglyin favor of should not be notomd. Some is an integral part of the programs run by educational institutions with NRC comesm stated that each licensee restoring that eumption, for the reasons described above: that many educational licenesa.
licensees would be forced to helt their The Commission agms with MyNDMC commenters' arguments that educational,ensuiunt on ib. iou.r.o.m.$.m.ni. g,[*
naarch and educadonal activides due c
n to lack of funds if NRCfee subsidies institutions' Commitment to basic Public goods. Tla. memore ndum has b.en plac.d in were Withdrawn; that those activltles research is largely unique, as it is not M*C FDR 8"d 'nsy be min.d by eny would often not be continued in the driven by the need io develop
(*M,$'js'$',$N,['p",,*g* private sector. nsulting in a serious loss commercial uses.While tbere is or r.canoma to. vole cellese Iwd i. c iee genuary of basic research in numerous areas of undoubtedly much basic rnearch
- 4. s p.
study; and that the public good inherent
Federal Register / Val. 59. Ns. 02 / Thursday. March 17. 1994 / Rul:s and Regulations 12541 1
la the production of knowledge made meearch and educatica, but primarily to such support has been vital to b evallable to all is worthy of Government pmvide servius to paying customers.
success of nuclear and nuclur-related support.Such support would not While the Commission does not education. ht notwithstanding, the themfore consutute an unlawful subsidy dispute that medidne provida Commission does not view its education nr promodon of atomic energy.
significant bene 6ts to padents, auch policy, or the exhortatory language of bCommission has receind trutment is both depletable and b AEA as mandating that colleges and anecdotalinformation imm some excludable.no benefits of medidne are universitin k exempt imrn NRC fasa.
commenters indicating that certain themfom a private rather than a public h Commission bs decided to restore wd. By contrast, an educadonal fnatitution generally disseminates the the fee exempuen as a policy matter.not nonproSt research institutions (which a mattu of legal compulsion.
do not fall within b dennition of results of its basic rosaarch to all who
- 5. Comment Many educational nonproht educational lastitution as provided in to CFR 171.51 and want it, non going beyond the conAnos insututions commented that it made ydmily ownd ruurch ructors of the university itulf, witheat little sense to charge them annual fus should recein the same treatment as F'C*lvint c mPensation from any of when much nfhir nuchar-education educational institutions.8 However. the ene bmStting from that knowldge.
funding was deriwd Imm Federal I'I '
bunsas.0 ##Pmnt ducadonal agencies such as b Department of Commission does not bekve it has smgular trestant is not Energy and b National Science sufBeient inforinsuon on which to bene mmly that the a generic exemftion for such research ben $tsmthw.y pmvide valuable sodal Foundadon. Anobr commenter argued it is the existace of lastitutions an reactors. Because the that State agencies ware nonprofit in nature and should be exempted in the I
d proposed rule did not suggest that the y;"
Pum knowhge(through
)th t y
same manner as collega and e
educational exemption be expanded in ucm universities.
this way, the Commission received a ic me
,but not to mescal smaller number of comments than are Rnponse.N Commission for un un nuded to soake an informed decision E"
' g'g reasons discussed above decided to g
o addre sad M grestw length in ee reinstate the examption for nonprofit on this issue.For that reason the curant policy of charging such entitles ca ns ns e art at a Commission's Federal R later acuce annual and user fees remains in effect.
discuningh petum Sfd by b number of these institutions meelved fun g imm Fedml egencim was not noes nonprofit ruearch institutions American College of Nuclear Physicians a
a the Anal decissame and Federally-owned ruearch reactors and the Society of Nuclear Medicine ComznMon e decision was based who believe that they qualify for an seking a in exmption for medical Primarily on who remived the benents exemption imm b annual fee based on licensen (published in b Pro osed of marvices rendered.rather than the public good concept arv. of course.
Rule Secuan of this issue of the Federal free to roguest one imm the who funded the underlying activities.
Commission. See to CFR 171.11.
g,ggg,)'m.
He Co mission does not plan to N N--W also notes that it Depending on the outcome of any such adopt the supon of some chargw fees to o&w geninental requests, thers=mtesion may nwd to commenters that most or all other lionnseen. including both Federal and revisit the question of whether to make licensees should contribute something State agendu. (Virtually no Federal nonprofit rnearch institutions toward the costs of exempting nonpmat agencies are chaqpd user fees under generically exempt imm fees in a future educationallicensees. W agency.in P*'1170 du* Pmhibition against any event,is not recou ng these costs such fees in the Independent Offices,
rulemaking.
l e
b Commission also believes that for FY 1993, as it is I ly precluded APproprisuon Act, see 31 U.S.C. 9701.)
medical licensees should continue to from retroactively col ecting those costs It finds no basis for changing its i
pay annual fees.nis is consistent with from licensees. The Commission in its historical policy with respect to hse put Commission practice. Contrary to Energy Policy Act mandated review of entlues in this rulemaking. This issue is j
some commenters* assertions, the fee policy has concluded that the costs addressed in the Commission's Report j
Comrnission's fee policy does not result of exempting nonproBt educational to Congress on fee policy, cited earlier in a competitive advantage for institutions should be excluded from in this rulemaking.
university medicallicensees over the fee bue through legislation
- 6. Comment.Some educational nonproSt hospitals. Both are charged modifying OBRA-90. In its study, b commenters stated that they should fall few for licensee authorizing medical Commission concluded that if under the category of small entities, and treatment using licensed nuclear legislation to accomplish 'his is not asked whether the definition of"small resteriale & Cc==1ssico does not eneded,these costs should centinue to entity' could be broadened to include a believe that medical 11censees are be acovmd thmugh f=s anesad to Srsater number ofinstitutions than t.nalogous to nonprofit educa'.ional Power reector licenseen.
currently fall within the definition.
- 4. Comment. A numbu of Ruponse.b Caminion intends to institutions.Their function is not pure commenters have argued ht the.
re-examine h size standards it uses to Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended define small entities within the context
,[,$p 3,#,$*, MdN ""
("AEA").mandetes NRC support of of compliance with the Regulatory test ietion.s.ecuae siottene otonRA 40,42 education, and that accordingly b NRC Flexibility Act.The Commission will u.sc utWct = =nanded by the Enesy Polwy must restore the educational exemption conduct this mytew within the context Aci er t oer.we,n. th.,s. cia in quena*"
to conform to that mandate. In this of the proposed revisions of small InTh.YesY.1.u5nYe5*.MlfnNd mgard, some commenters made h business size standards proposed by the does met snest the deBattien of a *researth rescier" point that their facilities were originally Small Business Administration ("SB A")
8ar Pwp=== *i the marvtary===npima.
funded or provided to them by the AEC (5B FR 46573: September 2,1993). The
- sanitarh. maiedals !=na= beid by n.mpe.6' or other Federal a encies.
Commission will not complete its on.IdNNr"Nc.*s"pYe o"ned unde, RMPonn. N mminiort myiew until the SBA promulgates a n
. Covernrnent contreet m elao subiecuo lees. See acknowledges its longstanding poh,ey of $nal rule containing the revised site to CFR tro.stkH4)and trt.1ti.Milliestl.
supporting education, and believes that standards. Until these activities are
l
(
12542 Federal Regir.:r / Vol. 59, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 1994 / Rules and Regulati:ns completed,it would be premature to IV. Section by Secuom Analysis equitably and practicably contnbute to a
omument.
g,,,,,,,,,,,, g,,,pg;,,,
% payment Therefore, when developing the III Fine Action-ChangesIncluded to Paragra (a) of this secuan is annual fees for rating power Final Rule amended
't adding nonproSt rnetors, the NR continues to consider The Commission has made only one educadonahnstitutions, as debd in the various reactor vendors, the t of
$171 1 the hst of those entities containment, and the location of one chanbe toits FY 1993 final rule estab shing annual and user fee
- xemPted from annual few by the sehWu!es fw that Ascal year. As it Commission. A discussion olthis reactors. The annual fees for fuel cycle licensees, materials licensees, and proposed, b Commission has amended change in fee hey is found in Sections holders of certincatu, registrations and I and 11 of thi 6 aal rule.
approvals and for licenses issued to du tio alinsti tio s annual V. Environmental Impact. Categorical Government agencies take into account fees.The new exemption rovision is Exclusion the type of facility or approval and the i
identical to that contain in the FY ne NRC has determined that this
'$"CFR i
1991 and 1992 Ena) fee ruin. Because Lnal rule is the of action described g
1' ch utabbahed
[ ve[Oct g
the Anal fee schedule for FY 1993 has in categorical ex sion 10 CFR already been issued, the Comrnission 51.22(c)(1).Therefore, neither an 0
5 will not be charging other licensees environroental assessment nor an September 18,1966), was challenged for the fees that wou ave been paid environmental un et statement has and upheld in its entirety in Florido j
for N 1993 by the bowly exempt group been prepared for e Snal re=ulation.
Power and Ught Company v. United of licensees. For that renon, no now fee States,846 F.2d 765 (DC Cir.1968). cerf echedule is being published at this time. VI. Paperwork Reduction Act.
denied. 490 U.S.1045 (1989).
i i
Statement 10 CFR part 171, which established I
e f
9 in r ation col o req rements ay e
Asa o
l exemption's costs will be included in and, therefore.is at subject to the up e u t de in S ments e d
the FY 1994 proposed fee rule.
Qu Actof 98 U S.C. 3501 1726 (1989), and the denial of ceruotan Because the Commission has decided in this Anal rule to reinstate the annuai
,, '". )'
in Florido Power and u ht,all of the s
lawsuits were withdrawn.
fee exemption for nonproSt educational VII, Regulatory Analyale The NRC's FY 1991 annual fee rule institutions, the NRC will cancel b FY With respect to 10 CFR part 171. on was largely upheld recently the DC 1993 annualles invoices for those November 5.1990 the Congress passed Circuit Court of Appeals in ed-licensed activities exempt under this Public law No.101-50s,b Omnibus Signalv. NRC,986 F.2d 146 (DC Cir.
Analrule. Accordingly, refunds willbe Budget Reconcihadon Act of1990
~1993).
made to those licensees who paid the IOBRA-90). OBRA-00, as amended
- FY 1993 annual fees ano are now requires that for FYs 1991 through 1998 VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certi$ cation exempt under this faal rule.
approximately 100 percent of the NRC's Additionally, no further action will be budget authority be recovered through As required by the Regulatory taken on nonpront educational the assessment of fees. To secomplish Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 605(b),the institutions' exemption requests, which this statutory requirement, on July 20, Commission certiSes that this final ruie had been held in abeyance pending this 1993 (58 FR 38666), the NRC,in as adopted does not have a significant Anal rule, accordance with $ 171.13. ublished in economic impact on a substantial Sotne non roSt educational the Federal Register the 11 al amount of number of small enuties.
l institutions led spplications requesting the FY 1993 annual fees for operating IL BackAt Analysis termination, downgraded, possession.
[ri only or combined licenses to avoid the e
ne NRC has determined that the i
FY 1993 annual fee. If those Certincates of Com liance,registrauons baclfit rule,10 CFR 50.109, does not applications are still pending, the of sealed source an devices and QA spply to this final rule and that a backBt licensees should notify the NRC within program a provals,and Government analysis is not required for this Ensi 30 calendar days from the effective date agencies. nsistent with OBRA-40 and rule. The backfit analysis is not required of th!s rule if they wish to rescind their its Conference Committee Report, the because these amendments do not Commissien hn ensured thst-require the modiSceden of or eddibons appheations due to the exemption's (1) The annual fees are based on the ta systems, structures, components, or reinstatement. Absent such notification. Commission's FY 1993 bud tof1540design of a facility or the design the NRC will procus the applications as million less the amounts co lected from approval or manufacturing license for a filed.There are instances where the NRC has thendy completed final scuon part 170 fees and the funds du ctly facility or the procedures or app priated from the Nuclear Weste organization required to design, on some of the applications in question. fun to cover the NRC's high level construct or operate a facility.
sti tions a
d the i y wish *h)Yb ual fees, to the maximum ust of SuScts a to Nart 371 to reinstate their previous license extent procticable, have a reasonable Annual charges, Byproduct material.
authority.they must Ele an application relationship to the cost of regulatory Holders of certificatu, registrations, and io do so with the NRC. Such services provided by the Commission; approvals. Intergovemmental relations, applications for reinstatement of and hon. payment penalties Nuclear previous license authenty are exempted (3) knnual fees are assessed to thuse materials, Nuclear power plants and from fees under to CFR 170.11(a)(4) as beensees which the Commission,in its reactors, Source material, Special appropriate.
discretion, determines can fairly, nuclear material.
l
c Federal Register / Vgl. 59. N3. 52 / Thursday March 17, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 12543 I
For the reasons set out in the (A) A circula loop through the preamble and under the authority of the core in which the conducts fuel i
Atomic Energy Act of 19s4. as amended, experiments:
and s U.sc sst and as3 the NRC (3) A liquid fuelloading:or hereby adopts the following (C) An experimental facllity in the amendments to 10 CFR part 171.
corein excess of16 squareinchesin oosegocsion.
PART 171--ANNUAL FEES FOR REACTOR OPERATING UCENSES.
Deted et Rockville. MD this Sith day of l
AND PUEL CYCLE UCENSES AND Mepb. loot.
I MATERIALS UCENSES. INCLUDING For the Nuclear Reguletory Comuniesien.
HOLDERS OF CERTIFICATES OF Sement J.Chak.
COMPUANCE REGISTRATICNS AND p
[PPR tm Dem233 Ned S-1&es;a:45 aml ALS N O R
ENT
- '****'8"""#
AGENCIES UCENSED SY THE NRC 1.%e authority citation for part 171 is revised to read as follows.
~
'Autberityt Sec. 7001. Pub. L 90-272.100 Stat 144, as ameeded by sec. tool. Pub. L 100-203.101 Stat.1330. as ameeded by sec. 3201. Pub. L 101-239.103 Stat. 2108 es armoeded by sec. 6101. Pub. L 101-60s.104 Stet 1ssa (42 UJC 2213); sec. 301. Pub. L 93-314. M Stet 222142 U.SC 2201(w)); sec. 201.M Stet 1242 es ameeded 142 U.SC i
Ss41); sec. 2003. Pub. L 103-486.108 Stat.
3126 (42 U.5C 2214 asee).
- 2. In i 171.11 paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
$ 171.11 Esempeens.
(a) An annual fee is not required for:
(1) A construction permit or licanes applied for by, or issued to, a nonproSt educational institution for a production or utilization facility, other than a power reactor, or for the possession and use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material.
His exemption does not apply to those byproduct, source, or special nuclear materiallicenses which authorise:
(i) Human use; (11) Remunerated services to other po' sons:
(111) Distribution of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material or products containing byproduct material, source material, or sp(ecialnuclear material:or iv) Act!vities performed under a Government conunct.
(2) Federally. owned research reactors used primarily for educational training and academic research purposes.For purposes of this exemptica, the term research reactor means a nuclear reactor that-(1)Islicensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under section 104 c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 19s4 (42 U.S.C. 2134(c)) for operation et a thennal power level of to megewetts or -
less; and (il)liao licensed for operation et a thermal power level of more than 1 -
snegawatt, does not contain-
- f o.
,1 L
1, m
- e...
m w.m a:wp.y. p~.mmn.=,
Y Y
WJM 1*
I T,w. %.
. n... u ~. w. u.
-L:~
.g.> s
~~.s.....
-,a.
4+7. ~.. Date Rec'd:
. A...,..,..:n.;r, z+o g
y:
v w
- '%, n,. ba n? J M ;, %.
Q <. 3.
> S 1.0.0. 5./99 Im w '.
- n ~ v n 2 ;,.ewm Gd a" v.u 4 &,r.-
.y*.~.d._.,..e M
%, e DAF Action:. lDAF.9-121 lh.,,. 3 a,4 4% @. a
.,u.'} a; w
(
r 7
b.t *. ',
- g..#
itj
.u j @n. M.lf, ta
- m.
n
_WMN B., s...c
! @...Q@@..b;S?e,,..e.E,,d,e,
(
.... ~..
e,
.r s.
'L WN H OC Action : 4.-.
v.
,,., ~w.a...
m.
.~
c i"' DAF Due Date: l7 _12!99.
..n,...:t. w... w. >.....,.
Mm+,. R $_M.,w%
- 9 @,.
W
.s.
_..... _u-..,..._
-.... ~
. t e. m. ~+.%., x, -M...c; n>g-w w.m #. wm~ m.,,M~.u.
s.
. ~-..
.. m,.
.r - -.~.;,,. e. Branc :
L AR
- c..
p:
W:.
. a. c,.p~, e,._a
.4 v.
.u,...
,, ~,,.
~.y.
, n
.:1 g= ~-.,, e<
m..u...u= 5
. r.A.., a.
+
m
.w.. -.:.is-
~..
.y-
. x,
.t.e4 p e.,.-V
.. '.~ Action item:'exem tion re uest.
c,. ?.
Respond to NIST letter on fee
,J ' Z O.R.,'.,,MS; - C.M'&'s e o.
M a
-r
.. m
- m M.;
"W W.,p.,M, M. y.9 :
r ;s.g -,,,:
- p aA
,.,.v.
t-d < ; %' j. s, -p
,y.
)
i
- 8 6,
4 a,
, 5.u.,, -
a y..., O r., a
.e
. a,-
.. e. ~ L,a+ 3.. -- ; c, 9g 4e,/,9
-ga. [ SP,g*.,..g i
c +
s
,a
-p
-r
+no,...ne %..g h
r r.-
1.c i Q '. W y m
.::*/.m ',*DlM Q }^1!*?
_"..y.
e
- Y,,&
- 3s Q'hi W ? l__sl. z W.
W **T'tm*9%
. c W -p y.
.m
,qy.'. e..p g. g g..
s.
er.-,, >
r
.-4 a.
m q. N.., 4,.: q. @. M..
J
Description:
Prepare response to letter from J. Michael u.._ N..m. _@
a.
'M ' /;._, ',
Rowe, Director, NIST Center for Neutron
,d@.
f3 UT.'. O. -
Research, requestin that NRC not adopt the T.k n..~.h. '@rM. F4 @
.f. l Z A..W.,s,t o
g
%.M.m -.
- <i 9mm. ' 5.-
proposed substantial increase in annual fees ey@,, ; w.1,. -
charged to non-power reactors. Further
,QcMyMw.. a 4. ;MM m
- y. %.. n; g i w
i 0%.A
%ggj
...-m b
- 6 4, proposing that NRC waive NISTs annual fee r
g e
... in the interests of national policy.
si.ry<. M. -Q Op%, VW J, @..y u : }..) t,N r,y,,.3 4 g.M..y%. %,,@pg. ;a; 6
a.
\\~l, *tL
- n. s... e,es. f. ?x.
,y i, w..*~,\\ ;
ng*
4 R,. ;,, ;, y A
%,G..
.....,?,.
Ca }.
,v.c.,y/
i,
..s-..
. ;. m. u y,
,.-.~1......
c.~.
,e
..f, m
4 4.e. ;.
. - p r..
w$. 2 %w. O - ntt, '.W. 4, '4e#.u.
n
' ' ~
.,,r w.e n
.>.,Y,r.m..s,,a.
W N..'
,,,: ~,. ' ' Date to DIR:.
N C
a. O?
9R 4
7..
o
. w.,,,.
. -.v
,a.. m...
w m.
...e -
s..
n y. m<. v.:..; w em.
e..w%
,s :.,m>,t.m.'., 4 y u,: -:. pm^ a. 5,,,. -.*
"~.a
%. s.
. y*
+
7: n n...,,,
.h.
.. ". e, 4...a.
s*
us.
- *, s *p v-s 99.
,y
- ..- g,.,
- ( g "4
^ -
.m.
(...,_
- 1. Ext. Date: I l j% - A
% T.f M~ c. C. @;. - a,#' Th..nifd' ).,; M,.~]*'y, e
y
- / ;S.?
j l
,. ;w.
.,%m y.
- s..,: w y,, y n s.a..,m e., ' w.,
.~.t
.. (ta.
%,,-fg...q
.y,,,,..
Date Closed:f '
e
. g 'y. ;,,;.
Wp W M g g y.~. m g g. p.~ p h,.3 m ;
en kc t,
.c A a.n.M. N,,1T.GM m....
b /'*T
...T n,.
a
' +*
h
~
-. 9' } '$ f, ' *. t_ ek.
(3 l.e-d'M' y.e ' I t ' '.,, R 4'
\\
f 8, g..h-.
' \\w h
- l '
I*'
p k {t.:$f'*,&.c s-f
- N"[? !'**l-
.I
^
97 $ *j*T
- 8 89'O.-
...g~,
4
- ' &',i it w,,e c.1'- c.D e.,
.., ~
.-ik_a
~ =v. f 's, ' av
- '*']
,y'
,W e.
r -~l.-
-.s.+
4^
Si J
ti t e~
9 C
w.*
-f
? '
o.
?
1'
' ~ *
+4
~
L.
,c S
j l lm w.c w
- ~ M,o -a-M W'7-M.&
e-'
1
. '*
- s tm. ~ a: ~9 6 - :: * ~
m
,7 ;;< ' W,.q. w q.' d.".
(:( i.,,.,.C '. y ' ':
m" nl "n
7 - s_U.P
^~ y 3..
4
' v.y
@A fM.n. m, g'.i.c4,. 3.
. ";q,... 6,., J p. w,, M,,.M v, %.
s
~&
+
A,. 4 s
.ye
.. O OCk F g %.%..d,~
-.. + f. w..
t 1
.n
- W J M,w..
, 7,.a,s-r., s. - M, d
.L.~
M V.,/~ 7. p +%. -
es i
e.
m..-., -
...f,,,
. _ sp e-==,
-.~ : e
..- +; ;,
- e.,., ~...- 4
,,,.e.%r, (g*85 O h, "b g -
---6 cm.
h
=-
n
,,.,7, p'" i.,e9-]y m
,4 g -
g'-.
t j
- -. J>. Eg ~~w.,u.Jc d. %
5 I
I4 y p y. wN.. n:.T' _ 2.L.:,m,h.y.w: n, a 9. ":. Lw ;.
,, '..w xw.
4 WC M % " T. W.,n.* M O.
o;i
.r e...n -
i w
n
.. j
(. m, ;,;.,@ 7 y,.,,...
n*:? 1 %, c o
?.
~
y,, J 7 o J
. - -, a,..
- my M..,gy + vp,;. 4
-,- 7 n c
. g.. p,.
~
v y-f
. e..w.
, a.S 'k'n$
f';5RM$k,,.p,,nm.& hb.x$(f,k.. &,;..'.f- $. $. w f.
N *';.O. F W
w-u m..g.xM. yn.
7 u.
i.;n ;ct.U :.% w M gri'.s.. W fD.W,4..
w.; v.w.W. M* a-x;wWss :6.f.:M.s W. a n, " r w:t'
- w..
J
=w e
H, *r& a. To..~ "* N i (*7 We= ; v,.
.: W-s,- n - l P. :<* o:p*.-
o,a, ~4. *. 5, i'm.a*.*.W-.WU %.. A. t ? A ' v:* Wwr.*a'% ?.g' n.4* m a. 7m.%.
M
/ 4 y
g..)-. g % w7,,.,. u1 f,,'. Q "
- ,.,?..-'p'.,f
-r 3-
....a ya p y
- C 7 %.
.u,. ' r ~.w..
Wy
.~
e a
,m;f %. * '. ; i 3 g; 9./.
j 5 g,c, ;f+.n.. k. v.4 p. A,
,9 g w n
- s. s y < a >gp,2..e,, y#gy ).e# y e:+5. ~.~4'*+
n-m oi,~ V ; y.-*c,s,
. ~." m s
e
,, m
- z 3
. '.. i g y. y,, _ e.. n..% y. 3 ;,c4 e +.. m T y
9 o-
. g a
..:-, a, :,r,.,- ~., n.., s.a.
~'-
-e n ~ ~ es w *
...a.c.
.. v xa, m w.
_s.
~.wa
-w u
P r
+
'*e e, *"
.a.
- i p-ee.
's
.O T
r 3
g 4
n':k, m.
a pe p
+6 e
9e'^
l b
~.
S-
.P ik l!
N't x
a.
o N: tion:1 In:titute cf Standard] cnd Tcchn:ligy
/
Gach:rsburg Maryland W1} :;
\\,
.., f i,...
,2.5 a N...
R
/70 d 7/
- u... c c Fn [ME.N...
~
April 30,1999
( 66'f:/2. jgg m mv -5 Ai'. :00
~~
Secretary km 05 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission p d; y"'
Washington, DC 20555-0001 9F~
b, y Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Ir Ref: Proposed increase in NRC Annual Fees
'M,W
Dear Sirs:
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) respectfully requests that the NRC not adopt the proposed substantial increase in annual fees charged to non-power reactors. We consider the proposed fee increase excessive, without an adequate basis or justification, and we also object to such large changes imposed at this stage in the Fiscal Year. In addition, NIST is the only Federal Government reactor that is assessed any fee; i
yet NIST serves many customers antiend whose measurements are critical to meeting national goals. Each year more than 1500 researchers from industry, university and i
government rely on the capabilities of the NIST Center for Neutron Research for critical research in physics, chemistry, materials science, biology and engineering. Thus, imposing any fee would seem contrary to public policy.
In summary, we respectfully propose that rather than increasing the annual fee for the NIST research reactor, the NRC should waive it in the interests of national policy.
You truly
/'
J. Michael Rowe Director, NIST Center for Neutron Research e
NLST ct<106Mo-pt+. I().