Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2016

AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending the licensing, inspection, special project, and annual fees charged to its applicants and licensees and, for the first time, the NRC is recovering its costs when it responds to third-party demands for information in litigation where the United States is not a party (“Touhy requests”). These amendments are necessary to implement the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended (OBRA-90), which requires the NRC to recover approximately 90 percent of its annual budget through fees.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on August 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0223 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0223. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document. For the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession numbers and instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document.
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michele Kaplan, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-5256, email: Michele.Kaplan@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background; Statutory Authority

II. Discussion

III. Opportunities for Public Participation

IV. Public Comment Analysis

V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

VI. Regulatory Analysis

VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality

VIII. Plain Writing

IX. National Environmental Policy Act

X. Paperwork Reduction Act

XI. Congressional Review Act

XII. Voluntary Consensus Standards

XIII. Availability of Guidance

XIV. Availability of Documents

I. Background; Statutory Authority

The NRC's fee regulations are primarily governed by two laws: (1) The Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701), and (2) OBRA-90. The OBRA-90 statute requires the NRC to recover approximately 90 percent of its budget authority through fees; this fee-recovery requirement excludes amounts appropriated for Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, generic homeland security activities, and Inspector General (IG) services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, as well as any amounts appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund. The OBRA-90 statute first requires the NRC to use its IOAA authority to collect user fees for NRC work that provides specific benefits to identifiable applicants and licensees (such as licensing work, inspections, special projects). The regulations at part 170 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) authorize these fees. But, because the NRC's fee recovery under the IOAA (10 CFR part 170) does not equal 90 percent of the NRC's budget authority, the NRC also assesses generic “annual fees” under 10 CFR part 171 to recover the remaining fees necessary to achieve OBRA-90's 90-percent fee recovery. These annual fees recover regulatory costs that are not otherwise collected through 10 CFR part 170.

II. Discussion

FY 2016 Fee Collection—Overview

The NRC is issuing the FY 2016 final fee rule based on the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113), amount of $1,002.1 million, which is a decrease of $13.2 million from FY 2015. As explained previously, certain portions of the NRC's total budget are excluded from the NRC's fee-recovery amount—specifically, these exclusions include: $1.3 million for waste-incidental-to-reprocessing activities, $1.0 million for IG services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and $18.8 million for generic homeland security activities. Additionally, 10 percent of the NRC's budget is recovered through a congressional appropriation. After accounting for the OBRA-90 exclusions, this 10-percent appropriation, and net billing adjustments—i.e., the sum of unpaid current year invoices (estimated) minus payments for prior year invoices and the prior year billing credit issued to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for the transportation fee class—the NRC must collect $883.4 million in FY 2016 from its licensees. Of this amount, the NRC will recover $332.7 million through 10 CFR part 170 user fees, and the remaining $550.7 million through 10 CFR part 171 annual fees. Table I summarizes the fee-recovery amounts for the FY 2016 final fee rule using the enacted budget, and taking into account excluded activities, the 10-percent appropriation, and net billing adjustments (individual values may not sum to totals due to rounding).

FY 2016 Fee Collection—Hourly Rate

The NRC uses an hourly rate to assess fees for specific services provided by the NRC under 10 CFR part 170. The hourly rate also helps determine flat fees (which are used for the review of certain types of license applications). For FY 2016, the NRC's hourly rate is $265, a decrease of $3 from the hourly rate in the FY 2015 final rule. This rate is applicable to all activities for which fees are assessed under §§ 170.21 and 170.31.

The NRC derives its hourly rate by dividing the sum of recoverable budgeted resources for: (1) Mission-direct program salaries and benefits; (2) mission-indirect program support; and 3) agency support—which includes corporate support, office support (FY 2015 only), and the IG. In FY 2016, the agency eliminated the office support category for budgetary resources. Created in FY 2011, office support included indirect resources that sustained an individual office—such as supervisory, administrative assistant, and other support staff FTE hours. In FY 2015, the agency contracted with E&Y (formerly Ernst and Young) to study the NRC's budget structure in comparison with peer agencies. Based on E&Y's recommendations (and starting in FY 2016), the NRC reclassified resources formerly budgeted in office support into either mission-indirect program support or corporate support, depending upon whether the resources were budgeted in support of a program office or a corporate support office.

The mission-direct FTE hours are the product of the mission-direct FTE multiplied by the estimated annual hours per direct FTE. The only budgeted resources excluded from the hourly rate are those for contract activities related to mission-direct and fee-relief activities. Billable contract activities are included as a separate line item on the 10 CFR part 170 invoice.

The hourly rate decrease is the result of an increase in estimated direct hours worked per mission-direct full-time equivalent (FTE) during the year and reduced budget. The FY 2016 estimated annual direct hours per staff is 1,440 hours, which is up from 1,420 hours in FY 2015. Assuming a constant budget, as the FTE hours per staff increases, the hourly rate decreases. Table II shows the hourly rate calculation methodology. The FY 2015 amounts are provided for comparison purposes.

FY 2016 Fee Collection—Flat Application Fee Changes

The NRC amends the flat application fees that it charges to applicants for import and export licenses, applicants for materials licenses and other regulatory services, and holders of materials, import, and export licenses in its schedule of fees in §§ 170.21 and 170.31 to reflect the revised hourly rate of $265. The NRC calculates these flat fees by multiplying the average professional staff hours needed to process the licensing actions by the professional hourly rate for FY 2016. The NRC analyzes the actual hours spent performing licensing actions and then estimates the average professional staff hours that are needed to process licensing actions as part of its biennial review of fees, which is required by Section 902 of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (31 U.S.C. 902(8)). The NRC performed this review in FY 2015 and will perform this review again in FY 2017. The lower hourly rate of $265 is the primary reason for the decrease in application fees.

The NRC rounds these flat fees in such a way that ensures both convenience for its stakeholders and that any rounding effects are minimal. Accordingly, fees under $1,000 are rounded to the nearest $10, fees between $1,000 and $100,000 are rounded to the nearest $100, and fees greater than $100,000 are rounded to the nearest $1,000.

The licensing flat fees are applicable for import and export licensing actions (see fee categories K.1. through K.5. of § 170.21), as well as certain materials licensing actions (see fee categories 1.C. through 1.D., 2.B. through 2.F., 3.A. through 3.S., 4.B. through 5.A., 6.A. through 9.D., 10.B., 15.A. through 15.L., 15.R., and 16 of § 170.31). Applications filed on or after the effective date of the FY 2016 final fee rule will be subject to the revised fees in the final rule.

FY 2016 Fee Collection—Fee-Relief and Low-Level Waste (LLW) Surcharge

As previously noted, Congress provides 10 percent of the NRC's recoverable budget authority through an appropriation. The NRC applies this 10-percent congressional appropriation to offset certain budgeted activities—see Table III for a full listing. These activities are referred to as “fee-relief” activities. Any difference between the 10-percent appropriation and the budgeted amount of these fee-relief activities results in a fee adjustment (either an increase or decrease) to all licensees' annual fees, based on their percentage share of the NRC's budget.

In FY 2016, the NRC's budgeted fee-relief activities fall below the 10-percent appropriation threshold—therefore, the NRC assessed a fee-relief credit to decrease all licensees' annual fees based on their percentage share of the budget. Table III summarizes the fee-relief activities for FY 2016. The FY 2015 amounts are provided for comparison purposes.

Table IV shows how the NRC allocates the −$0.1 million fee-relief adjustment (credit) to each license fee class.

In addition to the fee-relief adjustment, the NRC also assessed a generic LLW surcharge of $3.3 million. Disposal of LLW occurs at commercially operated LLW disposal facilities that are licensed by either the NRC or an Agreement State. There are three existing low-level waste disposal facilities in the United States that accept various types of low-level waste. All are in Agreement States. The NRC allocates this surcharge to its licensees based on data available in DOE's Manifest Information Management System. This database contains information on total LLW volumes and NRC usage information from four generator classes: Academic, industry, medical, and utility. The ratio of utility waste volumes to total LLW volumes over a period of time is used to estimate the portion of this surcharge that should be allocated to the power reactors, fuel facilities, and materials fee classes. The materials portion is adjusted to account for the fact that a large percentage of materials licensees are licensed by the Agreement States rather than the NRC.

Table IV shows the surcharge, and its allocation across the various fee classes.

FY 2016 Fee Collection—Revised Annual Fees

In accordance with SECY-05-0164, “Annual Fee Calculation Method,” dated September 15, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML052580332), the NRC rebaselines its annual fees every year. Rebaselining entails analyzing the budget in detail and then allocating the budgeted costs to various classes or subclasses of licensees. It also includes updating the number of NRC licensees in its fee calculation methodology.

The NRC revised its annual fees in §§ 171.15 and 171.16 to recover approximately 90 percent of the NRC's FY 2016 budget authority (less non-fee amounts and the amount to be recovered through 10 CFR part 170 fees). The total 10 CFR part 170 collections for this final rule are $332.7 million, an increase of $11.0 million from the FY 2015 fee rule. The NRC, therefore, must recover approximately $550.7 million through annual fees from its licensees, which is a decrease of $16.3 million from the FY 2015 final rule.

Table V shows the rebaselined fees for FY 2016 for a representative list of categories of licensees. The FY 2015 amounts are provided for comparison purposes.

The work papers (ADAMS Accession No. ML16161A886) that support this final rule show in detail how the NRC allocated the budgeted resources for each class of licenses and how the fees are calculated. The work papers are available as indicated in Section XIV, “Availability of Documents.”

Paragraphs a. through h. of this section describe budgetary resources allocated to each class of licensees and the calculations of the rebaselined fees. For more information about detailed fee calculations for each class, please consult the accompanying work papers.

a. Fuel Facilities

The NRC will collect $31.6 million in annual fees from the fuel facility class.

In FY 2016, the fuel facilities budgetary resources decreased due to continued construction delays at multiple sites, which caused delays in NRC operational readiness reviews and NRC inspections. These delays further caused the estimated 10 CFR part 170 billings for FY 2016 to remain stable compared to FY 2015. Specifically, significant construction delays are noted for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, the International Isotopes facility, and the AREVA NC facility.

As for the annual fees, the NRC allocates annual fees to individual fuel facility licensees based on the effort/fee determination matrix developed in the FY 1999 final fee rule (64 FR 31447; June 10, 1999). To briefly recap, that matrix groups licensees into various categories. The NRC's fuel facility project managers determine the effort levels associated with regulating each category. This is done by assigning separate effort factors for the safety and safeguards activities associated with each category (for more information about this matrix, see the work papers). These effort levels are reflected in Table VII.

For FY 2016, the total budgeted resources for safety activities are $16.2 million. To calculate the annual fee, the NRC allocates this amount to each fee category based on its percent of the total regulatory effort for safety activities. Similarly, the NRC allocates the budgeted resources for safeguards activities ($13.7 million) to each fee category based on its percent of the total regulatory effort for safeguards activities. Finally, the fuel facility fee class' portion of the fee-relief adjustment/LLW surcharge—$1.7 million—is allocated to each fee category based on its percent of the total regulatory effort for both safety and safeguards activities. The annual fee per licensee is then calculated by dividing the total allocated budgeted resources for the fee category by the number of licensees in that fee category. The fee for each facility is summarized in Table VIII.

b. Uranium Recovery Facilities

The NRC will collect $0.9 million in annual fees from the uranium recovery facilities fee class, a small decrease from FY 2015.

The budgetary resources for uranium recovery increased due to additional work expected for the Uranerz Energy-Jane Doe and Strata Energy-Kenderick expansions, increased inspection activities for Strata Energy-Ross (a new licensee to fleet), and increased hearing activities. Although—in comparison to FY 2015—the total required amount for annual fee recovery decreased, annual fees for this fee class increased because there are less licensees paying annual fees in FY 2016 (two licensees, Moore Ranch and Crownpoint, were not included in the calculation for annual fees because they were licensed but not constructed and, per current NRC policy, are not required to pay annual fees).

The NRC computes the annual fee for the uranium recovery fee class by dividing the total annual fee recovery amount among DOE and the other licensees in this fee class. The annual fee increase for fee categories 2.A.(2)(a-c), 2.A.(4), and 2.A.(5) is mainly due to the increase in budgetary resources for increased hearing activities and a reduction in the number of licensees over which to spread the budget. The NRC regulates DOE's Title I and Title II activities under UMTRCA. The annual fee assesses to DOE the costs specifically budgeted for the NRC's UMTRCA Title I and II activities, as well as 10 percent of the remaining budgeted costs for this fee class. The DOE's UMTRCA annual fee decreased because of an increase in estimated 10 CFR part 170 billings for DOE's UMTRCA site at Monument Valley. This decrease caused the total overall fee recovery amount to decrease for this fee class. The NRC assesses the remaining 90 percent of its budgeted costs to the rest of the licensees in this fee class, as described in the work papers. This is reflected in Table X as follows:

Further, for the non-DOE licensees, the NRC continues to use a matrix to determine the effort levels associated with conducting the generic regulatory actions for the different (non-DOE) licensees in this fee class; this is similar to NRC's approach for fuel facilities, described previously.

The matrix methodology for uranium recovery licensees first identifies the licensee categories included within this fee class (excluding DOE). These categories are: Conventional uranium mills and heap leach facilities; uranium In Situ Recovery (ISR) and resin ISR facilities; mill tailings disposal facilities; and uranium water treatment facilities. The matrix identifies the types of operating activities that support and benefit these licensees, along with each activity's relative weight (for more information, see the work papers). Table XI displays the benefit factors per licensee and per fee category, for each of the non-DOE fee categories included in the uranium recovery fee class as follows:

Applying these factors to the approximately $369,571 in budgeted costs to be recovered from non-DOE uranium recovery licensees results in the total annual fees for each fee category. The annual fee per licensee is calculated by dividing the total allocated budgeted resources for the fee category by the number of licensees in that fee category, as summarized in Table XII.

c. Operating Power Reactors

The NRC will collect $465.9 million in annual fees from the power reactor fee class in FY 2016, as shown in Table XIII. The FY 2015 values and percentage change are shown for comparison.

In comparison to FY 2015, the operating power reactors budgetary resources decreased in FY 2016 due to a decrease in the budgeted activities for new-reactor activities. This decrease is attributable to delays in application submittals and a slowdown in requests for design certification renewal and construction permits. Accordingly, the FY 2016 operating power reactor annual fee decreased. In addition to decreased budgetary resources, an additional licensee (Watts Bar) was added to the operating fleet. This increases the number of licensees paying this annual fee, which also, in turn, lowers annual fees compared to FY 2015.

Compared with FY 2015, 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings increased due to the design certification work for APR1400 Korea Hydro.

The recoverable budgeted costs are divided equally among the 100 licensed power reactors resulting in an annual fee of $4,659,000 per reactor. Additionally, each licensed power reactor is assessed the FY 2016 spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning annual fee of $197,000 (see the discussion that follows). The combined FY 2016 annual fee for power reactors is, therefore, $4,856,000.

d. Spent Fuel Storage/Reactors in Decommissioning

The NRC will collect $24.0 million in annual fees from 10 CFR part 50 power reactors and 10 CFR part 72 licensees who do not hold a 10 CFR part 50 license to collect the budgeted costs for spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning.

In comparison to FY 2015, the annual fee decreased due to a decline in budgetary resources for rulemaking security guidance and waste research. This decrease is partially offset by the slight increase in 10 CFR part 170 billings, due to work on the consolidated storage facility with Waste Control Specialist and renewal work with Transnuclear. The required annual fee recovery amount is divided equally among 122 licensees, resulting in an FY 2016 annual fee of $197,000 per licensee.

e. Research and Test Reactors (Nonpower Reactors)

The NRC will collect $0.326 million in annual fees from the research and test reactor licensee class.

In FY 2016, the annual fees decreased due to a decline in contract support for the non-power reactors and an increase in estimated 10 CFR part 170 billings for non-power production and utilization facility applications to produce molybdenum-99. The required annual fee-recovery amount is divided equally among the four research and test reactors subject to annual fees and results in an FY 2016 annual fee of $81,500 for each licensee.

f. Rare Earth

The agency received an application for a rare-earth facility in FY 2015. The NRC has allocated approximately $460,000 in budgeted resources to this fee class. But, because all of these budgetary resources will be recovered through 10 CFR part 170 fees, the NRC will not collect an annual fee in FY 2016 for this fee class.

g. Materials Users

The NRC will collect $35.0 million in annual fees from materials users licensed under 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70.

To equitably and fairly allocate the $35.0 million in FY 2016 budgeted costs among approximately 2,900 diverse materials users licensees, the NRC continues to calculate the annual fees for each fee category within this class based on the 10 CFR part 170 application fees and estimated inspection costs for each fee category. Because the application fees and inspection costs are indicative of the complexity of the license, this approach provides a proxy for allocating the generic and other regulatory costs to the diverse categories of licenses based on the NRC's cost to regulate each category. This fee-calculation method also considers the inspection frequency (priority), which is indicative of the safety risk and resulting regulatory costs associated with the categories of licenses.

The annual fee for these categories of materials users' licenses is developed as follows:

Annual fee = Constant × [Application Fee + (Average Inspection Cost/Inspection Priority)] + Inspection Multiplier × (Average Inspection Cost/Inspection Priority) + Unique Category Costs.

For FY 2016, the constant multiplier necessary to recover approximately $25.3 million in general costs (including allocated generic transportation costs) is 1.52. The average inspection cost is the average inspection hours for each fee category multiplied by the hourly rate of $265. The inspection priority is the interval between routine inspections, expressed in years. The inspection multiplier is the multiple necessary to recover approximately $8.9 million in inspection costs, and is 1.78 for FY 2016. The unique category costs are any special costs that the NRC has budgeted for a specific category of licenses. For FY 2016, approximately $249,000 in budgeted costs for the implementation of revised 10 CFR part 35, “Medical Use of Byproduct Material (unique costs),” has been allocated to holders of NRC human-use licenses.

The annual fee assessed to each licensee also includes a share of the fee-relief assessment of approximately −$2,000 allocated to the materials users fee class (see Table IV, “Allocation of Fee-Relief Adjustment and LLW Surcharge, FY 2016,” in Section III, “Discussion,” of this document), and for certain categories of these licensees, a share of the approximately $525,200 LLW surcharge costs allocated to the fee class. The annual fee for each fee category is shown in § 171.16(d).

h. Transportation

The NRC will collect $7.8 million in annual fees to recover generic transportation budgeted resources. The FY 2015 values are shown for comparison.

In comparison to FY 2015, the total budgetary resources for generic transportation activities increased due to the rulemaking activities involving 10 CFR part 71 Compatibility with IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) Transportation Standards and Improvements, which is offset by the increase in part 170 estimated billings for licensing review work involving Holtec International, EnergySolutions and Areva Federal Services.

Consistent with the policy established in the NRC's FY 2006 final fee rule (71 FR 30721; May 30, 2006), the NRC recovers generic transportation costs unrelated to DOE as part of existing annual fees for license fee classes. The NRC continues to assess a separate annual fee under § 171.16, fee category 18.A. for DOE transportation activities. The amount of the allocated generic resources is calculated by multiplying the percentage of total Certificates of Compliance (CoCs) used by each fee class (and DOE) by the total generic transportation resources to be recovered. The DOE annual fee decrease is mainly due to 10 CFR part 171 billing adjustments.

This resource distribution to the licensee fee classes and DOE is shown in Table XVIII. Specifically, for the research and test reactors fee class the NRC allocates the distribution to only the licensees that are subject to annual fees. Three CoCs benefit the entire research and test reactor class, but only 4 out of 31 research and test reactors are subject to annual fees. The number of CoCs used to determine the proportion of generic transportation resources allocated to research and test reactors annual fees is adjusted to 0.4 so that the licensees subject to annual fees are charged a fair and equitable portion of the total. For more information see the final rule work papers.

The NRC assessed an annual fee to DOE based on the 10 CFR part 71 CoCs it holds. The NRC, therefore, does not allocate these DOE-related resources to other licensees' annual fees because these resources specifically support DOE.

FY 2016—Fee Policy Change

The NRC makes one policy change:

Charging User Fees for NRC Work Spent on Responding to Touhy Requests ²

The NRC's Touhy regulations—found at 10 CFR 9.200 through 9.204—govern the manner in which the NRC responds to third-party subpoenas or demands for official information served on agency employees. Those third-party subpoenas seek NRC employees to produce documents, to testify, or to do both, in outside litigation in which neither the NRC nor the United States is a named party.

Currently, NRC regulations do not authorize the NRC to collect user fees for the work it performs either collecting and providing documents or providing oral testimony in depositions or before an administrative or judicial tribunal. Yet, NRC work on some Touhy requests can be quite substantial. Without an existing regulation authorizing the NRC to collect user fees, the costs of this work must be recovered through annual fees under 10 CFR part 171. Therefore, the NRC amends its regulations to begin assessing 10 CFR part 170 user fees to recover the NRC staff's costs when responding to significant Touhy requests once NRC work on a request exceeds 50 hours.

The authority for assessing these fees comes from the same statute that provides the authority for the NRC's 10 CFR part 170 fee schedule. That statute—the IOAA—sets forth Congressional policy that “each service or thing of value provided by an agency . . . to a person . . . is to be self-sustaining to the extent possible.” Here, when the NRC complies with a third-party demand for information, the NRC is bestowing a benefit on a private litigant because the NRC is aiding that private litigant in its litigation by providing the information. That benefit is not shared by other members of society. The NRC's work on substantial Touhy requests should, therefore, be recovered under 10 CFR part 170 rather than the current process, which bins those costs to 10 CFR part 171. This full-cost recovery under 10 CFR part 170 would apply to both requests for documents and requests for oral testimony.

Additionally, the NRC has created a fifty hour de minimis fee exception to ensure that 10 CFR part 170 fees are assessed for only significant Touhy requests. This is because the NRC believes that non-corporate Touhy requests for a limited set of documents should not be subject to fees. Once NRC work on a Touhy exceeds fifty hours, however, the Touhy requester will be billed for the full amount of work—this provides an incentive for Touhy requesters to keep their requests from becoming overly burdensome.

FY 2016—Administrative Changes

The NRC also makes three administrative changes:

1. Increase Direct Hours per Full-Time Equivalent in the Hourly Rate Calculation

The hourly rate in 10 CFR part 170 is calculated by dividing the cost per direct FTE by the number of direct hours per direct FTE in a year. “Direct hours” are hours charged to mission-direct activities in the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program and Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety Program. The FY 2015 final fee rule used 1,420 hours per direct FTE in the hourly rate calculations. During the FY 2016 budget formulation process, the NRC staff reviewed and analyzed time and labor data from FY 2014 through FY 2015 to determine whether it should revise the direct hours per FTE. Between FY 2014 and FY 2015, the total direct hours charged by direct employees increased. The increase in direct hours was apparent in all mission business lines. To reflect this increase in productivity as demonstrated by the time and labor data, the NRC staff determined that the number of direct hours per FTE should increase to 1,440 hours for FY 2016.

2. Amend Language Under 10 CFR 170.11 To Clarify Exemption Requirements

The NRC amends the language under 10 CFR 170.11(a)(1) to clarify when stakeholders can receive a fee exemption after submitting a report to the NRC for review. The NRC removed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) and instead will rely on the related criteria in exemptions in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) for the distinct criteria that stakeholders can use to receive a fee exemption after NRC review of a “special project that is a request/report submitted to the NRC.” The NRC also moved the requirements in current paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(C) that require stakeholders to submit their fee exemption requests in writing to the Chief Financial Officer to a new paragraph (a)(13). These requirements will now apply to all fee exemption criteria, not just special projects.

3. Change Small Entity Fees

In accordance with NRC policy, the NRC staff conducted a biennial review in 2015 of small entity fees to determine whether the NRC should change those fees. The NRC staff used the fee methodology developed in FY 2009 that applies a fixed percentage of 39 percent to the prior 2-year weighted average of materials users' fees when performing its biennial review. As a result of the NRC staff's review, the upper tier small entity fee increased from $2,800 to $4,000 and the lower-tier fee increased from $600 to $900. This constituted a 43-percent and 50-percent increase, respectively. Implementing this increase would have had a disproportionate impact upon the NRC's small licensees compared to other licensees, and so the NRC staff revised the increase to 21 percent for the upper-tier fee. The NRC staff chose 21 percent based on the average percentage increase for the prior two biennial reviews of small entity fees. Because of a technical oversight, the change was not included in the FY 2015 final fee rule. Accordingly, the NRC staff now amends the upper-tier small entity fee to $3,400 and amends the lower-tier small entity fee to $700 for FY 2016. The NRC staff believes these fees are reasonable and provide relief to small entities while at the same time recovering from those licensees some of the NRC's costs for activities that benefit them.

FY 2016—Billing

The FY 2016 fee rule is a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801-808). Therefore, the NRC's fee schedules for FY 2016 will become effective 60 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Upon publication of the final rule, the NRC will send an invoice for the amount of the annual fees to reactor licensees, 10 CFR part 72 licensees, major fuel cycle facilities, and other licensees with annual fees of $100,000 or more. For these licensees, payment is due 30 days after the effective date of the FY 2016 final rule. Because these licensees are billed quarterly, the payment amount due is the total FY 2016 annual fee less payments made in the first three quarters of the fiscal year.

Materials licensees with annual fees of less than $100,000 are billed annually. Those materials licensees whose license anniversary date during FY 2016 falls before the effective date of the FY 2016 final rule will be billed for the annual fee during the anniversary month of the license at the FY 2015 annual fee rate. Those materials licensees whose license anniversary date falls on or after the effective date of the FY 2016 final rule will be billed for the annual fee at the FY 2016 annual fee rate during the anniversary month of the license, and payment will be due on the date of the invoice.

III. Opportunities for Public Participation

The NRC published the FY 2016 proposed fee rule in the Federal Register on March 23, 2016 (81 FR 15457), for a 30-day public comment period. The rule proposed to amend the licensing, inspection, special project, and annual fees charged to the NRC's applicants and licensees and, for the first time, proposed to recover the NRC's costs when it responds to third-party demands for information in litigation where the United States is not a party (“Touhy requests”). These proposed amendments were necessary to implement OBRA-90, as amended, which requires the NRC to recover approximately 90 percent of its annual budget through fees. The public comment period for the proposed rule closed on April 22, 2016.

The NRC also held a public meeting on April 13, 2016, to provide more transparency regarding fees in relation to the budget process and fulfill its commitment to external stakeholders to address NRC program processes and inefficiencies mentioned in the comments submitted for the FY 2015 proposed fee rule. During the public meeting, the NRC received no comments on the FY 2016 proposed fee rule. The public meeting transcript is available as indicated in Section XIV, Availability of Documents, of this document.

IV. Public Comment Analysis

Overview of Public Comments

The NRC received seven written comment submissions for the proposed rule. A comment submission for the purpose of this rule is defined as a communication or document submitted to the NRC by an individual or entity, with one or more distinct comments addressing a subject or an issue. A comment, on the other hand, refers to a statement made in the submission addressing a subject or issue. In general, the commenters were supportive of the specific proposed regulatory changes, although most commenters expressed concerns about broader fee-policy issues related to transparency and fairness.

The commenters are listed in Table XXII, and are classified as follows: Three members of the uranium industry (Kennecott Uranium Company, Wyoming Mining Association (WMA), and Uranerz Energy Corporation); one nuclear materials licensee (Rendezvous Engineering); one nuclear medicine materials licensee (anonymous); one nuclear power plant (Southern Nuclear Operating Company); and one industry trade group (Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)).

Information about obtaining the complete text of the comment submissions is available in Section XIV, “Availability of Documents,” of this document.

Public Comments and NRC Responses

The NRC has carefully considered the public comments received. The comments have been organized by topic followed by the NRC response.

A. Hourly Rate

Comment: The hourly rate—despite the decrease from $268 to $266—remains high in comparison to the hourly rates of consultants working in the uranium recovery industry. (Kennecott Uranium Company, Wyoming Mining Association, and Uranerz Energy Corporation)

Response: To the extent the commenter believes that the NRC's hourly rate should be comparable to the hourly rate for uranium-recovery consultants, the NRC disagrees with this comment. All fees assessed to licensees and applicants by the NRC must conform to OBRA-90 and IOAA requirements, in contrast to industry consultants working for the uranium recovery industry. Under the IOAA, the NRC must recover its full costs of providing specific regulatory benefits to identifiable applicants and licensees. In so doing, the NRC establishes an hourly rate for its work. Consistent with the IOAA, the NRC determines its hourly rate by dividing the sum of recoverable budgeted resources for: (1) Mission-direct program salaries and benefits; (2) mission-indirect program support; and (3) agency support—which includes corporate support, office support (FY 2015 only), and the IG. The mission-direct FTE hours are the product of the mission-direct FTE multiplied by the hours per direct FTE. The only budgeted resources excluded from the hourly rate are those for contract activities related to mission-direct and fee-relief activities.

No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.

Comment: The hourly rate calculation identifies $362.9 million in mission-direct program activities, which represents only 41 percent of the total adjusted amount that the NRC must recover through fees ($883.9 million). This shows that the budget portion allocated to “corporate support” (which is a key factor in the hourly rate calculation) is disproportionally large in comparison to those resources allocated for mission-direct and mission-indirect activities. Further, the NRC's reclassification of “office support” activities into either “corporate support” or “mission-indirect support” gives the appearance of a greater reduction in corporate support activities than actually took place. The NRC needs to reduce these non-mission direct activities. (NEI)

Response: The NRC disagrees that the budget portion allocated to corporate support is disproportionate to resources allocated to mission activities. First, in calculating the percentage of mission-direct program activities, the commenter does not take into account all mission-direct resources contained in the total budget authority presented in the FY 2016 proposed fee rule. The $362.9 million referenced by the commenter includes only mission-direct salaries and benefits—it does not include the mission-direct amount for contract support, which is an additional $154.9 million. Although not included within the hourly rate, mission-direct contract support is a significant component of the direct costs within the agency's total budget authority. Total mission-direct program activities—including salaries, benefits, and contract support—equals $517.8 million. Further, the $138.7 million that the NRC budgeted for mission-indirect program support brings the NRC's total budgeted mission costs to $656.5 million.

Second, the NRC disagrees that reclassification of office support activities into either “corporate support” or “mission-indirect support” gives the appearance of a greater reduction in corporate support than actually took place. During the 5-year period when the agency used the office support budget structure, mission-indirect resources—including supervisory FTE in the agency's program offices and regions, and other programmatic support resources—were identified as agency corporate support in the annual fee rule, thus making the portion of the budget allocated to corporate support appear larger than it actually was. The reclassification of office support returns mission-indirect resources to their location in the budget prior to FY 2011; in so doing, these resources are now once again properly represented in the annual fee rule as program costs rather than corporate costs. Although the budget structure change results in a more appropriate categorization of agency support resources, it does not affect the treatment of mission-indirect resources in the final fee rule calculations. Even when budgeted as office support, mission-indirect costs were recovered in the hourly rate, and they continue to be recovered through the hourly rate after re-categorization.

The NRC has taken a hard look at overhead resources, reducing both FTE and contract support dollars through streamlining initiatives. Final FY 2016 resources for agency support reflect reductions in the corporate support portion of the budget, as compared to the FY 2016 Congressional Budget Justification. The NRC will implement further reductions to corporate support and mission-indirect resources in FY 2017.

No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.

B. Fairness of Fees

Comment: As the number of NRC licensees decline, the fact that the NRC's budget has not correspondingly declined means that the remaining licensees must pay higher annual fees. For example, in situ recovery facilities fees have increased 71 percent since FY 2012. And, as more power reactors leave the fleet, the current fee structure will require the remaining licensees to bear an even higher annual fee burden. (NEI)

Response: The fees assessed to licensees and applicants by the NRC must conform to OBRA-90, which requires the NRC to collect approximately 90 percent of its annual budget authority (less certain excluded items) through both user fees and annual fees. The NRC can assess these annual fees only to licensees or certificate holders, and the annual fee schedule must be fair and must equitably allocate annual fees among the NRC's many licensees. To ensure optimal compliance with OBRA-90, the NRC makes continual organizational improvements to align its resources needed to support its regulatory activities. This should help mitigate licensees leaving a fee class by helping the NRC develop budgets that account for regulating a fee class with a declining number of licensees. The NRC is also conducting a separate effort to obtain public comment on a number of broader issues related to NRC fees. For information on the issues and comments received, please see http://regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2016-0056.

No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.

C. Uranium Recovery

Comment: The NRC proposed to increase uranium recovery annual fees by over 10 percent for each uranium recovery fee category. The NRC has not justified this increase and must provide a detailed explanation as to why annual fees are increasing by this much. Specifically, to the extent that annual fees are increasing due to increased inspection activities and other additional work, then that work should be recovered through 10 CFR part 170 hourly charges rather than 10 CFR part 171 annual fees. Also, based on invoices received by Kennecott Uranium Company, it appears that uranium recovery licensees are adequately supporting the NRC's uranium recovery program through the payment of hourly charges. (Kennecott Uranium Company, Wyoming Mining Association, and Uranerz Energy Corporation)

Response: The NRC disagrees with the commenter's argument that the NRC has not justified the increase in uranium recovery annual fees. The primary reason for the increase was a decrease in the number of licensees that were required to pay annual fees. Two licensees, Moore Ranch and Crownpoint, were not included in the calculation for annual fees because they were licensed but not constructed; per current NRC policy, therefore, those licensees are not required to pay annual fees. Further, in FY 2016, activities that cannot be billed under the hourly charges in 10 CFR part 170 continued. An example of these activities include hearings associated with four application reviews: (i) The Crow Butte license renewal; (ii) the Crow Butte Marsland new license review; (iii) the Powertech Dewey Burdock new license review; and (iv) the Strata Ross new license. In these hearings, the NRC's technical staff supports the Office of the General Counsel by providing expert testimony on areas such as groundwater, the National Environmental Policy Act, Tribal consultation, seismology, and geochemistry. Other examples of part 171 activities include NRC staff support for non-licensing tasks (such as responding to inquiries, meetings with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding their draft 40 CFR part 192 Rule, regulatory guidance development, and Tribal outreach).

No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.

Comment: More uranium recovery activities should be paid out of the congressional 10-percent appropriation to lower fees for uranium recovery licensees. (Uranerz Energy Corporation)

Response: The NRC disagrees that more uranium recovery activities should be paid out of the congressional 10-percent appropriation. The NRC accounts for its 10-percent congressional appropriation by budgeting for “fee-relief” activities. These typically include activities that are not attributable to an existing NRC licensee or class of licensee. Or they include activities for which the NRC cannot collect fees under existing law. Historically, the NRC has not designated uranium recovery activities as fee-relief activities because uranium activities are attributable to a discrete class of licensees, and the NRC can lawfully assess fees to uranium recovery licensees under OBRA-90 and the IOAA. Here, the commenter has not explained why the NRC should allocate a portion of uranium recovery activities to fee relief given the fact that the NRC can identify uranium recovery licensees and can lawfully assess fees to those licensees.

No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.

Comment: There is an error in the FY 2016 proposed work papers in Section III.A. Specifically, under the table for “Mission-Direct Budgeted Resources,” there is no description for line 5, and line 12 does not properly sum from lines 5, 8, 10, and 11. (Uranerz Energy Corporation)

Response: The NRC disagrees that there is an error in the FY 2016 proposed work papers in Section III.A. relating to the table for “Mission-Direct Budgeted Resources” because such a table is not included in this section of the work papers. But, the NRC agrees that within the work papers—specifically section III.B.2.b—the description for line 5 “Net Part 171 Allocations—with allocated transportation,” was unintentionally omitted by the NRC. The NRC also understands that reconciling the amounts illustrated in the summary for the annual fee lines 5, 8, 10 and 11 could be clearer due to the dissimilar decimal points used for rounding. The NRC will correct the final fee rule work papers to include the omitted line description and reuse decimal placement for consistency.

No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment (but a change was made to the work papers).

D. Touhy Fees

Comment: For the first time, the NRC is proposing to recover costs associated with processing third-party demands for information in litigation where the United States is not a party. How will the NRC ensure that these costs are actually directly billed to the third party so that they are not passed on to other licensees through annual fees? (Kennecott Uranium Company and Wyoming Mining Association)

Response: Touhy requests are sent directly to the Office of the General Counsel in the form of a subpoena or other demand for information. The Offices of the General Counsel and Chief Financial Officer have developed internal controls to capture and track all NRC staff time spent on Touhy requests by using unique Cost Activity Codes. When the Office of the General Counsel receives a subpoena, it will validate the request, identify the billable party, and request a Cost Activity Code that is unique to the subpoena for billing purposes under 10 CFR part 170. This process will further use a mechanism to identify when the de minimis threshold (50 hours) is reached to ensure only those requests exceeding fifty hours are billed under 10 CFR part 170.

No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.

E. Miscellaneous

Comment: How is this proposed rule going to affect the licensing fees for Bell Hospital in Ishpeming, Michigan? Is this hospital listed as a small entity? (Anonymous)

Response: Bell Hospital in Ishpeming, Michigan, currently holds a license for Medical Institution—Limited Scope—Written Directive Required (program code 02120; fee category 7.C.) and Source Material Shielding (program code 11210; fee category 2.B.). Per the FY 2015 final fee rule and the FY 2016 proposed fee rule, the annual fee for fee category 7.C. is unchanged at $13,300; therefore, the FY 2016 final fee rule will not affect the fee for this portion of the license. Further, licensees that pay fees under fee category 7.C. are not subject to fees under fee category 2.B. for possession and shielding authorized on the same license. Therefore, the FY 2016 final fee rule will not have any impact to the fees Bell Hospital is currently paying. Finally, Bell Hospital is not currently considered a small entity by the NRC.

No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.

Comment: The proposed fee rule identified $12.6 million for international assistance activities as a fee-relief activity. Yet, there are no other listed budgeted costs related to other international activities in the proposed rule. The work papers do list total funding for international activities as being $23.2 million, which leaves approximately $10.6 million in international activities that were rolled into the fee base. To the extent this additional $10 million was also spent on international cooperation or international assistance activities, then it is not clear what direct benefit the domestic regulated community is receiving through these activities. (NEI)

Response: As stated in the proposed rule, the amount of international assistance activities that the NRC allocated to international fee relief is $12.6 million. The amount not included under international fee relief activities represents international resources that the NRC assigned to each mission-direct fee class. Specifically, these resources represent international cooperation activities (rather than international assistance activities). These cooperation activities do, in fact, benefit a group of NRC licensees. For example, international cooperative activities involve sharing information, knowledge, and technical expertise with the NRC's international regulatory counterparts. This enhances the NRC's regulatory programs by providing direct input into the NRC's regulation and oversight of its licensees. International cooperation activities also provide other benefits to NRC licensees, such as collaborative research that is relevant to the NRC's regulatory programs. The NRC continuously assesses and, where relevant, incorporates international operating experience and research insights into the NRC's domestic regulatory program. For example, power reactor licensees may benefit from international efforts to exchange information on regulatory experience and expertise on construction, startup, and the operation of nuclear power plants.

No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.

Comment: In the FY 2015 final fee rule, the NRC revised its methodology for charging overhead time for project managers and resident inspectors under 10 CFR part 170. Specifically, the NRC started to allocate overhead costs to each licensee based on direct time to each docket to ensure that a licensee's overhead costs were proportional to the regulatory services rendered by the NRC. This has led, in some cases, to licensees being double- or triple-charged for project manager time. For example, some licensees have received invoices for project manager time being charged through the 6-percent project manager allocation, project management TACs, and directly technical TACs. The NRC should be more consistent and try to avoid multiple billings for the same work. (NEI)

Response: To the extent the commenter believes that the NRC is double- and triple- billing licensees, the NRC disagrees with this comment. The NRC staff charges to direct billable cost activity codes (CACs) only when that work benefits a single, identifiable licensee. The project manager (PM)/resident inspector (RI) allocation recovers the costs for all PMs and senior resident inspectors (SRIs) that are not directly attributable to a single licensee, but rather benefit the entire class of licensees (e.g., indirect activities such as PM technical support to the regional offices, PM training and attendance at conferences, PM participation in working groups). When a PM or SRI supports work under this allocation, the PM is not directly billing a licensee. This activity is pooled and distributed to all licensees as 6 percent of the direct labor charges provided by agency staff. Because these activities ultimately benefit all licensees, the agency has instituted average cost recovery to recover from all licensees for these activities.

No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.

Comment: Regarding small entity size standards, the NRC should consider establishing lower licensing fees by creating one or more additional steps between the $520,000 to $7,500,000 range. A fee rate schedule with more steps for small businesses would help reduce the license fee burden on the smaller entities. (Rendezvous Engineering, P.C.)

Response: To reduce the burden of the NRC's annual fees on small entities, the NRC established the maximum small entity fee in 1991. In FY 1992, the NRC introduced a second lower tier to the small entity fee. Because the NRC's methodology for small entity size standards has been approved by the Small Business Administration, the NRC did not modify its current methodology for this rulemaking. The NRC is currently reviewing its small business size standards to determine if a change is needed to the number of fee steps in order to fairly and equitably access fees for all licensees.

No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.

E. Comments on Matters Not Related to This Rulemaking

Some comments suggested that the NRC implement a number of recommendations to streamline the regulatory process, prepare more detailed invoices, examine staffing and the NRC's budget structure, increase travel funds to allow for the audits of topical reports, etc. Other commenters expressed their belief that uranium recovery sites should require the least amount of NRC regulatory oversight because they are the lowest risk sector of the nuclear fuel cycle.

All of these matters are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The primary purpose of the NRC's annual fee recovery rulemaking is to update the NRC's fee schedules to recover approximately 90 percent of the appropriations that the NRC received for the current fiscal year, and to make other necessary corrections or appropriate changes to specific aspects of the NRC's fee regulations in order to ensure compliance with OBRA-90, as amended.

The NRC takes very seriously the importance of examining and improving the efficiency of its operations and the prioritization of its regulatory activities. Recognizing the importance of continuous reexamination and improvement of the way the agency does business, the NRC has undertaken, and continues to undertake, a number of significant initiatives aimed at improving the efficiency of NRC operations and enhancing the agency's approach to regulating. For example the NRC published a request for information on March 22, 2016, 81 FR 15352. This request asked for input from the stakeholders regarding the general communications the NRC provides about its fees and the public's understanding of the NRC's fee setting process. Though comments addressing these issues may not be within the scope of this fee rulemaking, the NRC will consider this input in its future program operations.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, the NRC has prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) relating to this final rule. The RFA is available as indicated in Section XIV, Availability of Documents, of this document.

VI. Regulatory Analysis

Under OBRA-90 and the AEA, the NRC is required to recover 90 percent of its budget authority, or total appropriations of $1,002.1 million, in FY 2016. The NRC established fee methodology guidelines for 10 CFR part 170 in 1978, and established additional fee methodology guidelines for 10 CFR part 171 in 1986. In subsequent rulemakings, the NRC has adjusted its fees without changing the underlying principles of its fee policy to ensure that the NRC continues to comply with the statutory requirements for cost recovery in OBRA-90 and the AEA.

In this rulemaking, the NRC continues this long-standing approach. Therefore, the NRC did not identify any alternatives to the current fee structure guidelines and did not prepare a regulatory analysis for this rulemaking.

VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this final rule and that a backfit analysis is not required. A backfit analysis is not required because these amendments do not require the modification of, or addition to, systems, structures, components, or the design of a facility, or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility, or the procedures or organization required to design, construct, or operate a facility.

VIII. Plain Writing

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).

IX. National Environmental Policy Act

The NRC has determined that this rule is the type of action described in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.

X. Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule does not contain a collection of information as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

XI. Congressional Review Act

In accordance with the Congressional Review Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801-808), the NRC has determined that this action is a major rule and has verified the determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.

XII. Voluntary Consensus Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC proposes to amend the licensing, inspection, and annual fees charged to its licensees and applicants, as necessary, to recover approximately 90 percent of its budget authority in FY 2016, as required by OBRA-90, as amended. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

XIII. Availability of Guidance

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act requires all Federal agencies to prepare a written compliance guide for each rule for which the agency is required by 5 U.S.C. 604 to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. The NRC, in compliance with the law, prepared the “Small Entity Compliance Guide” for the FY 2015 final fee rule. This document, which has been relabeled for FY 2016, is available as indicated in Section XV, Availability of Documents, of this document. The next compliance guide will be developed when the NRC completes the next small entity biennial review in FY 2017.

XIV. Availability of Documents

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 9

• Administrative practice and procedure
• Courts
• Criminal penalties
• Freedom of information
• Government employees
• Privacy
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Sunshine Act

10 CFR Part 170

• Byproduct material
• Import and export licenses
• Intergovernmental relations
• Non-payment penalties
• Nuclear energy
• Nuclear materials
• Nuclear power plants and reactors
• Source material
• Special nuclear material

10 CFR Part 171

• Annual charges
• Byproduct material
• Holders of certificates, registrations, approvals
• Intergovernmental relations
• Nonpayment penalties
• Nuclear materials
• Nuclear power plants and reactors
• Source material
• Special nuclear material

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 9, 170, and 171.

PART 9—PUBLIC RECORDS

1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, sec. 161 (42 U.S.C. 2201); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

Subpart A also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701.

Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a.

Subpart C also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552b.

2. Revise § 9.201 to read as follows:

PART 170—FEES FOR FACILITIES, MATERIALS IMPORT AND EXPORT LICENSES AND OTHER REGULATORY SERVICES UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED

3. The authority citation for part 170 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 161(w) (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2201(w)); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); 42 U.S.C. 2214; 31 U.S.C. 901, 902, 9701; 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

4. Revise § 170.1 to read as follows:

5. In § 170.2, add paragraph (u) to read as follows:

6. In § 170.3, add, in alphabetical order, the definition for Touhy request, to read as follows:

7. In § 170.11, revise paragraph (a)(1)(ii), remove paragraph (a)(1)(iii), and add paragraph (a)(13) to read as follows:

8. In § 170.12, revise paragraphs (d)(1)(v) and (vi) and add paragraph (d)(1)(vii) to read as follows:

9. Revise § 170.20 to read as follows:

10. In § 170.21, in the table, revise fee categories J. and K. and add footnote 5 to read as follows:

11. In § 170.31, revise the table to read as follows:

PART 171—ANNUAL FEES FOR REACTOR LICENSES AND FUEL CYCLE LICENSES AND MATERIALS LICENSES, INCLUDING HOLDERS OF CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE, REGISTRATIONS, AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM APPROVALS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES LICENSED BY THE NRC

12. The authority citation for part 171 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 161(w), 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2201(w), 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); 42 U.S.C. 2214; 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

13. In § 171.15, revise paragraph (b)(1), the introductory text of paragraph (b)(2), paragraph (c)(1), the introductory text of paragraphs (c)(2) and (d)(1), and paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3), and revise paragraph (f) to read as follows:

14. In § 171.16, revise paragraphs (c) and (d) and the introductory text of paragraph (e) to read as follows: