Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations The FY 2021 CBJ provided the agencys explanation and justification for the resources being requested to allow the agency to complete its mission, and the reason for changes in the budget request for the NRC as compared to the prior year, at the business line and product line levels.
Appendix C of the FY 2021 CBJ was included with the intent to increase transparency with stakeholders. The NRC developed this estimate based on the NRC staffs allocation of the FY 2021
budget request to fee classes under 10
CFR part 170 and allocations within the operating power reactors fee class under 10 CFR part 171, as well as certain data assumptions and historical information available during the FY 2021 budget formulation process.
Consistent with NEIMA, when developing the annual fee rule, the NRC
had to take into account changes that occurred in the two-year interval between the development of the FY
2021 budget request, which began in FY
2019, and the enactment of the FY 2021
appropriation in December 2020. As part of the development of the annual fee rule, the NRC estimates the amount of 10 CFR part 170 service fees by each fee class by analyzing billing data and the actual cost of work under NRC
contracts that was charged to licensees and applicants for the previous four quarters. The estimate, therefore, reflects any recent changes in the NRCs regulatory activities.
The FY 2021 proposed rule utilized four quarters of the prior year invoice data, while the NRC is using a combination of two quarters of the prior year and two quarters of the current year billing data which is also updated to reflect workload changes for the FY
2021 final rule. In the FY 2021 proposed fee rule, the 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings were $157.0 million compared to the $188.3 million that was included in the FY 2021 CBJ. The decline in 10
CFR part 170 estimated billings was primarily due to: 1 The plant closures of Indian Point Unit 3 in April 2021 and Duane Arnold in October 2020; 2 the completion of construction activities at Vogtle Unit 3; 3 the completion of the NuScale SMR design certification review; and 4 the impact of continued travel restrictions and limited on-site presence on inspection activities due to the COVID19 pandemic.
The NRC continues to actively evaluate resource requirements to address changes that occur between budget formulation and execution, and to pursue improvements that enhance the accuracy of projections used in budget formulation. For example, the NRC considers projected operating
VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:08 Jun 15, 2021

Jkt 253001

power plant closures and other external factors when estimating workload changes in a manner that allows the agency to meet its statutory responsibilities as the industry changes.
The NRC also seeks information from licensees and other entities relevant to projected workload through public meetings and other forms of public outreach, to better inform the NRCs budget formulation workload assumptions. Ultimately, however, the NRC budget is not linearly proportional to the size of the operating fleet, as there is a cost for the agency infrastructure that must be maintained independent of the number of operating power reactors in the fleet.
No changes were made to this final rule as a result of these comments.
C. Fee-Relief Adjustment and NEIMA
Comment: In the FY 2021 Proposed Fee Rule, the NRC did not make a feerelief adjustment that it has made in past years on the basis that because NEIMA eliminated the approximately 90 percent requirement for fee recovery and, in turn, the 10 percent limit on feerelief activities, the NRC will no longer provide a fee-relief credit or assess a feerelief surcharge as part of the calculation of annual fees for each licensee fee class. However, nowhere in NEIMA itself nor in the legislative history did Congress direct the NRC to eliminate fee-relief adjustments. NEIMA
specifically requires the deduction of any fee relief activity, as identified by the Commission, which seems on its face to provide significant flexibility to the Commission to make necessary adjustments since any fee relief activity is not defined in the statute or the legislative history. The Proposed Fee Rule expressly acknowledges that the exclusion of fee relief activities is required by NEIMA as part of Excluded Activities to be excluded from fee recovery. But as explained in the Proposed Fee Rule, in FY 2021, the fee-relief activities identified by the Commission are consistent with prior final fee rules with the exception of some international activities. In other words, while NEIMA made it possible for the NRC to define fee relief activities in a way that could have accounted for Part 170 over-budgeting, the Proposed Rule essentially maintains the same constraints that existed under OBRA90. This interpretation was not mandated by Congress, nor does it appear to align with the NRCs overall vision to become a modern, riskinformed regulator that values innovative approaches to problem solving. Exelon
PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

32163

Response: The NRC disagrees with the commenters suggestion that NEIMA
allows for the NRC to provide fee-relief adjustments that would give licensees a possible credit or surcharge like under the OBRA90 framework. NEIMA
requires the NRC to recover, to the maximum extent practicable, approximately 100 percent of its total budget authority for the fiscal year, less the budget authority for excluded activities, one of which is fee-relief activities as identified by the Commission. Under NEIMA the NRC
must also use its IOAA authority first to collect 10 CFR part 170 service fees for NRC work that provides specific benefits to identifiable recipients, such as licensing activities, inspections, and special projects.
Eliminating the fee-relief adjustment increases the predictability for licensees in forecasting their annual fees. The NRC discussed the elimination of the 10
percent fee-relief credit or surcharge in FY 2021 during the FY 2020 proposed fee rule public meeting on March 5, 2020 ADAMS Accession No.
ML20077G458, where the agency explained how the elimination of the credit or surcharge would make a licensees annual fees more predictable.
For example, if the FY 2021 fee rule had, hypothetically, remained governed by OBRA90 and the 10 percent allowance for fee relief specified in OBRA90 applied, there would have been a surcharge of $9.9 million to all licensees in the FY 2021 fee rule. The NRCs FY 2021 appropriation totaled $844.4 million, so a 10 percent allowance would have resulted in $81.3
million for fee-relief activities. However, the FY 2021 proposed fee rule and supporting work papers illustrate that the NRCs budget for fee-relief activities during FY 2021 totaled $91.2 million for activities not attributable to an existing licensee or class of licensees and activities not assessed fees based on existing law or Commission policy. This would have resulted in an overage of $9.9 million if the OBRA90 framework applied.
In addition, the commenter suggests that the NRC should put in fee-relief activities instead of 10 CFR part 171
annual fees the budgeted resources that were anticipated to be used for 10 CFR
part 170 work e.g., licensing and oversight regulatory activities, but will ultimately not be used for 10 CFR part 170 work this fiscal year i.e., the differences in the 10 CFR part 170
estimated billings shown in Appendix C
of the FY 2021 CBJ compared to the FY
2021 final fee rule. These resources were anticipated to be used for 10 CFR
part 170 work for the operating power
E:FRFM16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2