This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

12735 

Vol. 74, No. 56 

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 

1COBRA was replaced in December 1987, when 

Congress passed OBRA 87. The NRC is currently 

under the requirements of OBRA 90, as amended. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 171 

[NRC–2008–0664] 

RIN 3150–AI54 

Variable Annual Fee Structure for 

Power Reactors 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPR). 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

whether to propose to amend its rule 

governing annual fees to establish a 

variable annual fee structure for power 

reactors based on licensed power limits. 

Current regulations governing annual 

fees require that each operating power 

reactor pay the same annual fee, 

regardless of the size of the reactor. The 

NRC has determined that the current 

single annual fee structure for power 

reactors should be reviewed in light of 

the potential for future licensing of 

small and medium sized nuclear 

reactors, some of which may not be used 

to generate electric power, and some of 

which may be used and licensed in 

configurations of up to twenty (20) 

reactors (modules). Although issuance 

of a license for a small or medium sized 

reactor which triggers imposition of fees 

may be several years in the future, this 

ANPR invites early input from 

interested stakeholders and the public 

on the issues relevant to the 

establishment of a variable annual fee 

structure for power reactors. 

DATES: Submit comments by June 8, 

2009. Comments received after this date 

will be considered if it is practical to do 

so, but the Commission is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of the following methods. 

Comments submitted in writing or in 

electronic form will be made available 

for public inspection. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

any information in your submission that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed. 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

NRC–2008–0664. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 

301–492–3668; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attn: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

E-mail comments to: 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you 

do not receive a reply e-mail confirming 

that we have received your comments, 

contact us directly at 301–415–1677. 

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 

Federal workdays (Telephone 301–415– 

1677). 

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– 

415–1101. 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this document 

using the following methods: 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public 

File Area O1 F21, One White Flint 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, 

the public can gain entry into ADAMS, 

which provides text and image files of 

NRC’s public documents. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s 

PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rebecca I. Erickson, Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone 301–415– 

7126; e-mail Rebecca.Erickson@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The NRC is required each year, under 

the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 

of 1990 (OBRA–90) (42 U.S.C. 2214), as 

amended, to recover through fees to 

NRC licensees and applicants 

approximately 90 percent of its budget 

authority after subtracting the amounts 

appropriated from the Nuclear Waste 

Fund (NWF), amounts appropriated for 

Waste Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR) 

activities, and amounts appropriated for 

generic homeland security activities. 

The 10 percent not recovered by fees in 

the NRC’s annual appropriation covers 

the costs of agency activities that do not 

provide a direct benefit to NRC 

licensees, such as international 

assistance and Agreement State 

activities. 

The NRC assesses two types of fees to 

meet the requirements of OBRA–90, as 

amended. First, license and inspection 

fees, established in 10 CFR part 170 

under the authority of the Independent 

Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 

(IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701), recover the 

NRC’s costs of providing special 

benefits to identifiable applicants and 

licensees. Examples of the services 

provided by the NRC for which these 

fees are assessed are the review of 

applications for new licenses and the 

review of renewal applications, the 

review of amendment requests, and 

inspections. Second, annual fees 

established in 10 CFR part 171 under 

the authority of OBRA–90, as amended, 

recover generic and other regulatory 

costs not otherwise recovered through 

10 CFR part 170 fees. 

The assessment of annual fees by the 

NRC began in fiscal year (FY) 1987 to 

meet the requirements of Public Law 

99–272, the Consolidated Omnibus 

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 

(COBRA 1), which required the NRC to 

recover 33 percent of its budget 

authority. In the FY 1987 fee rule, the 

NRC established a uniform annual fee 

for each licensed nuclear power reactor 

under the new part 171 (51 FR 33224; 

September 18, 1986). The NRC also 

considered calculating the annual fee on 

power reactors based on the thermal 

megawatt ratings of those reactors in the 

FY 1987 proposed fee rule (51 FR 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
12736 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

24078, 24082–3; July 1, 1986). In its 

consideration, the NRC analyzed the 

amendment, operator licensing, and 

inspection costs as billed to licensees 

for the period of June 1984 to June 1985. 

At that time, the NRC analysis found no 

necessary relationship or predictive 

trend between the thermal megawatt 

rating of a reactor and NRC regulatory 

costs. 

In recognition of the problem that 

some licensees of smaller reactors may 

have in paying substantially increased 

fees due to the requirements of the new 

part 171, the NRC provided for fee 

exemptions under § 171.11 Exemption 

(51 FR 33230; September 18, 1986): 

The Commission may, upon application, 

grant an exemption, in part, from the annual 

fee required pursuant to this part. An 

exemption under this provision may be 

granted by the Commission taking into 

consideration the following factors: 

(a) Age of the reactor; 

(b) Size of the reactor; 

(c) Number of customers in rate base; 

(d) Net increase in KWh cost for each 

customer directly related to the annual fee 

assessed under this part; and 

(e) Any other relevant matter which the 

licensee believes justifies the reduction of the 

annual fee. 

In an effort to provide a more 

equitable distribution among the 

licensed nuclear power reactors of the 

amount required to be collected, the 

NRC re-evaluated the uniform annual 

fee for power reactors. As a result, under 

the FY 1989 Fee Rule (53 FR 52632; 

December 29, 1988), each reactor was 

assessed fees based on those NRC 

activities from which it benefited as a 

type or within a class of reactors. The 

new methodology took into account the 

kind of reactor, its location and other 

considerations in relation to the generic 

research and other costs associated with 

power reactor regulation. 

In FY 1995, the NRC re-examined this 

very detailed and labor intensive 

approach to determine reactor annual 

fees in an attempt to streamline the fee 

program. The NRC’s analysis 

determined that the complex fee 

assessment was implemented when 

there were significant differences in the 

NRC research funding for the various 

types of reactors, which was no longer 

the case. Further, the NRC determined 

that establishing a single uniform 

annual fee for each operating power 

reactor would not cause an unfair 

burden and would simplify the fee 

process. As a result, the NRC amended 

§ 171.15 to implement a uniform annual 

fee assessed to all licensed operating 

power reactors (60 FR 32218; June 20, 

1995). 

In the FY 2005 fee rule (70 FR 30526; 

May 26, 2005), the NRC amended the 

fee exemption under § 171.11 that was 

implemented in 1986 by eliminating the 

‘‘size of the reactor’’ factor. Because 

none of the smaller reactors were still 

licensed to operate, the NRC had not 

issued waivers on the basis of size for 

several years. Moreover, no other class 

of licensee contained an exemption 

provision based on size. Therefore, the 

reference to size of the reactor as a 

consideration in evaluating annual fee 

exemption requests was no longer 

needed. 

In FY 2008, approximately 90 percent 

of NRC’s fee recoverable budget was 

allocated to the operating power 

reactors fee class, of which 

approximately 60 percent or $419.3 

million was recovered through part 171 

annual fees. The $419.3 million in 

budgeted costs was divided equally 

among the 104 power reactors licensed 

to operate, which resulted in an FY 

2008 annual fee of $4,032,000 per 

reactor under § 171.15(b)(1). 

Additionally, under § 171.15(c)(1) each 

power reactor licensed to operate was 

assessed a spent fuel storage/reactor 

decommissioning annual fee of 

$135,000 in FY 2008. Thus, the total FY 

2008 annual fee of $4,167,000 was 

assessed to each power reactor. 

The 104 power reactors currently 

licensed to operate have licensed power 

limits ranging from 1500 to 3990 

megawatts thermal (MWt). However, the 

NRC anticipates receiving applications 

to license small and medium sized 

commercial nuclear reactors with 

capacities ranging from 30 to 1000 MWt. 

The small and medium sized reactors 

could be any of the advanced reactor 

designs, including high-temperature 

gas-cooled reactors, sodium-cooled fast 

reactor, and small light-water reactors. 

Some of these small and medium sized 

reactors may not generate electric 

power, but instead be used to generate 

process heat for industrial applications 

such as the production of hydrogen. 

Current regulations governing annual 

fees for power reactors require the same 

fees from a nuclear reactor designed to 

produce electrical or heat energy. 

Specific Proposal 

The Commission is considering 

whether to propose to amend § 171.15 to 

establish a variable annual fee structure 

for power reactors based on the reactor’s 

licensed power limit contained in the 

operating license (including a combined 

license). 

Specific Considerations 

Before it considers a proposed rule on 

the subject, the NRC is seeking advice 

and recommendations on this matter 

from all interested persons. The NRC 

invites advice and recommendations on 

an amendment to annual fees for power 

reactor licensees reflecting these and 

any other pertinent points from all 

interested persons. Comments and 

supporting reasons are particularly 

requested on the following questions: 

Power Reactors Variable Fees 

Q.1. Should the NRC establish a 

variable annual fee structure based on 

either the licensed thermal or electric 

power limits of the power reactor? What 

variables should be considered in 

establishing such a fee structure? In 

particular, should reactors producing 

process heat be treated the same as 

reactors producing heat for the 

generation of electricity? What are the 

considerations associated with 

establishing a variable annual fee 

structure based upon thermal, as 

opposed to electric power? 

Q.2. If the NRC establishes a variable 

annual fee structure, what should the 

ranges be for each group or category of 

reactors? What criteria should be used 

to determine the fees for the different 

groups or categories of reactors (e.g., 

power level, reactor technology, 

associated NRC resources)? 

Q.3. Current nuclear power plants use 

a configuration in which a single large 

reactor provides the heat to produce 

electric power. However, future plant 

concepts may include two or more small 

to medium sized reactors to provide the 

heat to power one or more turbines 

connected to an electric generator. 

Should a variable annual fee structure 

account for the potential configurations? 

Q.4. Current nuclear power plants 

have one, two or three large reactors 

located at the same site. Current 

applications for new reactors could 

result in up to four large reactors at a 

single site. However, future plant 

concepts may have up to twenty (20) 

reactors (modules) operating at the same 

site. Should the variable annual fee 

structure account for this configuration? 

If so, what are the considerations in 

establishing such a fee structure? 

Q.5. Currently, each licensed reactor 

located at the same site is treated as a 

separate unit for purposes of calculating 

and assessing the annual fee. However, 

external stakeholders in the past have 

suggested that a single comprehensive 

license be issued for a set of modular 

reactors located at a single site. The 

licensee would have substantial 

flexibility in determining whether and 

when to construct and operate each 

reactor module in such a plant. Should 

the variable annual fee structure 

account for this reactor licensing 

concept? If so, what are the 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 12737 

considerations in establishing such a fee 

structure? 

Q.6. Are there other factors that 

should be considered in determining the 

annual fee for power reactors? 

There will be another opportunity for 

additional public comment in 

connection with any proposed rule that 

may be developed by the Commission. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 171 

Annual charges, Byproduct material, 

Holders of certificates, Registrations, 

Approvals, Intergovernmental relations, 

Non-payment penalties, Nuclear 

materials, Nuclear power plants and 

reactors, Source material, Special 

nuclear material. 

The authority citation for this 

document is: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 

5841. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day 

of March, 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

J.E. Dyer, 

Chief Financial Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–6554 Filed 3–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0261; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–CE–017–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Dornier 

Luftfahrt GmbH Models Dornier 228– 

100, Dornier 228–101, Dornier 228–200, 

Dornier 228–201, Dornier 228–202, and 

Dornier 228–212 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This proposed 

AD results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

Excessive wear on a guide pin of a power 

lever has been detected during inspections. 

The total loss of the pin could cause loss of 

the flight idle stop and lead to inadvertent 

activation of the beta mode in flight. The 

inadvertent activation of beta mode in flight 

can result in loss of control of the airplane. 

The proposed AD would require actions 

that are intended to address the unsafe 

condition described in the MCAI. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 24, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone (800) 647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg 

Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4130; fax: (816) 

329–4090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2009–0261; Directorate Identifier 

2009–CE–017–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued AD No.: 2009– 

0031, dated February 18, 2009 (referred 

to after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct 

an unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

Excessive wear on a guide pin of a power 

lever has been detected during inspections. 

The total loss of the pin could cause loss of 

the flight idle stop and lead to inadvertent 

activation of the beta mode in flight. The 

inadvertent activation of beta mode in flight 

can result in loss of control of the airplane. 

For the reasons described above, this new 

EASA Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

introduces a repetitive detailed inspection of 

the guide pins of the power and condition 

levers and requires the replacement of the 

pins that exceed the allowable wear-limits. 

You may obtain further information by 

examining the MCAI in the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

RUAG Aerospace Defence Technology 

has issued Dornier 228 Alert Service 

Bulletin ASB–228–279, dated December 

19, 2008. The actions described in this 

service information are intended to 

correct the unsafe condition identified 

in the MCAI. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of another 

country, and is approved for operation 

in the United States. Pursuant to our 

bilateral agreement with this State of 

Design Authority, they have notified us 

of the unsafe condition described in the 

MCAI and service information 

referenced above. We are proposing this 

AD because we evaluated all 

information and determined the unsafe 

condition exists and is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of the same 

type design. 

Differences Between This Proposed AD 

and the MCAI or Service Information 

We have reviewed the MCAI and 

related service information and, in 

general, agree with their substance. But 

we might have found it necessary to use 

different words from those in the MCAI 

to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. 

operators and is enforceable. In making 

these changes, we do not intend to differ 

substantively from the information 

provided in the MCAI and related 

service information. 

We might also have proposed 

different actions in this AD from those 

in the MCAI in order to follow FAA 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS