54668 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

notice of final rulemaking with respect 

to the subject matter of this rule. 

Environmental Analysis 

The final rule amends the procedures 

for implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at 7 

CFR Part 650 and would not directly 

impact the environment. Agency NEPA 

procedures are procedural guidance to 

assist agencies in the fulfillment of 

Agency responsibilities under NEPA, 

but are not the Agency’s final 

determination of what level of NEPA 

analysis is required for a particular 

action. The CEQ set forth the 

requirements for establishing Agency 

NEPA procedures in its regulations at 40 

CFR 1505.1 and 1507.3. The CEQ 

regulations do not require agencies to 

conduct NEPA analyses or prepare 

NEPA documentation when establishing 

their NEPA procedures. The 

determination that establishing Agency 

NEPA procedures does not require 

NEPA analysis and documentation has 

been upheld in Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. 

Forest Service, 230 F.3d 947, 954–55 

(7th Cir. 2000). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

There are no requirements for 

information collection associated with 

this final rule that would require 

approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). 

Unfunded Mandates 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538), NRCS has assessed the effects of 

this final rule on State, local, and tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

This final rule does not compel the 

expenditure of $100 million or more by 

any State, local, or tribal governments or 

anyone in the private sector. Therefore, 

a statement under section 202 of the Act 

is not required. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. After adoption of this 

final rule, (1) all State and local laws 

and regulations that conflict with this 

rule or that would impede full 

implementation of this rule will be 

preempted; (2) no retroactive effect 

would be given to this final rule; and (3) 

before an action may be brought in a 

Federal court of competent jurisdiction, 

the administrative appeal rights 

afforded persons at 7 CFR Parts 614, 

780, and 11 must be exhausted. 

Federalism 

NRCS has considered this final rule 

under the requirements of Executive 

Order 13132 issued August 4, 1999 (E.O. 

13132), ‘‘Federalism.’’ The Agency has 

made an assessment that the final rule 

conforms with the Federalism 

principles set out in this Executive 

Order; would not impose any 

compliance costs on the States; and 

would not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, nor on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. Therefore, 

NRCS concludes that this final rule does 

not have Federalism implications. 

Energy Effects 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 13211 issued 

May 18, 2001 (E.O. 13211), ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use.’’ NRCS has 

determined that this final rule does not 

constitute a significant energy action as 

defined in E.O. 13211. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, under the authority at 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; Executive Order 

11514 (Rev.); 7 CFR 2.62, the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service 

confirms the interim rule amending 7 

CFR part 650 which published at 73 FR 

35883 on June 25, 2008, is adopted as 

final without change. 

Arlen L. Lancaster, 

Chief, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–22090 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 922 

[Docket No. AMS–FV–08–0052; FV08–922– 

1 FR] 

Apricots Grown in Designated 

Counties in Washington; Increased 

Assessment Rate 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule increases the 

assessment rate established for the 

Washington Apricot Marketing 

Committee (Committee) for the 2008–09 

and subsequent fiscal periods from 

$1.50 to $2.00 per ton for Washington 

apricots. The Committee is responsible 

for local administration of the marketing 

order regulating the handling of apricots 

grown in designated counties in 

Washington. Assessments upon 

handlers of apricots are used by the 

Committee to fund reasonable and 

necessary expenses of the program. The 

fiscal period for the marketing order 

begins April 1 and ends March 31. The 

assessment rate remains in effect 

indefinitely unless modified, suspended 

or terminated. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 24, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert J. Curry or Gary D. Olson, 

Northwest Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1220 SW Third Avenue, 

suite 385, Portland, OR 97204; 

Telephone: (503) 326–2724; Fax: (503) 

326–7440; or e-mail: 

Robert.Curry@usda.gov or 

GaryD.Olson@usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence, SW., 

STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250– 

0237; Telephone: (202) 720–2491; Fax: 

(202) 720–8938; or e-mail: 

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under Marketing Order No. 

922 (7 CFR 922), as amended, regulating 

the handling of apricots grown in 

designated counties in Washington, 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘order.’’ 

The order is effective under the 

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 

of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’ 

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. Under the marketing order now 

in effect, apricot handlers in designated 

counties in Washington are subject to 

assessments. Funds to administer the 

order are derived from such 

assessments. It is intended that the 

assessment rate as issued herein will be 

applicable to all assessable Washington 

apricots beginning April 1, 2008, and 

continue until amended, suspended, or 

terminated. This rule will not preempt 

any State or local laws, regulations, or 

policies, unless they present an 

irreconcilable conflict with this rule. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54669 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. Such 

handler is afforded the opportunity for 

a hearing on the petition. After the 

hearing USDA would rule on the 

petition. The Act provides that the 

district court of the United States in any 

district in which the handler is an 

inhabitant, or has his or her principal 

place of business, has jurisdiction to 

review USDA’s ruling on the petition, 

provided an action is filed not later than 

20 days after the date of the entry of the 

ruling. 

This rule increases the assessment 

rate established for the Committee for 

the 2008–09 and subsequent fiscal 

periods from $1.50 to $2.00 per ton for 

Washington apricots handled. 

The order provides authority for the 

Committee, with the approval of USDA, 

to formulate an annual budget of 

expenses and collect assessments from 

handlers to administer the program. The 

members of the Committee are 

producers and handlers of apricots in 

designated counties in Washington. 

They are familiar with the Committee’s 

needs and with the costs for goods and 

services in their local area and are thus 

in a position to formulate an appropriate 

budget and assessment rate. The 

assessment rate is formulated and 

discussed at a public meeting. Thus, all 

directly affected persons have an 

opportunity to participate and provide 

input. 

For the 2007–08 and subsequent fiscal 

periods, the Committee recommended, 

and the USDA approved, an assessment 

rate of $1.50 per ton of apricots handled. 

This rate continues in effect from fiscal 

period to fiscal period unless modified, 

suspended, or terminated by USDA 

upon recommendation and information 

submitted by the Committee or other 

information available to USDA. 

The Committee met on May 15, 2008, 

and unanimously recommended 2008– 

09 expenditures of $7,093. In 

comparison, last year’s budgeted 

expenditures were $6,743. In addition, 

the Committee recommended that the 

$1.50 per ton assessment rate approved 

for the 2007–08 and subsequent fiscal 

periods be increased by $0.50 to $2.00 

per ton of apricots handled. The 

Washington apricot production area 

experienced freezing weather in April 

this year that was predicted to have a 

significant impact on apricot 

production. As a result, the Committee 

estimated a total fresh crop of only 

3,650 tons for this season—significantly 

less than the 6,620 tons of fresh apricots 

reported to the Committee by industry 

handlers last season. Due to this 

anticipated shortfall, the Committee 

recommended that the assessment rate 

be increased by $0.50 to help ensure 

that budgeted expenses are adequately 

covered. 

The major expenditures 

recommended by the Committee for the 

2008–09 fiscal period include $4,800 for 

the management fee, $1,000 for 

Committee travel, $100 for compliance, 

and $1,193 for equipment maintenance, 

insurance, bonds, and miscellaneous 

expenses. In comparison, major 

expenditures for the 2007–08 fiscal 

period included $4,800 for the 

management fee, $1,000 for travel, $500 

for the annual financial audit, $100 for 

compliance, and $343 for equipment 

maintenance, insurance, bonds, and 

miscellaneous expenses. 

The assessment rate recommended by 

the Committee was derived by dividing 

the anticipated expenses of $7,093 by 

the projected 2008 3,650 ton apricot 

production. Applying the $2.00 per ton 

assessment rate to this crop estimate 

should provide $7,300 in assessment 

income. Although the 3,650 ton crop 

estimate reflects the Committee’s best 

current assessment of the damage the 

late-season freezing temperatures may 

have had on production this season, 

Committee members expressed some 

concern that production could 

potentially end up even shorter. 

Because of the crop estimate 

uncertainty, the Committee felt that the 

$2.00 per ton assessment rate is 

warranted even though the projected 

fiscal year-end reserve balance at this 

time is $8,173. Although this amount is 

slightly higher than the recommended 

budget, the reserve would still be within 

the order’s limit of approximately one 

fiscal period’s operational expenses. 

The assessment rate established in 

this rule will continue in effect 

indefinitely unless modified, 

suspended, or terminated by USDA 

upon recommendation and information 

submitted by the Committee or other 

available information. 

Although this assessment rate will be 

effective for an indefinite period, the 

Committee will continue to meet prior 

to or during each fiscal period to 

recommend a budget of expenses and 

consider recommendations for 

modification of the assessment rate. The 

dates and times of the Committee’s 

meetings are available from the 

Committee or USDA. The Committee’s 

meetings are open to the public and 

interested persons may express their 

views at these meetings. USDA will 

evaluate the Committee’s 

recommendations and other available 

information to determine whether 

modification of the assessment rate is 

needed. Further rulemaking will be 

undertaken as necessary. The 

Committee’s 2008–09 budget has been 

reviewed and approved by USDA. 

Subsequent fiscal period budgets will 

also be reviewed and, as appropriate, 

approved by USDA. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

has considered the economic impact of 

this rule on small entities. Accordingly, 

AMS has prepared this final regulatory 

flexibility analysis. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

business subject to such actions in order 

that small businesses will not be unduly 

or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are 

unique in that they are brought about 

through group action of essentially 

small entities acting on their own 

behalf. 

There are approximately 300 apricot 

producers within the regulated 

production area and approximately 22 

regulated handlers. Small agricultural 

producers are defined by the Small 

Business Administration (13 CFR 

121.201) as those having annual receipts 

of less than $750,000, and small 

agricultural service firms are defined as 

those whose annual receipts are less 

than $6,500,000. 

The Washington Agricultural 

Statistics Service has prepared a report 

showing that the total 7,000 ton apricot 

utilization sold for an average of $1,120 

per ton in 2007 with a total farm-gate 

value of approximately $7,827,000. 

Based on the number of producers in 

the production area (300), the average 

annual producer revenue from the sale 

of apricots in 2007 can thus be 

estimated at approximately $26,090. In 

addition, based on information from the 

Committee and USDA’s Market News 

Service, 2007 f.o.b. prices ranged from 

$18.00 to $20.00 per 24-pound loosepack container, and from $20.00 to 

$22.00 for 2-layer tray-pack containers. 

Approximately 40 percent of the 2007 

6,620 ton fresh pack-out was packed in 

24-pound loose-pack containers while 

the remainder was packed in 2-layer 

tray-pack containers (weighing an 

average of about 20 pounds each). On 

the high end, this would have grossed 

the 22 apricot handlers approximately 

$13,151,700 in f.o.b. receipts for the 

2007 crop—leaving average receipts for 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
54670 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

each handler well below the SBA’s 

$6,500,000 threshold for small 

businesses. Therefore, the majority of 

producers and handlers of Washington 

apricots may be classified as small 

entities. 

This rule increases the assessment 

rate established for the Committee and 

collected from handlers for the 2008–09 

and subsequent fiscal periods from 

$1.50 to $2.00 per ton for apricots 

handled under the order’s authority. 

The Committee also unanimously 

recommended 2008–09 expenditures of 

$7,093. With a 2008–09 Washington 

apricot crop estimate of 3,650 tons, the 

Committee anticipates assessment 

income of about $7,300. Due to the 

sharply smaller crop expected this 

season, the Committee recommended 

the assessment rate increase to help 

ensure that budgeted expenses are 

adequately covered. 

Although there continues to be 

uncertainty this season regarding 

production totals due to the mid-spring 

freezing weather, income derived from 

handler assessments should adequately 

cover budgeted expenses. Because of the 

crop estimate uncertainty, the 

Committee felt the $2.00 per ton 

assessment rate is warranted even 

though the projected fiscal year-end 

reserve balance at this time is $8,173. 

Although this amount is slightly higher 

than the recommended budget, the 

reserve would still be within the order’s 

limit of approximately one fiscal 

period’s operational expenses. 

The major expenditures 

recommended by the Committee for the 

2008–09 fiscal period include $4,800 for 

the management fee, $1,000 for 

Committee travel, $100 for compliance, 

and $1,193 for equipment maintenance, 

insurance, bonds, and miscellaneous 

expenses. In comparison, major 

expenditures for the 2007–08 fiscal 

period included $4,800 for the 

management fee, $1,000 for travel, $500 

for the annual financial audit, $100 for 

compliance, and $343 for equipment 

maintenance, insurance, bonds, and 

miscellaneous expenses. 

The Committee discussed alternatives 

to this increase in the assessment rate. 

Leaving the assessment rate at $1.50 per 

ton was discussed, but not seriously 

considered since such a rate would not 

have earned adequate income and 

would have thus significantly depleted 

the Committee’s reserves. Although a 

rate of assessment somewhat less than 

the recommended $2.00 per ton rate 

would have potentially covered the 

recommended expenses, the Committee 

chose the higher rate due to the 

uncertainty the members felt regarding 

the 3,650 ton crop estimate. The midApril freeze experienced in the growing 

regions this year left doubt in some 

members minds that the final pack-out 

this season will even reach the 3,650 ton 

estimate. 

A review of historical information and 

preliminary information pertaining to 

the upcoming crop year indicates that 

the producer price for the 2008–09 

season could average about $1,000 per 

ton for fresh Washington apricots. 

Therefore, the estimated assessment 

revenue for the 2008–09 fiscal period as 

a percentage of total producer revenue 

is 0.2 percent for Washington apricots. 

This action increases the assessment 

obligation imposed on handlers. While 

assessments impose some additional 

costs on handlers, the costs are minimal 

and uniform on all handlers. Some of 

the additional costs may be passed on 

to producers. However, these costs 

would be offset by the benefits derived 

by the operation of the order. 

In addition, the Committee’s meeting 

was widely publicized throughout the 

Washington apricot industry and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend and participate in Committee 

deliberations on all issues. Like all 

Committee meetings, the May 15, 2008, 

meeting was a public meeting and all 

entities, both large and small, were able 

to express views on the issues. Finally, 

interested persons were invited to 

submit information on the regulatory 

and informational impacts of this action 

on small businesses. 

This rule imposes no additional 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

on either small or large Washington 

apricot handlers. As with all Federal 

marketing order programs, reports and 

forms are periodically reviewed to 

reduce information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. Additionally, as noted 

in the initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis, USDA has not identified any 

relevant Federal rules that duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with this rule. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

A proposed rule concerning this 

action was published in the Federal 

Register on August 18, 2008 (73 FR 

48156). Committee staff made copies of 

the proposed rule available to 

Committee members, handlers and other 

interested persons. The proposed rule 

was also made available through the 

Internet by USDA and the Office of the 

Federal Register. A 15 day comment 

period ending September 2, 2008, was 

provided for interested persons to 

respond to the proposal. No comments 

were received. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and order may be 

viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/

AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?

template=TemplateN&page=Marketing

OrdersSmallBusinessGuide. Any 

questions about the compliance guide 

should be sent to Jay Guerber at the 

previously mentioned address in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, including the 

information and recommendation 

submitted by the Committee and other 

available information, it is hereby found 

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

police of the Act. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also 

found and determined that good cause 

exists for not postponing the effective 

date of this rule until 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register 

because: (1) The 2008–09 fiscal period 

began on April 1, 2008, and the order 

requires that the assessment rate for 

each fiscal period apply to all assessable 

apricots handled during such fiscal 

period; (2) the Washington apricot 

harvest and shipping season is currently 

under way; (3) the Committee needs to 

have sufficient funds to pay its 

expenses, which are incurred on a 

continuous basis; (4) handlers are aware 

of this action, which was recommended 

by the Committee at a public meeting 

and is similar to other assessment rate 

actions issued in past years; and (5) a 

15-day comment period was provided 

for in the proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 922 

Apricots, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 922 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 922—APRICOTS GROWN IN 

DESIGNATED COUNTIES IN 

WASHINGTON 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 922 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Section 922.235 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 922.235 Assessment rate. 

On or after April 1, 2008, an 

assessment rate of $2.00 per ton is 

established for the Washington Apricot 

Marketing Committee. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54671 

Dated: September 17, 2008. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–22146 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Parts 2 and 13 

RIN 3150–AI45 

[NRC–2008–0412] 

Adjustment of Civil Penalties for 

Inflation 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is amending its 

regulations to adjust the maximum Civil 

Monetary Penalties (CMPs) it can assess 

under statutes within the jurisdiction of 

the NRC. These changes were mandated 

by Congress in the Federal Civil 

Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 

1990, as amended by the Debt 

Collection Improvement Act of 1996. 

The NRC is amending its regulations to 

adjust the maximum CMP for a violation 

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended, (AEA) or any regulation or 

order issued under the AEA from 

$130,000 to $140,000 per violation per 

day. Further, the provisions concerning 

program fraud civil penalties are being 

amended by adjusting the maximum 

CMP under the Program Fraud Civil 

Remedies Act from $6,000 to $7,000 for 

each false claim or statement. 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

23, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You can access publicly 

available documents related to this 

document using the following methods: 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

[NRC–2008–0412]. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 

301–415–5905; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

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 O 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 1–899–397–4209, 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maxwell C. Smith, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, telephone 301–415–1246, e-mail: 

maxwell.smith@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

II. Discussion 

III. Procedural Background 

IV. Voluntary Consensus Standard 

V. Environmental Impact: Categorical 

Exclusion 

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

VII. Regulatory Analysis 

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

IX. Backfit Analysis 

X. Congressional Review Act 

I. Background 

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 

Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended, 

requires that the head of each agency 

adjust by regulations the CMPs within 

the jurisdiction of the agency for 

inflation at least once every four years. 

The NRC’s last adjustment to the CMPs 

within its jurisdiction became effective 

on November 26, 2004. (October 26, 

2004; 69 FR 62393). 

The inflation adjustment is to be 

determined by increasing the maximum 

CMPs by the percentage that the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the 

month of June of the calendar year 

preceding the adjustment exceeds the 

CPI for the month of June in the last 

calendar year in which the amount of 

the penalty was last adjusted. Applying 

this formula results in a 9.8 percent 

increase to the maximum CMPs for 

violations of the AEA. During the 2004 

inflation adjustment, the CMPs for 

violations of the Program Fraud Civil 

Remedies Act remained unchanged. 

Therefore, for this update the percentage 

change to CMPs for violations of the 

Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act is 

the change in the CPI from June 2000 

(the date it was last adjusted for 

inflation) until June 2007, which is a 

difference of 21 percent. In the case of 

penalties greater than $1,000, but less 

than or equal to $10,000, inflation 

adjustment increases are to be rounded 

to the nearest multiple of $1,000. 

Increases are to be rounded to the 

nearest multiple of $10,000 in the case 

of penalties greater than $100,000 but 

less than or equal to $200,000. 

II. Discussion 

Section 234 of the AEA limits civil 

penalties for violations of the Atomic 

Energy Act to $100,000 per day per 

violation. In 1996, under the Debt 

Collection Improvement Act (DCIA), the 

NRC adjusted this figure to $110,000. 

The DCIA also amended the Federal 

Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act 

of 1990 to require that the head of each 

agency adjust the CMPs within the 

jurisdiction of the agency for inflation at 

least once every four years. Therefore, in 

2000 the NRC adjusted the maximum 

CMPs to $120,000, and in 2004 the NRC 

adjusted the maximum CMPs to 

$130,000. The NRC is required to adjust 

the CMPS within its jurisdiction again 

this year. After this mandatory 

adjustment for inflation, the adjusted 

maximum CMP for a violation of the 

AEA or any regulation or order issued 

under the AEA will be $140,000 per day 

per violation (rounding the amount of 

the inflation adjustment increase, 9.8 

percent, to the nearest multiple of 

$10,000). Thus, the NRC is amending 

§ 2.205 to reflect a new maximum CMP 

under the AEA in the amount of 

$140,000 per day per violation. The 

amended maximum CMP applies only 

to violations that occur after the 

effective date of this final rule. 

Monetary penalties under the Program 

Fraud Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. 

3801 and 3802, and the NRC’s 

implementing regulations, § 13.3(a)(1) 

and (b)(1) are currently limited to 

$6,000. In 2004, when the NRC last 

adjusted CMPs for inflation, these 

penalties did not meet the statutory 

criteria to be changed because the 

inflation increase was not large enough. 

The NRC must adjust CMPs for the 

change in inflation since the last time 

the CMPs were adjusted. For the 

Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act 

CMPs, this means the change in the CPI 

since 2000; that difference is 21 percent. 

When this change is applied to 

§ 13.3(a)(1) and (b)(1) (and rounding to 

the nearest multiple of $1,000) the new 

penalty amount will be $7,000. Thus, 

the NRC is amending § 13.3(a)(1) and 

(b)(1) by increasing the maximum civil 

penalty for each false statement or claim 

under the Program Fraud Civil 

Remedies Act from $6,000 to $7,000. 

The amended CMP applies only to 

violations that occur after the effective 

date of this final rule. 

The Commission has no discretion to 

set alternative levels of adjusted civil 

penalties because the amount of 

inflation adjustment must be calculated 

by a formula established by statute. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES