SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

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. Executive Orders

XII Congressional Review Act

XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards

XIV. Availability of Guidance

XV. Availability of Documents

I. Background

A. Statutory Authority

The NRC's fee regulations are primarily governed by two laws: (1) the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1952 (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701); and (2) the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA) (42 U.S.C. 2215). The IOAA authorizes and encourages Federal agencies to recover, to the fullest extent possible, costs attributable to services provided to identifiable recipients. Under NEIMA, the NRC must recover, to the maximum extent practicable, approximately 100 percent of its annual budget, less the budget authority for excluded activities. Under section 102(b)(1)(B) of NEIMA, “excluded activities” include any fee-relief activity as identified by the Commission, generic homeland security activities, waste incidental to reprocessing activities, Nuclear Waste Fund activities, Inspector General (IG) services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, research and development at universities in areas relevant to the NRC's mission, a nuclear science and engineering grant program, advanced reactor regulatory infrastructure activities, international nuclear export and innovation activities, mission-indirect program support and agency support costs that may not be included in the reduced hourly rate charged for fees assessed to advanced nuclear reactor applicants and pre-applicants (Reduced Hourly Rate), and costs for application reviews and pre-application activities related to an early site permit (ESP) to demonstrate an advanced nuclear reactor on a Department of Energy (DOE) or critical national security infrastructure site. In fiscal year (FY) 2026, the NRC is expanding the existing fee-relief activity, “Medical isotope production infrastructure,” to include additional non-power production or utilization facilities program budgeted resources to ensure the equitability and stability of annual fees for the non-power production or utilization facilities fee class since the majority of non-power production or utilization facilities licensees are exempt from annual fees under part 171 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “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.” The remaining fee-relief activities identified by the Commission are consistent with prior fee rules (see table I, “Excluded Activities,” of this document for the list of all excluded activities).

Under NEIMA, the NRC must use its IOAA authority first to collect service fees for NRC work that provides specific benefits to identifiable recipients (such as licensing work, inspections, and special projects). The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 170, “Fees for Facilities, Materials, Import and Export Licenses, and Other Regulatory Services Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended,” explain how the agency collects service fees from specific beneficiaries. Because the NRC's fee recovery under the IOAA (10 CFR part 170) will not equal 100 percent of the agency's total budget authority for this FY (less the budget authority for excluded activities), the NRC also assesses “annual fees” under 10 CFR part 171 to recover the remaining amount necessary to comply with NEIMA.

Additionally, on July 9, 2024, the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024 (ADVANCE Act) was signed into law, and, among other things, it amended fee-related provisions in NEIMA. Specifically, the ADVANCE Act includes three fee-related provisions ( printed page 36471) and provides an effective date of October 1, 2025 (FY 2026), for each of these provisions: (1) section 101, “International Nuclear Export and Innovation Activities,” establishes a new excluded activity for “[c]osts for international nuclear export and innovation activities described in section 101(a)” of the ADVANCE Act; (2) section 201, “Fees for Advanced Nuclear Reactor Application Review,” requires a Reduced Hourly Rate for advanced nuclear reactor applicants and pre-applicants for certain activities and creates new excluded activities associated with the Reduced Hourly Rate; and (3) section 204, “Enabling Preparations for the Demonstration of Advanced Nuclear Reactors on Department of Energy Sites or Critical National Security Infrastructure Sites,” establishes two more excluded activities for costs for application reviews and pre-application activities for an ESP to demonstrate an advanced nuclear reactor on a DOE or “critical national security infrastructure” site.

The NRC implemented section 201 of the ADVANCE Act in the FY 2025 final fee rule (90 FR 26730; June 24, 2025) to provide greater regulatory certainty to external stakeholders and avoid burdens associated with having to delay billing for activities eligible for the Reduced Hourly Rate. As described in Section II, Discussion, “FY 2026 Fee Collection—Professional Hourly Rate and Reduced Hourly Rate,” of this document, in the FY 2025 final fee rule, the NRC amended § 170.20, “Average cost per professional staff-hour,” to establish two hourly rates: (1) the professional hourly rate; and (2) the Reduced Hourly Rate for advanced nuclear reactor applicants and pre-applicants. The amendments to § 170.20 in the FY 2025 final fee rule included language indicating that the Reduced Hourly Rate did not take effect until October 1, 2025, consistent with the statutory effective date in section 201 of the ADVANCE Act, and the professional hourly rate applied prior to October 1, 2025. This final rule includes revisions to § 170.20 to reflect the continued implementation of the Reduced Hourly Rate and to ensure that the changes to the Reduced Hourly Rate coincide with the effective date of the final fee rule for the FY.

In addition, this final rule includes changes to implement sections101 and 204 of the ADVANCE Act, as reflected in table I, “Excluded Activities.” This final rule also includes revisions to footnote 12 in § 170.31, “Schedule of fees for materials licenses and other regulatory services, including inspections, and import and export licenses,” and footnote 8 in § 171.16, “Annual fees: Materials licensees, holders of certificates of compliance, holders of sealed source and device registrations, holders of quality assurance program approvals, and government agencies licensed by the NRC,” to reflect section 101 of the ADVANCE Act.

B. Executive Order 14300: “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission”

On May 23, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission” (90 FR 22587; May 29, 2025). Section 5, “Reforming and Modernizing the NRC's Regulations,” requires the NRC to undertake a review and wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance documents as guided by the policies set forth in section 2 of the E.O. This rulemaking addresses section 5(a), which states a policy for the NRC to establish “fixed deadlines” for final decisions for requested activities of the Commission “as directed under the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act,” as well as fixed caps on service fees to enforce those deadlines. This final rule includes revisions to the NRC's fee regulations for FY 2026 to implement the E.O. 14300's policies. This final rule includes revisions to 10 CFR part 15, “Debt Collection Procedures,” and 10 CFR part 170 to establish fixed caps on service fees for requested activities of the Commission that involve the issuance of a final safety evaluation, consistent with NEIMA and E.O. 14300. The NRC will address the E.O. 14300 policy to establish fixed deadlines for final decisions (including the 12- and 18-month periods cited in section 5(a) of E.O. 14300) in a future rulemaking. The revisions to implement E.O. 14300, as well as related changes to the rule upon consideration of public comments, are further described in Section II, “FY 2026—Policy Change,” and in Section IV.

II. Discussion

FY 2026 Fee Collection—Overview

The NRC is issuing this FY 2026 final fee rule based on its enacted budget in the Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2026, Public Law 119-74, which was signed into law on January 23, 2026. The final fee rule reflects a total budget authority in the amount of $971.5 million, which is an increase of $27.4 million from FY 2025. The increase is primarily to support advanced reactor pre-application and licensing activities and specialized construction costs associated with the Three White Flint North relocation project.

As explained previously, certain portions of the NRC's total budget authority are excluded from the fee recovery requirement under section 102(b)(1)(B) of NEIMA. Based on the FY 2026 enacted budget, these exclusions total $152.6 million, which is an increase of $15.5 million from FY 2025. These excluded activities consist of $76.4 million for fee-relief activities, $20.6 million for ADVANCE Act section 101 international nuclear export and innovation activities, $19.4 million for ADVANCE Act section 201 mission-indirect program support and agency support associated with the Reduced Hourly Rate, $19.2 million for advanced reactor regulatory infrastructure activities, $14.4 million for generic homeland security activities, $1.6 million for IG services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and $1.0 million for waste incidental to reprocessing activities. Table I summarizes the excluded activities for the FY 2026 final fee rule. The FY 2025 amounts are provided for comparison purposes.

After accounting for the exclusions from the fee recovery requirement and net 10 CFR part 171 billing adjustments ( i.e., for FY 2026 invoices that the NRC estimates will not be paid during the FY, less payments received in FY 2026 for prior year invoices), the NRC must recover approximately $818.8 million in fees in FY 2026. Of this amount, the NRC estimates that $188.2 million will be recovered through 10 CFR part 170 service fees, and approximately $630.6 million will be recovered through 10 CFR part 171 annual fees. Table II of this document summarizes the fee recovery amounts for the FY 2026 final fee rule using the FY 2026 enacted budget and takes into account the budget authority for excluded activities and net 10 CFR part 171 billing adjustments. For all information presented in the following tables in this final rule, individual values may not sum to totals due to rounding. Please see the work papers, available as indicated in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document, for actual amounts. The FY 2025 amounts are provided for comparison purposes.

FY 2026 Fee Collection—Professional Hourly Rate and Reduced Hourly Rate

This section discusses the methodology for calculating the NRC's professional hourly rate and the methodology for calculating the Reduced Hourly Rate.

The NRC uses a professional hourly rate to assess fees under 10 CFR part 170 for specific services it provides. The professional hourly rate also helps determine flat fees (which are used for the review of certain types of materials license applications). The full costs of fees under §§ 170.21, “Schedule of fees for production and utilization facilities, review of standard referenced design approvals, special projects, inspections and import and export licenses,” and 170.31 will be determined based on either the professional hourly rate or the Reduced Hourly Rate, which went into effect on October 1, 2025 (FY 2026). The FY 2026 professional hourly rate and the FY 2026 Reduced Hourly Rate will go into effect the first full pay period after the effective date of the FY 2026 final fee rule.

The NRC's professional hourly rate is derived by adding budgeted resources for: (1) mission-direct program salaries and benefits; (2) mission-indirect program support; and (3) agency ( printed page 36473) support (corporate support and the IG).^[1] The NRC then subtracts certain offsetting receipts and divides this total by the mission-direct full-time equivalent (FTE) converted to hours (the mission-direct FTE converted to hours is the product of the mission-direct FTE multiplied by the estimated annual mission-direct FTE productive hours). Consistent with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25, “User Charges,” the professional hourly rate encompasses the “full cost” of NRC review and thus includes the NRC's budgeted resources for mission-direct program salaries and benefits, mission-indirect contract resources along with salaries and benefits, plus the agency support program contract resources along with salaries and benefits. The only budgeted resources excluded from the professional hourly rate are those for mission-direct contract resources, which are generally billed to licensees and applicants separately. The following shows the professional hourly rate calculation:

For FY 2026, the NRC is increasing the professional hourly rate from $318 to $337. The approximately 5.9 percent increase in the professional hourly rate is primarily due to the decrease in mission-direct FTE compared to FY 2025. The professional hourly rate is inversely related to the mission-direct FTE amount; therefore, as the number of mission-direct FTE decreases, the professional hourly rate may increase. Based on the FY 2026 enacted budget, the number of mission-direct FTE is expected to decrease by approximately 121, primarily due to the Deferred Resignation Program (DRP) and other voluntary resignations. In addition, there was a decrease in mission-direct FTE because section 101 of the ADVANCE Act created a new excluded activity for international nuclear export and innovation activities, causing the FTE for these activities to be removed from the professional hourly rate calculation.

Additionally, the professional hourly rate is increasing due to a reduction in the estimate for annual mission-direct FTE productive hours from 1,507 to 1,481, or 1.7 percent, compared to FY 2025. The professional hourly rate is also inversely related to the annual mission-direct FTE productive hours amount; therefore, as the annual mission-direct FTE productive hours amount decreases, the professional hourly rate may increase. The estimate for annual mission-direct FTE productive hours reflects the average number of hours that a mission-direct employee spends on mission-direct work annually. This estimate, therefore, excludes hours charged to annual leave, sick leave, holidays, training, and general administrative tasks.

The decrease in the estimate for annual mission-direct FTE productive hours, compared to FY 2025, is attributable mainly to an increase in direct staff hours for annual leave and training attendance, which are excluded from the estimate for annual mission-direct FTE productive hours computation. The estimate for annual mission-direct FTE productive hours is developed during budget formulation and is currently based on a rolling average of actual hours to account for any fluctuations in any given year. The reduction in productive hours seen here is, in part, the result of abnormally high productivity rates ( e.g., less use of annual leave) seen during the COVID-19 public health emergency being phased out of the rolling average. Table III of this document shows the professional hourly rate calculation methodology. The FY 2025 amounts are provided for comparison purposes.

The decrease in mission-direct FTE and in the annual mission-direct FTE productive hours amount is partially offset by a reduction in the budgeted resources of approximately $26.9 million, or 3.3 percent, compared to FY 2025.

The FY 2025 final fee rule included revisions to 10 CFR part 170 to implement section 201 of the ADVANCE Act, which went into effect on October 1, 2025 (FY 2026). In short, the NRC has two hourly rates: (1) the professional hourly rate, as described above in this section; and (2) the Reduced Hourly Rate for advanced nuclear reactor applicants and pre-applicants, as described below in this section.

Section 201 of the ADVANCE Act amended NEIMA to specify that the Reduced Hourly Rate is the FTE rate for mission-direct program salaries and benefits for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program, divided by the productive hours assumption, for that FY. The methodology for calculating the Reduced Hourly Rate is similar to that of the professional hourly rate, discussed above in this section, but with certain budgeted resources not included. Under section 201 of the ADVANCE Act, the Reduced Hourly Rate does not include mission-direct program salaries and benefits for the Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety Program, mission-indirect program support for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program and the Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety Program, and agency support.

The NRC calculates the Reduced Hourly Rate by taking the budgeted resources for the mission-direct program salaries and benefits for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program, then dividing this total by the mission-direct FTE for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program converted to hours. This methodology follows section 201 of the ADVANCE Act because the FTE rate for mission-direct program salaries and benefits for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program is derived by dividing the budgeted resources for the mission-direct program salaries and benefits for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program by the mission-direct FTE for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program. The mission-direct FTE for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program converted to hours is the product of the mission-direct FTE for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program multiplied by the estimated annual mission-direct FTE productive hours. The productive hours assumption refers to the estimated annual mission-direct FTE productive hours.

The following shows the Reduced Hourly Rate calculation:

Thus, in this FY 2026 final fee rule, the Reduced Hourly Rate is $154 per hour and represents an over 50 percent reduction from the professional hourly rate of $337 per hour. The NRC is increasing the Reduced Hourly Rate from $148 to $154, or approximately 4.0 percent, primarily due to the decrease in mission-direct FTE for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program compared to FY 2025. The Reduced Hourly Rate is inversely related to the number of mission-direct FTE for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program; therefore, as the number of mission-direct FTE for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program decreases, the Reduced Hourly Rate may increase. Based on the FY 2026 enacted budget, the number of mission-direct FTE for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program is expected to decrease by approximately 96, primarily due to the DRP and other voluntary resignations.

Additionally, the Reduced Hourly Rate is increasing due to a reduction in the estimate for annual mission-direct FTE productive hours from 1,507 to 1,481, or 1.7 percent, compared to FY 2025. Similar to the professional hourly rate, the Reduced Hourly Rate is also inversely related to the annual mission-direct FTE productive hours amount; therefore, as the annual mission-direct FTE productive hours amount decreases, the Reduced Hourly Rate may increase. The estimate for annual mission-direct FTE productive hours used for the Reduced Hourly Rate is the same as the estimate for annual mission-direct FTE productive hours used for the professional hourly rate, as described above in this section.

The decrease in mission-direct FTE for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program and in the annual mission-direct FTE productive hours amount is partially offset by a reduction in the mission-direct budgeted resources for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program of approximately $14.7 million, or 4.9 percent, compared to FY 2025, primarily due to the DRP and other voluntary resignations.

Both the professional hourly rate and the Reduced Hourly Rate provided in this final rule are based on the FY 2026 enacted budget.

FY 2026 Fee Collection—Flat Application Fee Changes

The NRC is amending the flat application fees it charges in its schedule of fees in § 170.31 to reflect the professional hourly rate of $337. The NRC charges these fees to applicants for materials licenses and other regulatory services, as well as to holders of materials licenses. The NRC calculates flat fees by multiplying the average professional staff hours needed to process the licensing actions by the FY 2026 professional hourly rate. Biennially, the NRC analyzes the actual hours spent performing licensing actions and estimates the five-year average of professional staff hours that are needed to process licensing actions. The biennial review is required by section 205(a) of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (31 U.S.C. 902(a)(8)). The NRC performed this review for the FY 2025 proposed fee rule and will perform this review again for the FY 2027 proposed fee rule. The higher professional hourly rate of $337 is the primary reason for the increase in flat application fees (see the work papers).

In order to simplify billing, the NRC rounds these flat fees to a minimal degree. Specifically, the NRC rounds these flat fees (up or down) in such a way that ensures both convenience for its stakeholders and minimal effects due to rounding. 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 flat fees are applicable for 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 2026 final fee rule will be subject to the revised fees in the final rule. Because section 101 of the ADVANCE Act created a new excluded activity for international nuclear export and innovation activities, which includes the budgeted resources under the Licensing Export/Import product, fees continue to not be assessed for import and export licensing actions under 10 CFR parts 170 and 171.

FY 2026 Fee Collection—Low-Level Waste Surcharge

The NRC is assessing a generic low-level waste (LLW) surcharge of $3.258 million. In comparison to FY 2025, the FY 2026 surcharge is decreasing primarily due to a decline in budgeted resources in the FY 2026 enacted budget as a result of the DRP and other voluntary resignations. Disposal of LLW occurs at commercially operated LLW disposal facilities that are licensed by either the NRC or an Agreement State. Four existing LLW disposal facilities in the United States accept various types of LLW. All are regulated by an Agreement State, rather than the NRC. Because the NRC does not regulate the existing LLW disposal facilities, the NRC is allocating this surcharge for LLW budgeted resources to NRC licensees that generate LLW, based on data available in DOE's Manifest Information Management System. This database contains information on total LLW volumes disposed of by four generator classes: academic, industrial, medical, and utility. The ratio of waste volumes disposed of by these generator classes to total LLW volumes disposed over a period of time is used to estimate the portion of this surcharge that will be allocated to the operating power reactors, fuel facilities, and materials users fee classes. The materials users fee class portion is adjusted to account for the large percentage of materials licensees that are licensed by the Agreement States rather than the NRC.

In March, DOE updated its Manifest Information Management System with 2026 data. Because of the update, the following changes occurred compared to the FY 2025 final fee rule: the LLW surcharge for the operating power reactors fee class decreased from $3.251 million to $2.978 million; the LLW surcharge for the fuel facilities fee class decreased from $0.433 million to $0.222 million; and the LLW surcharge for the materials users fee class decreased from $0.114 million to $0.059 million.

Table V of this document shows the allocation of the LLW surcharge and its allocation across the various fee classes.

FY 2026 Fee Collection—Revised Annual Fees

In accordance with SECY-05-0164, “Annual Fee Calculation Method,” the NRC rebaselines its annual fees every year. “Rebaselining” entails analyzing the budgeted resources in detail and then allocating the budgeted resources to various classes or subclasses of licensees. Rebaselining also includes updating the number of NRC licensees in its fee calculation methodology. As shown in Table II, the NRC calculates the total amount to be recovered through 10 CFR part 171 annual fees by first taking the annual budget (less the budget authority for excluded activities) and subtracting the estimated amount to be recovered through 10 CFR part 170 fees. The NRC then makes certain 10 CFR part 171 billing adjustments to arrive at the total adjusted amount to be recovered through 10 CFR part 171 fees.

The NRC is revising its annual fees in § 171.15, “Annual fees: Non-power production or utilization licenses, reactor licenses, and independent spent fuel storage licenses,” and § 171.16 based on the FY 2026 enacted budget.

Table VI of this document shows the rebaselined fees for FY 2026 for a sample of licensee categories. The FY 2025 amounts are provided for comparison purposes.

The work papers that support this final rule show in detail how the NRC allocates the budgeted resources for each class of licensees and calculates the fees.

Paragraphs a. through h. of this section describes the budgeted 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 for this final rule.

a. Operating Power Reactors

The NRC will collect $527.6 million in annual fees from the operating power reactors fee class in FY 2026, as shown in table VII of this document. The FY 2025 operating power reactors fees are shown for comparison purposes.

In comparison to FY 2025, the FY 2026 annual fee for the operating power reactors fee class is increasing primarily due to: (1) an increase in the budgeted resources in the FY 2026 enacted budget that are allocated to the operating power reactors fee class; and (2) an expected decrease in the 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings. The increase in the total required annual fee recovery amount for the operating power reactors fee class is offset primarily due to the transition of the Palisades Nuclear Plant (Palisades) back to the operating power reactors fee class, increasing the number of reactors in the operating power reactors fee class by one. Palisades has transitioned back to the operating power reactors fee class consistent with § 171.15 because (1) Palisades was previously included in the operating power reactors fee class; (2) it transitioned back to an operational licensing basis in late FY 2025; and (3) a notification was previously provided to the Atomic Energy Commission (the NRC's predecessor) of the successful completion of power ascension testing for Palisades.

The increase in budgeted resources for the operating power reactors fee class is primarily due to the following: (1) an increase in contract support for specialized, mission-related construction costs associated with the Three White Flint North relocation project; (2) an increase in contract support to maintain the agency's security and privacy tools that support federal mandates and the modernization of the Reactor Program System; and (3) an increase in contract support in research in areas including steam generator integrity, water stress corrosion cracking testing, irradiation-assisted degradation, cybersecurity research, structural and geotechnical evaluations, and thermal hydraulic and neutronics computer code development.

The increase in budgeted resources is also mitigated by the following: (1) a reduction in licensing resources due to efficiencies gained from the ADVANCE Act and E.O. 14300; (2) the transition of Palisades back to the operating power reactors fee class; (3) a reduction in oversight resources due to streamlining inspection workload that includes vendor inspections and event evaluations; and (4) a reduction in research in areas including structural codes and standards, systems analysis research, external hazard research and risk analysis computer code development, and regulatory guide updates.

The 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings are expected to decrease primarily due to the following: (1) the staff completed implementation of the license renewal roadmap and other efficiency efforts, which significantly decreased the staff hours and contract resources needed to complete license renewal and subsequent license renewal application reviews; (2) the completion of NuScale Power LLC US460 small modular reactor (SMR) standard design approval application review in FY 2025; and (3) a decrease in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings due to the government shutdown.

The annual fee is also affected by the following contributing factors: (1) a decrease in the 10 CFR part 171 billing adjustment due to the collection of prior year invoices; (2) a decrease in the LLW surcharge related to the coordination of the National LLW Program, including development of guidance; and (3) an increase in the generic transportation resources allocated to the operating power reactors fee class to support activities related to two new Certificates of Compliance (CoCs).

The fee-recoverable budgeted resources are divided equally among the 95 reactors in the operating power reactors fee class, resulting in an annual fee of $5,554,000 per operating power reactor. Additionally, each licensed operating power reactor will be assessed the FY 2026 spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning annual fee of $325,000 (see table VIII of this document and the discussion that follows). The combined FY 2026 annual fee for each operating power reactor will be $5,879,000.

Section 102(b)(3)(B)(i) of NEIMA established a cap for the annual fees charged to operating reactor licensees; under this provision, the annual fee for an operating reactor licensee, to the maximum extent practicable, shall not exceed the annual fee amount per operating reactor licensee established in the FY 2015 final fee rule (80 FR 37432; June 30, 2015), adjusted for inflation. The NRC included an estimate of the operating power reactors fee class annual fee in appendix B, “Estimated Operating Power Reactors Annual Fee Per Licensee,” of the NRC's FY 2026 Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) (NUREG-1100, Volume 41) to increase transparency for stakeholders. The NRC developed this estimate based on the staff's allocation of the FY 2026 budget request to fee classes under 10 CFR part 170, and allocations within the operating power reactors fee class under 10 CFR part 171. The fee estimate included in the FY 2026 CBJ assumed 95 operating power reactors in FY 2026 and applied various data assumptions from the FY 2024 final fee rule. Based on these allocations and assumptions, the annual fee for the operating power reactors fee class included in the FY 2026 CBJ was estimated to be $5.540 million.

The assumptions made between budget formulation and the development of this final rule have changed such that the annual fee for the operating power reactors fee class is $5.554 million, compared to the estimated $5.540 million in appendix B of the FY 2026 CBJ. These changes are primarily due to the decrease in the 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings for the FY 2026 final fee rule compared to the estimates for 10 CFR part 170 billings at the time of the FY 2026 budget request. The annual fee for the operating power reactors fee class in this final rule is $0.983 million below the FY 2015 operating power reactors annual fee amount adjusted for inflation of $6.537 million. The FY 2015 operating power reactors annual fee amount adjusted for inflation of $6.537 million included in this final rule differs from the amount included in appendix B of the FY 2026 CBJ of $6.681 million due to the CBJ using an average for inflation for multiple years to project the Consumer Price Index. The fee rule utilizes the Consumer Price Index for the most recent completed calendar year to build off the prior year annual fee amount adjusted for inflation.

In FY 2016, the NRC amended § 171.15 to establish a variable annual fee structure for light-water reactor (LWR) SMRs (81 FR 32617; May 24, 2016). In FY 2023, the NRC further ( printed page 36478) amended § 171.5, “Definitions,” to: (1) expand the applicability of the SMR variable fee structure to include non-LWR SMRs; and (2) establish an additional minimum fee and variable rate applicable to SMRs with a licensed thermal power rating of less than or equal to 250 megawatts-thermal (MWt) (88 FR 39120; June 15, 2023). This revision to the SMR variable annual fee structure retained the bundled unit concept for SMRs and the approach for calculating fees for reactors, or bundled units, with licensed thermal power ratings greater than 250 MWt.

Currently, there are no operating SMRs; therefore, the NRC will not assess an annual fee in FY 2026 for this type of licensee.

b. Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor Decommissioning

The NRC will collect $40.3 million in annual fees from power reactor licensees, and from 10 CFR part 72 licensees that do not hold a 10 CFR part 50 or part 53 operating license or a 10 CFR part 52 or part 53 combined license, to recover the budgeted resources for the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning fee class in FY 2026, as shown in table VIII of this document. The FY 2025 spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning fees are shown for comparison purposes.

In comparison to FY 2025, the FY 2026 annual fee for the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning fee class is decreasing primarily due to a decrease in budgeted resources in the FY 2026 enacted budget that are allocated to the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning fee class.

The decrease in budgeted resources is primarily due to the following: (1) the potential restart of the Christopher M. Crane Clean Energy Center (CCEC) and Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC), which, if approved, would result in these reactors transitioning back to the operating power reactors fee class; (2) the completion of major decommissioning taskings at the Vallecitos Nuclear Center and Fort Calhoun Station; and (3) a reduction in staffing due to the DRP and other voluntary resignations.

The decrease in budgeted resources is partially offset by an expected decrease in the 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings, which in turn is primarily due to the following: (1) the transition of Palisades back to the operating power reactors fee class; (2) the potential restart of CCEC and DAEC; (3) the completion of major decommissioning taskings at Vallecitos and Fort Calhoun; and (4) a decrease in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings due to the government shutdown.

The total required annual fee recovery amount is divided equally among 124 facilities, resulting in a FY 2026 annual fee of $325,000 per facility.

c. Fuel Facilities

The NRC will collect $23.0 million in annual fees from the fuel facilities fee class in FY 2026, as shown in table IX of this document. The FY 2025 fuel facilities fees are shown for comparison purposes.

In comparison to FY 2025, the FY 2026 total required annual fee recovery amount for the fuel facilities fee class is decreasing primarily due to a decrease in the budgeted resources in the FY 2026 enacted budget that are allocated to the fuel facilities fee class. This decrease in budgeted resources is partially offset by an increase in the allocated generic transportation resources. As a result, there is a decrease in the total required annual fee recovery amount for the fuel facilities fee class compared to FY 2025.

The budgeted resources allocated to the fuel facilities fee class decreased primarily due to the following: (1) a reduction in resources for ( printed page 36479) environmental reviews for routine license amendment requests and renewal applications, complex license amendment requests associated with major modifications of existing fuel cycle facilities, and new fuel cycle facility license applications to reflect historical execution data and expected high confidence submittals; and (2) a reduction in staffing due to the DRP and other voluntary resignations. These decreases are partially offset by increased resources due to: (1) the maintenance and operation of the Nuclear Material Management and Safeguards System, a national database for special nuclear material reporting to fulfill domestic requirements and international agreements; and (2) the Orano Enrichment USA LLC Project IKE Enrichment Facility license application.

Compared to FY 2025, the 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings are remaining stable because while there are increases in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings in FY 2026, these increases were offset by decreases in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings. In FY 2026, there are increases in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings due to the following: (1) the review of several licensing actions; (2) the review of the Global Laser Enrichment, LLC, Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility application; (3) significant pre-application engagement activities for potential new fuel facilities; and (4) oversight for the production of high assay low enriched uranium at the American Centrifuge Plant. These increases in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings are offset by the following: (1) the completion of the review of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST's) license renewal application for possession and use of special nuclear material; (2) the completion of the review of the Purdue University license renewal application for possession and use of special nuclear material; (3) the completion of the review of the Urenco USA license amendment request to increase its enrichment limit to less than 10 weight percent uranium-235; (4) the implementation of process improvements to decrease the schedule/resources for licensing reviews; and (5) a decrease in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings due to the government shutdown. Overall, this resulted in the FY 2026 estimated 10 CFR part 170 billings for the fuel facilities fee class remaining the same as FY 2025.

The NRC continues to allocate annual fees to individual fuel facility licensees based on the effort/fee determination matrix developed in the FY 1999 final fee rule (64 FR 31448; June 10, 1999). In short, the matrix groups licensees within this fee class into various fee categories. The matrix lists processes that are conducted at licensed sites and assigns effort factors for the safety and safeguards activities associated with each process (these effort levels are reflected in table X of this document). The annual fees are then distributed across the fee class based on the regulatory effort assigned by the matrix. The effort factors in the matrix represent regulatory effort that is not recovered through 10 CFR part 170 fees ( e.g., rulemaking and guidance). Regulatory effort for activities that are subject to 10 CFR part 170 fees, such as the number of inspections, is not applicable to the effort factor.

In FY 2026, the total required annual fee recovery amount, $23.0 million, is attributable to safety activities, safeguards activities, and the LLW surcharge. For FY 2026, the total budgeted resources to be recovered as annual fees for safety activities are approximately $12.2 million. To calculate the annual fee, the NRC allocates this amount to each fee category based on its percentage of the total regulatory effort for safety activities. Similarly, the NRC allocates the budgeted resources that the NRC estimates to be recovered as annual fees for safeguards activities, $10.6 million, to each fee category based on its percentage of the total regulatory effort for safeguards activities. Finally, the fuel facilities fee class portion of the LLW surcharge—$0.2 million—is allocated to each fee category based on its percentage of the total regulatory effort for both safety and safeguards activities. The annual fee per licensee is then calculated by dividing the estimated total allocated budgeted resources for the fee category by the number of licensees in that fee category. The annual fee for each facility is summarized in table XI of this document.

d. Uranium Recovery Facilities

The NRC will collect $0.2 million in annual fees from the uranium recovery facilities fee class in FY 2026, as shown in table XII of this document. The FY 2025 uranium recovery facilities fees are shown for comparison purposes.

In comparison to FY 2025, the total required annual fee recovery amount for the fee class is increasing slightly, primarily due to an increase in the budgeted resources in the FY 2026 enacted budget that are allocated to the uranium recovery facilities fee class. This increase in budgeted resources is primarily to support (1) the NRC's review of license renewal applications and (2) inspection procedural modifications associated with improvements resulting from the ADVANCE Act. This increase in budgeted resources is partially offset by an expected increase in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings to support the NRC's review of license renewal applications for the Crow Butte Resources, Inc. site; Powertech USA, Inc. Dewey-Burdock site; and NuFuels, Inc. Crownpoint Uranium Project.

As discussed in this document, the uranium recovery facilities fee class includes DOE and non-DOE licensees. Compared to FY 2025, the annual fee amount for DOE and the annual fee amount for the non-DOE licensee are both increasing. The annual fee amount for DOE is increasing primarily because of a decrease in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings due to the government shutdown. The decrease in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings is partially offset by an increase in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings for work associated with various DOE Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) sites. The annual fee amount for the non-DOE licensee is increasing primarily due to an increase in resources for inspection procedural modifications associated with improvements resulting from the ADVANCE Act.

The NRC regulates DOE's Title I and Title II activities under UMTRCA.^[3] The NRC described the overall methodology for determining fees for UMTRCA in the FY 2002 final fee rule (67 FR 42612; June 24, 2002), and the NRC continues to use this methodology. The annual fee assessed to DOE includes the resources specifically budgeted for the NRC's UMTRCA Title I and Title II activities, as well as 10 percent of the remaining budgeted resources for this fee class. The NRC assesses the remaining 90 percent of its budgeted resources to the non-DOE licensee in this fee class, which is reflected in table XIII. For additional information, please see the work papers.

( printed page 36481)

Further, for any non-DOE licensees, the NRC continues to use a matrix to determine the effort levels associated with conducting generic regulatory actions for the different licensees in the uranium recovery facilities fee class; this is similar to the NRC's approach for fuel facilities, described in the “c. Fuel Facilities” section of this document. 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, and mill tailings disposal facilities. The matrix identifies the types of operating activities that support and benefit these licensees, along with each activity's relative weight (see the work papers). Currently, there is only one non-DOE licensee, which is a basic ISR facility. Table XIV of this document displays the benefit factors for the non-DOE licensee in that fee category.

Given that there is only one non-DOE licensee in the fee class, the application of the matrix does not result in any adjustment to the licensee's annual fee. As such, the FY 2026 annual fee for the non-DOE licensee is $50,300 (rounded), as shown in table XV of this document. While the FY 2026 annual fee for the non-DOE licensee reflects an increase of $22,600 compared to FY 2025, the annual fee remains consistent with fiscal years prior to FY 2025 and is less than the annual fee included in the FY 2024 final fee rule for this fee category, which was $53,200. Additionally, as explained in the FY 2019 final fee rule (84 FR 22331; May 17, 2019), the NRC includes some uranium recovery program budgeted resources in a fee-relief activity to ensure the equitability and stability of annual fees for the uranium recovery facilities fee class since the majority of uranium recovery licensees are currently in Agreement States.

e. Non-Power Production or Utilization Facilities

The NRC will collect $0.196 million in annual fees from the non-power production or utilization facilities fee class in FY 2026, as shown in table XVI of this document. The FY 2025 non-power production or utilization facilities fees are shown for comparison purposes.

( printed page 36482)

Compared to FY 2025, the FY 2026 annual fee for the non-power production or utilization facilities fee class is increasing primarily due to an increase in allocated generic transportation surcharge for this fee class. The rise in the generic transportation allotment is due to the increase in budgeted resources within the transportation fee class in the FY 2026 final fee rule.

Although the budgeted resources in the FY 2026 enacted budget that are allocated to this fee class represent an increase compared to FY 2025, this increase in budgeted resources is offset by an increase in the 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings for this fee class overall. The increase in budgeted resources compared to FY 2025 is primarily due to work associated with application reviews for medical isotope production facilities and advanced reactors.

While the 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings for this fee class overall increased compared to FY 2025, the 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings for the current fleet subject to annual fees decreased. The 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings with respect to medical isotope production facilities and advanced reactors applicants ( i.e., those not subject to annual fees) have increased when compared with FY 2025 primarily due to the following: (1) conducting pre-application activities for Eden Radioisotopes future operating license application in addition to the anticipation of their construction permit application for review, and (2) the review of a new advanced non-power reactor application, including topical reports and white papers. The 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings associated with the current fleet of operating non-power production or utilization facilities licensees subject to annual fees have declined slightly compared to FY 2025 primarily as a result of the NIST shutdown status extending into FY 2026, reducing the NRC's expected oversight workload.

The total required annual fee recovery amount is divided equally among the two non-power production or utilization facilities licensees subject to annual fees and results in an FY 2026 final annual fee of $98,200 for each licensee. While the annual fee for the non-power production or utilization facility fee class is increasing, the NRC is expanding the existing fee-relief activity, “Medical isotope production infrastructure,” to include additional non-power production or utilization facilities program budgeted resources to ensure the equitability and stability of annual fees for the non-power production or utilization facilities fee class since the majority of non-power production or utilization facilities licensees are exempt from annual fees under 10 CFR part 171.

f. Rare Earth

The NRC has not allocated any budgeted resources to this fee class; therefore, the NRC will not assess an annual fee for this fee class in FY 2026.

g. Materials Users

The NRC will collect $47.3 million in annual fees from materials users licensed under 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70 in FY 2026, as shown in table XVII of this document. The FY 2025 materials users fees are shown for comparison purposes.

In comparison to FY 2025, there is an increase in the total required annual fee recovery amount primarily due to (1) an increase in the allocated generic transportation resources for this fee class as a result of an additional CoC in the materials users fee class; and (2) a decrease in the number of materials users licensees not regulated by Agreement States and thus the number of licensees in the fee class. In addition, there is a slight increase in the budgeted resources in the FY 2026 enacted budget that are allocated to the materials users fee class. This increase is primarily due to a rise in contract support to address skill gaps in health physics specialties and support the agency's strategic workforce planning. This increase in budgeted resources is offset by a reduction in staffing due to many materials users licensing actions nearing completion.

The NRC continues to use its established methodology for equitably and fairly allocating the total required annual fee recovery amount of $47.3 million among approximately 2,200 diverse licensees in the fee class. The total number of licensees in the fee class decreased from approximately 2,300 to 2,200, compared to FY 2025, as a result of Connecticut becoming an Agreement State effective at the end of FY 2025. The NRC continues to calculate the annual fees for each fee category within this fee 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 materials license, this approach provides a proxy for allocating the generic and other regulatory costs to the diverse fee categories. This methodology also considers the inspection frequency (priority), which is indicative of the safety risk and resulting regulatory costs associated with the categories of licenses.

The methodology for calculating 10 CFR part 171 annual fees for the various categories of materials users in this fee class includes using a formula that considers application fees, inspection costs, inspection priority (or frequency), and unique category costs. This formula is described in detail in the work papers. At a high level, this formula includes three main components: (1) recovery of general costs, (2) recovery of inspection costs, and (3) unique category costs. The total required annual ( printed page 36483) fee recovery amount of $47.3 million for FY 2026, as shown in table XVII of this document, consists of $36.7 million for general costs (including the allocated generic transportation resources), and $10.6 million for inspection costs; there are no unique category costs for any fee categories in FY 2026.

As part of calculating the recovery for the general costs and inspection costs, respectively, the NRC derives two multipliers: the constant multiplier and the inspection multiplier. A constant multiplier is established to recover the total general costs for the fee class ($36.7 million in FY 2026). To derive the constant multiplier, the general cost amount is divided by the sum of all fee categories (application fee plus the average inspection cost divided by inspection priority) then multiplied by the number of licensees. The average inspection cost is the average inspection hours for each fee category multiplied by the FY 2026 professional hourly rate of $337. The inspection priority is the interval between routine inspections, expressed in years. This calculation results in a constant multiplier of 1.36 for FY 2026.

The inspection multiplier is established to recover inspection costs for the fee class ($10.6 million in FY 2026). To derive the inspection multiplier, the amount of inspection costs for the fee class is divided by the sum of all fee categories (average inspection cost divided by inspection priority) then multiplied by the number of licensees. This calculation results in an inspection multiplier of 2.09 for FY 2026.

Additionally, the unique category costs would recover costs unique to a particular fee category; however, there are no unique category costs for FY 2026.

The FY 2026 total required annual fee recovery amount of $47.3 million for the materials users fee class also includes approximately $0.1 million in LLW surcharge costs (see table V, “Allocation of LLW Surcharge, FY 2026,” of this document). The LLW surcharge costs for the fee class are not included in the formula described above; rather, the surcharge amount for the fee class is divided by the number of licensees and then assessed to each licensee. See the work papers for the LLW surcharge amount per licensee.

Based on these calculations, the total required annual fee recovery amount for the materials users fee class is increasing compared to FY 2025. For the individual categories within the fee class, the FY 2026 annual fees for all fee categories are increasing compared to FY 2025. The increase for these fee categories is primarily due to the following: (1) an increase in the generic transportation resources allocated to this fee class; and (2) decrease in the number of licensees in the fee class due to Connecticut becoming an Agreement State. The annual fee for each fee category is shown in the revision to § 171.16(d).

h. Transportation

The NRC will collect $2.4 million in annual fees to recover generic transportation budgeted resources in FY 2026, as shown in table XVIII of this document. The FY 2025 fees are shown for comparison purposes.

In comparison to FY 2025, the FY 2026 annual fee for the transportation fee class is increasing primarily due to (1) an increase in the budgeted resources in the FY 2026 enacted budget that are allocated to this fee class; and (2) a decrease in the 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings due to the completion of multiple transportation package reviews at the end of FY 2025 and the delay of an anticipated submittal by Radiant Industries Kaleidos to late FY 2026. This increase in budgeted resources is primarily to support an increase in licensing and transportation certification activities for microreactors, including reviews associated with the Radiant Industries Kaleidos microreactor. This increase in budgeted resources is partially offset by (1) a rise in the transportation percentage distribution of resources for the operating power reactors fee class (to support activities related to CoCs) and for the materials users fee class (because of the new CoC under the materials users fee class) in FY 2026; and (2) the discontinuation of resources associated with the Project Pele application in FY 2025. Consistent with the policy established in the NRC's FY 2006 final fee rule (71 FR 30722; May 30, 2006), the NRC recovers generic transportation resources unrelated to DOE by including those resources in the annual fees for licensee 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 CoCs used by each fee class (and DOE) by the total generic transportation resources to be recovered.

This resource distribution to the licensee fee classes and DOE is shown in table XIX of this document. Note that for the non-power production or utilization facilities fee class, the NRC allocates the distribution to only those licensees that are subject to annual fees. Although five CoCs benefit the entire non-power production or utilization facilities fee class, only two out of 29 operating non-power production or utilization facilities licensees are subject to annual fees. Consequently, the number of CoCs used to determine the proportion of generic transportation resources allocated to the non-power production or utilization facilities fee class has been adjusted to 0.3 so these licensees are charged a fair and equitable portion of the total fees (see the work papers). ( printed page 36484)

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

FY 2026—Policy Change

The NRC is making one policy change to its fee regulations for FY 2026 to implement E.O. 14300 and improve regulatory certainty for applicants.

Establishing Fixed Caps on Service Fees in Response to Executive Order 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” Section 5(a)

Section 5(a) of E.O. 14300 announces a policy for the NRC to replace its “nonbinding `generic milestone schedules'” with “fixed deadlines” for requested activities of the Commission “as directed under the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act.” Section 5(a) also announces a policy for the NRC to establish fixed caps on service fees to enforce those deadlines. Section 5(a) further provides that the “regulations should not provide for tolling those deadlines except in instances of applicant failure, and must allow a reasonably diligent applicant” to complete the licensing process within the allotted time.

Section 5(a) references NEIMA specifically and the requirement in section 102(c) of NEIMA, as amended by section 504 of the ADVANCE Act. Section 102(c) requires development of performance metrics and milestone schedules for “requested activities of the Commission” and imposes reporting requirements for certain delays in issuing a final safety evaluation for these activities. NEIMA section 3 defines “requested activity of the Commission” to include the processing of applications for design certifications or approvals, licenses, permits, license amendments, license renewals, CoCs, and power uprates, and “any other activity requested by a licensee or applicant.” In contrast to NEIMA section 102(c), section 5(a) of E.O. 14300 refers to the “final decision on an application” and not the “final safety evaluation.”

Although fixed fee caps apply to only requested activities of the Commission that involve the issuance of a final safety evaluation, the NRC will continue to establish and communicate schedule and resource estimates for other activities, such as pre-application engagement, and will be held accountable for efficiency, timeliness, and quality of these reviews through multiple performance management mechanisms such as Annual Performance Plan performance indicators, internal tracking dashboards, and quarterly performance reviews.

a. Purpose of This Change

The NRC is making this change in the FY 2026 final fee rule to establish fixed caps on service fees for requested activities of the Commission that involve the issuance of a final safety evaluation, consistent with NEIMA and to implement E.O. 14300. The fixed fee caps will provide cost predictability and drive increased efficiency and accountability in the NRC's licensing and other activities requested by applicants and licensees. The NRC will address fixed deadlines for final decisions (including the 12- and 18-month periods cited in section 5(a) of E.O. 14300) in a future rulemaking.

The NRC does not expect to exceed the fixed fee caps for reasons not attributable to applicant failure. In the unlikely event of such an exceedance, the NRC will continue to work diligently to complete the licensing review as soon as practicable consistent with the NRC's authorizing legislation, including the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), and NEIMA, as well as E.O. 14300. Consistent with section 5(a) of E.O. 14300, any exceedance of a fixed fee cap not attributable to applicant failure will not be borne by applicants or licensees as either service fees or annual fees. NEIMA requires the NRC to recover through service fees and annual fees, to the maximum extent practicable, approximately 100 percent of its total budget authority for the FY, less the budget authority for excluded activities, including fee-relief activities identified by the Commission. These statutory mechanisms allow the NRC to address fee cap exceedances, in the unlikely event they occur, consistent with law.

To implement fixed fee caps, the NRC is establishing § 170.33, “Executive Order 14300 fixed fee caps,” and amending § 170.3, “Definitions,” and § 15.31, “Disputed debts.” These changes include a table of fixed fee caps for categories of requested activities of the Commission that involve the issuance of a final safety evaluation (categorical caps); a process for lower tailored caps based on the specific application for the requested activity; a definition of applicant failure, which is the sole basis for increasing the fixed fee cap; and procedures for fee cap disputes.

b. Tailored Caps

The new § 170.33 provides a process for the NRC to set a tailored cap below the categorical cap based on the specific application for the requested activity, to the maximum extent practicable. Under § 170.33, the fixed fee cap will be the lesser of the categorical cap or the tailored cap. The NRC will communicate the fixed fee cap in its written communication on schedule and resources for the requested activity provided to the applicant.

The NRC is establishing tailored caps because, depending on the complexity of the requested activity, it would be more appropriate to hold the NRC accountable to a tailored cap below the bounding categorical cap. In certain ( printed page 36485) cases, due to the bounding nature of the categorical caps, categorical caps may be higher than the resources needed for a specific application and thus fail to provide the efficiency and accountability benefits that fixed fee caps are designed to offer. For example, the resources needed to review an application that relies on a previously approved topical report are likely to be lower than the categorical cap because categorical caps bound the range of resources needed for activities falling within a particular category.

Tailored caps will reflect the content and complexity of the specific application and will be provided to applicants as part of the NRC's established practice of communicating schedule and resource estimates. Consistent with E.O. 14300, section 5(a), § 170.33 augments this established practice by directing the inclusion of a fixed fee cap in the written communication on schedule and resources and providing for a tailored cap that is lower than the categorical cap to the maximum extent practicable, enhancing NRC accountability and efficiency. The NRC is not able to determine if it could set a fixed fee cap lower than the categorical cap until it receives a specific complete application that can be accepted for review because the resources needed for the NRC to review and issue a final decision on a requested activity depend, in part, on the specific application submitted, as the complexity, completeness, and quality of an application can vary. Allowing for tailored caps will encourage applicants to engage early with the NRC and submit a complete, high-quality application. To ensure proper management and control, the NRC will continue to closely monitor project resources, schedules, and early indicators to enable it to identify potential risks of exceeding estimates well in advance.

c. Starting and Ending Points for Fixed Fee Caps

Section 5(a) of E.O. 14300 specifies that the fixed deadlines enforced by the fixed fee caps “commenc[e] with the first required step in the regulatory process” and end with the “final decision on an application.” Consistent with E.O. 14300, the starting point for the fixed fee cap is when a complete application for the requested activity has been accepted for review by the NRC. For a license application, for example, that is when the NRC has completed its acceptance review and dockets the complete application. The ending point for the fixed fee cap is issuance of the final decision ( i.e., the NRC's approval of the requested activity if the NRC's evaluation determines that pertinent requirements are met). For a license application, for example, that is when the NRC issues the license if the NRC's evaluation determines that pertinent requirements are met. Consistent with longstanding policy, as reflected in § 170.11(a)(2), 10 CFR part 170 fees are assessed for mandatory hearings, but not contested hearings, except for limited circumstances. The application of fee policy changes associated with E.O. 14300 does not change this policy.

d. Applicant Failure

Section 5(a) of E.O. 14300 specifies that the “regulations should not provide for tolling [the fixed] deadlines [enforced by the fixed fee caps] except in instances of applicant failure.” Consistent with this policy, § 170.33 states that fixed fee caps will not be increased except in instances of applicant failure. If applicant failure occurs, the NRC will notify the applicant in writing of the new fixed fee cap and will set the new fixed fee cap equal to the lowest practicable amount necessary to account for the applicant failure.

In addition, the NRC is adding a definition for the term “applicant failure” to § 170.3. Given the focus on “applicant failure” and a “reasonably diligent applicant” in section 5(a) of E.O. 14300, § 170.3 defines applicant failure as actions or inaction that:

(1) are within the reasonable control of a diligent applicant;

(2) are not due to actions or inaction of the NRC; and

(3) will cause substantial delays or require a significant increase in resources.

The definition includes, as an example of applicant failure, explicit applicant requests for the NRC to pause or delay review. The NRC is developing guidance to provide further examples of applicant failure and support consistent application of the definition of applicant failure. As discussed in Section IV, Public Comment Analysis, the NRC received a comment requesting clarification if all three criteria in the definition in § 170.3 need to be met to have applicant failure. In response to this comment, the NRC is stating explicitly that all three criteria in the definition in § 170.3 need to be met to have applicant failure.

e. Fee Cap Disputes

The new § 170.33(f) and amendments to § 15.31 clarify how applicants may submit disputes associated with the fixed fee cap by making clear that fee cap disputes must be submitted in accordance with the NRC's established processes for disputes of 10 CFR part 170 fees. The NRC established these processes in the FY 2021 final fee rule (86 FR 32146; June 16, 2021), in accordance with NEIMA section 102(d)(3), including creation of the NRC Form 529 for disputes of 10 CFR part 170 fees.

Consistent with the NRC's established dispute processes, and with § 170.51, “Right to dispute assessed fees,” § 170.33(f) states the following: “Consistent with § 170.51 of this part, any disputes associated with the Executive Order 14300 fixed fee cap must be submitted in accordance with § 15.31 of this chapter.” The revisions to § 15.31(a) specify that (1) for disputes associated with the fixed fee cap, the applicant must submit an NRC Form 529 within 45 days of the NRC written communication pertaining to the cap; and (2) the form must be submitted to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, consistent with existing regulatory requirements governing submission of fee disputes.

f. Effective Date of October 1, 2026

Fixed fee caps will be effective starting October 1, 2026. For requested activities for which a complete application has been accepted for review on or after that date, the fixed fee cap will be the lesser of the categorical cap or the tailored cap. Applications accepted for review before that date will receive a tailored cap representing the lowest practicable amount based on the specific application.

The NRC's current billing system, Financial Accounting and Integrated Management Information System, does not possess the capabilities required to support fixed fee caps through automation. The NRC is currently in the process of implementing a new fee billing engine, which is expected to be operational on October 1, 2026, and will have the capabilities to track and administer the fixed fee caps through automation. Rather than making duplicative system enhancements to these two billing systems, the NRC has aligned the effective date for the fixed fee caps with the expected operational date for the new fee billing engine. Regardless of when the new fee billing engine becomes operational, the NRC will implement fixed fee caps as of the October 1, 2026, effective date.

Because the effective date means that the fixed fee caps will take effect before other rulemakings implementing E.O. 14300, the NRC anticipates issuing updated categorical caps to align with additional efficiencies realized as a ( printed page 36486) result of the E.O. 14300 rulemakings. As discussed in Section IV, Public Comment Analysis, the NRC is clarifying that the categorical caps in table 1 in § 170.33 will be updated annually to reflect any changes to the professional hourly rate or Reduced Hourly Rate. In this final rule, the NRC has changed the Fixed Caps on Service Fees in table 1 in § 170.33 to reflect the $337 professional hourly rate, which increased by $1 from the FY 2026 proposed fee rule. There is no change in table 1 in § 170.33 for the $154 Reduced Hourly Rate since there was no change in the Reduced Hourly Rate from the FY 2026 proposed fee rule. The NRC will also evaluate categorical caps biennially to closely review the staff hours and contract costs used to establish the categorical caps, consistent with the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990. Updated categorical caps will apply only to applications accepted for review after the effective date for the updated categorical cap.

g. Methodology for Categories of Requested Activities

The NRC developed the categories of requested activities for table 1 in § 170.33 by aligning them with the requested activities with established NEIMA milestone schedules and creating separate categories and subcategories where significant variations could support development of significantly different categorical caps. For example, table 1 in § 170.33 includes separate rows for construction permits, ESPs, and limited work authorizations because the data supported development of significantly different categorical caps for these categories of requested activities. As an example of new subcategories, table 1 in § 170.33 has separate rows for two subcategories for standard design approvals because significantly different categorical caps would apply for an application referencing an approved design certification or standard design approval, in comparison to an application with no prior approvals.

In the FY 2026 proposed fee rule, the NRC stated that table 1 in § 170.33 “would be updated to reflect any new requested activities that involve the issuance of a final safety evaluation, including any resulting from the 10 CFR part 53 rulemaking or other future rulemakings.” In this final rule, the NRC has incorporated new requested activities under 10 CFR part 53 in table 1 in § 170.33. The NRC is not establishing separate categorical caps for requested activities under 10 CFR part 53 because the NRC does not currently have the data necessary to support establishment of separate categorical caps for the new 10 CFR part 53 rule. The NRC will use tailored caps to address expected efficiencies under 10 CFR part 53 and may consider establishing separate categorical caps for requested activities under 10 CFR part 53 in a future fee rule after it has execution data gained from experience implementing the new 10 CFR part 53 rule.

h. Methodology for Categorical Caps

Table 1 in § 170.33 includes two sets of categorical caps: (1) Fixed Caps on Service Fees; and (2) Fixed Caps on Service Fees for Advanced Nuclear Reactor Applicants. The Fixed Caps on Service Fees are based on staff hours multiplied by the professional hourly rate, plus contract costs. The Fixed Caps on Service Fees for Advanced Nuclear Reactor Applicants are based on the Reduced Hourly Rate established by the ADVANCE Act and apply only to qualifying applications and not to amendments and renewals due to the definition of advanced nuclear reactor applicant included in the ADVANCE Act's Reduced Hourly Rate provisions and the legislative history.

The categorical caps in table 1 in § 170.33 reflect a data-driven evaluation of future resource needs for requested activities, based on a detailed analysis of actual past performance, current execution experience, and expected improvements. These caps are based on historical, inflation-adjusted data for the range of activities included in each category; removal of outliers in the historical data ( e.g., a review that did not involve a reasonably diligent applicant consistent with the focus of E.O. 14300, section 5(a)); efficiencies achieved to date; additional efficiencies from E.O. 14300 and the ADVANCE Act not requiring rulemaking; alignment with the updated NEIMA milestone schedules that took effect on May 23, 2025; and current execution experience. For categories with limited historical data, the categorical caps were developed using recent comparable data, such as execution data from recent activities or estimated resources data from recent applications accepted for review.

In terms of expected improvements, the categorical caps reflect efficiencies that the NRC expects to realize from implementation of the ADVANCE Act, particularly those in response to section 505, and E.O. 14300 that do not require rulemaking. Some examples of these efficiencies are associated with streamlined licensing processes (such as the use of dedicated core review teams), improved regulatory guidance, and greater standardization in application content and review procedures. Future updates to the categorical caps will reflect additional efficiencies that are realized as a result of implementation of E.O. 14300 and the ADVANCE Act—both from E.O. 14300 rulemakings and other actions taken by the NRC.

FY 2026—Administrative Changes

The NRC is making three administrative changes in FY 2026:

1. Amend § 171.15(d)(1) to clarify the frequency with which the SMR variable rate will be calculated and updated, as appropriate.

The NRC is amending § 171.15(d)(1) by adding “Each fiscal year, the variable rate will be calculated based on October 1 of the fiscal year and updated, as appropriate, to determine the variable fee for the current fiscal year.” Currently, § 171.15(d)(1) does not include language about the frequency with which the SMR variable rate will be calculated for potential updates. Since § 171.15(d)(1) applies to all SMR annual fees, this amendment provides additional clarity to all licensees paying SMR annual fees for their annual fee payments under 10 CFR part 171.

2. Amend § 170.11(d) to update where a fee exemption request submitted via email should be sent.

The NRC is amending paragraph (d) of § 170.11, “Exemptions,” by adding a generic resource email box to ensure that the processing of fee exemption requests submitted via email will not be delayed in the event of a change of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Currently, a person, including a licensee or applicant, can submit a fee exemption request via email to the CFO, and if that individual is no longer working at the NRC, there can be a short-term delay in processing the fee exemption request. With this change, the NRC ensures that a person interested in requesting a fee exemption via email will not have to identify the current CFO and will be able to submit their fee exemption request directly to the generic resource email box. The NRC is amending § 170.11(d) to add a new sentence clarifying that fee exemption requests submitted via email should be submitted to the NRC at cfofeeexemptionrequests.resource@nrc.gov. This amendment eliminates the possibility that the processing of fee exemption requests via email will be delayed.

3. Add § 171.11(f) to include where a fee exemption request submitted via email should be sent to be consistent with the fee exemption requirements in § 170.11. ( printed page 36487)

The NRC is adding a new paragraph (f) to § 171.11, “Exemptions,” to include a generic resource email box and ensure that the processing of fee exemption requests via email will not be delayed if there is a change in the CFO. Currently, § 171.11 does not specify how fee exemption requests must be submitted. By adding the new language to § 171.11, the fee exemption regulations in both § 171.11 and § 170.11 will be consistent and clarify how a person should submit a fee exemption request via email. With this change, the NRC ensures that a person interested in requesting a fee exemption via email will not have to identify the current CFO and would be able to submit their fee exemption request directly to the generic resource email box. This amendment eliminates the possibility that the processing of fee exemption requests via email will be delayed.

III. Opportunities for Public Participation

The NRC published a proposed rule on March 12, 2026 (91 FR 12084). The NRC held a public meeting on March 27, 2026, where the NRC provided background on the proposed changes. Comments received on the proposed rule can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2023-0212.

IV. Public Comment Analysis

The public comment period for the proposed rule closed on April 13, 2026. By the close of the comment period, the NRC received 10 comment submittals. The public comment submissions are available from the Federal Rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2023-0212.

In general, commenters acknowledged the NRC's efforts to implement the ADVANCE Act provisions for the Reduced Hourly Rate for advanced nuclear reactor applicants and pre-applicants and to improve predictability associated with fees. However, commenters raised concerns or suggestions related to the overall implementation of E.O. 14300, section 5(a). Several comments expressed concerns about the overall size of the NRC's budget, transparency, and budget formulation activities. Some commenters' concerns were outside the scope of the fee rule. The NRC has carefully considered the public comments received on the proposed rule. The comments have been organized by topic. The NRC separated these comments into 16 categories based on their relevance to particular topics.

A. Establishment of Fixed Fee Caps as Contemplated by E.O. 14300

Comment: Some commenters supported the establishment of fixed fee caps as contemplated by E.O.14300. Some commenters raised concerns about the fixed fee caps, including concerns about fee caps violating statutory requirements and causing negative consequences.

Response: The NRC disagrees that establishing the fixed fee caps violates statutory requirements and will cause negative consequences. The fixed fee caps will provide cost predictability and accountability while remaining consistent with the statutory fee recovery requirements. NEIMA requires the NRC to recover through service fees and annual fees, to the maximum extent practicable, approximately 100 percent of its total budget authority for the FY, less the budget authority for excluded activities, including fee-relief activities identified by the Commission. These statutory mechanisms allow the NRC to address fee cap exceedances, in the unlikely event they occur, consistent with law.

The NRC disagrees that fixed fee caps will have the negative consequences identified in these comments and, in any event, views the benefits of fixed fee caps for licensees, applicants, and the NRC, as outweighing any negative consequences. The NRC disagrees with the claims in these comments that the fixed fee caps will cause the NRC staff to be reluctant to work on activities that might exceed a fixed fee cap, distort agency behavior, create tradeoffs dissuading positive engagement between the NRC staff and applicants, and provide an incentive for applicants to slow-walk engagement with the NRC staff. Instead, the NRC views the fixed fee caps as creating positive incentives for the NRC staff, as well as applicants and licensees. The fixed fee caps will incentivize the NRC staff to identify safety-significant issues early and push teams to be more efficient. Risk-informed methods will keep reviews focused on the most safety-significant issues. Establishing fixed fee caps therefore will push consistent timelines, tighter milestone control, increased use of dashboards and project controls, consistent review scopes, and repeatable risk-informed approaches. Applicants and licensees will be driven by an incentive to avoid applicant failure and support timely reviews. Also, as a benefit, the fixed fee caps will provide enhanced predictability regarding service fees associated with licensing and other activities requested by licensees and applicants. No changes were made to the final rule as a result of these comments.

B. Exceedances of Fixed Fee Caps

Comment: Some commenters raised questions regarding what would happen if the NRC exceeded a fixed fee cap, including whether the NRC would continue the review, whether the review costs would be recovered through annual fees, and whether continuation of the review without fee recovery would violate statutory requirements.

Response: In response to these comments, the NRC has clarified in the preamble what would happen in the unlikely event of such an exceedance. However, the NRC disagrees that continuation of a review after an exceedance would violate statutory requirements.

In the preamble above, the NRC has made clear that the NRC is not planning to exceed the fixed fee caps for reasons not attributable to applicant failure, and that in the unlikely event of such an exceedance, the NRC will continue to work diligently to complete the licensing review as soon as practicable consistent with the NRC's authorizing legislation, including the AEA, and NEIMA, as well as E.O. 14300. The NRC has put multiple systems and management controls in place to monitor resources and schedules throughout the NRC's review to identify and mitigate any challenges to the fixed fee caps.

Consistent with section 5(a) of E.O. 14300, any exceedance of a fixed fee cap not attributable to applicant failure will not be borne by applicants or licensees as either service fees or annual fees. NEIMA requires the NRC to recover through service fees and annual fees, to the maximum extent practicable, approximately 100 percent of its total budget authority for the FY, less the budget authority for excluded activities, including fee-relief activities identified by the Commission. These statutory mechanisms allow the NRC to address fee cap exceedances, in the unlikely event they occur, consistent with law. No changes were made to the rule text as a result of these comments.

C. Fixed Deadlines

Comment: Some commenters raised concerns related to fixed deadlines, including why fee caps are being established before fixed deadlines have been established and whether the NRC would continue the review after the NRC exceeds the fixed deadline.

Response: The NRC disagrees with these comments. The NRC is not establishing fixed deadlines in this final rule and will address the E.O. 14300 ( printed page 36488) policy to establish fixed deadlines for final decisions (including the 12- and 18-month periods cited in section 5(a) of E.O. 14300) in a future rulemaking. The NRC is not waiting to establish fixed fee caps until after fixed deadlines are established because there are benefits to implementing the fixed fee caps in this final rule. The fixed fee caps will provide cost predictability and drive increased efficiency and accountability in the NRC's licensing and other activities requested by applicants and licensees. Should fixed deadlines be established, the NRC would not assess 10 CFR part 170 fees beyond the fixed deadline, even if the fixed fee cap has not been reached, absent applicant failure, consistent with section 5(a) of E.O. 14300. In the unlikely event of such an exceedance, the NRC would continue to work diligently to complete the licensing review as soon as practicable consistent with the NRC's authorizing legislation, including the AEA, and NEIMA, as well as E.O. 14300. No changes to the final rule were made as a result of these comments.

D. Tailored Caps

Comment: One commenter supported tailored caps, acknowledging that it has long been recognized by industry that the scope and duration of a review are only well understood after the NRC issues an acceptance letter. Some commenters raised concerns about tailored caps, including how the NRC would establish tailored caps and be consistent in doing so, guidance being developed regarding establishment of tailored caps, risks associated with establishing a lower tailored cap, and factors that should be considered in establishing tailored caps.

Response: The NRC agrees, in part, and disagrees, in part, with these comments. The NRC agrees that the scope and duration of a review are only well understood after the NRC accepts a complete application for review. The NRC is establishing tailored caps because, depending on the complexity of the requested activity, it would be more appropriate to hold the NRC accountable to a tailored cap below the bounding categorical cap. In certain cases, due to the bounding nature of the categorical caps, categorical caps may be higher than the resources needed for a specific application and thus fail to provide the efficiency and accountability benefits that fixed fee caps are designed to offer.

Tailored caps will reflect the content and complexity of the specific application and will be provided to applicants as part of the NRC's established practice of communicating schedule and resource estimates. The NRC is not able to determine if it could set a fixed fee cap lower than the categorical cap until it receives a specific complete application that can be accepted for review because the resources needed for the NRC to review and issue a final decision on a requested activity depend, in part, on the specific application submitted, as the complexity, completeness, and quality of an application can vary. Allowing for tailored caps will encourage applicants to engage early with the NRC and submit a complete, high-quality application. Several factors, such as effective pre-application engagement and prior demonstration of a facility under DOE or Department of War authorization, are expected to improve the efficiency of application reviews and will likely result in a lower tailored cap.

The NRC disagrees with the comments raising concerns about inconsistency, dispute, and underestimation risks associated with tailored caps. Although tailored caps by their nature will be unique to the particular application, the NRC will apply the same methodology for determining the fixed fee cap for a given application. The NRC has substantial experience applying a consistent methodology to estimate resources for licensing reviews and other applicant-requested activities because it has been communicating schedule and resource estimates for these activities for years. The fixed fee caps build off this established practice. In addition, the NRC is developing guidance on establishment and management of fixed fee caps, which will be issued before the fixed fee caps become effective on October 1, 2026, and will support consistent application of tailored caps. The NRC will consider various factors, including those raised in the comments, when considering establishment of a tailored cap. No changes were made to the final rule as a result of these comments.

E. Starting Point for Fixed Fee Caps

Comment: Some commenters requested that the starting point for the fixed fee caps be changed to when an application is submitted to the NRC because the first required step in the regulatory process is submittal of the application and that way, the fixed fee caps include the acceptance review.

Response: The NRC disagrees with the comments. Consistent with E.O. 14300, the starting point for the fixed fee cap is when a complete application for the requested activity has been accepted for review by the NRC because that is the first required step in the regulatory process and the NRC is not able to determine if it can set a fixed fee cap lower than the categorical cap until it receives a complete application that can be accepted for review. Prior to that point, the NRC is not able to determine if it can set a fixed fee cap lower than the categorical cap because the resources needed for the NRC to review and issue a final decision on a requested activity depend, in part, on the specific application submitted, as the complexity, completeness, and quality of an application can vary. The NRC will be held accountable for efficiency, timeliness, and quality of acceptance reviews through multiple performance management mechanisms such as Annual Performance Plan performance indicators, internal tracking dashboards, and quarterly performance reviews. No changes were made to the final rule as a result of these comments.

F. Applicant Failure

Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding whether all three criteria in the definition in § 170.3 needed to be met to have applicant failure. One commenter requested that applicant failure not be the sole basis for increasing fixed fee caps. One commenter raised concerns about what would happen if a fixed fee cap was exceeded due to applicant failure, noting that the only reasonable course of action seemed to be suspension, withdrawal, or denial. One commenter provided questions regarding when the guidance on applicant failure would be issued and whether it would be published for public comment. One commenter specifically noted that guidance on applicant failure would be useful to applicants, and some commenters requested examples of what would constitute applicant failure. Some commenters requested clarification regarding whether a government shutdown would constitute applicant failure.

Response: The NRC agrees, in part, and disagrees, in part, with these comments. The NRC agrees that all three criteria in the definition in § 170.3 need to be met to have applicant failure, and the NRC has added language in the preamble to make that explicit.

However, the NRC disagrees with the comments regarding applicant failure not being the sole basis for increasing a fixed fee cap, and suspension, withdrawal, or denial being the only reasonable course of action if a fixed fee cap is exceeded due to applicant failure. Applicant failure is the sole basis for increasing a fixed fee cap, consistent with the principles of fairness and ( printed page 36489) equity—ensuring that applicants are not charged additional fees unless their own actions or inactions are the cause of significant additional NRC review effort. Having applicant failure be the sole basis for increasing a fixed fee cap also provides greater cost predictability for applicants and licensees, as it is clear that fixed fee caps will not be increased unless applicant failure, which is within the reasonable control of a diligent applicant, applies. Applicant failure will not automatically result in withdrawal, suspension, or denial of an application; the NRC plans to continue reviews, even if there is applicant failure, unless the specific circumstances necessitate that the NRC suspend the review or deny the application (such as an explicit request from an applicant for the NRC to pause or delay the review). If applicant failure occurs, the NRC will notify the applicant and set the new fixed fee cap to the lowest practicable amount necessary to account for the applicant failure.

The NRC is developing guidance on establishment and management of fixed fee caps, which will be issued before the fixed fee caps become effective on October 1, 2026. As discussed in the FY 2026 proposed fee rule, this guidance will provide further examples of applicant failure and support consistent application of the definition of applicant failure.

The NRC notes that a government shutdown, absent other circumstances, would not meet the definition of applicant failure in § 170.3 because it is not within the reasonable control of a diligent applicant. If the NRC is unable to perform work on a requested activity as a result of a government shutdown, service fees would not be assessed during the government shutdown. If the NRC is able to perform work on the requested activity during a government shutdown, service fees would continue to be subject to the fixed fee cap. No changes were made to the rule text as a result of these comments.

G. Dispute Process for Fixed Fee Caps

Comment: Some commenters raised concerns about the dispute process for fixed fee caps because the NRC Form 529 requires submission of an NRC Form 527 as a prerequisite and the NRC Form 527 does not appear applicable to fixed fee cap disputes not associated with an invoice.

Response: The NRC agrees, in part, and disagrees, in part, with these comments. The NRC disagrees with the comment that the NRC's established processes for disputes of 10 CFR part 170 fees, including use of the NRC Form 529, are not applicable to disputes associated with fixed fee caps, and a separate process should be developed for disputing fixed fee caps. Building off these existing NRC processes will facilitate more efficient implementation of the fixed fee caps. The NRC agrees, however, that the NRC Form 529 should be clarified to better address fixed fee cap disputes, and the NRC Form 527 should not be a pre-condition for fixed fee cap disputes not associated with an invoice.

The NRC is updating the NRC Form 529 to coincide with the effective date of this final rule. The updated NRC Form 529 will include clarified instructions on how the form should be completed for fixed fee cap disputes not associated with an invoice. The updated NRC Form 529 will distinguish the pre-conditions for fixed fee cap disputes not associated with an invoice from those for disputes involving fees-for-service charges, and completion of an NRC Form 527 will not be listed as a pre-condition for fixed fee cap disputes not associated with an invoice. No changes were made to the final rule as a result of these comments.

H. Categories of Requested Activities Included in Table 1 in § 170.33

Comment: One commenter noted that, as an editorial matter, the word “traveler” should be added in two rows in table 1 in § 170.33 because “TSTF” is an organization and “traveler” is the name of the document that could be adopted: (1) “Adopting a Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) traveler using the Consolidated Line-Item Improvement Process,” and (2) “All Other TSTF travelers.” Some commenters requested the following footnote be removed from table 1 in § 170.33: “Consistent with the definition of requested activity of the Commission in section 3 of the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (42 U.S.C. 2215 note), this activity includes only topical reports submitted by licensees or applicants ( i.e., persons or entities that either hold a current license or have a license application under NRC review).” These commenters requested that the fixed fee caps apply to topical reports submitted by other entities, such as vendors and pre-applicants.

Response: The NRC agrees, in part, and disagrees, in part, with these comments. The NRC agrees that adding the word “traveler” provides a more accurate description of the activities and avoids potential confusion; therefore, the NRC incorporated the term “traveler” in the relevant rows in table1 in § 170.33.

The NRC disagrees with the comments regarding topical reports and is retaining this footnote in table 1 in § 170.33. The fixed fee caps and table 1 in § 170.33 apply to only requested activities of the Commission that involve the issuance of a final safety evaluation, and NEIMA defines the term “requested activity of the Commission” as limited to activities “requested by a licensee or applicant.” Aligning the fixed fee caps with the scope of activities covered by the NEIMA milestone schedules and reporting requirements allows the agency to (1) build off these existing processes to efficiently implement fixed fee caps; (2) maintain a predictable universe of applicability; and (3) preserve the important distinction between voluntary pre-application engagement, which benefits from flexibility and has purposefully been excluded from the fixed fee caps in this final rule, and activities requested by licensees and applicants, which are subject to the fixed fee caps. Pre-application engagement leads to more effective resource planning, earlier identification of potential policy or technical issues, and improved application quality and review efficiency, ultimately leading to a lower tailored fee cap when a complete application is accepted for review. In the preamble above, the NRC has made clear that although fixed fee caps apply to only requested activities of the Commission that involve the issuance of a final safety evaluation, the NRC will continue to establish and communicate schedule and resource estimates for other activities, including topical reports submitted by vendors and pre-applicants, and will be held accountable for efficiency, timeliness, and quality of these reviews through multiple performance management mechanisms such as Annual Performance Plan performance indicators, internal tracking dashboards, and quarterly performance reviews.

I. Fixed Caps on Service Fees for Advanced Nuclear Reactor Applicants

Comment: One commenter requested that the NRC establish categorical caps using the Reduced Hourly Rate in table 1 in § 170.33 for exemption requests and topical reports submitted as part of qualifying application activities.

Response: The NRC disagrees with adding categorical caps using the Reduced Hourly Rate in table 1 in § 170.33 for exemption requests and topical reports. The fixed fee caps do not apply to pre-application activities, which are voluntary and occur before the first required step in the regulatory process; therefore, a topical report or ( printed page 36490) exemption request submitted by an advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant before a qualifying application would not receive a fixed fee cap. Although fixed fee caps do not apply to pre-application activities, the NRC will continue to establish and communicate schedule and resource estimates and will be held accountable for efficiency, timeliness, and quality of these reviews through multiple performance management mechanisms. However, if a topical report or exemption request is submitted by an advanced nuclear reactor applicant as part of a qualifying application, it would be covered by the fixed fee cap associated with the qualifying application, which would use the Reduced Hourly Rate and be communicated in the NRC written communication on schedule and resources for the qualifying application. No changes to the final rule were made as a result of this comment.

J. Assumptions for Categorical Caps

Comment: Some commenters raised concerns about the assumptions and data used to establish the categorical caps as a general matter and for specific caps in table 1 in § 170.33; concerns were raised about the staff hours and contract costs used to develop categorical caps, discrepancies between categorical caps and resource estimates available on the NRC's public web page, historical data not aligning with efficiencies achieved in response to the ADVANCE Act and E.O. 14300, and activities where there is limited historical data. For example, some commenters questioned specific categorical caps as being too high, such as the categorical caps for “Code Reliefs”/“COL (under construction)—Part 52” and for “License Amendments”/“Operating—Parts 50 and 52”/“All Other TSTFs.” In addition, some commenters raised concerns about categorical caps not distinguishing between different applications within a licensing pathway, such as a microreactor compared to a large LWR, and one commenter specifically noted that an applicant for a nuclear reactor approval under 10 CFR parts 50, 52, or 53 should be able to estimate the maximum cost of the NRC review prior to application submittal, regardless of reactor size. Some commenters raised concerns regarding the categorical caps discouraging certain licensing pathways because of the categorical caps established for various activities. For example, one commenter noted that the categorical cap for a COL not referencing an ESP is less than the categorical caps for an ESP followed by a COL, but the amount of NRC review and service fees for both should be nearly identical due to efficiencies gained.

Response: The NRC agrees, in part, and disagrees, in part, with these comments. The NRC agrees with providing cost predictability to applicants under 10 CFR part 53, and in this final rule, the NRC incorporated new requested activities under 10 CFR part 53 in table 1 in § 170.33. The FY 2026 proposed fee rule specifically noted that “[t]able 1 would be updated to reflect any new requested activities that involve the issuance of a final safety evaluation, including any resulting from the 10 CFR part 53 rulemaking or other future rulemakings.” The NRC is not establishing separate categorical caps for requested activities under 10 CFR part 53 because the NRC does not currently have the data necessary to support establishment of separate categorical caps for the new 10 CFR part 53 rule. The NRC will use tailored caps to address expected efficiencies under 10 CFR part 53 and may consider establishing separate categorical caps for requested activities under 10 CFR part 53 in a future fee rule after it has execution data gained from experience implementing the new 10 CFR part 53 rule.

The NRC disagrees with the other comments regarding the categorical caps. The NRC reviewed the specific categorical caps identified by commenters and confirmed that the categorical caps were derived consistent with the methodology described in the FY 2026 proposed fee rule and retained in this final rule. The categorical caps are based on historical, inflation-adjusted data for the range of activities included in each category; removal of outliers in the historical data (such as a review that did not involve a reasonably diligent applicant); efficiencies achieved; additional efficiencies resulting from E.O. 14300 and the ADVANCE Act not requiring rulemaking; alignment with the updated NEIMA milestone schedules; and current execution experience. Future updates to the categorical caps will reflect additional efficiencies that are realized as a result of implementation of E.O. 14300 and the ADVANCE Act—both from E.O. 14300 rulemakings and other actions taken by the NRC. For categories with limited historical data, the NRC used recent comparable information, such as execution data from recent activities or estimated resources data from recent applications accepted for review.

Regarding the comments requesting distinctions between different applications within the same licensing pathway (for example, microreactors compared with large LWRs), the NRC expects to set a lower tailored cap after considering factors such as technology type, application complexity, and the extent of pre-application engagement. With respect to differences in categorical caps across licensing pathways that involve multiple sequential application reviews, the NRC notes that the categorical cap for a single application ( e.g., COL not referencing an ESP) will not equal the summation of each categorical cap for an application in a sequential application pathway ( e.g., an ESP followed by a COL) for several reasons. The primary reason is that the categorical caps bound the range of resources needed for each category in table 1 in § 170.33. Due to the bounding nature of the categorical caps, categorical caps for separate, sequential applications account for possible changes from the prior approval that could affect the resources needed to review the subsequent sequential application. The NRC will set a lower tailored cap, if appropriate, after considering factors such as efficiencies gained in a sequential application pathway when the subsequent application falls squarely within the scope of a prior approval. In addition, there are administrative hours needed to set up, track, and complete each review, regardless of whether the application is in a sequential application pathway. Applicable administrative hours are accounted for in each categorical cap.

K. Updates for Categorical Caps

Comment: Some commenters raised concerns regarding the sentence in the preamble indicating that the NRC would “evaluate categorical caps biennially, consistent with the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990.” One commenter requested that the NRC establish and maintain a publicly accessible web page that provides the most current categorical fee caps.

Response: In response to these comments, the NRC has revised the preamble to clarify that the categorical caps in table 1 in § 170.33 will be updated annually to reflect any changes to the professional hourly rate or Reduced Hourly Rate. The NRC will also evaluate categorical caps biennially to closely review the NRC staff hours and contract costs used to establish the categorical caps. While one commenter suggested establishing a publicly accessible NRC web page containing the most current categorical caps, the categorical caps will be updated ( printed page 36491) annually in the fee rule and the CFR, and the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR; https://www.ecfr.gov/​) serves as a continuously updated online version of the CFR. No changes to the rule text were made as a result of these comments.

L. Use of Unobligated Carryover To Reduce Fees

Comment: Several commenters requested the NRC to use available authority to apply unobligated carryover to reduce the FY 2026 annual fees.

Response: Each FY, the NRC follows the direction of Congress that accompanies the annual appropriations act. The explanatory statement associated with the FY 2026 enacted budget included direction for the NRC to use $12.4 million of existing Integrated University Program or University Nuclear Leadership Program (UNLP) carryover balances to fund the UNLP in FY 2026. No additional Congressional direction was provided to use carryover to offset the budget and fees.

The NRC's ability to use carryover to offset fees is dependent on available amounts of carryover in the corresponding control point and Congressional action to direct the use of carryover with a corresponding reduction in current-year budget authority in the annual appropriations process. Under NEIMA, the NRC must recover, to the maximum extent practicable, approximately 100 percent of the total budget authority appropriated for the FY, less the budget authority for excluded activities. The NRC's discretionary use of carryover does not reduce the amount of current-year budget authority appropriated to the NRC. No changes were made to the final rule as a result of these comments.

M. Agency Support in the Professional Hourly Rate

Comment: One commenter requested that the NRC review the agency support estimates to confirm they accurately represent anticipated FTE because agency support, as it relates to the calculation of the professional hourly rate, is nearly flat between the FY 2025 final fee rule and the FY 2026 proposed fee rule, but there was a decrease in FTE at the NRC.

Response: The NRC confirmed that in FY 2026, the agency support costs, which include corporate support and the IG, are accurate. While there was a reduction in agency support in FY 2026 compared to FY 2025, this reduction is not linearly proportional, as there is a cost for the infrastructure that must be maintained. These infrastructure costs include, for example, the cost for information management, information technology, security, facilities management, rent, utilities, financial management, acquisitions, human resources, and policy support. The NRC continues to pursue further efficiencies and improvements to its processes. No changes to the final rule were made as a result of this comment.

N. Generic Regulatory Work Recovered Through 10 CFR Part 171 Annual Fees

Comment: One commenter requested that the NRC provide greater transparency on 10 CFR part 171 annual fees. Some commenters requested that the NRC evaluate opportunities to improve efficiency in regulatory activities funded through 10 CFR part 171 annual fees, while recognizing the NRC's efforts to improve efficiency in activities billed under 10 CFR part 170.

Response: The NRC continues to look for ways to enhance transparency and efficiency. The work papers that support the fee rule show in detail how the NRC allocates the budgeted resources for each class of licensees and calculates the annual fees. The NRC has made enhancements to the work papers every year since FY 2019 and will continue to look for ways to improve the work papers to provide more transparency regarding annual fees. In addition, the CBJ includes language to indicate which product lines impact service fees versus annual fees. With respect to efficiency, the NRC continues to pursue further efficiencies and improvements to all NRC activities, including those recovered through 10 CFR part 171 annual fees. Future fee rules will reflect additional efficiencies that are realized as a result of implementation of E.O. 14300 and the ADVANCE Act—both from E.O. 14300 rulemakings and other actions taken by the NRC. There are no changes to the final rule as a result of these comments.

O. Fuel Facilities Fee Class

Comment: Several commenters expressed appreciation for the NRC's efforts to lower the FY 2026 annual fees for the fuel facilities fee class. One commenter requested that given the dynamic growth of this fee class, the NRC consider if the definitions in 10 CFR part 171 accurately reflect the fee classes of licensees, which dictate the effort factors, and make adjustments accordingly. This commenter stated that there is an inconsistency between the 10 CFR part 70 definitions for Category I, II, and III facilities; and the 10 CFR part 171 definitions of high and low enriched uranium facilities.

Response: The NRC confirmed that the existing definitions in 10 CFR part 171 accurately reflect the fuel facilities fee class of licensees. The NRC effort factors are based on the commensurate level of regulatory effort. The effort factors in the matrix represent non-billable, regulatory effort ( e.g., rulemaking and guidance). In addition, the programmatic effort (expressed as a value in the matrix) reflects the safety and safeguards risk significance associated with the nuclear material and use/activity, and the commensurate generic regulatory program ( i.e., scope, depth, and rigor). The NRC will continue to assess resource requirements and evaluate programmatic efficiencies for the fuel facilities fee class. No changes were made to the final rule as a result of these comments.

P. Reduced Hourly Rate

Comment: One commenter expressed appreciation for the Reduced Hourly Rate for advanced nuclear reactor applicants and pre-applicants. Another commenter requested clarification on whether the cost difference between the professional hourly rate and Reduced Hourly Rate is (1) included in excluded activities or (2) incorporated into the 10 CFR part 171 annual fee base and thus borne by existing licensees. The commenter urged the NRC to ensure that any unrecovered costs due to the Reduced Hourly Rate are not incorporated into the 10 CFR part 171 annual fee base.

Response: The NRC disagrees with the comment regarding unrecovered costs due to the Reduced Hourly Rate because the ADVANCE Act's Reduced Hourly Rate provisions state explicitly which costs are to be included in the Reduced Hourly Rate and which costs are to be included in the excluded activities associated with the Reduced Hourly Rate. Section 201 of the ADVANCE Act amended NEIMA to specify that the Reduced Hourly Rate is the FTE rate for mission-direct program salaries and benefits for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program, divided by the productive hours assumption, for that FY, and does not include mission-direct program salaries and benefits for the Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety Program, mission-indirect program support for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program and the Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety Program, and agency support. Section 201 of the ADVANCE Act also amended NEIMA to include the following as excluded activities: “[t]he total costs of mission-indirect program support and agency support that . . . may not be included in the hourly rate charged for ( printed page 36492) fees assessed and collected from advanced nuclear reactor applicants . . . [and] advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicants.” The FY 2026 proposed fee rule and this final rule were developed consistent with those statutory requirements. No changes were made to the final rule as a result of these comments.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),^[4] the NRC has prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis related to this final rule. The regulatory flexibility analysis is available as indicated in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document.

VI. Regulatory Analysis

Under NEIMA, the NRC is required to recover, to the maximum extent practicable, approximately 100 percent of its annual budget for FY 2026, less the budget authority for excluded activities. The NRC assesses two types of fees to meet the requirements of NEIMA. First, service fees, established in 10 CFR part 170 under the authority of the IOAA and NEIMA, recover the NRC's costs of providing specific benefits to identifiable recipients (such as licensing work, inspections, and special projects). Second, annual fees, established in 10 CFR part 171 under the authority of NEIMA, recover generic and other regulatory costs not otherwise recovered through 10 CFR part 170 fees.

With respect to 10 CFR part 170 service fees, this rule was developed under the IOAA and NEIMA and consistent with OMB Circular A-25. NEIMA requires the NRC to “assess and collect fees,” in accordance with the IOAA, “from any person who receives a service or thing of value from the [NRC] to cover the costs to the [NRC] of providing the service or thing of value.”

With respect to 10 CFR part 171 annual fees, this rule was developed under NEIMA. NEIMA requires the NRC to “establish by rule a schedule” of annual fees that “fairly and equitably” allocate the aggregate amount of annual fees among licensees and certificate holders. NEIMA also requires that annual fees, “to the maximum extent practicable, shall be reasonably related to the cost of providing regulatory services.” Because 10 CFR part 170 service fees will not equal 100 percent of the agency's total budget authority for the FY (less the budget authority for excluded activities), the NRC assesses 10 CFR part 171 annual fees to recover the remaining amount necessary to comply with NEIMA.^[5]

In the annual fee rule, the NRC adjusts its fees to recover its annual budget authority to ensure that the NRC complies with the statutory requirements for cost recovery. Similarly, in this final rule, the NRC has made adjustments to recover its annual budget authority consistent with the statutory fee recovery requirement. For this final rule, the NRC did not identify any alternatives to the current statutorily required fee structure. Further, NEIMA requires the NRC to establish its fee schedule by rule and thus the NRC did not identify any alternatives to rulemaking. However, the NRC did consider several alternatives to alleviate the significant impact of annual fees on a substantial number of small entities, in accordance with the RFA. Those alternatives include:

1. Basing fees on the amount of radioactivity possessed by the licensee ( e.g., number of sources).

2. Basing fees on the frequency of use of licensed radioactive material ( e.g., volume of patients).

3. Basing fees on the NRC size standards for small entities.

Based on the expertise of the NRC staff, informed by previous reviews of these alternatives, the NRC continues to believe that a maximum fee for small entities is the most appropriate and effective option for reducing the impact of fees on small entities.

The NRC also performed an analysis of the costs and benefits over FY 2026.^[6] Consistent with OMB Circular A-4, the fees charged by the NRC are considered transfer payments and therefore not part of the costs of this rulemaking.

OMB Circular A-4 directs agencies to report transfer payments from and to government agencies separately.^[7] The two primary government agencies assessed fees are DOE and NIST. The NRC assesses fees to DOE to recover costs related to regulating DOE's Title I and Title II activities under UMTRCA as part of the uranium recovery facilities fee class. Additionally, the NRC assesses an annual fee to DOE based on the number of 10 CFR part 71 CoCs held by DOE as part of the transportation fee class. The NRC also assesses fees to DOE as part of the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning fee class; these costs were inadvertently not included in the Regulatory Analysis in tables XX and XXI in the FY 2025 final fee rule but have been added to tables XX and XXI in the Regulatory Analysis in the FY 2026 final fee rule. The NRC assesses fees to NIST as a member of the fuel facilities fee class for its license for possession and use of special nuclear material and as a member of the non-power production or utilization facilities fee class for its research reactor. The NRC also assesses fees to several Federal agencies for a variety of small materials licenses. The fees assessed to government agencies, including both 10 CFR parts 170 and 171 fees, are identified below.^[8]

( printed page 36493)

After accounting for the fees assessed to government agencies, the “adjusted amount to be recovered through 10 CFR parts 170 and 171 fees” assessed to applicants and licensees was $804.1 million in the FY 2025 final fee rule. This amount has been corrected to $802.8 million in table XXI, “Fee Totals,” of this document by adding the missing $1.2 million in fees assessed to DOE as part of the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning fee class in the Regulatory Analysis to tables XX and XXI. After accounting for the fees assessed to government agencies, the “adjusted amount to be recovered through 10 CFR parts 170 and 171 fees” assessed to applicants and licensees is $811.5 million in the FY 2026 final fee rule, resulting in a difference of approximately $7.3 million in FY 2026 compared to FY 2025. Table XXI shows this calculation.

As indicated, both the amount of fees assessed to federal government agencies in FY 2026 ($7.3 million) as well as the fees assessed to non-government licensees and applicants in FY 2026 ($811.5 million) are considered transfer payments under OMB Circular A-4 and, therefore, not part of the costs of this rulemaking.

Therefore, the costs of this final rule constitute the resources for licensees to read the annual rule and resultant changes to their internal processes for payment. The NRC expects that this final rule will affect 2,448 licensees, each spending a maximum of 1 hour reading the rule and 1 hour updating their accounting software. For the purpose of this analysis, the NRC developed a labor rate of $148, which includes only labor and material costs that are directly related to the implementation of the annual rule.^[10] The final rule results in a net cost to licensees of approximately $727,000, undiscounted.^[11] In addition, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) requires agencies to report results as a perpetual stream once a rule is implemented, which in this case reflects annualized cost of about $47,561, at a 7 percent discount rate.

Additionally, this final rule establishes fixed caps on service fees for requested activities of the Commission that involve the issuance of a final safety evaluation, consistent with NEIMA and E.O. 14300. The NRC will address the E.O. 14300 policy to establish fixed deadlines for final decisions in a separate rulemaking. Should fixed deadlines be established, the NRC would not assess 10 CFR part 170 fees beyond the fixed deadline, even if the fixed fee cap has not been reached, absent applicant failure.

To implement fixed fee caps, the NRC is establishing § 170.33, “Executive Order 14300 fixed fee caps,” and amending § 170.3, “Definitions,” and § 15.31, “Disputed debts.” The changes include a table of categorical caps for requested activities of the Commission that involve the issuance of a final safety evaluation; a process for lower tailored caps based on the specific application; a definition of applicant failure, which is the sole basis for increasing the fixed fee cap; and procedures for fee cap disputes.

The NRC does not expect that the final rule will result in any behavioral changes related to market entry or exit among licensees on which the NRC assesses 10 CFR parts 170 and 171 fees. There is only a small increase in the adjusted amount to be recovered through 10 CFR parts 170 and 171 fees, and the way in which the NRC assesses these fees is well established. It is possible that the implementation of the fixed caps on service fees may induce current licensees to submit further licensing actions, or may increase the rate of market entry of new licensees as applicants. ( printed page 36494)

VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality

The NRC has determined that the backfit and issue finality provisions in 10 CFR parts 50, 52, 53, 70, 72, and 76 do not apply to this final rule because these amendments do not require the modification of, or addition to, (1) systems, structures, components, or the design of a facility; (2) the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility; or (3) 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 31885).

IX. National Environmental Policy Act

The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action eligible for categorical exclusion because it meets criterion described in § 51.22(a)(3), “Amendments to parts . . . 15, . . . 170, or 171 of this chapter.” The agency action belongs to a category of actions that the Commission, by rule or regulation, has declared to be a categorical exclusion, after first finding that the actions within the category do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.

X. Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). Existing collections of information were approved by OMB, approval number 3150-0190.

Public Protection Notification

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

XI. Executive Orders

The following are Executive orders that are related to this final rule:

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review (as Amended by Executive Order 14215, Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies)

The OIRA has determined that this final rule is an economically significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NRC submitted this final rule to OIRA for review. The NRC is required to conduct an economic analysis in accordance with section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866. More can be found in Section VI, of this document, “Regulatory Analysis.” Given that there is no change from previous fiscal years under this final rule in how the NRC assesses its 10 CFR parts 170 and 171 fees, the NRC considers the costs to licensees associated with this rule to be minor.

B. Executive Order 14154: Unleashing American Energy

The NRC has examined this final rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154.

C. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation

This action is a regulatory action as defined by E.O. 14192. This regulatory action generates $47,561 in annualized costs at a 7 percent discount rate, over a perpetual time horizon. Details on the estimated costs of this final rule can be found in Section VI, of this document, “Regulatory Analysis,” which shows that the costs to licensees associated with this rule are minor.

XII. Congressional Review Act

This final rule is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801-808). The OMB has found that it meets the criteria at 5 U.S.C. 804(2) and will submit the required report to Congress.

XIII. 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 is amending the licensing, inspection, and annual fees charged to its licensees and applicants, as necessary, to recover, to the maximum extent practicable, approximately 100 percent of its annual budget for FY 2026, less the budget authority for excluded activities, as required by NEIMA. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

XIV. 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 2025 fee rule. The compliance guide was developed when the NRC completed the small entity biennial review for FY 2025. The NRC plans to continue to use this compliance guide for FY 2026 and has relabeled the compliance guide to reflect the current FY. This compliance guide is available as indicated in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document.

XV. 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.

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; 42 U.S.C. 2215; 31 U.S.C. 9701; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is making the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 15, 170, and 171:

91 FR 36470