[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 82 (Friday, April 28, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20918-20922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10477]



      
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / 
Proposed Rules
[[Page 20918]]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 170 and 171

[Docket No. PRM-170-4]


American Mining Congress; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (``NRC'' or ``Commission'') 
received a petition for rulemaking submitted by the American Mining 
Congress (``petitioner'') concerning the licensing, inspection and 
annual fees assessed by the NRC. The petitioner requested that the NRC 
amend its regulations to alleviate what the petitioner claimed are 
inequitable impacts of NRC user and annual fees on its members, 
specifically for uranium recovery sites with conventional mills that 
have ceased operations and are awaiting NRC approval of their 
reclamation plans. The petitioner claimed that there is a lack of a 
rational relationship between fees and regulatory services. The 
petitioner requested that the fee be waived for any licensed facility 
serving solely as a cost center and not generating revenues; that 
licensees be given the ability to review and have input into the NRC's 
budget and fee development and that annual fees only be increased in 
proportion to normal inflation rates; that time limits be established 
for NRC's processing of amendment requests and cost sheets showing 
sample charges be provided to licensees; that more detailed information 
be provided to support the bills for licensing and inspection services; 
and that the Department of Energy (DOE) be assessed costs for NRC 
review of DOE sites under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control 
Act (UMTRCA). After careful consideration, the Commission has decided 
to deny the petition for rulemaking but notes that (1) the NRC will 
continue its current practice of providing available backup data to 
support Part 170 licensing and inspection billings upon request by the 
licensee or applicant and (2) petitioner's request that DOE be assessed 
fees for its UMTRCA actions was implemented in the final fee rule for 
FY 1994.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the public comments 
received, and the NRC's letter to the petitioner are available for 
public inspection or copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L 
Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenda C. Jackson, Office of the 
Controller, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, 
Telephone 301-415-6057.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
II. Responses to Comments

I. Background

    On February 4, 1993, the American Mining Congress petitioned the 
NRC to amend 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 to alleviate what the petitioner 
claimed are inequitable NRC fees assessed its members. Because the 
petition involved Commission fee policy, the NRC announced receipt of 
and solicited public comment on the petition in its April 19, 1993 (58 
FR 21116), Federal Register notice requesting public comment on the 
NRC's fee policy as required by the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The 
Energy Policy Act of 1992 directed the NRC to review its policy for 
assessment of annual fees, to solicit public comment on the need for 
changes to this policy, and to recommend to the Congress changes needed 
in existing law to prevent placing an unfair burden on NRC licensees.
    The petitioner requested that the NRC take the following four 
actions to ensure that the fee schedule bears a reasonable relationship 
to the benefits provided by NRC oversight and regulation.
    1. Waive the annual fee for any licensed facility in a standby 
status and not generating revenue from use of licensed material, i.e., 
those facilities in standby status which still possess licenses 
authorizing operation. The petitioner claimed that current NRC policy 
violates the principle that there must be a reasonable relationship 
between the cost of the NRC's regulatory program and the benefits 
derived from the regulatory services. The petitioner also stated that 
the annual fee does not reflect NRC involvement with Class I 
(conventional mill) uranium recovery sites, particularly those that 
have ceased operations and are awaiting NRC approval of reclamation 
plans or are in standby status. The petitioner suggested that the fee 
regulations should take into account the NRC's own failure to complete 
review as the only reason these sites are assessed annual fees and 
should adjust those fees accordingly.
    2. Institute a system that allows NRC licensees to have some 
control over their fees. The petitioner suggested that a licensee 
review board be established to (i) review NRC fees annually; (ii) 
monitor NRC inspection activities to prevent regulatory abuse; and 
(iii) propose revisions to the fee system to eliminate inequitable 
treatment of licensees. The petitioner stated that its central concern 
with the NRC fee system is the absence of built-in safeguards to 
prevent overzealous imposition of fees or to ensure that the fee 
schedule bears a reasonable relationship to the benefits provided by 
NRC. The petitioner believes that the current system lacks 
accountability, oversight, and quality control, as well as a provision 
for licensees to object to unreasonable costs. The petitioner also 
indicated that the annual fee should be increased only in proportion to 
normal inflation rates and stated that NRC's hourly rate is excessive 
for NRC staff as compared to hourly charges of a senior consultant, 
principal or project manager at a nationally recognized consulting 
firm.
    3. Develop a consistent method for applying charges by setting 
standards for services provided by the Commission. For example, the 
petitioner indicated that comparable amounts should be charged for 
similar types of work (i.e., amendment requests), regardless of which 
licensee submits the request or which particular NRC employee completes 
the work. NRC should develop and distribute to its licensees a cost 
sheet describing sample charges for different types of work, establish 
time limits for processing amendment requests, and distribute response 
times to all licensees. In addition, the 10 CFR Part 170 licensing and 
inspection bills should show not only hours worked and hourly charges, 
but also a description of the work performed, the name(s) of 
[[Page 20919]] individual(s) who performed the work, and the dates on 
which the work was done.
    4. Assess fees to the Department of Energy (DOE) for NRC review of 
DOE sites under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act 
(UMTRCA). The petitioner stated that it is inequitable and improper for 
DOE to receive NRC oversight and review of DOE mill tailings site 
reclamation activities without contributing anything to the NRC budget.
    Of the 566 comments received on the fee policy review, 21 
specifically addressed the AMC petition. Others who provided comments 
on the fee policy review addressed some of the same issues raised by 
the petitioner, such as inequities in the fee systems and assessment of 
Part 170 fees to Federal agencies because these issues were included in 
the overall review of NRC fee policy. Of the 21 comments, four were 
from fuel facility licensees, applicants, or their representatives; 
three were from facility licensees; one was from an Agreement State; 
nine were from materials licensees or medical associations; one was 
from two uranium recovery licensees; one was from an industry group 
representing fuel fabrication facilities, conversion facilities, 
uranium enrichment plants, material processing facilities, 
transporters, and other related service facilities; one was from a 
company holding materials, export and import, distribution, and non-
power reactor licenses; and one was from the petitioner, who represents 
the mining and milling industry.
    A majority of the commenters supported all or portions of the 
petition. After careful consideration of the comments, the Commission 
has decided to deny the petition for rulemaking for reasons stated 
below.

II. Responses to Comments

    1. Comment: Although commenters did not support a full waiver of 
the annual fee for facilities that are not operating, several agreed 
that some relief should be provided in the form of reduced fees. One 
commenter suggested a tiered fee system that would result in full fees 
for operating facilities, reduced fees for facilities in shutdown or 
standby status, and minimal fees for licenses who have shut down and 
have submitted a decommissioning plan. Another commenter indicated that 
although the fee should not be waived, the NRC should consider the 
licensee's ability to pass the costs of the NRC fees to its customers--
``cost passthrough''--to determine the fee level for facilities that 
require minimal NRC participation.
    Response: The Commission acknowledges the concern raised by the 
petitioner regarding non-operating facilities and has carefully 
evaluated the comments received on this issue. The Commission has 
considered a range of options: (a) continuing the current policy of 
charging operating mills and those in standby status annual fees; (b) 
only charging operating mills annual fees; and (c) charging operating 
mills, facilities in standby status, and those with possession-only 
licenses annual fees. The Commission has concluded that the current 
policy represents the fairest option available under current 
legislation and therefore has denied petitioner's request. The NRC will 
continue to assess annual fees based on whether a licensee holds a 
valid license with the NRC that authorizes possession and use of 
radioactive material, independent of whether the facility is actively 
operating or in a standby status. The basic premise for this policy is 
that the benefit the NRC provides a licensee is the authority to use 
licensed material. The choice of whether or not to exercise that 
authority is a business decision of the licensee.
    Because of the mandate that NRC recover approximately 100 percent 
of its budget through fees, to refrain from charging annual fees to 
mills in a standby status would increase the annual fees for the other 
licensees in the class because the number of licensees assessed annual 
fees would decrease. Such an approach would raise fairness concerns.
    The Commission recognizes that some may perceive it to be unfair to 
charge a licensee an annual fee when the facility in question is not 
generating revenue. However, the Commission has previously considered 
the extent to which a licensee's economic status and ability to ``pass 
through'' its costs to its customers should be considered in 
establishing fees, and the Commission has declined to do so. As stated 
in the final rule published July 20, 1993 (58 FR 38666), the Commission 
concluded, after full consideration of the ``cost passthrough'' 
question, that it cannot set fees using passthrough considerations with 
reasonable accuracy and at reasonable costs even for classes of 
licensees with few members. The Commission has no new information that 
would cause it to change this policy. The Commission is also unable to 
use factors such as the revenue earned by a licensee or the licensee's 
profit from the use of licensed material in developing the fees because 
OBRA-90 requires that annual charges must, to the maximum extent 
practicable, have a reasonable relationship to the cost of providing 
regulatory services.
    The Commission decided that it would not be appropriate to charge 
facilities who have received a POL an annual fee. While the NRC incurs 
generic costs relating to the decommissioning/reclamation of facilities 
with POLs, many POL holders were induced to relinquish their authority 
to operate by the Commission's policy of not charging annual fees to 
holders of POLs (56 FR 31485, July 10, 1991). It would be unjust at 
this date to change this policy with respect to these facilities. 
Primarily for this reason, the Commission has also decided not to 
implement a tiered approach recommended by some commenters, in which 
all licensees would pay an annual fee, including those no longer 
authorized to operate. In sum, the NRC will continue to waive the fee 
for licensees who have voluntarily relinquished the authority to 
operate and have ceased operations. This includes licensees who have 
voluntarily relinquished their authority to operate, but must continue 
to be licensed to possess nuclear materials, that is, possession-only 
licenses (POLs). In articulating our policy, we emphasize that, 
contrary to the petitioner's statement, reclamation or decommissioning 
plans do not have to be approved for the annual fee to be waived for 
these licensees. Therefore, petitioner's argument that some sites are 
charged annual fees because of the NRC's failure to complete review of 
reclamation plans is fallacious. The Commission's fee policy with 
respect to operating, standby, and POL status is consistently applied 
to all classes of licensees, including uranium recovery, fuel 
fabrication, and power reactor licensees.
    2. Comment: A majority of the commenters supported the petitioner's 
request that licensees be given the ability to oversee and have input 
into the NRC budget and to review NRC fees annually. Commenters 
suggested that a review board, with at least some members representing 
the regulated parties, be established to review NRC activities to 
control costs, to ensure that maximum benefits and effectiveness are 
achieved, and to monitor NRC activities to prevent the appearances of 
regulatory abuse. One commenter stated that such a review board could 
benefit NRC, citing as an example that the NRC incurred higher costs by 
using a government laboratory than the commenter incurred using a 
commercial laboratory for the same type of service. Another commenter 
suggested that the review board propose revisions to the fee 
[[Page 20920]] system and methods to eliminate inequities in the 
treatment of licensees. Another commenter sought a greater role in the 
development of regulatory programs that could have a substantial impact 
on the economic status of licensees or result in license termination. 
On the other hand, one commenter disagreed with the petitioner, stating 
that a scheme whereby licensees would directly control the agency's 
activities would be inappropriate for a regulatory program. Another 
commenter was skeptical that the petitioner's suggestions would 
simplify or otherwise lead to a more equitable allocation of Commission 
costs.
    Several commenters agreed with the petitioner that the fees charged 
do not reflect the benefits derived and expressed concern with the fee 
amounts. One commenter stated that as fees increase and more licenses 
are terminated, it will create a disincentive for continuing their 
licensed activities, which include beneficial research. This commenter 
suggested that the fee be proportional to the number of pieces of 
equipment used, the small amounts of low energy radioisotopes in use, 
and the status of the licensee as a business or not-for-profit 
organization.
    Other commenters maintained that the fee increases may be due to a 
lack of accountability by NRC; that the frequency and details covered 
in inspections is unnecessary and inefficient; and that a limited 
number of licensees are being billed to support NRC services to Federal 
agencies, Agreement States, and international organizations. Some 
commenters suggested that NRC's management structure be reviewed to 
streamline activities and reduce redundancy and unnecessary paperwork, 
that NRC review its mechanism for calculating fees, and that either 
costs be borne by the organization receiving the services or these 
costs should be recovered through tax dollars rather than fees.
    Response: The Commission addressed many of these issues and similar 
comments regarding the NRC budget in the final rules published July 10, 
1991 (56 FR 31482), July 23, 1992 (57 FR 32696), and July 20, 1993 (58 
FR 38672). As stated in these final rules, the requirement for the NRC 
to recover 100 percent of its budget through fees does not exempt the 
NRC from the normal Government budget review and decisionmaking 
process. The Commission monitors and controls its operating costs and 
is tightening its financial operations by increasing the effectiveness 
and efficiency of its program financing. Notably, as a result of its 
initial efforts, the Commission proposed, and Congress approved, a 
$12.7 million recision to the original appropriation for FY 1994. The 
NRC is committed to making its regulatory programs more efficient 
wherever it can do so without diminishing its ability to protect the 
public health and safety.
    In addition to its own rigorous budget review, the NRC must submit 
its budget to the Office of Management and Budget for review. The NRC 
budget is then sent to the Congress for approval. The bases for 
requested NRC resources are thoroughly addressed by the Congress 
through hearings and written submissions. This budget process, combined 
with the internal NRC review process, ensures that the approved budget 
resources are those necessary for NRC to implement its statutory 
responsibilities and to carry out an effective regulatory program. The 
fees established by NRC must be consistent with its annual budget in 
order to comply with OBRA-90. As in the past, the NRC will continue to 
base its fees on its Congressionally approved budget authority and 
provide the public and licensees with detailed supporting information 
concerning the bases for its fees. This information will continue to be 
available at the activity level, the lowest level for budgeting 
purposes.
    As a result of the very extensive review of the NRC budget, the 
Commission opposes the establishment of a review board to oversee the 
NRC budget. In 1994 testimony before Congress on the NRC's fee policy 
review, Chairman Selin reiterated the Commission's position that it 
would be inappropriate to have the regulated community make 
recommendations which the NRC would have to accept or rebut on how it 
carries out its regulatory function. The Commission also believes that 
there are other avenues for licensees to communicate with the NRC 
concerning the efficiency of the NRC's regulatory program.
    Additionally, the NRC complies with legislation such as the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that require 
the agency to analyze the economic effects of new regulations on 
licensees. The NRC staff also prepares detailed cost-benefit analyses 
to justify any new regulatory requirements. These analyses are 
carefully reviewed by the Commission. The Commission has seen nothing 
either in the petition or comments on the petition that would lead it 
to change its approach in this area. The Commission would like to 
emphasize, however, that licensees are always welcome and expected to 
comment on and propose revisions to proposed rulemakings, including the 
accompanying cost-benefit analyses, and that such comments, along with 
the day-to-day interaction between licensees and the agency, in the 
Commission's view provide an adequate and successful method of keeping 
each group apprised of the other's concerns.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission is denying the 
petitioner's request that a licensee review board be established to 
oversee and make recommendations about NRC's budget and fees.
    The Commission has also carefully considered the petitioner's 
concerns and the comments received regarding the annual fee increases 
and the hourly rate, issues which have been raised by commenters in 
previous rulemakings. As previously stated in the Commission's response 
to commenters on the FY 1993 rule (58 FR 38674), the NRC is unable to 
use the CPI or other indices in the development of the hourly rate or 
fees charged under 10 CFR Part 170 and 171 because these increases may 
not allow the NRC to meet the statutory requirement of OBRA-90 to 
recover approximately 100 percent of the NRC budget authority through 
fees. The NRC's Congressionally-approved budget is determined on the 
basis of the resources needed to carry out the agency mission. The NRC 
professional hourly rate is established to recover approximately 100 
percent of the budget authority, less the appropriation from the 
Nuclear Waste Fund, as required by OBRA-90. The method and budgeted 
costs used by NRC in the development of the hourly rate are discussed 
in Part IV, Section-by-Section Analysis, of 10 CFR 170.20 in each 
proposed and final fee rule. The NRC budgeted costs for salaries and 
benefits, administrative support, travel, and program support 
(excluding contract or other services in support of the line 
organization's direct program), less offsetting receipts, are allocated 
uniformly to the direct FTEs. The hourly rate is calculated by dividing 
the budget allocated to the direct FTEs by the number of direct FTEs 
and the number of productive hours in one year (1,744 hours) as 
indicated in OMB Circular A-76, ``Performance of Commercial 
Activities.'' The Commission continues to believe that this cost 
allocation is appropriate and represents a practical and equitable way 
of allocating these costs to NRC licensees and applicants in order to 
meet the 100 percent recovery requirement of OBRA-90.
    The Commission has explained in the past why it does not believe 
that basing [[Page 20921]] fees on factors such as number of sources, 
the size of the facility, and market competitive positions, as 
suggested by commenters, would result in a fairer allocation of the 100 
percent recovery requirement. (See FY 1991 Final Rule, 56 FR 31472; 
July 10, 1991, and Appendix A to that Final Rule; and Limited Revision 
of Fee Schedules, 57 FR 13625; April 17, 1992). The Commission has seen 
no evidence in the petition or comments on the petition which would 
lead it to change its current approach of charging fees by class of 
license.
    3. Comment: Most commenters supported the petitioner's request that 
the NRC establish standards for its activities, such as a schedule for 
response intervals for processing licensing actions, and provide 
licensees with a cost sheet indicating these schedules in order to 
assure licensees that services will be provided in a reasonably stated 
time period. However, one commenter stated that licensees should not be 
in a position of dictating things such as time limits for processing 
applications. Several commenters also supported the petitioner's 
request that NRC provide more detailed information with the bills. Some 
commenters indicated that bills should be itemized to show hours spent, 
a description of the work performed (specifically work performed by 
contractors), the name(s) of the individual(s) who completed the work, 
and the dates on which the work was performed.
    Response: The petitioner's requests that review standards be 
established, that cost sheets describing sample charges be developed, 
and that additional information be provided on the bills pertain to NRC 
practices and procedures which should not be codified in a rule. The 
Commission cannot establish fixed costs for completing licensing 
actions and inspections for major fuel cycle licensees since the cost 
varies for such activities. License and inspection fees, established by 
10 CFR Part 170 under the authority of the Independent Offices 
Appropriation Act (IOAA) and the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended, 
recover the NRC's cost of providing individually identifiable services 
to specific applicants and licensees. The NRC's principal concern is 
public health and safety and thus the NRC must spend the appropriate 
resources to accomplish this, not a predetermined amount. While the 
Commission is committed to the expeditious review of each application 
and uses all reasonable means of keeping costs as low as feasible, its 
responsibility for ensuring the public health and safety and 
environmental protection cannot be compromised. The Commission is 
committed to the effective use of its increasingly limited resources 
and therefore cannot afford to use these resources unwisely if it is to 
successfully perform its mission.
    In response to the request for one standard fee for the same type 
of action, the Commission notes that full-cost recovery fees based on 
the actual professional staff hour and contractual services costs 
expended for the review were established in 1984 for the NRC's larger 
licensees (reactor and major fuel cycle facilities). Previously, the 
IOAA fees for amendment actions and inspections of these licensees were 
``flat'' fees based on the average number of hours to process the same 
type of licensing action or to conduct similar inspection. Commenters 
on the fee system at that time complained about the inequities of such 
a fee system for larger licensees. They pointed out that NRC's response 
time for applications filed by licensees could vary significantly, 
depending upon the quality and completeness of the information 
submitted by the applicant or licensee and the extent and complexity of 
the licensing action requested. The NRC agreed with the commenters and 
changed its method of assessing fees for larger licensees based on the 
fact that there were differences in the types and complexity of the 
applications being filed and the fact that the NRC maintained a system 
whereby employees processing applications and conducting inspections 
reported, on a periodic basis, the professional time expended to 
process an application or to conduct an inspection.
    To ensure that applications are processed in a timely and cost-
effective manner, each NRC office in the licensing process develops and 
works in accordance with an approved operating plan. Upon receipt of 
applications, schedules are established and resources allocated for 
each review based on the amount of time and professional staff effort 
determined necessary to complete the particular type of application or 
activity. Because the total assigned workload must be completed with 
limited resources, management is continuously challenged and, indeed, 
evaluated on its ability to balance workload and assigned resources in 
the most efficient and effective manner. Similarly, management is 
expected to adhere to established review schedules, and changes are 
approved only with suitable justification. The NRC staff's success in 
meeting schedules is monitored continuously and critically by both NRC 
management and the Commission to ensure that projects are completed 
expeditiously and efficiently.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission is denying the 
petitioner's request that standards be established, that costs sheets 
describing sample charges be developed for different types of work, and 
that response times be established by NRC and distributed to all 
licensees.
    With regard to the petitioner's request that additional details be 
provided on the bills, the NRC believes that sufficient information is 
currently provided to licensees or applicants on which to base payment 
of the invoice. NRC's invoices for full-cost licensing actions and 
inspections currently contain information detailing the type of service 
for which the costs are being billed, the date or date range the 
service was performed, the number of professional staff-hours expended 
in providing the service, the hourly rate, and the contractual costs 
incurred. Additionally, the Inspection Report number is provided on 
inspection fee bills, and the date of the application, NRC's completion 
date, and the subject of the application or the amendment number, if 
appropriate, are provided on bills for licensing actions.
    A licensee or applicant who does not understand the charges or who 
feels they need more information to understand a bill may request 
additional information from the NRC regarding the specific bill in 
question. The NRC will turn over all available data used to support the 
bill upon request of the licensee or applicant.<SUP>1 Additionally, if 
requested, the NRC program staff will provide a best estimate of the 
hours required to complete a specific licensing action, with the caveat 
that the actual hours expended may differ from that estimate. However, 
OMB Circular A-25, which provides guidelines for Federal agencies to 
assess fees for Government services, provides that new cost accounting 
systems need not be established solely for the purpose of determining 
or estimating full cost. Therefore, the NRC does not plan to develop 
additional systems solely to provide additional information on its fee 
invoices at this time.

    \1\At the request of uranium recovery industry representatives 
in a meeting with the NRC staff on October 24, 1994, this additional 
information will be provided with all Part 170 bills issued to 
uranium recovery licensees and applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Comment: Several commenters agreed with the petitioner that all 
Federal agencies should be assessed fees to recover their share of 
NRC's costs.
    The Commission agrees that, where legally permissible, Federal 
agencies should pay for services rendered, [[Page 20922]] including the 
Department of Energy for NRC review of DOE sites under UMTRCA. However, 
as stated in response to similar comments (See FY 1992 Final Rule, 57 
FR 32695) NRC is currently precluded under the Independent Offices 
Appropriation Act (IOAA) from assessing Part 170 fees to Federal 
agencies for specific services rendered. The NRC currently assesses 
annual fees under 10 CFR Part 171 to Federal agencies if those agencies 
have a license or approval/certificate from the NRC; however, OBRA-90 
limits annual fee assessments to NRC licensees. In September 1993, DOE 
became a general licensee of the NRC because post-reclamation closure 
of the Spook, Wyoming, site had been achieved. Therefore, effective 
with the FY 1994 final rule published July 20, 1994, DOE is being 
assessed for costs associated with DOE facilities under the Uranium 
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). These costs were 
previously recovered from operating reactors because DOE was not an NRC 
licensee prior to September 1993 and therefore could not be billed 
under 10 CFR Part 171.
    The Commission has recommended in its report submitted to Congress 
on February 23, 1994, that either OBRA-90 be modified to remove costs 
from the fee base for services to other Federal agencies or the Atomic 
Energy Act be modified to permit the NRC to assess application and 
other fees for specific services rendered to all Federal agencies.
    For the reasons stated above, the NRC has denied this petition.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of April, 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 95-10477 Filed 4-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P