[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44573-44577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-16721]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 170 and 171

[Docket No. PRM-170-5]


National Mining Association; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a 
petition for rulemaking (PRM-170-5) submitted by the National Mining 
Association (NMA). In its petition, NMA asked the NRC to conduct a 
rulemaking that would establish the basis for waiving all licensing and 
inspection fees and annual fees imposed on uranium recovery licensees, 
or alternatively, to waive the fees associated with a contemplated 
rulemaking that would develop requirements for licensing uranium and 
thorium recovery facilities. In support of its petition the NMA argues 
that because of adverse economic conditions, the requested fee relief 
is in the public interest since it would help ensure the continued 
viability of a domestic uranium recovery industry.
    The NRC is denying the petition because the circumstances outlined 
by the petitioner do not qualify the uranium recovery industry for a 
``public interest'' fee exemption. Further, with extremely limited 
exceptions, the NRC does not base its fees on the economic 
circumstances of particular licensees or classes of licensees. 
Moreover, the Commission does not envision instituting a rulemaking 
proceeding to establish a new regulation for licensing uranium and 
thorium recovery facilities.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the public comments 
received, and the NRC's letter to the petitioner may be examined at the 
NRC Public Document Room, Room O1F23, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
MD. These documents also may be viewed and downloaded electronically 
via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
    The NRC maintains an Agencywide Document Access and Management 
System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of the NRC's public 
documents. These documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The ADAMS accession number for the package containing 
documents related to this petition is ML021230010. If you do not have 
access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents 
located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference 
staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert D. Carlson, Telephone 301-415-
8165, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 
of 1990 as amended (OBRA-90), for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002, the NRC is 
required to collect in fees approximately 96 percent of its budget 
authority (minus sums collected from the Nuclear Waste Fund and any 
sums appropriated from the General Fund).

The Petition

    On November 2, 2001 (66 FR 55604), the NRC published a notice of 
receipt for a September 11, 2001, petition for

[[Page 44574]]

rulemaking (PRM-170-5) filed by NMA. The NMA requested that the 
Commission modify its rules to waive all licensing and inspection fees 
(10 CFR part 170) and annual fees (10 CFR part 171) imposed on uranium 
recovery licensees. Alternatively, NMA asked that fees be waived for a 
contemplated rulemaking that would establish requirements for licensing 
uranium and thorium recovery facilities (10 CFR part 41).
    The NMA argues that fee relief for uranium recovery licensees is in 
the public interest. According to the petitioner, the uranium recovery 
industry provides value to the United States by producing energy-
generating yellowcake, thereby reducing reliance on foreign supplies, 
and by recycling waste products and providing additional waste disposal 
options. The NMA believes that the NRC has already recognized this 
public interest argument in discussions about extensions of time for 
beginning decommissioning at uranium recovery sites. The petitioner 
asserts that during these difficult economic times for the domestic 
uranium recovery industry, NRC fees could have a significantly adverse 
impact on the industry's viability, including its ability to maintain 
knowledgeable talent necessary for all the industry to develop and 
progress.
    In support of its petition, the NMA argues that the uranium 
recovery industry is experiencing a significant economic downturn as a 
result of a low spot-market price of under $8 per pound (the industry 
would become profitable if prices rose to $13-16 per pound), a decrease 
in sector employment of 50 percent since 1996, and a low demand for and 
an oversupply of uranium. Thus, the petitioner argues that fee relief 
is needed to help ensure the continued viability of a domestic 
industry. The petitioner is further concerned that under the existing 
NRC annual fee schedule, as the number of uranium recovery licensees 
decrease, the annual fees for the remaining licensees increase, placing 
an unreasonable financial burden on the few remaining licensees. The 
NMA further claims that some of the fee increases which have been borne 
by the uranium recovery licensees have resulted from ``regulatory 
inefficiencies'' such as the loss of agency expertise resulting from 
the Commission's decision to close the Denver Uranium Recovery Field 
Office, the protracted Hydro Resources Inc. informal NRC hearing, and 
excessive and dual regulation. Under these circumstances, the NMA 
argues, fee relief is in the public interest.
    In making its argument, the NMA asserts that not all licensees pay 
fees, noting that annual fees are not imposed on those licensees who 
have relinquished their authority to operate and have permanently 
ceased operations; that small business entities pay reduced fees; and 
that non-profit educational institutions are fully exempted from fees. 
The NMA then states that allowing the domestic uranium recovery 
industry to ``wither to the point of virtual extinction or to disappear 
completely'' cannot be in the national public interest because of the 
benefits provided by the industry.

Public Comments

    The Commission solicited public comment on the rulemaking petition 
in the Federal Register of November 2, 2001 (66 FR 55604), and 
requested that comments be filed by January 16, 2002. The NRC also 
mailed the Federal Register notice to all NRC licensees (more than 5000 
entities). In response, the Commission received 14 comments. In 
addition, the NRC in its proposed fee rule for FY 2002 (67 FR 14818; 
March 27, 2002) noted the pendency of the NMA petition and explained 
that if the Commission decided to grant the petition and provide 
immediate fee relief to the uranium recovery industry, this could 
result in higher fees for other NRC licensees. The NRC invited any 
member of the public who had arguments to place before the Commission, 
which had not been previously submitted in response to the November 2, 
2001, Federal Register Notice, to do so during the public comment 
period for the FY 2002 proposed fee rule.
    Although three additional comments were received on the NMA 
petition during the FY 2002 proposed fee rule public comment period, 
they did not surface any new issues. All three of these commenters 
disagreed with the NRC's decision to invite additional comments, 
stating that the initial comment period was sufficient and the NRC 
should not have reopened it as part of the FY 2002 proposed fee rule.

1. Comments Supporting the NMA Petition

    The NRC received eight comment letters in support of the petition; 
six from uranium recovery licensees, and two from industry groups. The 
uranium recovery industry supports the petition, endorses the 
contentions advanced by NMA, and offers additional arguments.
    One commenter stated that last year the United States relied on 
imports, or inventory draw-downs, for 94 percent of the fuel needed to 
operate the nation's reactors. The commenter asserts that with even 
lower domestic uranium production expected in 2001, U. S. nuclear 
utilities will be even more dependent on imports and inventory draw-
downs to meet their needs. The commenter further states that granting 
the petition would be in the public interest because it would provide 
an immediate and tangible benefit to uranium recovery licensees, and 
help preserve what is left of the dwindling domestic uranium production 
industry.
    Some commenters stated that the uranium recovery industry is vital 
to the U. S. energy security and national security, for example, to 
ensure energy independence and a stable source of domestic uranium for 
the U.S. Nuclear Navy. Some commenters also noted that conventional 
mills can offer recycling/disposal options to other generators whose 
waste contains recoverable uranium.
    Two commenters argue that assuring the viability of the domestic 
uranium recovery resources and waste disposal capacity until the 
uranium prices recover, and until regulatory policy initiatives are in 
place to make these resources even more viable, will not result in an 
unreasonable burden shift to other licensees. In support of this 
argument, the commenters assert that many other classes of licensees 
stand to benefit from access to more cost-effective disposal options 
and from the stability of having viable domestic partners and 
customers. Further, they argue, some of the licensees who would bear 
the burden of the shift in fees have benefitted directly from the 
depressed uranium prices over the years.
    Another commenter states that the NRC's current fees represent a 
tremendous and stifling burden on the uranium recovery industry, with 
no end to escalating charges in sight. Failure to provide fee relief 
could thus result in all domestic producers ceasing operations.
    The Wyoming Congressional delegation jointly sent in a comment 
supporting the petition. The members of the delegation argue that the 
grant of the petition is in the nation's interest because this action 
would provide assistance to a vital domestic industry that is 
struggling to maintain viability in the face of depressed worldwide 
uranium markets. The delegation recognizes that this would ultimately 
shift the burden of fees to other licensees, but notes that many of 
these licensees had benefitted from depressed uranium prices. These 
commenters stress the importance of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign 
supply sources, especially in light of the events of September 11. The 
commenters also

[[Page 44575]]

report that the State of Wyoming has granted some tax relief to the 
uranium recovery industry in Wyoming.
    The Governor of Wyoming submitted comments arguing that maintenance 
of a viable uranium recovery industry not only is in the public 
interest, but also would further President Bush's national energy 
policies. The Governor of Wyoming suggests that when, and if, the price 
for uranium increases to acceptable levels, and there is a sufficient 
number of licensees, then fees should be reinstated.

2. Comments Against the NMA Petition

    The NRC received six comment letters opposing the petition. One 
person holding a license for a nuclear gauge argues that granting NMA 
members a waiver is unfair to other licensees, who would then be 
required to bear NRC costs associated with regulation of the uranium 
recovery industry. Increased fees would thus constitute an ``additional 
tax'' that would result in further financial hardships for others. This 
commenter stated that forcing other companies and industries to pay 
more so the mining industry can stay in business is not in the public 
interest. This same commenter argued that if the petitioner's members 
only need temporary relief, then they should seek loans.
    A state employee involved with licensing and inspection, commenting 
in his private capacity, states that granting the petition would set a 
bad precedent that could carry over to Agreement States. This commenter 
further asserts that Canada or Australia can provide the U.S. plentiful 
supplies of uranium, that there is no reason to expect the domestic 
market to turn around in the near future, and that most of the uranium 
recovery licensees are owned by larger companies able to afford annual 
fees. Finally, the commenter expresses the concern that waiving uranium 
recovery licensees' fees would result in additional pressure to reduce 
the amount of funding to be allocated for NRC licensing and inspection 
of uranium recovery sites.
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while not taking a 
position on whether the petition should be granted, said that any use 
of uranium recovery facilities for disposal of high-volume, low-level 
radioactive waste, as suggested by the petitioner, ``deserve[d] a 
thorough review. * * *'' EPA believes that further discussion regarding 
the petitioner's suggestion of additional uses for uranium mill 
tailings impoundments warrants further discussion between EPA, the 
affected States, and the NRC.
    A private company, Envirocare, argues that grant of the waiver 
would not be in the public interest because other licensees would be 
required to bear an inequitable and unfair fee burden. Envirocare 
further asserts that waiving fees for uranium recovery licensees would 
provide them with an unfair competitive advantage over companies such 
as Envirocare, which compete with those licensees for contracts to 
dispose of 11e.(2) waste material. In effect, Envirocare argues, grant 
of the petition would result in a government-furnished subsidy that 
would place companies like Envirocare, who pay full fees, at a 
competitive disadvantage. Envirocare also claims there remains a viable 
uranium recovery industry that does not need a subsidy.
    Representing power reactor licensees, the Nuclear Energy Institute 
(NEI) argues that the NRC lacks the authority to grant the petition; 
specifically, the NRC lacks the authority to decide whether maintenance 
of a domestic uranium recovery industry is in the public interest. 
Moreover, NEI says, granting fee relief to the uranium recovery 
industry would be unfair and inequitable to other NRC licensees. The 
NEI advocates that the NRC should not base its fees on economics and 
market factors, the economic health of a licensee, or the ability of a 
licensee to pass along fees to its customers. As an alternative means 
of reducing uranium recovery fees, NEI supports various regulatory and 
legislative initiatives to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden, to 
place greater onus on individual licensees for self-monitoring and 
regulatory compliance assessment, to make regulations more risk-
informed and performance-based, and to end dual regulation. NEI further 
indicates that there is merit in granting fee relief to uranium 
recovery facilities that are not operating and are in standby status. 
However, NEI expresses concern that the grant of the petition would 
establish a poor public policy precedent of regulating for-profit 
licensees by exception.
    The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment opposes 
the grant of the petition noting that uranium recovery licensees may 
ask for similar fee reductions in Agreement States. The State is 
concerned that this could serve as a precedent for other industries to 
petition both the NRC and the Agreement States for fee reductions, and 
if a state sets its fees by charging a percentage of NRC fees, the 
reduction in fees for the uranium recovery licensees may translate to 
an increase for all other licensees in that state, including small 
gauge holders. The State indicates that the Commission's answers to the 
questions of fairness and public interest must be suitable to be used 
for any other petition, regardless of the fee category or industry. The 
State further comments that since states have direct regulatory 
responsibility for low-activity radioactive waste disposition and 
experience in regulating diffuse uranium, thorium and their decay 
products, the Commission may wish to reconsider the states' offer to 
take the lead on developing a new 10 CFR part 41.

Intervening NRC Actions

    In its FY 2002 proposed fee rule, which the Commission published 
for public comment on March 27, 2002 (67 FR 14818), the NRC stated that 
the costs of generic activities for the uranium recovery class of 
licensees should be distributed among the licensees under both the 
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act ( UMTRCA) Title I (sites 
closed prior to enactment of UMTRCA, for which the U.S. Department of 
Energy (DOE) is responsible for cleanup) and Title ll (sites holding 
active NRC licenses at the time Congress enacted UMTRCA) programs. In 
the past, DOE has not been assessed any portion of these generic costs 
as the sole licensee for all Title I sites. The NRC has adopted this 
change in the final FY 2002 fee rule, resulting in a decrease of the 
annual fees assessed to the commercial uranium recovery licensees. This 
represents an approximately 18 percent decrease in annual fees since FY 
2001, and is the second straight year of significant fee reductions for 
the uranium recovery class of licensees. In FY 2001, the uranium 
recovery class received an approximately 29 percent reduction in annual 
fees from FY 2000. The FY 2002 final fee rule, including the current 
fee schedule for uranium recovery licensees, is scheduled to be 
published in the Federal Register on June 24, 2002.

Denial of the Petition

    The NRC is denying the petition for the following reasons:
    1. The Commission does not believe that Congress, in establishing 
user fee requirements, expected the NRC fee structure for a given class 
of licensee to be based primarily on licensees' economic circumstances, 
rather than on the NRC's budgeted costs for regulating that class of 
licensees. OBRA-90 requires that the Commission's annual fees ``shall 
have a reasonable relationship to the cost of providing regulatory 
services.'' Granting the fee waiver requested would be inconsistent

[[Page 44576]]

with that mandate. Therefore, absent specific legislation from 
Congress, including appropriations from the general fund, the NRC 
cannot provide the relief sought by the petitioner.
    2. The Commission recognizes the national policy interest in 
maintaining a domestic source of uranium that has been previously 
expressed by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and the U.S. 
Energy Corporation Privatization Act. However, there is nothing in this 
legislation that supercedes the law requiring the NRC to collect 
appropriate fees from its licensees and applicants. The Commission 
further notes that many of the uranium recovery licensees are large 
corporations, with sales in the millions or billions of dollars, or 
they are subsidiaries of very large corporations. If the Commission 
were to grant the petition, other licensees would be required to 
subsidize the uranium recovery industry through increased fees in order 
for the Commission to meet the requirements of OBRA-90.
    Many other industries regulated by the NRC could also argue that 
they provide valuable public services, such as power reactors, 
nonprofit service organizations and medical facilities, and many of 
these entities may also be experiencing financial difficulties. 
However, in order for the NRC to meet the requirements of OBRA-90, the 
NRC is not able to base its fees on the public services these entities 
provide, nor is it able to base its fees on their economic conditions.
    3. While the Commission understands that the uranium recovery 
industry is operating in adverse economic conditions, historically the 
Commission has not taken licensees' economic conditions into account 
when establishing fees, with the exception of licensees who qualify as 
small entities under NRC size standards. The NRC has established 
reduced annual fees for qualifying small entities pursuant to the 
statutory requirement in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 
et. seq., such that in rulemaking proceedings, the Commission consider 
the impact of its actions on small entities and consider alternatives 
to those impacts. In accordance with the Small Business 
Administration's guidelines, in determining whether a licensee 
qualifies as a small entity under the NRC's revenue-based size 
standards, receipts from all sources, not solely receipts from licensed 
activities, are considered. Further, a licensee that is a subsidiary of 
a large entity does not qualify as a small entity. Those uranium 
recovery licensees that qualify as small businesses under NRC's size 
standards are eligible to pay the reduced annual fees the NRC has 
established for such entities in Sec. 171.16(c).
    Previously, in very limited circumstances, the Commission also 
granted partial annual fee exemptions to certain reactor licensees when 
it concluded that, as a result of certain economic factors, the NRC's 
regulatory costs for those licensees were substantially lower than for 
other reactors. There are no such entities presently operating. The 
current annual fee exemption provision for reactors (10 CFR 171.11(c)) 
lists age and size of the reactor, number of customers in the rate 
base, and the net increase in KWh costs for each customer directly 
related to the annual fee as factors the Commission may consider in 
granting an exemption for reactors. In establishing this provision, the 
Commission stated it may grant such relief only if it is persuaded by 
the licensee that these factors ``substantially reduce the NRC's 
regulatory costs for that plant and the benefits bestowed on that 
licensee below that of the other power reactors'' (51 FR 33224; 
September 18, 1986). Thus, the reactor exemption provision is not based 
on the economic factors per se, but rather on any reduction in NRC 
costs that are the result of these factors.
    4. In a 1993 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia Circuit made clear that the Commission cannot take into 
account the ability of one class of licensees to ``pass through'' their 
costs to others, while refusing to consider similar economic 
considerations for other classes. In Allied Signal v. NRC, 988 F. 2d 
146 (D.C. Cir. 1993), the court remanded for reconsideration parts of 
the NRC's FY 1991 annual fee rule. The court questioned the 
Commission's decision to exempt non-profit educational institutions 
from NRC fees on the grounds (in part) that they could not ``pass 
through'' the costs of those fees to their customers, without 
attempting a similar ``pass through'' analysis for other licensees. The 
court indicated that while Congress had not mandated that the NRC 
consider the ability of a licensee to ``pass through'' its fees, if 
this could be done with reasonable accuracy and cost, there appeared no 
reason why the Commission should not do so. In response to this 
decision, the Commission issued a final rule which revoked the prior 
non-profit educational institution fee exemption. The Commission found 
the ability to ``pass through'' costs to be an unworkable standard for 
setting fees.
    The university community petitioned the Commission to reconsider 
its rule. The Commission solicited public comment on the petition for 
reconsideration and ultimately restored the exemption, but not by 
taking into account the ability of these non-profit educational 
institutions to ``pass through'' their costs. Instead, the Commission 
based the exemption on the theory that these institutions, unlike 
commercial entities, provide a ``public good.'' This term is used in 
economic theory to describe goods or services that are non-depletable 
(one can acquire the goods without reducing the amount available) and 
acquirable by anyone (it is impossible to prevent others from acquiring 
the good). In practice, this term encompasses the non-proprietary 
research that non-profit educational institutions make available at no 
cost.
    The services provided by NMA members are not a ``public good'' in 
the same sense. Uranium is depletable and its owners can prevent its 
cost-free acquisition by others. Hence, the ``public good'' based 
exemption for non-profit educational institutions' research cannot 
plausibly be extended to the uranium recovery industry.
    5. The Commission has consistently taken the position that it will 
not take licensees' special economic circumstances into account in 
establishing fees. In 1995, it denied a petition by the uranium 
recovery industry seeking reduced annual fees for uranium mills in 
standby status, because these licensees have the authority to operate 
and have made a business decision to remain in standby status rather 
than terminate their licenses (60 FR 20918; April 28, 1995). Similarly, 
the Commission does not base its fees on how much material is possessed 
by a licensee or how often a licensed device is used.
    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 its fees because the governing statute requires 
that annual charges must, to the maximum extent practicable, have a 
reasonable relationship to the costs of providing regulatory services 
(60 FR 20918; April 28, 1995). To grant fee waivers to a particular 
class of licensees based on economic duress would, under the teachings 
of Allied Signal, result in the Commission's having to take economic 
conditions into effect in establishing fees for each of its classes of 
licensees. Further, as the Commission has stated in numerous fee rules 
since 1991, and most recently in the FY 2001 final fee rule (66 FR 
32452; June 14, 2001), a reduction in fees for one class of licensees 
would require a corresponding increase in fees for other classes. For 
these reasons the NRC does not base its fees on market conditions,

[[Page 44577]]

or a licensee's economic status, or a licensee's inability to ``pass 
through'' the costs to its customers.
    Inevitably, were the Commission to exempt uranium recovery 
licensees from NRC fees, other licensees--both those forced to 
subsidize the NRC's regulation of the uranium recovery industry and 
those claiming economic hardship of their own--would also demand fee 
relief. Widespread and frequent reevaluation of fee schedules based on 
licensees' various economic situations and indeterminate market 
conditions has the potential to entangle the Commission's statutorily-
required user fee program in constant controversy, and ultimately to 
unravel the program altogether. This is one reason why, in connection 
with the Allied-Signal remand, the Commission refused to establish a 
system to consider each licensee's ability to ``pass through'' NRC fees 
to customers.
    Developing fee schedules based on licensees' current economic 
circumstances, in any case, is not workable as a practical matter. An 
economics-driven approach would make NRC fee schedules overly complex 
and difficult to establish. On July 20, 1993, the Commission 
implemented the Allied Signal remand of the FY 1991 and 1992 final fee 
rules by addressing the remanded issues in the statement of 
considerations accompanying its FY 1993 fee rule (58 FR 38666). In this 
document, the Commission explained that the NRC ``is not a financial 
regulatory agency, and does not possess the knowledge or resources 
necessary to continuously evaluate purely business factors'' (58 FR 
38667; July 20, 1993). The Commission further explained that it 
recognizes licensees dislike paying user fees; however, such fees must 
be taken into account in running a business. The Commission then noted 
that it has neither the expertise nor the information needed to 
undertake the complex inquiry into whether, in a market economy, 
particular licensees are able to recoup their user fee payments. The 
Commission expressed concern that if this sort of inquiry became part 
of its mission, the agency would have to hire financial specialists 
which could lead to higher fees charged to pay for an expanded NRC. The 
Commission further noted as part of any such review it would have to 
examine tax returns, financial statements, and commercial data that 
some licensees might be reluctant to provide. See a more detailed 
discussion of this issue in the subject final rule (58 FR 38665, 38667-
69; July 20, 1993). In addition, the Commission might have to look at 
the overall corporate structures of licensees to see, for example, if a 
corporate parent or subsidiary could equitably pay the fees imposed on 
a temporarily distressed enterprise.
    The Commission is further concerned that a detailed examination of 
economic factors would destabilize the NRC's fee schedules because 
changing economic circumstances and inevitable shifts in economic 
cycles could result in significant, unexpected fee increases for some 
classes of licensees. Thus, consideration of economic factors would not 
bring greater fairness and equity to the NRC's fee schedules because 
some classes of licensees would unexpectedly, and on short notice, be 
required to subsidize other classes of licensees based on indeterminate 
shifts in industry markets.
    6. The Commission does not intend to conduct a 10 CFR part 41 
rulemaking, which would be a comprehensive set of regulations governing 
the uranium recovery industry. The Commission has concluded that its 
current regulations are adequate, but has directed the NRC staff to 
issue revised guidance to its uranium recovery licensees. Thus, the 
Commission need not address the issue of whether the uranium recovery 
industry should bear the costs of developing a new 10 CFR part 41.
    The Commission notes that Congress, in the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act for FY 2001, has given NRC licensees fee 
relief in the requirement that the NRC collect approximately 100 
percent of its budget authority (minus funds appropriated from the 
Nuclear Waste Fund and General Fund). That percentage is being annually 
reduced by two percent for five years, so that only 90 percent of the 
agency's budget authority will have to be collected in fees in FY 2005. 
Additionally, the NRC staff is reexamining the issue of fee assessment 
to uranium recovery facilities in standby status.
    For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC denies this 
petition.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of June, 2002.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 02-16721 Filed 7-2-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P