Pages 28467±28722 Vol. 61 6±5±96 No. 109 federal register June 5,1996 Wednesday of thisissue. Washington, DC,seeannouncementontheinsidecover For informationonbriefingsinChicago,IL,and Briefings onHowToUsetheFederalRegister 1 II Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996

SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES

PUBLIC Subscriptions: Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 FEDERAL REGISTER Published daily, Monday through Friday, Assistance with public subscriptions 512–1806 (not published on Saturdays, Sundays, or on official holidays), by General online information 202–512–1530 the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Single copies/back copies: Act (49 Stat. 500, as amended; 44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the Paper or fiche 512–1800 regulations of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register Assistance with public single copies 512–1803 (1 CFR Ch. I). Distribution is made only by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC FEDERAL AGENCIES 20402. Subscriptions: The Federal Register provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 523–5243 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 523–5243 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and For other telephone numbers, see the Reader Aids section Executive Orders and Federal agency documents having general applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published at the end of this issue. by act of Congress and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Federal Register the day before they are published, unless FEDERAL REGISTER WORKSHOP earlier filing is requested by the issuing agency. The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration THE FEDERAL REGISTER: WHAT IT IS AND authenticates this issue of the Federal Register as the official serial HOW TO USE IT publication established under the Federal Register Act. 44 U.S.C. 1507 provides that the contents of the Federal Register shall be FOR: Any person who uses the Federal Register and Code of Federal judicially noticed. Regulations. The Federal Register is published in paper, 24x microfiche and as WHO: Sponsored by the Office of the Federal Register. an online database through GPO Access, a service of the U.S. WHAT: Free public briefings (approximately 3 hours) to present: Government Printing Office. The online database is updated by 6 1. The regulatory process, with a focus on the Federal Register a.m. each day the Federal Register is published. The database system and the public’s role in the development of includes both text and graphics from Volume 59, Number 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. Free public access is available on a regulations. Wide Area Information Server (WAIS) through the Internet and via 2. The relationship between the Federal Register and Code of asynchronous dial-in. Internet users can access the database by Federal Regulations. using the World Wide Web; the Superintendent of Documents l 3. The important elements of typical Federal Register home page address is http://www.access.gpo.gov/su docs/, by documents. using local WAIS client software, or by telnet to swais.access.gpo.gov, then login as guest, (no password required). 4. An introduction to the finding aids of the FR/CFR system. Dial-in users should use communications software and modem to WHY: To provide the public with access to information necessary to call (202) 512–1661; type swais, then login as guest (no password research Federal agency regulations which directly affect them. required). For general information about GPO Access, contact the GPO Access User Support Team by sending Internet e-mail to There will be no discussion of specific agency regulations. [email protected]; by faxing to (202) 512–1262; or by calling (202) 512–1530 between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday– Friday, except for Federal holidays. CHICAGO, IL The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper edition is $494, or $544 for a combined Federal Register, Federal WHEN: June 11, 1996 at 9:00 am Register Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) WHERE: Metcalfe Federal Building, Conference Room subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Register 328, 77 West Jackson, Chicago, Illinois including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $433. Six month 60604 subscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The charge for individual copies in paper form is $8.00 for each issue, or $8.00 RESERVATIONS: 1–800–688–9889 for each group of pages as actually bound; or $1.50 for each issue in microfiche form. All prices include regular domestic postage and handling. International customers please add 25% for foreign WASHINGTON, DC handling. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO Deposit [Two Sessions] Account, VISA or MasterCard. Mail to: New Orders, WHEN: June 18, 1996 at 9:00 am, and Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA June 25, 1996 at 9:00 am 15250–7954. WHERE: Office of the Federal Register Conference There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing Room, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., in the Federal Register. Washington, DC (3 blocks north of Union How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the Station Metro) page number. Example: 61 FR 12345. RESERVATIONS: 202–523–4538′

2 III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 109

Wednesday, June 5, 1996

Agriculture Department Defense Department See Federal Crop Insurance Corporation See Engineers Corps See Food Safety and Inspection Service See Navy Department See Forest Service Drug Enforcement Administration Antitrust Division NOTICES NOTICES Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: National cooperative research notifications: Johnson Matthey, Inc.; correction, 28597–28598 Cable Television Laboratories, Inc., 28596 Penick Corp., 28598 Lonza Inc., 28596 Radian Corp., 28598 National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, Inc., 28596– 28597 Employment Standards Administration Southwest Research Institute, 28597 NOTICES Southwest Research Institute; correction, 28597 Agency information collection activities: Switched Multi-Megabit Data Service Interest Group, Proposed collection; comment request, 28599–28600 28597 Energy Department Army Department See Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office See Engineers Corps See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission See Western Area Power Administration Census Bureau NOTICES NOTICES Electricity export and import authorizations, permits, etc.: Agency information collection activities: MidCon Power Services Corp., 28571 Proposed collection; comment request, 28565–28567 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office Centers for Disease Control and Prevention PROPOSED RULES NOTICES Consumer products; energy conservation program: Meetings: Appliance standards rulemaking process; rulemaking National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; priority setting; public workshop, 28517–28518 Scientific Counselors Board, 28590 Public Health Service Activities and Research at DOE Engineers Corps Sites Citizens Advisory Committee, 28590 NOTICES Occupational exposure to asphalt during paving operations; Base realignment and closure: scientific and technical issues; NIOSH meeting, 28590– Surplus Federal property— 28591 Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, PA, 28567– 28568 Coast Guard Red River Army Depot, TX, 28568 RULES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Regattas and marine parades: Middlesex County et al., NJ; Green Brook flood control Beaufort Water Festival, 28501–28502 project, 28568 Fort Myers Beach Offshore Grand Prix, 28502–28503 Augusta Southern National Drag Boat Races, 28503– Environmental Protection Agency 28504 RULES NOTICES Hazardous waste: National Response Team’s integrated contingency plan Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities— guidance; availability, 28642–28664 Tanks, surface impoundments, and containers; organic air emission standards, 28508–28511 Commerce Department Superfund program: See Census Bureau National oil and hazardous substances contingency plan— Customs Service National priorities list update, 28511 RULES PROPOSED RULES Merchandise, special classes: Air quality implementation plans; approval and Toshiba Machine Co. and Kongsberg Trading Co.; promulgation; various States: sanctions; regulations removed, 28500–28501 Oregon, 28531–28541 PROPOSED RULES Wisconsin, 28541–28545 Merchandise; examination, sampling, and testing: NOTICES Detention procedures for merchandise undergoing Agency information collection activities: extended examination, 28522–28524 Proposed collection; comment request, 28575–28577 NOTICES Meetings: Petroleum refineries in foreign trade subzones; attribution Risk Assessment and Risk Management Commission, schedule, 28639–28640 28577–28578 IV Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Contents

State and Tribal Toxics Action Forum Coordinating Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: Committee and Projects, 28578 Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co., 28571–28572 National Response Team’s integrated contingency plan Texas Eastern Transmission Corp., 28572 guidance; availability, 28642–28664 TransColorado Gas Transmission Co., 28572 Pesticide, food, and feed additive petitions: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 28572–28573 Iprodione, 28578–28580 Pesticides; emergency exemptions, etc.: Federal Highway Administration EarthGro, Inc., 28580 PROPOSED RULES United States-Mexico Border XXI program; draft framework Motor carrier safety standards: document availability, 28581 Commercial drivers; vision standard; research plan, 28547–28550 Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents Federal Reserve System See Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies: Federal Aviation Administration Change in bank control, 28585 RULES Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 28585–28587 Airworthiness directives: Permissible nonbanking activities, 28587 Airbus, 28497–28498 Meetings: Jetstream, 28498–28500 Consumer Advisory Council, 28587 Airworthiness standards: Transport category airplanes— Federal Trade Commission Subsonic transport airplanes; high altitude operation, NOTICES 28684–28696 Premerger notification waiting periods; early terminations, PROPOSED RULES 28588–28589 Airworthiness directives: Allied Signal Commercial Avionics Systems, 28518– Food and Drug Administration 28520 PROPOSED RULES Pratt & Whitney, 28520–28522 Color additives: NOTICES Color additive lakes; safe use in food, drugs, and Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: cosmetics; permanent listing, 28525 Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, 28633–28634 Passenger facility charges; applications, etc.: Food Safety and Inspection Service Telluride Regional Airport, CO, 28634 NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Federal Communications Commission Microbiological Criteria for Foods National Advisory RULES Committee, 28562 Television broadcasting: Cable television service— Forest Service Open video systems, 28698–28718 NOTICES NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Meetings: George Washington and Jefferson National Forests et al., Federal-State Joint Board on universal service, 28581– VA and WV, 28562–28565 28582 Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee, 28582 General Services Administration NOTICES Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Environmental statements; availability, etc.: PROPOSED RULES Washington, DC; building to house National Museum of Crop insurance regulations: Health and Medicine, 28589–28590 Texas citrus fruit crop, 28512–28517 Health and Human Services Department Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES See Food and Drug Administration Meetings; Sunshine Act, 28582 Housing and Urban Development Department Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES NOTICES Agency information collection activities: Federal radiological emergency response plan; correction, Submission for OMB review; comment request, 28591– 28583–28584 28592 Radiological emergency; State plans: Tennessee, 28585 Immigration and Naturalization Service NOTICES Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Nicaraguan nationals subject to final deportation orders; NOTICES discontinuation of review process, 28598–28599 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 28573 Interior Department Union Electric Co., 28573 See Land Management Bureau Meetings: See Minerals Management Service Southern Natural Gas Co., 28573–28574 See National Park Service Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Contents V

Justice Department NOTICES See Antitrust Division Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: See Drug Enforcement Administration NAFTA Automotive Standards Council; working groups, See Immigration and Naturalization Service 28636–28637 NOTICES Pollution control; consent judgments: National Park Service Koppers Industries, Inc., et al., 28596 RULES National Park System: Labor Department Conveyance of freehold and leasehold interests, 28506– See Employment Standards Administration 28508 See Mine Safety and Health Administration Organization, functions, and authority delegations: See Occupational Safety and Health Administration Field Director; organizational title change from Regional Director, 28504–28505 Land Management Bureau Special regulations: PROPOSED RULES Appalachian National Scenic Trail, PA; hang gliding, Preservation and conservation; and health, safety, and 28505–28506 enforcement; Federal regulatory review, 28546–28547 PROPOSED RULES NOTICES Special regulations: Agency information collection activities: Big Thicket National Preserve, TX; moored houseboats, Proposed collection; comment request, 28592 28530–28531 Coal leases, exploration licenses, etc. NOTICES Alabama, 28592–28593 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Realty actions; sales, leases, etc.: Whiskeytown Unit, Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Nevada, 28593 Recreation Area, CA, 28595 Recreation management restrictions, etc.: National Register of Historic Places: Las Vegas District, NV; temporary occupancy and Pending nominations, 28595–28596 camping closure, 28593 Resource management plans, etc.: Navy Department Royal Gorge Resource Area, CO, 28594 NOTICES Withdrawal and reservation of lands: Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Washington, 28594–28595 Bellows Air Force Station, HI, 28568–28571

Maritime Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES RULES Agency information collection activities: Environmental protection; domestic licensing and related Proposed collection; comment request, 28634–28636 regulatory functions: Nuclear power plant operating licenses; environmental Minerals Management Service review for renewal, 28467–28497 PROPOSED RULES NOTICES Outer Continental Shelf; oil, gas, and sulphur operations: Operating licenses, amendments; no significant hazards Leases; drilling requirements, 28528–28530 considerations; biweekly notices, 28604–28626 Unitization; model agreements, 27525–28528 Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: NOTICES Power Authority of State of New York, 28602–28604 National Response Team’s integrated contingency plan guidance; availability, 28642–28664 Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Mine Safety and Health Administration Meetings: NOTICES Occupational Safety and Health National Advisory Meetings: Committee, 28600 Pneumoconiosis Elimination Among Coal Mine Workers National Response Team’s integrated contingency plan Advisory Committee, 28600 guidance; availability, 28642–28664 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of United States Trade Representative NOTICES Meetings: See Trade Representative, Office of United States Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications Advisory Committee, 28601 Postal Rate Commission NOTICES National Archives and Records Administration Post office closings; petitions for appeal: NOTICES Lewiston, NE, 28627 Agency records schedules; availability, 28601–28602 Presidential Documents National Highway Traffic Safety Administration EXECUTIVE ORDERS PROPOSED RULES Narcotics control policies (EO 13008), 28721 Motor vehicle safety standards: Rollover prevention; customer information— Public Health Service Stability label for light vehicles, 28560–28561 See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Rollover stability; reconsideration petition, 28550–28560 See Food and Drug Administration VI Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Contents

Research and Special Programs Administration See Research and Special Programs Administration RULES See Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Hazardous materials: See Surface Transportation Board Hazardous materials transportation— NOTICES Rail requirements; miscellaneous amendments, 28666– Aviation proceedings: 28682 Agreements filed; weekly receipts, 28632 NOTICES Certificates of public convenience and necessity and National Response Team’s integrated contingency plan foreign air carrier permits; weekly applications, guidance; availability, 28642–28664 28632–28633

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Treasury Department NOTICES See Customs Service Meetings: Advisory Board, 28638 Western Area Power Administration NOTICES Securities and Exchange Commission Post-2000 resource pool; Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin NOTICES program, Eastern Division; proposed power allocation Agency information collection activities: procedures, etc., 28574–28575 Proposed collection; comment request, 28627–28629 Meetings: Capital Formation and Regulatory Processes Advisory Separate Parts In This Issue Committee, 28629 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: Part II Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 28629–28632 Environmental Protection Agency, Coast Guard, Minerals Management Service, Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Administration Administration, Research and Special Programs NOTICES Administration, 28642–28664 Disaster loan areas: Ohio et al., 28632 Part III Department of Transportation, Research and Special Surface Transportation Board Programs Administration, 28666–28682 NOTICES Rail carriers: Part IV Cost of capital; railroad industry’s annual rate Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation proceeding, 28638 Administration, 28684–28696 Railroad operation, acquisition, construction, etc.: Luxapalila Valley Railroad, Inc., 28638–28639 Part V North Charleston Terminal Co., 28639 Federal Communications Commission, 28698–28718

Trade Representative, Office of United States Part VI PROPOSED RULES The President, 28721 Uruguay Round Agreement Act (URAA): Tariff-rate quota amount determinations— Leaf tobacco, 28522 NOTICES Reader Aids Canada: Additional information, including a list of public laws, Softwood lumber exports; monitoring and enforcement, telephone numbers, reminders, and finding aids, appears in 28626–28627 the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.

Transportation Department See Coast Guard Electronic Bulletin Board See Federal Aviation Administration Free Electronic Bulletin Board service for Public Law See Federal Highway Administration numbers, Federal Register finding aids, and a list of See Maritime Administration documents on public inspection is available on 202–275– See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 1538 or 275–0920. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Contents VII

CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE

A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.

3 CFR 43 CFR Executive Orders: Proposed Rules: 12880...... 28721 6000...... 28546 13008...... 28721 6100...... 28546 6200...... 28546 6300...... 28546 7 CFR 6400...... 28546 Proposed Rules: 6500...... 28546 457...... 28512 6600...... 28546 7100...... 28546 10 CFR 7200...... 28546 51...... 28467 7300±9000...... 28546 Proposed Rules: 47 CFR 76...... 28698 430...... 28517 49 CFR 14 CFR 171...... 28666 25...... 28684 172...... 28666 173...... 28666 39 (2 documents) ...... 28497, 174...... 28666 28498 178...... 28666 Proposed Rules: 179...... 28666 39 (2 documents) ...... 28518, Proposed Rules: 28529 391...... 28547 571 (2 documents) ...... 28550, 19 CFR 28560 12...... 28500 178...... 28500 Proposed Rules: 132...... 28522 151...... 28522

21 CFR Proposed Rules: 70...... 28525 73...... 28525 74...... 28525 80...... 28525 81...... 28525 82...... 28525 101...... 28525 178...... 28525 201...... 28525 701...... 28525

30 CFR Proposed Rules: 250...... 28525 256...... 28528

33 CFR 100 (3 documents) ...... 28501, 28502, 28503

36 CFR 6...... 28504 7...... 28505 17...... 28506 Proposed Rules: 7...... 28530

40 CFR 264...... 28508 265...... 28508 270...... 28508 271...... 28508 300...... 28511 Proposed Rules: 52 (2 documents) ...... 28531, 28541 81...... 28541 28467

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 109

Wednesday, June 5, 1996

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER reviewing plant-specific applications 3. Need for Generating Capacity and contains regulatory documents having general and better focus of review resources on Alternative Energy Sources applicability and legal effect, most of which significant case specific concerns. The C. Technical Concerns are keyed to and codified in the Code of results should be a more focused and 1. Category and Impact Magnitude Definitions Federal Regulations, which is published under therefore a more effective NEPA review 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. 2. Surface Water Quality for each license renewal. The 3. Aquatic Ecology The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by amendment will also provide the NRC 4. Groundwater Use and Quality the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of with the flexibility to address 5. Terrestrial Ecology new books are listed in the first FEDERAL unreviewed impacts at the site-specific 6. Human Health REGISTER issue of each week. stage of review and allow full 7. Socioeconomics consideration of the environmental 8. The Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid impacts of license renewal. Waste Management 9. Accidents NUCLEAR REGULATORY The NRC is soliciting public comment COMMISSION 10. Decommissioning on this rule for a period of 30 days. In 11. Need for Generating Capacity developing any comment specific 10 CFR Part 51 12. Alternatives to License Renewal attention should be given to the 13. License Renewal Scenario RIN 3150±AD63 treatment of low-level waste storage and 14. Environmental Justice disposal impacts, the cumulative IV. Discussion of Regulatory Requirements Environmental Review for Renewal of radiological effects from the uranium A. General Requirements Nuclear Power Plant Operating fuel cycle, and the effects from the B. The Environmental Report Licenses 1. Environmental Impacts of License disposal of high-level waste and spent Renewal AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory fuel. 2. Consideration of Alternatives Commission. DATES: Absent a determination by the C. Supplemental Environmental Impact ACTION: Final rule. NRC that the rule should be modified, Statement based on comments received, the final 1. Public Scoping and Public Comments on SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory rule shall be effective on August 5, the SEIS 2. Commission’s Analysis and Preliminary Commission (NRC) is amending its 1996. The comment period expires on regulations regarding environmental Recommendation July 5, 1996. 3. Final Supplemental Environmental protection regulations for domestic ADDRESSES: Send comments to: The Impact Statement licensing and related regulatory Secretary of the Commission, U.S. D. NEPA Review for Activities Outside functions to establish new requirements Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC License Renewal Approved Scope for the environmental review of Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: V. Availability of Documents applications to renew the operating VI. Submittal of Comments in an Electronic Docketing and Services Branch, or hand licenses of nuclear power plants. The Format deliver comments to the Office of the amendment defines those VII. Finding of No Significant Environmental Secretary, One White Flint North, 11555 environmental impacts for which a Impact Availability Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland generic analysis has been performed VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on IX. Regulatory Analysis that will be adopted in plant-specific Federal workdays. Copies of comments X. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification reviews for license renewal and those received and all documents cited in the XI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement environmental impacts for which plant- supplementary information may be Fairness Act specific analyses are to be performed. XII. Backfit Analysis The amendment improves regulatory examined at the NRC Public Document efficiency in environmental reviews for Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), I. Introduction Washington, DC between the hours of license renewal by drawing on the The Commission has amended its 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal considerable experience of operating environmental protection regulations in workdays. nuclear power reactors to generically 10 CFR part 51 to improve the efficiency assess many of the environmental FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of the process of environmental review impacts that are likely to be associated Donald P. Cleary, Office of Nuclear for applicants seeking to renew an with license renewal. The amendment Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear operating license for up to an additional also eliminates consideration of the Regulatory Commission, Washington, 20 years. The amendments are based on need for generating capacity and of DC 20555–0001, telephone: (301) 415– the analyses conducted for and reported utility economics from the 6263; e-mail [email protected]. in NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic environmental reviews because these SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Environmental Impact Statement for matters are under the regulatory License Renewal of Nuclear Plants’’ jurisdiction of the States and are not I. Introduction (May 1996). The Commission’s initial necessary for the NRC’s understanding II. Rulemaking History decision to undertake a generic of the environmental consequences of a III. Analysis of Public Comments A. Commenters assessment of the environmental license renewal decision. B. Procedural Concerns impacts associated with the renewal of The increased regulatory efficiency 1. Public Participation and the Periodic a nuclear power plant operating license will result in lower costs to both the Assessment of the Rule and GEIS was motivated by its beliefs that: applicant in preparing a renewal 2. Economic Costs and Cost-Benefit (1) License renewal will involve application and to the NRC for Balancing nuclear power plants for which the 28468 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations environmental impacts of operation are plant-specific review. A finding of no will prepare a supplemental site- well understood as a result of data significant impact would have resulted specific environmental impact evaluated from operating experience to in a favorable cost-benefit balance for statement (SEIS), rather than an date; that plant. If a finding of no significant environmental assessment (as initially (2) Activities associated with license impact could not be made for the plant, proposed), for each license renewal renewal are expected to be within this there would have to have been a application. The SEIS will be issued for range of operating experience, thus determination as to whether the impacts public comment as part of the environmental impacts can be found in the environmental assessment individual plant review process. The reasonably predicted; and were sufficient to overturn the NRC will delay any conclusions (3) Changes in the environment conditional cost-benefit balance found regarding the acceptability of the overall around nuclear power plants are gradual in the rule. impacts of the license renewal until and predictable with respect to Although the final amendments to 10 completion of the site-specific review. characteristics important to CFR part 51 maintain the same generic In addition, the SEIS will be prepared environmental impact analyses. approach used in the proposed rule, in accordance with existing public Although this amendment is there are several modifications.The final scoping requirements. The NRC will consistent with the generic approach amendments to 10 CFR part 51 now also review and consider any new and and scope of the proposed amendment contain 92 issues. The reduction of the significant information presented during published on September 17, 1991 (56 FR number of issues from 104 in the the review of individual license renewal 47016), several significant modifications proposed rule to 92 in the final rule is applications. In addition, any person have been made in response to the due to (1) the elimination from the may challenge the validity of the public comments received. The review of the consideration of the need conclusions codified in the rule by proposed amendment would have for electric power and associated filing a petition for rulemaking pursuant codified the findings reached in the generating capacity and of the direct to 10 CFR 2.802. Finally, the NRC will draft generic environmental impact economic benefits and costs associated review the rule and the GEIS on a statement (GEIS) as well as certain with electric power, (2) removing schedule that allows revisions, if procedural requirements. The draft GEIS alternatives as an issue from Table B–1 required, every 10 years. This review established the bounds and significance and addressing review requirements will be initiated approximately 7 years of potential environmental impacts at only in the text of the rule, (3) after the completion of the previous 118 light-water nuclear power reactors combining the five severe accident revision cycle. that, as of 1991, were licensed to operate issues used in the proposed rule into or were expected to be licensed in the one issue, (4) eliminating several In addition to the changes involving future. regional economic issues under public participation, this final rule also All potential environmental impacts socioeconomics that are not directly contains several changes regarding the and other matters treated by the NRC in related to environmental impacts, (5) scope of analysis and conclusions in the an environmental review of nuclear making minor changes to the grouping rule and GEIS. The conditional cost- power plants were identified and of issues under aquatic ecology and benefit balance has been removed from combined into 104 discrete issues. For groundwater, (6) identifying collective the GEIS and the rule. In place of the each issue, the NRC staff established offsite radiological impacts associated cost-benefit balancing, the NRC will use generic findings encompassing as many with the fuel cycle and all impacts of a new standard that will require a nuclear power plants as possible. These high level waste and spent fuel disposal determination of whether or not the findings would have been codified by as separate issues, and (7) adding adverse environmental impacts of the proposed amendment. Of the 104 environmental justice as an issue for license renewal are so great, compared issues reviewed for the proposed rule, consideration. with the set of alternatives, that the staff determined that 80 issues could Of the 92 issues in the final rule, 68 preserving the option of license renewal be adequately addressed generically and issues were found to be adequately for future decisionmakers would be would not have been reviewed in plant- addressed in the GEIS, and therefore, unreasonable. The final amendment also specific license renewal reviews. For 22 additional assessment will not be eliminates NRC’s consideration of the of the issues, it was found that the issue required in a plant-specific review. need for generating capacity and the was adequately addressed for some but Twenty-four issues were found to preparation of power demand forecasts not all plants. Therefore, a plant-specific require additional assessment for at for license renewal applications. The review would be required to determine least some plants at the time of the NRC acknowledges the primacy of State whether the plant is covered by the license renewal review. In the final rule, regulators and utility officials in generic review or whether the issue the 2 issues in the proposed rule that defining energy requirements and must be assessed for that plant. The would have required review for all determining the energy mix within their proposed amendment provided plants are now included in the set of 24 jurisdictions. Therefore, the issue of guidance on the application of these issues of the final rule. need for power and generating capacity findings at the site-specific license Public comments on the adequacy of will no longer be considered in NRC’s renewal stage. For the two remaining the analysis for each issue were license renewal decisions. The final issues, it was found that the issue was considered by the NRC staff. Any GEIS has been revised to include an not generically addressed for any plant, changes to the analyses and findings explicit statement of purpose and need and thus a plant-specific review would that were determined to be warranted for license renewal consistent with this have been required for all plants. were made in the final GEIS and acknowledgment. Lastly, the final rule Other major features of the proposed incorporated in the rule. Several has eliminated the consideration of amendment included a conditional changes were made to the procedural utility economics from license renewal finding of a favorable cost-benefit features of the proposed rule in reviews under the National balance for license renewal and a response to comments by the Council on Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provision for the use of an Environmental Quality, the except when such benefits and costs are environmental assessment that would Environmental Protection Agency, and a either essential for a determination address only those issues requiring number of State agencies. First, the NRC regarding the inclusion of an alternative Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28469 in the range of alternatives considered documents that were available and Commission’s consideration of need for or relevant to mitigation. These and announced a public workshop to be power and utility economics. Comments other features of the final rule are held on November 4–5, 1991. The were requested on this proposal. The explained in detail below. supporting documents for the proposed discussion below contains an analysis of The NRC is soliciting public comment rule included: these comments and other comments on this rule for a period of 30 days. In (1) NUREG–1437, ‘‘Draft Generic submitted in response to the proposed developing any comment specific Environmental Impact Statement for rule. attention should be given to the License Renewal of Nuclear Plants’’ treatment of low-level waste storage and (August 1991); III. Analysis of Public Comments disposal impacts, the cumulative (2) NUREG–1440, ‘‘Regulatory The analysis of public comments and radiological effects from the uranium Analysis of Proposed Amendments to the NRC’s responses to these comments fuel cycle, and the effects from the Regulations Concerning the are documented in NUREG–1529, disposal of high-level waste and spent Environmental Review for Renewal of ‘‘Public Comments on the Proposed 10 fuel. Absent a determination by the NRC Nuclear Power Plant Operating CFR part 51 Rule for Renewal of Nuclear that the rule should be modified, based Licenses: Draft Report for Comment’’ Power Plant Operating Licenses and on comments received, the final rule (August 1991); Supporting Documents: Review of shall be effective on August 5, 1996. (3) Draft Regulatory Guide DG–4002, Concerns and NRC Staff Response’’ Proposed Supplement 1 to Regulatory II. Rulemaking History (May 1996). The extent of comments Guide 4.2, ‘‘Guidance for the received during the various stages of the In 1986, the NRC initiated a program Preparation of Supplemental rulemaking process and the principal to develop license renewal regulations Environmental Reports in Support of an concerns raised by the commenters, and associated regulatory guidance in Application To Renew a Nuclear Power along with the corresponding NRC anticipation of applications for the Station Operating License’’ (August responses to these concerns, are renewal of nuclear power plant 1991); and discussed below. operating licenses. A solicitation for (4) NUREG–1429, ‘‘Environmental comments on the development of a Standard Review Plan for the Review of A. Commenters policy statement was published in the License Renewal Applications for Federal Register on November 6, 1986 Nuclear Power Plants: Draft Report for In response to the Federal Register (51 FR 40334). However, the Comment’’ (August 1991). notice on the proposed rule published Commission decided to forgo the After the comment period, the NRC on September 17, 1991 (56 FR 47016), development of a policy statement and exchanged letters with the Council on 68 organizations and 49 private citizens to proceed directly to rulemaking. An Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the submitted written comments. The 68 advance notice of proposed rulemaking Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) organizations included 5 Federal was published on August 29, 1988 (53 to address their concerns about agencies; 26 State, regional, and local FR 32919). Subsequently, the NRC procedural aspects of the proposed rule. agencies; 19 nuclear industry determined that, in addition to the The Commission also decided that the organizations and engineering firms; 3 development of license renewal staff should discuss with the States the law firms; and 15 public interest groups. regulations focused on the protection of concerns raised in comments by a Before the close of the initial comment health and safety, an amendment to its number of States that certain features of period, the NRC conducted a 2-day environmental protection regulations in the proposed rule conflicted with State workshop on November 4–5, 1991, in 10 CFR part 51 was warranted. regulatory authority over the need for Arlington, Virginia, to discuss the On October 13, 1989 (54 FR 41980), power and utility economics. To proposed rule. Representatives from the NRC published a notice of its intent facilitate these discussions, the NRC Federal agencies, State agencies, to hold a public workshop on license staff developed an options paper utilities, engineering firms, law firms, renewal on November 13 and 14, 1989. entitled ‘‘Addressing the Concerns of and public interest groups attended the One of the workshop sessions was States and Others Regarding the Role of workshop. Workshop panelists included devoted to the environmental issues Need for Generating Capacity, the NRC staff as well as representatives associated with license renewal and the Alternative Energy Sources, Utility from the Department of Energy (DOE), possible merit of amending 10 CFR part Costs, and Cost-Benefit Analysis in NRC Department of Interior (DOI), 51. The workshop is summarized in Environmental Reviews for Relicensing Environmental Protection Agency NUREG/CP–0108, ‘‘Proceedings of the Nuclear Power Plants: An NRC Staff (EPA), Council on Environmental Public Workshop on Nuclear Power Discussion Paper.’’ A Federal Register Quality (CEQ), several State agencies, Plant License Renewal’’ (April 1990). notice published on January 18, 1994 the nuclear industry, and public interest Responses to the public comments (59 FR 2542) announced the scheduling groups. submitted after the workshop are of three regional workshops during In February 1994, the NRC conducted summarized in NUREG–1411, February 1994 and the availability of the three public meetings to solicit views on ‘‘Response to Public Comments options paper. A fourth public meeting the NRC staff’s options for addressing Resulting from the Public Workshop on on the State concerns was held in May the need for generating capacity, Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal’’ 1994 in order for the NRC staff to better alternative energy sources, economic (July 1990). understand written proposals that had costs, and cost-benefit analysis in the On July 23, 1990, the NRC published been submitted by two industry proposed rule. The intent to hold public an advance notice of proposed organizations after the regional meetings and the availability of the rulemaking (55 FR 29964) and a notice workshops. After considering the options paper was noticed in the of intent to prepare a generic comments from the workshops and the Federal Register on January 12, 1994 environmental impact statement (55 FR written comments, the NRC staff issued (59 FR 2542). Written comments were 29967). The proposed rule was a proposed supplement to the proposed also solicited on the options paper. The published on September 17, 1991 (56 FR rule published on July 25, 1994 (59 FR public meetings were held in Rockville, 47016). The same Federal Register 37724), that it believed would resolve Maryland; Rosemont, Illinois; and notice described the supporting the States’ concerns regarding the Chicopee, Massachusetts. 28470 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Representatives from several States, the they pointed out that the site-specific the applicability of the analyses of National Association of Regulatory nature of many important impacts codified in the rule and the Utility Commissioners (NARUC), the environmental issues does not justify a analysis contained in the draft nuclear industry, and public interest generic finding, particularly when the supplemental EIS will be addressed by groups actively participated. Nineteen finding would have been made 20 years NRC in the final supplemental EIS in separate written comments were also in advance of the decision to renew an accordance with 40 CFR 1503.4, submitted, primarily by the States and operating license. The commenters regardless of whether the comment is the nuclear industry. In their submittals, believe that only a site-specific EIS to directed to impacts in Category 1 or 2. the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), support a license renewal decision Such comments will be addressed in the formerly known as the Nuclear would satisfy NEPA requirements. following manner: Management and Resources Council Federal and State agencies questioned a. NRC’s response to a comment (NUMARC), and Yankee Atomic Electric how new scientific information could be regarding the applicability of the Company (YAEC) each proposed an folded into the GEIS findings because analysis of an impact codified in the approach to handling the issues of need the GEIS would have been performed so rule to the plant in question may be a for generating capacity and alternative far in advance of the actual renewal of statement and explanation of its view energy sources in the rule. For the NRC an operating license. There were that the analysis is adequate including, staff to better understand these differing views on exactly how the NRC if applicable, consideration of the proposals, an additional public meeting should address this question. A group of significance of new information. A was held with NEI and YAEC on May commenters, including CEQ and EPA, commenter dissatisfied with such a 16, 1994, in Rockville, Maryland. noted that the rigidity of the proposed response may file a petition for After considering the public rule hampers the NRC’s ability to rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802. If the comments on the NRC staff’s options respond to new information or to commenter is successful in persuading paper, the NRC issued a proposed different environmental issues not listed the Commission that the new supplement to the proposed rule; it was in the proposed rule. They believe that information does indicate that the published in the Federal Register on incorporation of new information can analysis of an impact codified in the July 25, 1994 (59 FR 37724). The only be achieved through the process of rule is incorrect in significant respects proposed supplement set forth the NRC amending the rules. One commenter (either in general or with respect to the staff’s approach to the treatment of need recommended that, if the NRC decides particular plant), a rulemaking for generating capacity and alternative to pursue the approach of making proceeding will be initiated. energy sources, as well as the staff’s generic findings based on the GEIS, the b. If a commenter provides new revision to the purpose of and need for frequency of review and update should information which is relevant to the the proposed action (i.e., license be specifically stated in the rule. plant and is also relevant to other plants renewal), which was intended to satisfy Recommendations on the frequency of (i.e., generic information) and that the States’ concerns and to meet NEPA the review ranged from 2 years to 5 information demonstrates that the requirements. Twenty separate written years. analysis of an impact codified in the comments were received in response to Response. In SECY–93–032, February final rule is incorrect, the NRC staff will this solicitation from Federal and State 9, 1993, the NRC staff reported to the seek Commission approval to either agencies, the nuclear industry, a public Commission their discussions with CEQ suspend the application of the rule on interest group, and two private citizens. and EPA regarding the concerns these a generic basis with respect to the agencies raised, which were also raised analysis or delay granting the renewal B. Procedural Concerns by other commenters, about limiting application (and possibly other renewal The commenters on the proposed rule public comment and the consideration applications) until the analysis in the raised significant concerns regarding the of significant new information in GEIS is updated and the rule amended. following procedural aspects of the rule: individual license renewal If the rule is suspended for the analysis, (1) State and public participation in environmental reviews. The focus of the each supplemental EIS would reflect the the license renewal process and the commenters concerns is the limited corrected analysis until such time as the periodic assessment of the GEIS nature of the site-specific reviews rule is amended. findings; contemplated under the proposed rule. c. If a commenter provides new, site- (2) The use of economic costs and In response, the NRC has reviewed the specific information which cost-benefit balancing; and generic conclusions in the draft rule, demonstrates that the analysis of an (3) Consideration of the need for expanded the opportunity for site- impact codified in the rule is incorrect generating capacity and alternative specific review, and confirmed that with respect to the particular plant, the energy sources in the environmental what remains as generic is so. Also, the NRC staff will seek Commission review of license renewal applications. framework for consideration of approval to waive the application of the Each of these concerns and the NRC significant new information has been rule with respect to that analysis in that response is discussed below. revised and expanded. specific renewal proceeding. The The major changes adopted as a result supplemental EIS would reflect the 1. Public Participation and the Periodic of these discussions are as follows: corrected analysis as appropriate. Assessment of the Rule and the GEIS 1. The NRC will prepare a 2. The final rule and the GEIS will not Concern. Many commenters criticized supplemental site-specific EIS, rather include conditional cost-benefit the draft GEIS finding that 80 of 104 than an environmental assessment (as conclusions or conclusions about environmental issues could be initially proposed), for each license alternatives. Conclusions relative to the generically applied to all plants and, renewal application. This SEIS will be overall environmental impacts therefore, would not be subject to plant- a supplement to the GEIS. Additionally, including cumulative impacts will be specific review at the time of license the NRC will review comments on the left entirely to each site-specific SEIS. renewal. As a consequence, these draft SEIS and determine whether such 3. After consideration of the changes commenters believe they are being comments introduce new and from the proposed rule to the final rule denied the opportunity to participate in significant information not considered and further review of the environmental the license renewal process. Moreover, in the GEIS analysis. All comments on issues, the NRC has concluded that it is Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28471 adequate to formally review the rule and consideration of utility economics in its energy sources as Category 3 (i.e., the GEIS on a schedule that allows NEPA review of a license renewal requiring site-specific evaluation); and revisions, if required, every 10 years. application except when such benefits (3) A requirement that all site-specific The NRC believes that 10 years is a and costs are either essential for a EISs and relicensing decisions reference suitable period considering the extent of determination regarding the inclusion of State determinations of need for the review and the limited an alternative in the range of generating capacity and alternative environmental impacts observed thus alternatives considered or relevant to energy sources, and that they defer to far, and given that the changes in the mitigation. As discussed in more detail those State determinations to the environment around nuclear power in the following section, the NRC maximum extent possible. plants are gradual and predictable with recognizes that the determination of the Response. After consideration, the respect to characteristics important to economic viability of continuing the NRC staff did not accept all elements of environmental impact analyses. This operation of a nuclear power plant is an the States’ approach because the review will be initiated approximately 7 issue that should be left to appropriate approach would have continued to years after completion of the last cycle. State regulatory and utility officials. require the NRC to consider the need for The NRC will conduct this review to generating capacity and utility determine what, if anything, in the rule 3. Need for Generating Capacity and Alternative Energy Sources economics as part of its environmental requires revision. analysis. In addition, the approach Concern. As part of their comments Concern. In their comments on the would have required the NRC to on the July 1994 Federal Register proposed rule and the draft GEIS, develop guidelines for determining the notice, NEI, several utilities, and the several States expressed concern that acceptability of State economic DOE asked that the NRC reconsider its the NRC’s analysis of need for analyses, which some States may have understanding with CEQ and EPA generating capacity would preempt or viewed as an intrusion on their regarding the preparation of a site- prejudice State energy planning planning process. specific supplemental EIS for each decisions. They argued that the The NRC staff developed and license renewal action. These determination of need for generating recommended another approach, which commenters supported an approach that capacity has always been the States’ was published on July 25, 1994 (59 FR would allow the preparation of an responsibility. Recommendations on 37724), after consideration of environmental assessment for reviewing how to address this issue ranged from information gathered at the regional the environmental impacts of license withdrawing the proposed rule to meetings and from the written renewal. changing the categorization of the issue comments. This approach, which Response. The NRC does not agree so that a site-specific review can be borrows some elements from NEI and with this position. The NRC believes performed, thus allowing for meaningful YAEC proposals, has five major features: that it is reasonable to expect that an State and public participation. Almost (1) Neither the rule nor the GEIS assessment of the full set of all the concerned States called on the environmental impacts associated with would contain a consideration of the NRC to modify the rule to state need for generating capacity or other an additional 20 years of operation of explicitly that NRC’s analysis does not any plant would not result in a ‘‘finding issues involving the economic costs and preempt a State’s jurisdiction over the of no significant impact.’’ Therefore, the benefits of license renewal and of the determination of need for generating review for any plant would involve an associated alternatives; capacity. environmental impact statement. (2) The purpose and need for the Regarding the issue of alternative proposed action (i.e., license renewal) 2. Economic Costs and Cost-Benefit energy sources, several commenters would be defined as preserving the Balancing contended that the site-specific nature continued operation of a nuclear power Concern. State, Federal, and utility of the alternatives to license renewal did plant as a safe option that State representatives expressed concern about not justify the generic finding in the regulators and utility officials may the use of economic costs and cost- GEIS. One significant concern about this consider in their future planning benefit balancing in the proposed rule finding is the States’ perception that a actions; and the draft GEIS. Commenters generic finding, in effect, preempts the (3) The only alternative to the criticized the NRC’s heavy emphasis on States’ responsibility to decide on the proposed action would be the ‘‘no- economic analysis and the use of appropriate mix of energy alternatives action’’ alternative, and the economic decision criteria. They argued in their respective jurisdictions. environmental consequences of this that the regulatory authority over utility Three regional public meetings were alternative are the impacts of a range of economics falls within the States’ held during the February 1994 to energy sources that might be used if a jurisdiction and to some extent within discuss the concerns of the States. At nuclear power plant operating license the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy these meetings, and later in written were not renewed; Regulatory Commission. Commenters comments, the State of New York (4) The environmental review for also believe that the cost-benefit proposed an approach to resolve the license renewal would include a balancing used in the proposed rule and problem. The approach was endorsed by comparison of the environmental the draft GEIS went beyond NEPA several other States. This approach had impacts of license renewal with impacts requirements and CEQ regulations (40 three major conditions: of the range of energy sources that may CFR Parts 1500 to 1508). They noted (1) A statement in the rule that the be chosen in the case of ‘‘no action’’; that CEQ regulations interpret NEPA to NRC’s findings on need and alternatives and require only an assessment of the are only intended to satisfy the NEPA (5) The NRC’s NEPA decision cumulative effects of a proposed Federal requirements and do not preclude the standard for license renewal would action on the natural and man-made States from making their own require the NRC to determine whether environment. determination with respect to these the environmental impacts of license Response. In response to these issues; renewal are so great that preserving the concerns, the NRC has eliminated the (2) The designation of the need for option of license renewal for future use of cost-benefit analysis and generating capacity and alternative decisionmakers would be unreasonable. 28472 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

The statement that the use of and the narrow definition of purpose production and use, reliability in the economic costs will be eliminated in and need. These modifications and generation and distribution of electric this approach refers to the ultimate clarifications addressed the States’ power, improved fuel diversity within NEPA decision regarding the concerns relative to treatment of need the State, and environmental objectives comparison of alternatives and the for generating capacity and alternatives. such as improved air quality and proposed action. This approach does Specifically, the Commission has minimized land use. not preclude a consideration of clarified the purpose and need for The consideration of alternatives has economic costs if these costs are license renewal in the GEIS as follows: been shifted to the site-specific review. essential to a determination regarding The purpose and need for the proposed The rule contains no information or the inclusion of an alternative in the action (renewal of an operating license) is to conclusions regarding the range of alternatives considered (i.e., an provide an option that allows for power environmental impacts of alternative alternative’s exorbitant cost could generation capability beyond the term of a energy sources, it only indicates that the render it nonviable and unworthy of current nuclear power plant operating license environmental impact of alternatives further consideration) or relevant to to meet future system generating needs, as will be considered during the individual mitigation of environmental impacts. such needs may be determined by State, plant review. However, the GEIS utility, and, where authorized, Federal (other contains a discussion of the Also, the two local tax issues and the than NRC) decisionmakers. two economic structure issues under environmental impacts of alternative socioeconomics in the table would be Using this definition of the purpose of energy sources based on currently removed from consideration when and need for the proposed action, which available information. The information applying the decision standard. stresses options for the generation of in the GEIS is available for use by the Concern. Comments received from power, the environmental review will NRC and the licensee in performing the several States on the NRC staff’s July include a characterization of alternative site-specific analysis of alternatives and 1994 recommended approach ranged energy sources as being the alternatives will be updated as appropriate. For from rejection to endorsement. Some to license renewal and not merely the individual plant reviews, information States supported the three conditions consequences of the no-action codified in the rule, information proposed by the State of New York. alternative and, thus, it addresses CEQ’s developed in the GEIS, and any Several States were still concerned concern that the scope of the significant new information introduced about whether a meaningful analysis of alternatives analysis is unacceptably during the plant-specific review, need for generating capacity and restricted. including any information received alternative energy sources could be With respect to the States’ concerns from the State, will be considered in undertaken 20 years ahead of time. One regarding need for generating capacity reaching conclusions in the State asked that the proposed rule be analysis, the NRC will neither perform supplemental EIS. The NRC’s site- withdrawn. Another State wanted the analyses of the need for power nor draw specific comparison of the impacts of proposed rule to be reissued for public any conclusions about the need for license renewal with impacts of comment. CEQ supported the approach generating capacity in a license renewal alternative energy sources will involve proposed by the State of New York. CEQ review. This definition of purpose and consideration of information provided believed that the NRC’s recommended need reflects the Commission’s by State agencies and other members of approach was in conflict with the NEPA recognition that, absent findings in the the public. This approach should satisfy process because the proposed statement safety review required by the Atomic the States’ concerns relative to a of purpose and need for the proposed Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or in meaningful analysis of alternative action was too narrow and did not the NEPA environmental analysis that energy sources. provide for an appropriate range of would lead the NRC to reject a license The Commission disagrees with alternatives to the underlying need for renewal application, the NRC has no CEQ’s assertion that the new decision the proposed action. CEQ wanted the role in the energy planning decisions of standard is inappropriate. Under this NRC to address other energy sources as State regulators and utility officials. decision standard, the NRC must separate alternatives, rather than as From the perspective of the licensee and determine if the adverse environmental consequences of the no-action the State regulatory authority, the impacts of license renewal are so great alternative. Moreover, CEQ stated that purpose of renewing an operating that preserving the option of license the proposed decision standard places a license is to maintain the availability of renewal for energy planning ‘‘weighty and improper burden of the nuclear plant to meet system energy decisionmakers would be unreasonable. proof’’ on consideration of the requirements beyond the term of the The Commission expects that license alternative. The EPA endorsed CEQ’s plant’s current license. The underlying renewal would be denied only if the comments. In general, the nuclear need that will be met by the continued expected environmental effects of industry was supportive of the availability of the nuclear plant is license renewal significantly exceed all recommended approach. However, NEI defined by various operational and or almost all alternatives. The and the utilities strongly expressed the investment objectives of the licensee. Commission believes that this is a opinion that, with the redefined Each of these objectives may be dictated reasonable approach to addressing the statement of purpose and need, by State regulatory requirements or issue of environmental impacts of alternative energy sources would no strongly influenced by State energy license renewal, given NRC’s limited longer be alternatives to the proposed policy and programs. In cases of role in the area of energy systems action and, therefore, need not be interstate generation or other special planning. The operation of a nuclear considered. circumstances, Federal agencies such as power plant beyond its initial license Response. After consideration of the the Federal Energy Regulatory term involves separate regulatory comments received on the Commission (FERC) or the Tennessee actions, one taken by the utility and the Commission’s July 1994 proposal, the Valley Authority (TVA) may be NRC, and the other taken by the utility Commission has modified and clarified involved in making these decisions. The and the State regulatory authorities. The its approach in order to address the objectives of the various entities decision standard would be used by concerns of CEQ relative to involved may include lower energy cost, NRC to determine whether, from an consideration of appropriate alternatives increased efficiency of energy environmental perspective, it is Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28473 reasonable to renew the operating standard is appropriate. The decision involvement in an issue at the time of license and allow State and utility standard will not affect the scope or the plant-specific review to specific decisionmakers the option of rigor of NRC’s analyses, including the concerns about the technical adequacy considering a currently operating consideration of the environmental of the analysis supporting a Category 1 nuclear power plant as an alternative for impacts relevant to the license renewal finding for an issue. Several meeting future energy needs. The test of decision and associated alternatives. commenters believed that the reasonableness focuses on an analysis of The NRC staff believes that, under the definitions create confusion, especially whether the environmental impacts circumstances, the decision standard as to whether the finding of small anticipated for continued operation does not place ‘‘a weighty and improper impact and Category 1 are during the term of the renewed license burden of proof’’ on other alternatives as interdependent. The GEIS appears to reasonably compare with the impacts CEQ claims. use Category 1 and ‘‘small’’ that are expected from the set of With respect to the industry’s desire interchangeably. Concern was also alternatives considered for meeting to eliminate consideration of alternative expressed that the requirement to generating requirements. The NRC energy sources, the Commission does consider mitigative actions was would reject a license renewal not agree. The Commission does not inadequately addressed in the draft application if the analysis demonstrated support the views of NEI and others that GEIS and proposed rule. that the adverse environmental impacts alternative energy sources need not be Response. To reduce potential of the individual license renewal were considered in the environmental review confusion over the definitions, the use so great that preserving the option of for license renewal. The Commission is of the categories, and the treatment of license renewal for energy planning not prepared to state that no nuclear mitigation within the context of the decisionmakers would be unreasonable. power plant will fall well outside the categorization scheme, the NRC has After the NRC makes its decision range of other reasonably available revised the definitions to eliminate any based on the safety and environmental alternatives far in advance of an actual ambiguity as to how they are used. considerations, the final decision on relicensing decision. Following NEI’s Further, the GEIS has been modified to whether or not to continue operating the suggestion would not lead to a clearly state the reasons behind the nuclear plant will be made by the meaningful set of alternatives with category and magnitude findings. utility, State, and Federal (non-NRC) which to compare a proposed action. In order to facilitate understanding of decisionmakers. This final decision will The Commission has always held the the modifications to the GEIS, the be based on economics, energy view that alternative sources of energy previous approach is discussed as reliability goals, and other objectives should be compared with license follows. In the proposed rule and the over which the other entities may have renewal and continued operation of a draft GEIS, findings about the jurisdiction. The NRC has no authority nuclear power plant. environmental impact associated with or regulatory control over the ultimate Lastly, the Commission does not each issue were divided into three selection of future energy alternatives. believe it is necessary to reissue this categories of applicability to individual Likewise, the NRC has no regulatory rule for public comment as a State plant reviews. These categories were: power to ensure that environmentally commenter requested. The Commission • Category 1: A generic conclusion on superior energy alternatives are used in has taken many measures to involve the the impact has been reached for all the future. Given the absence of the public concerning the resolution of affected nuclear power plants. NRC’s authority in the general area of public comments on the proposed rule. • Category 2: A generic conclusion on energy planning, the NRC’s rejection of The Commission has conducted a the impact has been reached for affected a license renewal application based on number of public meetings and nuclear power plants that fall within the existence of a single superior published for public comment its defined bounds. • alternative does not guarantee that such recommended procedural revisions to Category 3: A generic conclusion on an alternative will be used. In fact, it is the proposed rule. The Commission the impact was not reached for any conceivable that the rejection of a believes that modifications made to the affected nuclear power plants. license renewal application by the NRC proposed rule reflect the logical The significance of the magnitude of in favor of an individual alternative may outgrowth of the proposed rule based on the impact for each issue was expressed lead to the implementation of another as one of the three following levels. the public comments received by the • alternative that has even greater Commission. Small impacts are so minor that environmental impacts than the they warrant neither detailed proposed action, license renewal. C. Technical Concerns investigation nor consideration of Given the uncertainties involved and mitigative actions when such impacts the lack of control that the NRC has in 1. Category and Impact Magnitude Definitions are negative. the choice of energy alternatives in the • Moderate impacts are likely to be future, the Commission believes that it Concerns. Many commenters clearly evident and usually warrant is reasonable to exercise its NEPA expressed concern that the category consideration of mitigation alternatives authority to reject license renewal definitions and the impact-significance when such impacts are negative. applications only when it has definitions were ambiguous and • Large impacts involve either a determined that the impacts of license appeared somewhat interconnected. The severe penalty or a major benefit, and renewal sufficiently exceed the impacts EPA expressed concern that mitigation mitigation alternatives are always of all or almost all of the alternatives of adverse impacts was not addressed considered when such impacts are that preserving the option of license adequately. negative. renewal for future decision makers Commenters expressed a number of With respect to the categories of would be unreasonable. Because the concerns about the use of the applicability, under the proposed rule objectives of the utility and State applicability categories and the applicants would have: decisionmakers will ultimately be the magnitude-level categories. With respect (1) Not provided additional analyses determining factors in whether a to the applicability categories, concerns of Category 1 issues; nuclear power plant will continue to ranged from a general concern that (2) Not provided additional analyses operate, NRC’s proposed decision Category 1 precludes or hinders public if their plant falls within the bounds 28474 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations defined in the rule for a Category 2 as part of the license renewal review. which probability of occurrence is a key issue; The review of a Category 2 issue may consideration (i.e., accident (3) Provided additional plant-specific focus on the particular aspect of the consequences), the probability of analyses if their plant does not fall issue that causes the Category 1 criteria occurrence has been factored into the within the bounds defined in the rule not to be met. For example, severe determination of significance. The for a Category 2 issue; and accident mitigation under the issue determination of the significance (4) Provided plant-specific analyses of ‘‘severe accidents’’ is the focus for a category was made independently of the Category 3 issues. plant-specific review because the other consideration of the potential benefit of In order to address the comments on aspects of the issue, specifically the additional mitigation. these magnitude and category offsite consequences, have been The major concerns (organized by definitions, the GEIS has been modified adequately addressed in the GEIS. With topical areas) about the environmental to clearly state the reasons behind the the revised definitions, the two issues issues examined in the draft GEIS and category and magnitude findings. previously designated as Category 3 are the NRC staff’s response to those The revised definitions are listed now designated Category 2. For an issue concerns are summarized next. below. to be a Category 1, current mitigation • 2. Surface Water Quality Category 1: For the issue, the practices and the nature of the impact analysis reported in the Generic were considered and a determination Concern. Several commenters Environmental Impact Statement has was made that it is unlikely that expressed concerns related to the shown: additional measures will be sufficiently National Pollutant Discharge (1) The environmental impacts beneficial. In the GEIS, in discussing the Elimination System (NPDES) permitting associated with the issue have been impacts for each issue, consideration process for surface water discharge. determined to apply either to all plants was given to what is known about They believe that the NRC may have or, for some issues, to plants having a current mitigation practices. overlooked its legal obligation to specific type of cooling system or other The definitions of the significance comply with Section 401 of the Clean specified plant or site characteristic; level of an environmental impact have Water Act (CWA). Their (2) A single significance level (i.e., been revised to make the consideration recommendations included withholding small, moderate, or large) has been of the potential for mitigating an impact approval for license renewal until a assigned to the impacts (except for separate from the analysis leading to a facility has complied with Section 401 collective off site radiological impacts conclusion about the significance level and treating license renewal as an from the fuel cycle and from high level of the impact. Further, the significance opportunity for a new NEPA review. On waste and spent fuel disposal); and level of an impact is now more clearly the other hand, other commenters (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts tied to sustaining specific attributes of recommended decoupling the NRC associated with the issue has been the affected resource that are important relicensing process from the NPDES considered in the analysis and it has to its viability, health or usefulness. permitting process. been determined that additional plant- General definitions of small, moderate Response. In issuing individual specific mitigation measures are likely and large significance levels are given license renewals, the Commission will not to be sufficiently beneficial to below. These definitions are adapted to comply, as has been its practice, with warrant implementation. accommodate the resource attributes of the provisions of Section 401 of the The generic analysis of the issue may importance for each of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (see be adopted in each plant-specific environmental issues in the GEIS. The 10 CFR 51.45(d) and 51.71(c)). In review. Issues for which the impact was definition of ‘‘small’’ clarifies the addition, pursuant to Section 511(c) of found to be favorable were also defined meaning of the term as it applies to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to be Category 1 issues. of 1972, the Commission cannot • radiological impacts. The definition of Category 2: For the issue, the ‘‘small’’ in the proposed rule did not question or reexamine the effluent analysis reported in the GEIS has shown logically apply to such impacts. limitations or other requirements in that one or more of the criteria of The general definitions of significance permits issued by the relevant Category 1 cannot be met and, therefore, level are: permitting authorities. Nevertheless, additional plant-specific review is • Small: For the issue, environmental compliance with the environmental required. effects are not detectable or are so minor quality standards and requirements of If, for an environmental issue, the that they will neither destabilize nor these permits does not negate the three Category 1 criteria apply to all noticeably alter any important attribute requirement for the Commission to plants, that issue is Category 1 and the of the resource. For the purposes of consider all environmental effects of the generic analysis should be used in a assessing radiological impacts, the proposed action. Accordingly, the license renewal review for all plant Commission has concluded that those Commission has not only taken existing applications. If the three Category 1 impacts that do not exceed permissible permits into account in its analysis of criteria apply to a subset of plants that levels in the Commission’s regulations the water quality impacts of license are readily defined by a common plant are considered small. renewal but has also considered characteristic, notably the type of • Moderate: For the issue, information on actual operating impacts cooling system, the population of plants environmental effects are sufficient to collected from individual plants, State is partitioned into the set of plants with alter noticeably but not to destabilize and Federal regulatory agencies, and the characteristic and the set without important attributes of the resource. published literature. As a result of this the characteristic. For the set of plants • Large: For the issue, environmental analysis, the Commission has concluded with the characteristic, the issue is effects are clearly noticeable and are that the environmental impacts on Category 1 and the generic analysis sufficient to destabilize important surface water quality are small for those should be used in the license renewal attributes of the resource. effluents subject to existing permit or review for those plants. For the set of The discussion of each environmental certification requirements. A total plants without the characteristic, the issue in the GEIS includes an decoupling of the license renewal issue is Category 2 and a site-specific explanation of how the significance process and the NPDES permitting analysis for that issue will be performed category was determined. For issues in process is not appropriate because, for Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28475 issues with incomplete Clean Water Act configuration of plant cooling water Response. Based on consideration of determinations, the NRC cannot systems, since the best available comments, the issue of groundwater use complete its weighing and balancing of technology that is economically conflicts resulting from surface water impacts without independently available may be different given the withdrawals for cooling tower makeup addressing the issues. additional 20 years of plant operating water or cooling ponds is now Category Concern. Several commenters raised life. 2 for plants withdrawing surface water concerns that various issues within the Response. The Commission has from small water bodies during low Surface Water Quality topic should be considered the impacts of license flow conditions. The GEIS has Category 2 or 3 issues. These included renewal on aquatic ecology and, in identified a potential reduction in water use conflicts as experienced in doing so, has reviewed existing NPDES aquifer recharge as a result of competing Arizona and the Midwest, thermal permits and other information. Based on water use. These conflicts are already a stratification and salinity gradients this analysis, the Commission has concern at two closed-cycle nuclear associated with once-through cooling concluded that these impacts are small power plants. The NRC does not agree systems, and the toxicity of biofouling with the exception that plants with that saltwater intrusion should be compounds. once-through cooling and cooling ponds considered a Category 2 issue. When Response. Regarding the water use may have larger effects associated with saltwater intrusion has been a problem, conflicts, the NRC has considered the entrainment of fish and shellfish in the major cause has been the large impacts of water use during the renewal early life stages, impingement, and heat consumption of groundwater by period and has concluded that these shock. Agencies responsible for existing agricultural and municipal users. impacts are small for plants with a once- permits are not constrained from Groundwater consumption by nuclear through cooling system and that this is reexamining the permit issues if they power plants is small by comparison a Category 1 issue for those plants. have reason to believe that the basis for and does not contribute significantly to However, this issue is designated their issuance is no longer valid. The the saltwater intrusion problem. With Category 2 for plants with cooling Commission does not have authority regard to traces of tritium found in the towers and cooling ponds because, for under NEPA to impose an effluent groundwater at one nuclear power those plants, the impacts might be limitation other than those established plant, the tritium was attributed to a moderate (they could also be small). In in permits issued pursuant to the Clean modification in the plant’s inlet and either case, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.45(d), Water Act. The problem of the long-term discharge canal that did not take into an applicant for license renewal must effects of heavy metal discharges from consideration a unique situation in identify and indicate in its plants with copper-nickel condenser topology and groundwater flow. The environmental report the status of State tubes has been found at only one plant. releases were minor and the situation and local approvals regarding water use The affected condenser tubes have been has been corrected. issues. For those reactor sites where Regarding the issue of the use of replaced with tubing of a more thermal stratification or salinity gradient groundwater for cooling water makeup, corrosion-resistant material. was found to be the most pronounced, the NRC has designated this issue as the issues were reviewed during Concern. A commenter pointed out Category 2 even though only the Grand preparation of the GEIS and found to be that the issue of riparian zones should Gulf Nuclear Station is currently using acceptable by the States within the be addressed in the GEIS because the Ranney wells to withdraw groundwater. NPDES process. No change in the vegetation region along a water course This water intake does not conflict with categorization in the GEIS would be can be affected by water withdrawal and other groundwater uses in the area. It is required. Similarly, the NPDES permit is important in maintaining the habitat. not possible to predict whether or not for a facility establishes allowable Response. The NRC agrees with the water use conflicts will occur at the discharges, including biocides. The NRC importance of addressing the impacts of Grand Gulf facility in the future. It is has no indication that residual license renewal on the riparian habitat. also not possible to determine the environmental impacts would occur as The final GEIS provides a discussion of significance of the environmental a result of license renewal activities at the riparian habitat as an important impacts associated with Ranney well any nuclear plant site other than resource and the potential effects of use at other nuclear plants that may perhaps water use conflicts arising at consumptive water use on riparian choose to adopt this method in the plants with cooling ponds or cooling zones. future. towers using make-up water from a 4. Groundwater Use and Quality small river with low flow. For those 5. Terrestrial Ecology plants, this issue is Category 2. Concern. Several commenters Concern. Several commenters indicated that groundwater issues recommended that the issue of bird 3. Aquatic Ecology should be reviewed on a site-specific mortality resulting from collisions with Concern. A number of comments basis because of groundwater use transmission lines, towers, or cooling regarding the ecological impact of conflicts (in particular, the effect on towers be characterized as a Category 2 cooling water withdrawal from aquatic aquifer recharge of using surface water issue. Such a characterization would bodies were received. Specific concerns for cooling water), opportunities for provide for a review of mitigation at included fish kills associated with the saltwater intrusion, and concerns over those plants with cooling towers that do entrainment and impingement of fish tritium found in wells at one site. On not have illumination and for power within once-through and cooling pond the other hand, a commenter requested plant transmission lines that transect cooling systems, the use of chlorine and that the issue of groundwater use for major flyways or that cross wetlands molluscicides to control mussel and cooling tower makeup water be changed used by large concentrations of birds. clam growth, and the long-term effects from Category 2 to Category 1 because Response. The NRC does not agree of heavy metal discharges from plants the issue is based solely on data from with this recommendation. The GEIS with copper-nickel condenser tubes. Ranney wells at the Grand Gulf Nuclear cites several studies that conclude that Another commenter noted that license Station, where tests have shown that the bird mortalities resulting from collision extension affords the opportunity to elevation of the water plain around with transmission lines, towers, or review the intake and discharge Grand Gulf is not dropping. cooling towers are not significantly 28476 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations reducing bird populations. Mitigation change is appropriate and strengthens 10 miles of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power measures in place, such as safety lights, the criterion used to define a small Plant have a risk of contracting were found adequate and additional environmental impact for the reasons leukemia four times greater than other measures were not warranted. that follow. The Atomic Energy Act individuals. Therefore, the issue remains a Category requires the Nuclear Regulatory Response. The NRC staff reviewed the 1 issue because refurbishment will not Commission to promulgate, inspect and MDHP study and compared it with involve construction of any additional enforce standards that provide an various other studies. The results of the transmission lines or natural draft adequate level of protection of the study have been contradicted by a cooling towers. public health and safety and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) study Concern. One commenter expressed environment. The implementation of entitled ‘‘Cancer in Populations Living concern that the GEIS analysis of land these regulatory programs provides a Near Nuclear Facilities’’ (July 1990). use did not adequately encompass the margin of safety. A review of the The NCI study, which included the impact of onsite spent fuel storage on regulatory requirements and the Pilgrim plant in its analysis, found no land use and that the Category 1 finding performance of facilities provides the reason to suggest that nuclear facilities is questionable. A specific concern was bases to project continuation of may be linked causally with excess the potential need for the construction performance within regulatory deaths from leukemia or from other of additional spent fuel storage facilities standards. For the purposes of assessing cancers. The findings of the NCI study associated with the license renewal radiological impacts, the Commission are consistent with the findings of term, along with their associated has concluded that impacts are of small several similar epidemiological studies impacts on the terrestrial environment. significance if doses to individuals and in foreign countries and with the latest Response. The NRC does not agree releases do not exceed the permissible conclusions of expert bodies such as the that there is a need to change the levels in the Commission’s regulations. National Research Council’s Committee Category 1 determination for onsite land With respect to whether additional on the Biological Effects of Ionizing use. Waste management operations mitigative measures are required, it Radiation. The NRC continues to base could require the construction of should be noted that in 10 CFR parts 20 its assessment of the health effects of additional storage facilities and thus and 50 there are provisions that ionizing radiation on the overall body of adversely affect land use and terrestrial radiological impacts associated with scientific knowledge and on the ecology. However, experience has plant operation be reduced to levels as recommendations of expert groups. shown that the land requirements low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). would be relatively small (less than 9 Concern. Several commenters 7. Socioeconomics acres), impacts to land use and indicated that the GEIS needs a broader Concern. A commenter concerned terrestrial ecology would also be treatment of uncertainty as it relates to with historic preservation pointed out relatively small, and the land that may human health issues. that this issue must be addressed be used is already possessed by the Response. The NRC agrees that there through compliance with the National applicant; thus, its basic use would not is considerable uncertainty associated Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and be altered. Onsite land use is Category with health effects, especially at low cannot be resolved generically. 1. Terrestrial ecology with disturbance occupational and public dose levels, Response. The NRC agrees with this of sensitive habitat is treated as a and particularly with respect to comment. Historical and archaeological separate issue and is Category 2. electromagnetic fields. Health effect impacts have been changed from a estimates from radiation exposures are Category 1 to a Category 2 issue (that is, 6. Human Health based on the best scientific evidence it must be evaluated site-specifically). Concern. In the human health section available and are considered to be Consultation with State historical of the GEIS, the radiological impacts of conservative estimates. Several sections preservation offices and other plant refurbishment and continued of the GEIS have been expanded to more Government agencies, as required by operations during the license renewal thoroughly explain how predicted NHPA, must be undertaken to term to workers and the general public impacts could be affected by changes in determine whether protected historical were examined. Several commenters scientific information or standards. or archaeological resources are in areas indicated that it was inappropriate to Concern. One commenter indicated that might be disturbed during compare the radiation exposures that, in the GEIS and the proposed rule, refurbishment activities and operation associated with license renewal to risk coefficients should have been used during the renewal period. natural background levels. These for chemicals and radiation to obtain Concern. Several commenters commenters believed that the upper bound risk estimates of cancer indicated that transportation issues appropriate argument should be that the incidence. associated with refurbishment activities risks associated with the additional Response. The NRC does not agree should be changed from Category 3 to exposures are so small that no with this comment. In making Category 2 because the impacts will be additional mitigative measures are comparisons of alternatives, insignificant in the majority of cases. required. comparisons of the central or best One recommendation was to use a level Response. The NRC agrees that the estimates of impacts are consistent with of service (LOS) determination for assessment of radiation exposure should NEPA requirements because they specific plants as the bounding not be simply a comparison with provide the fairest determination. The criterion. The analysis would require background radiation. In response to GEIS is written using current, that LOS be determined for that part of comments on the draft generic Commission-approved risk estimators. the refurbishment period during which environmental impact statement and the Concern. Two commenters expressed traffic not related to the plant is proposed rule, the standard defining a concern regarding the GEIS conclusion expected to be the heaviest. Another small radiological impact has changed that the impact of radiation exposure to recommendation was to establish from a comparison with background the public is small, citing a study done bounding criteria based on past major radiation to sustained compliance with by the Massachusetts Department of routine outages. the dose and release limits applicable to Public Health (MDPH). This study Response. The NRC agrees that use of the various stages of the fuel cycle. This concluded that adults who live within the LOS approach may prove to be Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28477 acceptable. Transportation still must be storage of spent fuel should be In response to the questions about the reviewed on a plant-specific basis, that considered on a site-specific basis applicability of Table S–3 to the is, it is a Category 2 issue (based on the within a plant license renewal review. management of waste associated with revised definition). Response. The Commission license renewal and to the various Concern. There were acknowledges that there is uncertainty comments challenging the treatment of recommendations to make the housing in the schedule of availability of the several forms of waste in the draft impacts during refurbishment a disposal facilities for LLW, mixed GEIS and in the proposed rule, the Category 1 issue instead of Category 2. waste, and spent fuel. However, the discussion of Table S–3 has been moved One commenter noted that the Commission believes that there is from Section 4.8 of the draft GEIS to construction period data used in the sufficient understanding of and Chapter 6 of the final GEIS in order to analysis appears to overestimate the experience with the storage of LLW, provide a more integrated assessment of impact on housing. mixed waste, and spent fuel to conclude the environmental impacts associated Response. The NRC does not agree that the waste generated at any plant as with waste management as a that this should be a Category 1 issue. a result of license renewal can be stored consequence of license renewal. Also in Although negligible housing impacts are safely and without significant response to various comments, the anticipated for most license renewals, environmental impacts before discussion of Table S–3 and of each of significant housing impacts have permanent disposal. In addition, the the types of waste has been expanded. occurred during a periodic plant outage Commission concluded that the Supplemental data are presented in at one of the case plants studied for the classification of storage and ultimate Chapter 6 of the final GEIS in order to analysis. This issue is now a Category 2 disposal as a Category 1 issue is extend the coverage of the issue because moderate and large appropriate because States are environmental impacts of the uranium impacts on housing are possible proceeding, albeit slowly, with the fuel cycle presented in the current Table depending on local conditions (e.g., development of new disposal facilities; S–3 and of transportation of radioactive areas with extremely slow population LLW and mixed waste have been and waste presented in the current Table S– growth or areas with growth control can be safely stored at reactor sites until 4 to radon-222, technetium-99, higher measures that limit housing new disposal capacity becomes fuel enrichment, and higher fuel development). available. Analyses to support this burnup. In part, the current Table S–3 8. The Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid conclusion are presented in Chapter 6 of and the data supplementing it cover Waste Management the final GEIS (NUREG–1437). The environmental impacts of: (1) Onsite storage of spent fuel following summary of the responses to Concern. Wide-ranging concerns were assemblies in pools for 10 years, comments emphasizes the main features expressed in the comments on the packaging and transportation to a of these analyses. proposed rule and the draft GEIS about Federal repository, and permanent the treatment of storage and disposal of In the draft GEIS, the environmental disposal; and low-level waste (LLW), mixed waste, data in Table S–3 were discussed with (2) Short-term storage onsite of LLW, spent fuel, nonradiological waste, and respect to applicability during the packaging and transportation to a land- the transportation of fuel and waste to license renewal period and burial facility, and permanent disposal. and from nuclear power plants as a supplemented with an analysis of the The following conclusions have been consequence of license renewal. radiological release and dose drawn with regard to the environmental Concern was expressed about the commitment data for radon-222 and impacts associated with the uranium uncertain availability of disposal technetium-99. The proposed rule fuel cycle. facilities for LLW, mixed waste, and would have had this discussion apply to The radiological and nonradiological spent fuel; the prospect of generation each plant at the time of its review for environmental impacts of the uranium and onsite storage of an additional 20 license renewal. fuel cycle have been reviewed. The years output of waste; and the resulting Further, in the draft GEIS, Chapter 6, review included a discussion of the pressure that would be put on the States ‘‘Solid Waste Management,’’ covered the values presented in Table S–3, an to provide LLW disposal facilities. generation of LLW, mixed waste, spent assessment of the release and impact of Various commenters expressed concern fuel, and nonradiological waste as a 222Rn and of 99Tc, and a review of the about the adequacy of the treatment of result of license renewal; the regulatory standards and experience of the cost of waste management and the transportation of the radiological waste; fuel cycle facilities. For the purpose of implications for the economic viability and the environmental impacts of waste assessing the radiological impacts of of license renewal. Numerous comments management, including storage and license renewal the Commission uses were provided on updating and disposal. The findings that were to have the standard that the impacts are of clarifying data on waste management been codified in the rule were that, for small significance if doses and releases presented in the draft GEIS. Finally, nonradiological waste, mixed waste, do not exceed permissible levels in the various questions were raised about the spent fuel, and transportation, the Commission’s regulations. Given the applicability of Table S–3 (10 CFR 51.51 environmental impacts are of small available information regarding the Uranium fuel cycle environmental significance and that the analysis in the compliance of fuel cycle facilities with data—Table S–3, Table of Uranium Fuel GEIS applies to each plant (Category 1). applicable regulatory requirements, the Cycle Environmental Data) to the For LLW, the finding that would have Commission has concluded that, other management of waste generated as a been codified in the rule was that, if an than for the disposal of spent fuel and result of license renewal. applicant does not have access to a low- high-level waste, these impacts on With regard to spent fuel, several level radioactive waste disposal facility individuals from radioactive gaseous commenters expressed concern that dry through a low-level waste compact or an and liquid releases will remain at or cask storage is not a proven technology unaffiliated State, the applicant must below the Commission’s regulatory and that onsite storage of spent fuel present plans for interim waste storage limits. Accordingly, the Commission from an additional 20 years of plant with an assessment of potential concludes that offsite radiological operation will present environmental ecological habitat destruction caused by impacts of the fuel cycle (individual and safety problems. Therefore, onsite construction activities (Category 2). effects from other than the disposal of 28478 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations spent fuel and high-level waste) are There are no current regulatory limits as more is understood about the small. ALARA efforts will continue to for off-site releases of radionuclides for performance of the proposed Yucca apply to fuel cycle activities. This is a the current candidate repository site. Mountain repository. Such estimates Category 1 issue. However if we assume that limits are would involve very great uncertainty, The radiological impacts of the developed along the lines of the 1995 especially with respect to cumulative uranium fuel cycle on human National Academy of Sciences (NAS) population doses over thousands of populations over time (collective report, and that in accordance with the years. The standard proposed by the effects) have been considered within the Commission’s Waste Confidence NAS is a limit on maximum individual framework of Table S–3. The 100 year Decision, a repository can and likely dose. The relationship of potential new environmental dose commitment to the will be developed at some site which regulatory requirements, based on the U.S. population from the fuel cycle, will comply with such limits, peak NAS report, and cumulative population high level waste and spent fuel disposal doses to virtually all individuals will be impacts has not been determined, excepted, is calculated to be about 100 millirem per year or less. However, although the report articulates the view 14,800 man-rem, or 12 cancer fatalities, while the Commission has reasonable that protection of individuals will for each additional 20 year power confidence that these assumptions will adequately protect the population for a reactor operating term. Much of this, prove correct there is considerable repository at Yucca Mountain. However, especially the contribution of radon uncertainty since the limits are yet to be EPA’s generic repository standards in 40 releases from mines and tailing piles, developed, no repository application CFR part 191 generally provide an consists of tiny doses summed over has been completed or reviewed, and indication of the order of magnitude of large populations. This same dose uncertainty is inherent in the models cumulative risk to population that could calculation can theoretically be used to evaluate possible pathways to result from the licensing of a Yucca extended to include many tiny doses the human environment. The National Mountain repository, assuming the over additional thousands of years as Academy report indicated that 100 ultimate standards will be within the well as doses outside the U.S. The result millirem per year should be considered range of standards now under of such a calculation would be as a starting point for limits for consideration. The standard in 40 CFR part 191 protects the population by thousands of cancer fatalities from the individual doses, but notes that some imposing ‘‘containment requirements’’ fuel cycle, but this result assumes that measure of consensus exists among that limit the cumulative amount of even tiny doses have some statistical national and international bodies that radioactive material released over adverse health effect which will not the limits should be a fraction of the 100 10,000 years. The cumulative release ever be mitigated (for example no cancer millirem per year. The lifetime limits are based on EPA’s population cure in the next thousand years), and individual risk from 100 millirem per impact goal of 1,000 premature cancer that these dose projections over year dose limit is about 3×10¥3. Doses deaths world-wide for a 100,000 metric thousands of years are meaningful. to populations from disposal cannot tonne (MTHM) repository. However these assumptions are now (or possibly ever) be estimated Nevertheless, despite all the questionable. In particular, science without very great uncertainty. uncertainty surrounding the effects of cannot rule out the possibility that there Estimating cumulative doses to the disposal of spent fuel and high-level will be no cancer fatalities from these populations over thousands of years is waste, some judgement as to the tiny doses. For perspective, the doses more problematic. The likelihood and regulatory NEPA implications of these are very small fractions of regulatory consequences of events that could matters should be made and it makes no limits, and even smaller fractions of seriously compromise the integrity of a sense to repeat the same judgement in natural background exposure to the deep geologic repository were evaluated every case. Even taking the uncertainties same populations. No standards exist by the Department of Energy in the into account, the Commission concludes that can be used to reach a conclusion ‘‘Final Environmental Impact Statement: that these impacts are acceptable in that as to the significance of the magnitude Management of Commercially these impacts would not be sufficiently of the collective radiological effects. Generated Radioactive Waste,’’ October large to require the NEPA conclusion, Nevertheless, some judgement as to the 1980. The evaluation estimated the 70- for any plant, that the option of regulatory NEPA implication of this year whole-body dose commitment to extended operation under 10 CFR part issue should be made and it makes no the maximum individual and to the 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, sense to repeat the same judgement in regional population resulting from while the Commission has not assigned every case. The Commission concludes several modes of breaching a reference a single level of significance for the that these impacts are acceptable in that repository in the year of closure, after impacts of spent fuel and high-level these impacts would not be sufficiently 1,000 years, after 100,000 years, and waste disposal, this issue is considered large to require the NEPA conclusion, after 100,000,000 years. The release Category 1. Excepting the collective for any plant, that the option of scenarios covered a wide range of effects previously discussed, for other extended operation under 10 CFR part consequences from the limited Category 1 issues, the impacts will be 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, consequences of humans accidentally considered at the individual renewal while the Commission has not assigned drilling into a waste package in the stage as a means of judging the total a single level of significance for the repository to the catastrophic release of impact of an individual license renewal collective effects of the fuel cycle, this the repository inventory by a direct decision. However, the Commission has issue is considered Category 1. For other meteor strike. Subsequently, the NRC already judged the impacts of high level Category 1 issues, the impacts will be and other Federal agencies have waste disposal as part of this rule. considered at the individual renewal expended considerable effort to develop With respect to the nonradiological stage as a means of judging the total models for the design and for the impact of the uranium fuel cycle, data impact of an individual license renewal licensing of a high level waste concerning land requirements, water decision. However, the Commission has repository, especially for the candidate requirements, the use of fossil fuel, already judged the impact of collective repository at Yucca Mountain. More gaseous effluent, liquid effluent, and effects of the fuel cycle as part of this meaningful estimates of doses to tailings solutions and solids, all listed in rule. population may be possible in the future Table S–3, have been reviewed to Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28479 determine the significance of the issues raised by several scientists (4) Nonradiological impacts, environmental impacts of a power independent of the project after the including land use, fugitive dust, air reactor operating an additional 20 years. license was issued. These issues were quality, erosion, sedimentation, and The nonradiological impacts recently reviewed and largely resolved disturbance of ecosystems. attributable to the relicensing of an by an independent review group. In In addition, under 10 CFR 50.59, individual power reactor are found to be North Carolina, Texas, and Nebraska, licensees are allowed to make changes of small significance. License renewal of the license application review period to their facilities as discussed in the an individual plant is so indirectly has been longer than is required by the final safety analysis report without NRC connected to the operation of fuel cycle LLRWPA, but progress continues to be permission if the evaluation indicates facilities that it is meaningless to made. that a change in the technical address the mitigation of impacts The State’s LLW responsibilities specifications is not required or that an identified above. This is a Category 1 include providing disposal capacity for unreviewed safety question does not issue. mixed LLW. Mixed waste disposal exist. Licensees would have to ensure Table S–3 does not take into account facility developers face the same types that any new LLW activities would not long-term onsite storage of LLW, mixed of challenges as LLW site developers represent an unreviewed safety question waste, and storage of spent fuel plus difficulties with dual regulation for routine operations or for conditions assemblies onsite for longer than 10 and small volumes. However, in NRC’s that might arise from potential years, nor does it take into account view there are no technical reasons why accidents. Both onsite and offsite impacts from mixed waste disposal. The offsite disposal capacity for all types of impacts would have to be considered. If environmental impacts of these aspects mixed waste should not become a LLW or mixed waste activity fails of onsite storage are also addressed in available when needed. NRC and EPA either of the two tests in 10 CFR 50.59, Chapter 6 of the final GEIS and the have developed guidance on the siting a license amendment is required. findings are included in the final rule in of mixed waste disposal facilities as Subject to the two possible review Table B–1 of appendix B to 10 CFR part well as a conceptual design for a mixed requirements just noted, the 51. waste disposal facility. A disposal Commission finds that continued onsite Chapter 6 of the GEIS discusses the facility for certain types of mixed waste storage of both LLW and mixed waste impacts of offsite disposal of LLW and is operated by Envirocare in Utah. States resulting from license renewal will have mixed waste and concludes that impacts have begun discussions with DOE about small environmental impacts and will will be small. The conclusion that accepting commercial mixed waste for require no further review within the impacts will be small is based on the treatment and disposal at DOE facilities. license renewal proceeding. regulations and regulatory programs in The GEIS addresses extended onsite Although these discussions have yet to place (e.g., 10 CFR part 61 for LLW and storage of spent fuel during a renewal result in DOE accepting commercial 40 CFR parts 261, 264, and 268 for period of up to 20 years. The mixed waste at DOE facilities, it appears hazardous waste), experience with Commission has studied the safety and that progress is being made toward existing sites, and the expectation that environmental effects of the temporary DOE’s eventual acceptance of some NRC, EPA, and the States will ensure storage of spent fuel after cessation of portion of commercial mixed waste at that disposal will occur in compliance reactor operation and has published a its facilities. with the applicable regulations. generic determination of no significant The Low-Level Radioactive Waste While the NRC understands that there environmental impact (10 CFR 51.23). Policy Act of 1980 (LLRWPA) made the have been delays and that uncertainties The environmental data on storing spent States responsible for the disposal of exist such as those just discussed, the fuel onsite in a fuel pool for 10 years commercially generated LLW. At Commission concludes that there is before shipping for offsite disposal have present, 9 compacts have been formed, reasonable assurance that sufficient been assessed and reported in NUREG– representing 42 States. The Texas LLW and mixed LLW disposal capacity 0116, ‘‘The Environmental Survey of the Compact (Texas, Maine, and Vermont) will be made available when needed so Reprocessing and Waste Management is pending before the U.S. Congress. that facilities can be decommissioned Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle’’ New LLW disposal facilities in the consistent with NRC decommissioning (October 1976), and published in the host States of California, North Carolina, requirements. This conclusion, coupled Commission’s regulations (10 CFR and Texas are forecast to be operational with the expected small impacts from 51.51). Environmental assessments (EA) between 1997 and 1998. Facilities in the both storage and disposal justify for expanding the fuel pool storage host States of Connecticut, Illinois, classification of LLW and mixed waste capacity have been conducted for Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, disposal as Category 1 issues. numerous plants. In each case, a finding Pennsylvania, and New York are The GEIS addresses the matter of of no significant environmental impact scheduled for operation between 1999 extended onsite storage of both LLW was reached. and 2002. Envirocare, in Utah, takes and mixed waste from refurbishment Radioactive exposures, waste limited types of waste from certain and operations for a renewal period of generation, and releases were evaluated generators. up to 20 years. Summary data are and found to be small. The only There are uncertainties in the provided and radiological and nonradiological effluent from waste licensing process and in the length of nonradiological environmental impacts storage is additional heat from the plant time needed to resolve technical issues, are addressed. The analysis considers: that was found to have a negligible but in NRC’s view there are no (1) The volumes of LLW and mixed effect on the environment. Accidents unsolvable technical issues that will waste that may be generated from were evaluated and were found to have inevitably preclude successful license renewal; insignificant effects on the environment. development of new sites or other off- (2) Specific requirements under the Dry cask storage at an independent site disposal capacity for LLW by the existing regulatory framework; spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) is time they will be needed. For example, (3) The effectiveness of the another technology used to store under in California, the proposed Ward Valley regulations in maintaining low average a general license. The environmental LLW disposal facility was unexpectedly doses to members of the public and to impacts of allowing onsite dry cask delayed by the need to resolve technical workers; and storage under a general license were 28480 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations assessed in an EA and found to be impacts of transportation to the indicates that the source terms used in insignificant. Further, the Commission proposed repository at Yucca Mountain the past under-predict environmental has conducted EAs for seven specific becomes available. consequences. The NRC has concluded licensed ISFSIs and has reached a that analysis of the new source term 9. Accidents finding of no significant environmental information developed over the past 10 impact for each site. Each EA addressed Concern. Several commenters years indicates that the expected the impacts of construction, use, and expressed concerns regarding the frequency and amounts of radioactive decommissioning. Potential impacts appropriateness of the severe accident release under severe accident conditions that were assessed include radiological determination in the GEIS and with the are less than that predicted using the impacts, land use, terrestrial resources, treatment of severe accident mitigation generic source terms. A summary of the water use, aquatic resources, noise, air design alternatives (SAMDAs) for evolution of this research is provided in quality, socioeconomics, radiological license renewal. A group of commenters NUREG–1150, ‘‘Severe Accident Risks: impacts during construction and routine identified areas of concern that they An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear operation, and radiological impacts of believe justify severe accidents being Power Plants’’ (December 1990), and its off-normal events and accidents. Trends classified as a Category 3 issue. The supporting documentation. Thus, the in onsite spent fuel storage capacity and areas included seismic risks to nuclear analyses performed for the GEIS the volume of spent fuel that will be power plants and site-specific represent adequate, plant-specific generated during an additional 20 years evacuation risks. Several commenters estimates of the impacts from severe of operation are considered in the GEIS. questioned whether the analyses of the accidents that would generally over- Spent fuel storage capacity requirements environmental impacts of accidents predict, rather than under-predict, can be adequately met by ISFSIs were adequate to make a Category 1 environmental consequences. Therefore, without significant environmental determination for the issue of severe the GEIS analysis of the impacts of impacts. The environmental impacts of accidents. The contention is that a severe accidents for license renewal is onsite storage of spent fuel at all plants bounding analysis would be established retained and is considered applicable to have been adequately assessed in the only if plant-specific analyses were all plants. GEIS for the purposes of an performed for every plant, which was Based on an evaluation of the environmental review and agency not the case. Instead, the GEIS analysis comments, the Commission has decision on renewal of an operating made use of a single generic source term reconsidered its previous conclusion in for each of the two plant types. license; thus, no further review within the draft GEIS concerning site-specific Response. The Commission believes the license renewal proceeding is consideration of severe accident that its analysis of the impacts of severe required. This provision is relative to mitigation. The Commission has accidents is appropriate. The GEIS determined that a site-specific the license renewal decision and does provides an analysis of the not alter existing Commission licensing consideration of alternatives to mitigate consequences of severe accidents for severe accidents will be required at the requirements specific to on-site storage each site in the country. The analysis of spent fuel. time of license renewal unless a adopts standard assumptions about each previous consideration of such The environmental impacts from the site for parameters such as evacuation alternatives regarding plant operation transportation of fuel and waste speeds and distances traveled, and uses has been included in a final attributable to license renewal are found site-specific estimates for parameters environmental impact statement or a to be small when they are within the such as population distribution and related supplement. Because the third range of impacts of parameters meteorological conditions. These latter criterion required to make a Category 1 identified in Table S–4. The estimated two factors were used to evaluate the designation for an issue requires a radiological effects are within regulatory exposure indices for these analyses. The generic consideration of mitigation, the standards. The nonradiological impacts methods used result in predictions of issue of severe accidents must be are those from periodic shipments of risk that are adequate to illustrate the reclassified as a Category 2 issue that fuel and waste by individual trucks or general magnitude and types of risks requires a consideration of severe rail cars and thus would result in that may occur from reactor accidents. accident mitigation alternatives, infrequent and localized minor Regarding site-evacuation risk, the provided this consideration has not contributions to traffic density. radiological risk to persons as they already been completed. The Programs designed to further reduce evacuate is taken into account within Commission’s reconsideration of the risk, which are already in place, provide the individual plant risk assessments issue of severe accident mitigation for for adequate mitigation. Recent, ongoing that form the basis for the GEIS. In license renewal is based on the efforts by the Department of Energy to addition, 10 CFR Part 50 requires that Commission’s NEPA regulations that study the impacts of waste licensees maintain up-to-date require a consideration of mitigation transportation in the context of the emergency plans. This requirement will alternatives in its environmental impact multi-purpose canister (see, 60 FR apply in the license renewal term as statements (EISs) and supplements to 45147, August 30, 1995) suggest that well as in the current licensing term. EISs, as well as a previous court there may be unresolved issues As was done in the GEIS analysis, the decision that required a review of severe regarding the magnitude of cumulative use of generic source terms (one set for mitigation alternatives (referred to as impacts from the use of a single rail line PWRs and another for BWRs) is SAMDAs) at the operating license stage. or truck route in the vicinity of the consistent with the past practice that See, Limerick Ecology Action v. NRC, repository to carry all spent fuel from all has been used and accepted by the NRC 869 F.2d 719 (3d Cir. 1989). plants. Accordingly, NRC declines to for individual plant Final Although the Commission has reach a Category 1 conclusion on this Environmental Impact Statements considered containment improvements issue at this time. Table S–4 should (FEISs). The purpose of the source term for all plants pursuant to its continue to be the basis for case-by-case discussion in the GEIS is to describe Containment Performance Improvement evaluation of transportation impacts of whether or not new information on (CPI) program, which identified fuel and waste until such time as a source terms developed after the potential containment improvements for detailed analysis of the environmental completion of the most recent FEISs site-specific consideration by licensees, Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28481 and the Commission has additional five IPEEE submittals will be received, separate rulemaking, reclassifying ongoing regulatory programs whereby covering all operating plants in the severe accidents as a Category 1 issue. licensees search for individual plant United States. These examinations The Commission does not intend to vulnerabilities to severe accidents and consider potential improvements to prescribe by rule the scope of an consider cost-beneficial improvements, reduce the frequency or consequences of acceptable consideration of severe these programs have not yet been severe accidents on a plant-specific accident mitigation alternatives for completed. Therefore, a conclusion that basis and essentially constitute a broad license renewal nor does it intend to severe accident mitigation has been search for severe accident mitigation mandate consideration of alternatives generically considered for license alternatives. The NRC staff is identical to those evaluated previously. renewal is premature. conducting a process review of each In general, the Commission expects that The Commission believes it unlikely plant-specific IPE submittal and IPEEE significant efficiency can be gained by that any site-specific consideration of submittal. To date, all IPE submittals using site-specific IPE and IPEEE results severe accident mitigation alternatives have received a preliminary review by in the consideration of severe accident for license renewal will identify major the NRC with 46 out of 78 completed; mitigation alternatives. The IPEs and plant design changes or modifications for the IPEEE submittals, 24 of the 75 IPEEEs are essentially site-specific PRAs that will prove to be cost-beneficial for are under review. These IPEs have that identify probabilities of core reducing severe accident frequency or resulted in a number of plant procedural damage (Level 1 PRA) and include consequences. This Commission or programmatic improvements and assessments of containment expectation regarding severe accident some plant modifications that will performance under severe accident mitigation improvements is based on further reduce the risk of severe conditions that identify probabilities of the analyses performed to date that are accidents. fission product releases (Level 2 ). As discussed below. In conclusion, the GEIS analysis of discussed in Generic Letter 88–20, The Commission’s CPI program severe accident consequences and risk ‘‘Individual Plant Examination for examined each of the five U.S. is adequate, and additional plant- Severe Accident Vulnerabilities’’ containment types to determine specific analysis of these impacts is not (November 23, 1988), one of the potential failure modes, potential plant required. However, because the ongoing important goals of the IPE and IPEEE improvements, and the cost- regulatory program related to severe was to reduce the overall probabilities effectivenesses of such improvements. accident mitigation (i.e., IPE and IPEEE) of core damage and fission product As a result of this program, only a few releases as necessary by modifying has not been completed for all plants containment improvements were found hardware and procedures to help and consideration of severe accident to be potentially beneficial and were prevent or mitigate severe accidents. mitigation alternatives has not been either identified for further NRC Although Level 3 PRAs have been research or for individual licensee included in an EIS or supplemental EIS used in SAMDA analyses to generate evaluation. related to plant operations for all plants, site-specific offsite dose estimates so In response to the Limerick decision, a site-specific consideration of severe that the cost-benefit of mitigation an NRC staff consideration of SAMDAs accident mitigation alternatives is alternatives could be determined, the was specifically included in the Final required at license renewal for those Commission does not believe that site- Environmental Impact Statement for the plants for which this consideration has specific Level 3 PRAs are required to Limerick 1 and 2 and Comanche Peak 1 not been performed. The Commission determine whether an alternative under and 2 operating license reviews, and in expects that if these reviews identify consideration will provide sufficient the Watts Bar Supplemental Final any changes as being cost beneficial, benefit to justify its cost. Licensees can Environmental Statement for an such changes generally would be use other quantitative approaches for operating license. The alternatives procedural and programmatic fixes, assigning site-specific risk significance evaluated in these analyses included the with any hardware changes being only to IPE results and judging whether a items previously evaluated as part of the minor in nature and few in number. mitigation alternative provides a CPI Program, as well as improvements NRC staff considerations of severe sufficient reduction in core damage identified through other risk studies and accident mitigation alternatives have frequency (CDF) or release frequency to analyses. No physical plant already been completed and included in warrant implementation. For example, a modifications were found to be cost- an EIS or supplemental EIS for licensee could use information provided beneficial in any of these severe Limerick, Comanche Peak, and Watts in the GEIS analysis (exposure indices, accident mitigation considerations. Bar. Therefore, severe accident wind frequencies, and demographics) to Only plant procedural changes were mitigation alternatives need not be translate the dominant contributors to identified as being cost-beneficial. reconsidered for these plants for license CDF and the large release frequencies Furthermore, the Limerick analysis was renewal. from the IPE/IPEEE results into dose for a high-population site. Because risk Based on the fact that a generic estimates so that a cost-benefit is generally proportional to the consideration of mitigation is not determination can be performed. In population around a plant, this analysis performed in the GEIS, a Category 1 some instances, a consideration of the suggests that other sites are unlikely to designation for severe accidents cannot magnitude of reduction in the site- identify significant plant modifications be made. Therefore, the Commission has specific CDF and release frequencies that are cost-beneficial. reclassified severe accidents as a alone (i.e., no conversion to a dose Additionally, each licensee is Category 2 issue, requiring only that estimate) may be sufficient to conclude performing an individual plant alternatives to mitigate severe accidents that no significant reduction in off-site examination (IPE) to look for plant be considered for those plants that have risk will be provided and, therefore, vulnerabilities to internally initiated not included such a consideration in a implementation of a mitigation events and a separate IPE for externally previous EIS or supplemental EIS. The alternative is not warranted. The initiated events (IPEEE). The licensees Commission notes that upon completion Commission will review each severe were requested to report their results to of its IPE/IPEEE program, it may review accident mitigation consideration the Commission. Seventy-eight IPE the issue of severe accident mitigation provided by a license renewal applicant submittals were received and seventy- for license renewal and consider, by on its merits and determine whether it 28482 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations constitutes a reasonable consideration of Guide 1.86, ‘‘Termination of Operating energy requirements without making severe accident mitigation alternatives. Licenses for Nuclear Reactors’’ (which appropriate distinctions between energy provides guidance for surface and peak capacity requirements, plant 10. Decommissioning contamination), dose rate limits from availability, and capacity factors. Concern. Several commenters gamma-emitting radionuclides included Response. The NRC has determined requested further clarification of the in plant technical specifications, and that a detailed consideration of the need NRC’s position regarding requirements for keeping residual for generating capacity is inappropriate decommissioning requirements, contamination as low as reasonably in the context of consideration of the especially whether the total impacts achievable (ALARA) as included in 10 environmental impacts of license address returning the site to green field CFR part 20. These criteria were used in renewal. Thus, the NRC will limit its conditions. developing NUREG–0586, the final GEIS NEPA review of license renewal Response. The decommissioning on decommissioning of nuclear applications to the consideration of the chapter of the GEIS analyzes the impact facilities, which was published in environmental impacts of license that an additional 20 years of plant August of 1988. One conclusion from renewal compared with those of other operation would have on ultimate plant the analysis conducted for NUREG– available generating sources. Hence, the decommissioning; it neither serves as 0586 was that waste volumes from concerns regarding demand projections the generic analysis of the decommissioning of reactors are not used in the draft GEIS are no longer an environmental impacts associated with highly sensitive to the radiological issue and they have been removed from decommissioning nor establishes criteria. A proposed rule dated August the GEIS. decommissioning requirements. An 22, 1994, would codify radiological 12. Alternatives to License Renewal analysis of the expected impacts from criteria for unrestricted release of plant decommissioning was previously reactors and other nuclear facilities and Concern. In addition to the procedural provided in NUREG–0586, ‘‘Final for termination of a facility license concern discussed earlier about the Generic Environmental Impact following decommissioning. NUREG– treatment of alternative energy sources Statement on Decommissioning of 1496, the draft GEIS for the proposed as a Category 1 issue, several Nuclear Facilities’’ (August 1988). The rule on radiological criteria, included commenters expressed concerns about analysis in the GEIS for license renewal analyses of a range of radiological the comparison and analysis of examines the physical requirements and release criteria and confirmed the earlier alternative energy sources, as well as the attendant effects of decommissioning conclusions that waste volumes from economic analysis approach used in the after a 20-year license renewal decommissioning of reactors are not draft GEIS. Consistent with their compared with decommissioning at the sensitive to the residual radiological arguments against the Category 1 end of 40 years of operation and finds criteria within the range likely to be designation of alternatives, the little difference in effects. selected. This range included residual commenters questioned the approach With respect to returning a site to dose levels comparable to the adopted in the GEIS of comparing only green field condition, the Commission radiological criteria currently being single alternative energy sources to defines decommissioning as the safe used for reactor decommissioning. license renewal. They believe that the removal of a nuclear facility from Based on the insensitivity of the waste NRC’s failure to consider a mix of service, the reduction of residual volume from reactor decommissioning alternatives ignores the potential for contamination to a level that permits to the radiological criteria, the other alternative sources of power that release of the property for unrestricted Commission continues to believe, as are available to different regions of the use, and termination of the license. concluded in the decommissioning nation, such as demand-side Therefore, the question of restoring the section of the GEIS, that the management, cogeneration, purchased land to a green field condition, which contribution to environmental impacts power from Canada, biomass, natural would require additional demolition of decommissioning from license gas, solar energy, and wind power. They and site restoration beyond addressing renewal are small. The Commission also indicated that this approach residual contamination and radiological further concludes that these impacts are neglects a utility’s ability to serve its effects, is outside the current scope of not expected to change significantly as customers with a portfolio of supply the decommissioning requirements. a result of the ongoing rulemaking. that is based on load characteristics, Moreover, consistent with the Therefore, the determinations in the cost, geography, and other Commission’s conclusion that license GEIS remain appropriate. considerations, and fails to consider the renewal is not expected to affect future collective impact of the alternatives. decommissioning, any requirement 11. Need for Generating Capacity Furthermore, the possible technological relative to returning a site to a green Concern. In addition to the major advances in renewable energy sources field and the attendant effects of such a procedural concern discussed earlier over the next 40 years are not addressed. requirement would also not be affected about the treatment of need for One commenter argued that by an additional 20 years of operation. generating capacity, several commenters designating the issue of alternative Therefore, the issue of returning a site raised concerns about the power energy sources as Category 1 allows a to pre-construction conditions is beyond demand projections used in the GEIS. license renewal applicant not to the scope of license renewal review. Some commenters noted that any consider the additional requirement of Concern. Several commenters determination of need quickly becomes economic threshold analysis. Relative to expressed concern that, because a dated and, therefore, the demand for the economic analysis of the alternatives residual radioactivity rule is still not in and the source of electrical power at the to license renewal, another commenter place, the LLW estimates should be time of license renewal cannot be questioned the proposed requirement reexamined. accurately predicted at this time. for the license renewal applicant to Response. The NRC does have criteria Moreover, they believe that the NRC’s demonstrate that the ‘‘replacement of in place for the release of reactor analysis is not definitive enough to equivalent generating capacity by a coal- facilities to unrestricted access remain unchallenged for 40 years. fired plant has no demonstrated cost following decommissioning. These Another commenter criticized the advantage over the individual nuclear include the guidance in Regulatory analysis because it focused only on power plant license renewal.’’ Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28483

According to the commenter, this second scenario retains the original low-income populations * * *.’’ The requirement would force the applicant objective of establishing an upper bound CEQ was assigned to provide this to perform an economic analysis of an of the impacts likely to be generated at guidance to enable agencies to better alternative to license renewal. The any particular plant. The typical comply with E.O. 12898. Until the CEQ commenter further argued that NEPA scenario is useful for estimating impacts guidance is received, the Commission does not require an economic at plants that have been well maintained intends to consider environmental consideration. and have already undertaken most justice in its evaluations of individual Response. In response to these major refurbishment activities necessary license renewal applications. Greater concerns, the final rule no longer for operation beyond the current emphasis will be placed on discussing requires a cost comparison of alternative licensing term. The conservative impacts on minority and low-income energy sources relative to license scenario estimates continue to be useful populations when preparing NEPA renewal. Furthermore, the alternative for estimating the maximum impacts documents such as EISs, supplemental energy sources discussed in the final likely to result from license renewal. EISs, and, where appropriate, EAs. GEIS include energy conservation and The revised approach of providing Commission requirements regarding energy imports as well as the other two separate license renewal scenarios environmental justice reviews will be sources discussed by the commenters. also alleviates the concern about the use reevaluated and may be revised after An analysis of the environmental of a bounding scenario for license receipt of the CEQ guidance. impacts of alternative energy sources is renewal activities. The NRC included in the GEIS but is not codified acknowledges that some applicants for IV. Discussion of Regulatory in 10 CFR part 51. license renewal may not be required to Requirements The NRC believes that its perform certain major refurbishment or A. General Requirements consideration of alternatives in the GEIS replacement activities and, therefore, is representative of the technologies may have fewer or shorter outages. In this final rule, the regulatory available and the associated However, the two scenarios described in requirements for performing a NEPA environmental impacts. With regard to the GEIS are neither unrealistic nor review for a license renewal application consideration of a mix of alternative overconservative in representing the are similar to the NEPA review sources, the Commission recognizes that range of activities that could be requirements for other major plant combinations of various alternatives expected for license renewal and the licensing actions. Consistent with the may be used to replace power possible schedule for performing these current NEPA practice for major plant generation from license renewal. activities. licensing actions, this amendment to 10 CFR Part 51 requires the applicant to 13. License Renewal Scenario 14. Environmental Justice submit an environmental report that Concern. Several commenters raised On February 11, 1994, the President analyzes the environmental impacts concerns related to the license renewal issued Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, associated with the proposed action, scenario evaluation methodology as ‘‘Federal Actions To Address considers alternatives to the proposed implemented in the GEIS. The Environmental Justice in Minority action, and evaluates any alternatives fundamental issues were the degree of Populations and Low-Income for reducing adverse environmental conservatism built into the scenario and Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, effects. Additionally, the amendment the appropriateness of an upper bound 1994). This order requires each Federal requires the NRC staff to prepare a type approach in characterizing the agency to make achieving supplemental environmental impact refurbishment activities (and associated environmental justice part of its mission statement for the proposed action, issue costs) in light of NEPA requirements to by identifying and addressing, as the statement in draft for public determine reasonable estimates of the appropriate, disproportionately high comment, and issue a final statement environmental impacts of Federal and adverse human health or after considering public comments on actions. environmental effects of its programs, the draft. Regarding the concerns that the policies, and activities on minority and The amendment deviates from NRC’s refurbishment schedules and scenarios low income populations. The current NEPA review practice in some developed for the GEIS were too Commission will endeavor to carry out areas. First, the amendment codifies conservative, several commenters the measures set forth in the executive certain environmental impacts indicated that many of the activities order by integrating environmental associated with license renewal that slated for completion during the justice into NRC’s compliance with the were analyzed in NUREG–1437, extended refurbishment before license National Environmental Policy of 1969 ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact renewal would actually be completed by (NEPA), as amended. E.O. 12898 was Statement for License Renewal at many facilities during the course of the issued after publication of the proposed Nuclear Plants’’ (xxxx 1996). current licensing term. The effect of rule and the receipt of comments on the Accordingly, absent new and significant having only one major outage instead of proposed rule. As a result, no comments information, the analyses for certain leveling work over three or four outages were received regarding environmental impacts codified by this rulemaking could lead to an over-estimate of the justice reviews for license renewal. need only be incorporated by reference refurbishment activities and costs that Therefore, a brief discussion of this in an applicant’s environmental report any particular plant would expect to issue relative to license renewal is for license renewal and in the see. warranted. Commission’s (including NRC staff, Response. In response to this concern, As called for in Section 1–102 of E.O. adjudicatory officers, and the the NRC has revised the GEIS to include 12898, the EPA established a Federal Commission itself) draft and final SEIS two license renewal program scenarios. interagency working group to, among and other environmental documents The first scenario refers to a ‘‘typical’’ other things, ‘‘* * * provide guidance developed for the proceeding. Secondly, license renewal program and is to Federal agencies or criteria for the amendment reflects the intended to be representative of the type identifying disproportionately high and Commission’s decision to limit its of programs that many plants seeking adverse human health or environmental NEPA review for license renewal to a license renewal might implement. The effects on minority populations and consideration of the environmental 28484 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations effects of the proposed action and subject areas of the analysis that must be upon which the Commission will base alternatives to the proposed action. addressed for the Category 2 issues. its final decision. Finally, the amendment contains the Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.45(c), 10 CFR 3. Consideration of Mitigation decision standard that the Commission 51.53(c)(2) requires the applicant to Alternatives will use in determining the acceptability consider possible actions to mitigate the of the environmental impacts of adverse impacts associated with the Consistent with the NRC’s current individual license renewals. proposed action. This consideration is NEPA practice, an applicant must The Commission and the applicant limited to designated Category 2 include a consideration of alternatives will consider severe accident mitigation matters. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.45(d), to mitigate adverse environmental alternatives to reduce or mitigate the environmental report must include impacts in its environmental report. environmental impacts for any plant for a discussion of the status of compliance However, for license renewal, the which severe accident mitigation with applicable Federal, State, and local Commission has generically considered alternatives have not been previously environmental standards. Also, 10 CFR mitigation for environmental issues considered in an environmental impact 51.53(c)(2) specifically excludes from associated with renewal and has statement or related supplement or in an consideration in the environmental concluded that no additional site- environmental assessment. The report the issues of need for power, the specific consideration of mitigation is Commission has concluded that, for economic costs and benefits of the necessary for many issues. The license renewal, the issues of need for proposed action, economic costs and Commission’s consideration of power and utility economics should be benefits of alternatives to the proposed mitigation for each issue included reserved for State and utility officials to action, or other issues not related to identification of current activities that adequately mitigate impacts and decide. Accordingly, the NRC will not environmental effects of the proposed evaluation of other mitigation conduct an analysis of these issues in action and associated alternatives. In techniques that might or might not be the context of license renewal or addition, the requirements in 10 CFR warranted, depending on such factors as perform traditional cost-benefit 51.45 are consistent with the exclusion the size of the impact and the cost of the balancing in license renewal NEPA of economic issues in 10 CFR technique. The Commission has reviews. Finally, in a departure from the 51.53(c)(2). approach presented in the proposed considered mitigation for all impacts rule, this final rule does not codify any 2. Consideration of Alternatives designated as Category 1 in Table B–1. Therefore, a license renewal applicant conclusions regarding the subject of Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.45(c), 10 CFR need not address mitigation for issues so alternatives. Consideration of and 51.53(c)(2) requires the applicant to designated. decisions regarding alternatives will consider the environmental impacts of occur at the site-specific stage. The alternatives to license renewal in the C. Supplemental Environmental Impact discussion below addresses the specific environmental report. The treatment of Statement regulatory requirements of this alternatives in the environmental report This amendment also requires that the amendment and any conforming should be limited to the environmental Commission prepare a supplemental changes to 10 CFR part 51 to implement impacts of such alternatives. environmental impact statement (SEIS), the Commission’s decision to eliminate The amended regulations do not consistent with 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2). This cost-benefit balancing from license require a discussion of the economic statement will serve as the renewal NEPA reviews. costs and benefits of these alternatives Commission’s independent analysis of B. The Environmental Report in the environmental report for the the environmental impacts of license operating license renewal stage except renewal as well as a comparison of these 1. Environmental Impacts of License as necessary to determine whether an impacts to the environmental impacts of Renewal alternative should be included in the alternatives. This document will also Through this final rule, the NRC has range of alternatives considered or present the preliminary amended 10 CFR 51.53 to require an whether certain mitigative actions are recommendation by the NRC staff applicant for license renewal to submit appropriate. The analysis should regarding the proposed action. an environmental report with its demonstrate consideration of a Consistent with the revisions to 10 CFR application. This environmental report reasonable set of alternatives to license 51.45 and 51.53 discussed above in must contain an analysis of the renewal. In preparing the alternatives regard to the applicant’s environmental environmental impacts of renewing a analysis, the applicant may consider report, this rulemaking revises portions license, the environmental impacts of information regarding alternatives in of 10 CFR 51.71 and 51.95 to reflect the alternatives, and mitigation alternatives. NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental Commission’s approach to addressing In preparing the analysis of Impact Statement for License Renewal the environmental impacts of license environmental impacts contained in the of Nuclear Plants’’ (xxxx 1996). renewal. environmental report, the applicant The Commission has developed a new The issues of need for power, the should refer to the data provided in decision standard to be applied in economic costs and benefits of the appendix B to 10 CFR part 51, which environmental impact statements for proposed action, and economic costs has been added to NRC’s regulations as license renewal as discussed in Section and benefits of alternatives to the part of this rulemaking. The applicant is IV.C.2. The amended regulations for proposed action are specifically not required to provide an analysis in license renewal do not require excluded from consideration in the the environmental report of those issues applicants to apply this decision supplemental environmental impact identified as Category 1 issues in Table standard to the information generated in statement for license renewal by 10 CFR B–1 in Appendix B. For those issues their environmental report (although the 51.95(c), except as these costs and identified as Category 2 in Table B–1, applicant is not prohibited from doing benefits are either essential for a the applicant must provide a specified so if it desires). However, the NRC staff determination regarding the inclusion of additional analysis beyond that will use the information contained in an alternative in the range of contained in Table B–1. In this final the environmental report in preparing alternatives considered or relevant to rule, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) specifies the the environmental impact statement mitigation. The supplemental Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28485 environmental impact statement does process. The results of this integration license renewal for energy planning not need to discuss issues other than process will be utilized to arrive at a decisionmakers would be unreasonable. environmental effects of the proposed conclusion regarding the sum of the D. NEPA Review for Activities Outside action and associated alternatives. This environmental impacts associated with NRC License Renewal Approval Scope rule amends the requirements in 10 CFR license renewal. These impacts will 51.71 (d) and (e) so that they are then be compared, quantitatively or The Commission wishes to clarify that consistent with the exclusion of qualitatively as appropriate, with the any activity that requires NRC approval economic issues in 10 CFR 51.95(c). environmental impacts of the and is not specifically required for Additionally, 10 CFR 51.95 has been considered alternatives. The analysis of NRC’s action regarding management of amended to allow information from alternatives in the SEIS will be limited the effects of aging on certain passive previous NRC site-specific to the environmental impacts of these long-lived structures and components in environmental reviews, as well as NRC alternatives and will be prepared in the period of extended operation must final generic environmental impact accordance with 10 CFR 51.71 and be subject to a separate NEPA review. statements, to be referenced in subpart A of appendix A to 10 CFR part The actions subject to NRC approval for supplemental environmental impact 51. The analysis of impacts of license renewal are limited to continued statements. alternatives provided in the GEIS may operation consistent with the plant 1. Public Scoping and Public Comments be referenced in the SEIS as appropriate. design and operating conditions for the on the SEIS The alternatives discussed in the GEIS current operating license and to the include a reasonable range of different performance of specific activities and Consistent with NRC’s current NEPA methods for power generation. The programs necessary to manage the practice, the Commission will hold a analysis in the draft SEIS will consider effects of aging on the passive, long- public meeting in order to inform the mitigation actions for designated lived structures and components local public of the proposed action and Category 2 matters and will consider the identified in accordance with 10 CFR receive comments. In addition, the SEIS status of compliance with Federal, State, part 54. Accordingly, the GEIS does not will be issued in draft for public and local environmental requirements serve as the NEPA review for other comment in accordance with 10 CFR as required by 10 CFR 51.71(d). activities or programs outside the scope 51.91 and 51.93. In both the public Consistent with 10 CFR 51.71(e), the of NRC’s part 54 license renewal review. scoping process and the public draft supplemental environmental The separate NEPA review must be comment process, the Commission will impact statement must contain a prepared regardless of whether the accept comments on all previously preliminary recommendation regarding action is necessary as a consequence of analyzed issues and information license renewal based on consideration receiving a renewed license, even if the codified in Table B–1 of appendix B to of the information on the environmental activity were specifically addressed in 10 CFR part 51 and will determine impacts of license renewal and of the GEIS. For example, the whether these comments provide any alternatives contained in the SEIS. In environmental impacts of spent fuel information that is new and significant order to reach its recommendation, the pool expansion are addressed in the compared with that previously NRC staff must determine whether the GEIS in the context of the considered in the GEIS. If the comments adverse environmental impacts of environmental consequences of are determined to provide new and license renewal are so great that approving a renewed operating license, significant information bearing on the rather than in the context of a specific previous analysis in the GEIS, these preserving the option of license renewal application to expand spent fuel pool comments will be considered and for energy planning decisionmakers capacity, which would require a appropriately factored into the would be unreasonable. This decision Commission’s analysis in the SEIS. standard is contained in 10 CFR separate NEPA review. Public comments on the site-specific 51.95(c)(4). These separate NEPA reviews may reference and otherwise use applicable additional information provided by the 3. Final Supplemental Environmental environmental information contained in applicant regarding Category 2 issues Impact Statement will be considered in the SEIS. the GEIS. For example, an EA prepared The Commission will issue a final for a separate spent fuel pool expansion 2. Commission’s Analysis and supplemental environmental impact request may use the information in the Preliminary Recommendation statement for a license renewal GEIS to support a finding of no The Commission’s draft SEIS will application in accordance with 10 CFR significant impact. include its analysis of the 51.91 and 51.93 after considering the V. Availability of Documents environmental impacts of the proposed public comments related to new issues license renewal action and the identified from the scoping and public The principal documents supporting environmental impacts of the comment process, Category 2 issues, this supplementary information are as alternatives to the proposed action. and any new and significant follows: With the exception of offsite information regarding previously (1) NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic radiological impacts for collective analyzed and codified Category 1 issues. Environmental Impact Statement for effects and the disposal of spent fuel Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.102 and 51.103, License Renewal of Nuclear Plants’’ and high level waste, the Commission the Commission will provide a record of (May 1996). will integrate the codified its decision regarding the environmental (2) NUREG–1529, ‘‘Public Comments environmental impacts of license impacts of the proposed action. In on the Proposed 10 CFR part 51 Rule for renewal as provided in Table B–1 of making a final decision, the Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant appendix B to 10 CFR part 51 Commission must determine whether Operating Licenses and Supporting (supplemented by the underlying the adverse environmental impacts of Documents; Review of Concerns and analyses in the GEIS), the appropriate license renewal (when compared with NRC Staff Response’’ (May 1996). site-specific analyses of Category 2 the environmental impacts of other (3) NUREG–1440, ‘‘Regulatory issues, and any new issues identified energy generating alternatives) are so Analysis of Amendments to Regulations during the scoping and public comment great that preserving the option of Concerning the Environmental Review 28486 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Nuclear Regulatory Commission, XII. Backfit Analysis Operating Licenses’’ (May 1996). Washington, DC 20555–0001, or by The NRC has determined that these Copies of all documents cited in the Internet electronic mail at amendments do not involve any supplementary information are available [email protected]; and to the Desk Officer, provisions which would impose backfits for inspection and for copying for a fee Office of Information and Regulatory as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1); in the NRC Public Document Room, Affairs, NEOB–10202 (3150–0021), therefore, a backfit analysis need not be 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Office of Management and Budget, prepared. Washington, DC. In addition, copies of Washington, DC 20503. NRC final documents cited here may be List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 51 Public Protection Notification purchased from the Superintendent of Administrative practice and Documents, U.S. Government Printing The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, procedure, Environmental impact Office, PO Box 37082, Washington, DC and a person is not required to respond statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear 20013–7082. Copies are also available to, a collection of information unless it power plants and reactors, Reporting for purchase from the National displays a currently valid OMB control and recordkeeping requirements. Technical Information Service, 5285 number. For the reasons set out in the Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. IX. Regulatory Analysis preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; VI. Submittal of Comments in an The Commission has prepared a Electronic Format the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, regulatory analysis for this final rule. as amended; the National Commenters are encouraged to The analysis examines the costs and Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as submit, in addition to the original paper benefits of the alternatives considered amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the copy, a copy of their letter in an by the Commission. The two NRC is adopting the following electronic format on IBM PC DOS- alternatives considered were: amendments to 10 CFR part 51. compatible 3.5- or 5.25-inch, double- (A) Retaining the existing 10 CFR part sided, double-density (DS/DD) diskettes. 51 review process for license renewal, PART 51ÐENVIRONMENTAL Data files should be provided in which requires that all reviews be on a PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR Wordperfect 5.1 or later version of plant-specific basis; and DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED Wordperfect. ASCII code is also (B) Amending 10 CFR part 51 to allow REGULATORY FUNCTIONS acceptable or, if formatted text is a portion of the environmental review to required, data files should be provided be conducted on a generic basis. 1. The authority citation for part 51 in IBM Revisable-Form Text Document The conclusions of the regulatory continues to read as follows: Content Architecture (RFT/DCA) format. analysis show substantial cost savings of Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as alternative (B) over alternative (A). The amended, Sec. 1701, 106 Stat. 2951, 2952, VII. Finding of No Significant analysis, NUREG–1440, is available for 2953 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2297f); secs. 201, as Environmental Impact: Availability inspection in the NRC Public Document amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, The NRC has determined that this Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842). final rule is the type of action described Washington, DC. Copies of the analysis Subpart A also issued under National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, secs. 102, as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR are available as described in Section V. 104, 105, 83 Stat. 853–854, as amended (42 51.22(c)(3). Therefore, neither an X. Regulatory Flexibility Act U.S.C. 4332, 4334, 4335); and Pub. L. 95–604, environmental impact statement nor an Certification Title II, 92 Stat. 3033–3041. Sections 51.20, environmental assessment has been 51.30, 51.60, 51.61, 51.80, and 51.97 also prepared for this regulation. This action As required by the Regulatory issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97–425, is procedural in nature and pertains Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), 96 Stat. 2232, 2241, and sec. 148, Pub. L. only to the type of environmental the Commission certifies that this final 100–203, 101 Stat. 1330–223 (42 U.S.C. information to be reviewed. rule will not have a significant impact 10155, 10161, 10168). Section 51.22 also on a substantial number of small issued under sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688, as amended by 92 Stat. 3036–3038 (42 U.S.C. VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act entities. The final rule states the Statement 2021) and under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of application procedures and 1982, sec. 121, 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C. This final rule amends information environmental information to be 10141). Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 collection requirements that are subject submitted by nuclear power plant also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 licensees to facilitate NRC’s obligations of 1982, sec. 114(f), 96 Stat. 2216, as (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These under NEPA. Nuclear power plant amended (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)). requirements were approved by the licensees do not fall within the 2. Section 51.45 is amended by Office of Management and Budget, definition of small businesses as defined revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: approval number 3150–0021. in Section 3 of the Small Business Act, The public reporting burden for this 15 U.S.C. 632, or the Commission’s Size § 51.45 Environmental report. collection of information is estimated to Standards, April 11, 1995 (60 FR * * * * * average 4,200 hours per response, 18344). (c) Analysis. The environmental including the time for reviewing report shall include an analysis that instructions, searching existing data XI. Small Business Regulatory considers and balances the sources, gathering and maintaining the Enforcement Fairness Act environmental effects of the proposed data needed, and completing and In accordance with the Small action, the environmental impacts of reviewing the collection of information. Business Regulatory Enforcement alternatives to the proposed action, and Send comments regarding this burden Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has alternatives available for reducing or estimate or any other aspect of this determined that this action is not a avoiding adverse environmental effects. collection of information, including major rule and has verified this Except for environmental reports suggestions for reducing the burden, to determination with the Office of prepared at the license renewal stage the Information and Records Information and Regulatory Affairs of pursuant to § 51.53(c), the analysis in Management Branch (T–6F33), U.S. OMB. the environmental report should also Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28487 include consideration of the economic, update ‘‘Applicant’s Environmental either an operating license or technical, and other benefits and costs Report—Construction Permit Stage.’’ construction permit as of June 30, 1995, of the proposed action and of Unless otherwise required by the the environmental report shall include alternatives. Environmental reports Commission, the applicant for an the information required in paragraph prepared at the license renewal stage operating license for a nuclear power (c)(2) of this section subject to the pursuant to § 51.53(c) need not discuss reactor shall submit this report only in following conditions and the economic or technical benefits and connection with the first licensing considerations: costs of either the proposed action or action authorizing full-power operation. (i) The environmental report for the alternatives except insofar as such In this report, the applicant shall operating license renewal stage is not benefits and costs are either essential for discuss the same matters described in required to contain analyses of the a determination regarding the inclusion §§ 51.45, 51.51, and 51.52, but only to environmental impacts of the license of an alternative in the range of the extent that they differ from those renewal issues identified as Category 1 alternatives considered or relevant to discussed or reflect new information in issues in appendix B to subpart A of this mitigation. In addition, environmental addition to that discussed in the final part. reports prepared pursuant to § 51.53(c) environmental impact statement (ii) The environmental report must need not discuss other issues not related prepared by the Commission in contain analyses of the environmental to the environmental effects of the connection with the construction impacts of the proposed action, proposed action and alternatives. The permit. No discussion of need for including the impacts of refurbishment analyses for environmental reports power, or of alternative energy sources, activities, if any, associated with license shall, to the fullest extent practicable, or of alternative sites for the facility, or renewal and the impacts of operation quantify the various factors considered. of any aspect of the storage of spent fuel during the renewal term, for those To the extent that there are important for the facility within the scope of the issues identified as Category 2 issues in qualitative considerations or factors that generic determination in § 51.23(a) and appendix B to subpart A of this part. cannot be quantified, those in accordance with § 51.23(b) is The required analyses are as follows: considerations or factors shall be required in this report. (A) If the applicant’s plant utilizes discussed in qualitative terms. The (c) Operating license renewal stage. cooling towers or cooling ponds and environmental report should contain (1) Each applicant for renewal of a withdraws make-up water from a river sufficient data to aid the Commission in license to operate a nuclear power plant whose annual flow rate is less than its development of an independent under part 54 of this chapter shall 3.15×1012 ft3/year (9×1010 m3/year), an analysis. submit with its application the number assessment of the impact of the * * * * * of copies specified in § 51.55 of a proposed action on the flow of the river 3. Section 51.53 is revised to read as separate document entitled ‘‘Applicant’s and related impacts on instream and follows: Environmental Report—Operating riparian ecological communities must License Renewal Stage.’’ be provided. The applicant shall also § 51.53 Postconstruction environmental (2) The report must contain a provide an assessment of the impacts of reports. description of the proposed action, the withdrawal of water from the river (a) General. Any environmental report including the applicant’s plans to on alluvial aquifers during low flow. prepared under the provisions of this modify the facility or its administrative (B) If the applicant’s plant utilizes section may incorporate by reference control procedures as described in once-through cooling or cooling pond any information contained in a prior accordance with § 54.21 of this chapter. heat dissipation systems, the applicant environmental report or supplement This report must describe in detail the shall provide a copy of current Clean thereto that relates to the production or modifications directly affecting the Water Act 316(b) determinations and, if utilization facility or any information environment or affecting plant effluents necessary, a 316(a) variance in contained in a final environmental that affect the environment. In addition, accordance with 40 CFR part 125, or document previously prepared by the the applicant shall discuss in this report equivalent State permits and supporting NRC staff that relates to the production the environmental impacts of documentation. If the applicant can not or utilization facility. Documents that alternatives and any other matters provide these documents, it shall assess may be referenced include, but are not described in § 51.45. The report is not the impact of the proposed action on limited to, the final environmental required to include discussion of need fish and shellfish resources resulting impact statement; supplements to the for power or the economic costs and from heat shock and impingement and final environmental impact statement, economic benefits of the proposed entrainment. including supplements prepared at the action or of alternatives to the proposed (C) If the applicant’s plant uses license renewal stage; NRC staff- action except insofar as such costs and Ranney wells or pumps more than 100 prepared final generic environmental benefits are either essential for a gallons of ground water per minute, an impact statements; and environmental determination regarding the inclusion of assessment of the impact of the assessments and records of decisions an alternative in the range of proposed action on ground-water use prepared in connection with the alternatives considered or relevant to must be provided. construction permit, the operating mitigation. The environmental report (D) If the applicant’s plant is located license, and any license amendment for need not discuss other issues not related at an inland site and utilizes cooling that facility. to the environmental effects of the ponds, an assessment of the impact of (b) Operating license stage. Each proposed action and the alternatives. In the proposed action on groundwater applicant for a license to operate a addition, the environmental report need quality must be provided. production or utilization facility not discuss any aspect of the storage of (E) All license renewal applicants covered by § 51.20 shall submit with its spent fuel for the facility within the shall assess the impact of refurbishment application the number of copies scope of the generic determination in and other license-renewal-related specified in § 51.55 of a separate § 51.23(a) and in accordance with construction activities on important document entitled ‘‘Supplement to § 51.23(b). plant and animal habitats. Additionally, Applicant’s Environmental Report— (3) For those applicants seeking an the applicant shall assess the impact of Operating License Stage,’’ which will initial renewal license and holding the proposed action on threatened or 28488 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations endangered species in accordance with (iv) The environmental report must State, and local officials; and any the Endangered Species Act. contain any new and significant affected Indian tribes, in accordance (F) If the applicant’s plant is located information regarding the with written instructions issued by the in or near a nonattainment or environmental impacts of license Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor maintenance area, an assessment of renewal of which the applicant is aware. Regulation or the Director of the Office vehicle exhaust emissions anticipated at (d) Postoperating license stage. Each Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, the time of peak refurbishment applicant for a license amendment as appropriate. workforce must be provided in authorizing the decommissioning of a * * * * * accordance with the Clean Air Act as production or utilization facility 5. In § 51.71, paragraphs (d) and (e) amended. covered by § 51.20 and each applicant are revised to read as follows: (G) If the applicant’s plant uses a for a license or license amendment to store spent fuel at a nuclear power plant § 51.71 Draft environmental impact cooling pond, lake, or canal or statementÐcontents. discharges into a river having an annual after expiration of the operating license average flow rate of less than 3.15×1012 for the nuclear power plant shall submit * * * * * (d) Analysis. The draft environmental ft3/year (9×1010 m3/year), an assessment with its application the number of impact statement will include a of the impact of the proposed action on copies specified in § 51.55 of a separate preliminary analysis that considers and public health from thermophilic document entitled ‘‘Supplement to weighs the environmental effects of the organisms in the affected water must be Applicant’s Environmental Report— proposed action; the environmental provided. Post Operating License Stage.’’ This impacts of alternatives to the proposed (H) If the applicant’s transmission supplement will update ‘‘Supplement to action; and alternatives available for lines that were constructed for the Applicant’s Environmental Report— reducing or avoiding adverse specific purpose of connecting the plant Operating License Stage’’ and ‘‘Applicant’s Environmental Report— environmental effects. Except for to the transmission system do not meet supplemental environmental impact the recommendations of the National Operating License Renewal Stage,’’ as appropriate, to reflect any new statements for the operating license Electric Safety Code for preventing renewal stage prepared pursuant to electric shock from induced currents, an information or significant environmental change associated with § 51.95(c), draft environmental impact assessment of the impact of the statements should also include proposed action on the potential shock the applicant’s proposed decommissioning activities or with the consideration of the economic, hazard from the transmission lines must technical, and other benefits and costs be provided. applicant’s proposed activities with respect to the planned storage of spent of the proposed action and alternatives (I) An assessment of the impact of the and indicate what other interests and proposed action on housing availability, fuel. Unless otherwise required by the Commission, in accordance with the considerations of Federal policy, land-use, and public schools (impacts including factors not related to from refurbishment activities only) generic determination in § 51.23(a) and the provisions in § 51.23(b), the environmental quality if applicable, are within the vicinity of the plant must be relevant to the consideration of provided. Additionally, the applicant applicant shall address only the environmental impact of spent fuel environmental effects of the proposed shall provide an assessment of the action identified pursuant to paragraph impact of population increases storage for the term of the license. 4. In § 51.55, paragraph (a) is revised (a) of this section. Supplemental attributable to the proposed project on to read as follows: environmental impact statements the public water supply. prepared at the license renewal stage (J) All applicants shall assess the § 51.55 Environmental reportÐnumber of pursuant to § 51.95(c) need not discuss impact of the proposed project on local copies; distribution. the economic or technical benefits and transportation during periods of license (a) Each applicant for a license to costs of either the proposed action or renewal refurbishment activities. construct and operate a production or alternatives except insofar as such (K) All applicants shall assess utilization facility covered by benefits and costs are either essential for whether any historic or archaeological paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(4) a determination regarding the inclusion properties will be affected by the of § 51.20, each applicant for renewal of of an alternative in the range of proposed project. an operating license for a nuclear power alternatives considered or relevant to (L) If the staff has not previously plant, each applicant for a license mitigation. In addition, the considered severe accident mitigation amendment authorizing the supplemental environmental impact alternatives for the applicant’s plant in decommissioning of a production or statement prepared at the license an environmental impact statement or utilization facility covered by § 51.20, renewal stage need not discuss other related supplement or in an and each applicant for a license or issues not related to the environmental environmental assessment, a license amendment to store spent fuel at effects of the proposed action and consideration of alternatives to mitigate a nuclear power plant after expiration of associated alternatives. The draft severe accidents must be provided. the operating license for the nuclear supplemental environmental impact (M) The environmental effects of power plant shall submit to the Director statement for license renewal prepared transportation of fuel and waste shall be of the Office of Nuclear Reactor pursuant to § 51.95(c) will rely on reviewed in accordance with § 51.52. Regulation or the Director of the Office conclusions as amplified by the (iii) The report must contain a of Nuclear Material Safety and supporting information in the GEIS for consideration of alternatives for Safeguards, as appropriate, 41 copies of issues designated as Category 1 in reducing adverse impacts, as required an environmental report or any appendix B to subpart A of this part. by § 51.45(c), for all Category 2 license supplement to an environmental report. The draft supplemental environmental renewal issues in Appendix B to The applicant shall retain an additional impact statement must contain an Subpart A of this part. No such 109 copies of the environmental report analysis of those issues identified as consideration is required for Category 1 or any supplement to the environmental Category 2 in appendix B to subpart A issues in Appendix B to Subpart A of report for distribution to parties and of this part that are open for the this part. Boards in the NRC proceedings; Federal, proposed action. The analysis for all Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28489 draft environmental impact statements described in paragraphs (a) through (d) the final environmental impact will, to the fullest extent practicable, of this section and §§ 51.75, 51.76, statement or that reflect significant new quantify the various factors considered. 51.80, 51.85, and 51.95, as appropriate, information concerning matters To the extent that there are important and will be reached after considering discussed in the final environmental qualitative considerations or factors that the environmental effects of the impact statement. Unless otherwise cannot be quantified, these proposed action and reasonable determined by the Commission, a considerations or factors will be alternatives,4 and, except for supplement on the operation of a discussed in qualitative terms. Due supplemental environmental impact nuclear power plant will not include a consideration will be given to statements for the operating license discussion of need for power, or of compliance with environmental quality renewal stage prepared pursuant to alternative energy sources, or of standards and requirements that have § 51.95(c), after weighing the costs and alternative sites, or of any aspect of the been imposed by Federal, State, benefits of the proposed action. In lieu storage of spent fuel for the nuclear regional, and local agencies having of a recommendation, the NRC staff may power plant within the scope of the responsibility for environmental indicate in the draft statement that two generic determination in § 51.23(a) and protection, including applicable zoning or more alternatives remain under in accordance with § 51.23(b), and will and land-use regulations and water consideration. only be prepared in connection with the pollution limitations or requirements first licensing action authorizing full- promulgated or imposed pursuant to the § 51.75 [Amended] power operation. Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 6. In Section 51.75, redesignate (c) Operating license renewal stage. In The environmental impact of the footnote 4 as footnote 5. connection with the renewal of an proposed action will be considered in 7. Section 51.95 is revised to read as operating license for a nuclear power the analysis with respect to matters follows: plant under part 54 of this chapter, the covered by such standards and § 51.95 Postconstruction environmental Commission shall prepare a supplement requirements irrespective of whether a impact statements. to the Commission’s NUREG–1437, certification or license from the (a) General. Any supplement to a final ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact appropriate authority has been environmental impact statement or any Statement for License Renewal of obtained.3 While satisfaction of environmental assessment prepared Nuclear Plants’’ (xxxx 1996). Commission standards and criteria under the provisions of this section may (1) The supplemental environmental pertaining to radiological effects will be incorporate by reference any impact statement for the operating necessary to meet the licensing information contained in a final license renewal stage shall address requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, environmental document previously those issues as required by § 51.71. In the analysis will, for the purposes of prepared by the NRC staff that relates to addition, the NRC staff must comply NEPA, consider the radiological effects the same production or utilization with 40 CFR 1506.6(b)(3) in conducting of the proposed action and alternatives. facility. Documents that may be the additional scoping process as (e) Preliminary recommendation. The referenced include, but are not limited required by § 51.71(a). (2) The supplemental environmental draft environmental impact statement to, the final environmental impact impact statement for license renewal is normally will include a preliminary statement; supplements to the final not required to include discussion of recommendation by the NRC staff environmental impact statement, need for power or the economic costs respecting the proposed action. This including supplements prepared at the and economic benefits of the proposed preliminary recommendation will be operating license stage; NRC staff- based on the information and analysis action or of alternatives to the proposed prepared final generic environmental action except insofar as such benefits impact statements; environmental 3 and costs are either essential for a Compliance with the environmental quality assessments and records of decisions standards and requirements of the Federal Water determination regarding the inclusion of Pollution Control Act (imposed by EPA or prepared in connection with the an alternative in the range of designated permitting states) is not a substitute for construction permit, the operating alternatives considered or relevant to and does not negate the requirement for NRC to license, and any license amendment for mitigation. In addition, the weigh all environmental effects of the proposed that facility. A supplement to a final action, including the degradation, if any, of water supplemental environmental impact quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposed environmental impact statement will statement prepared at the license action that are available for reducing adverse include a request for comments as renewal stage need not discuss other effects. Where an environmental assessment of provided in § 51.73. aquatic impact from plant discharges is available issues not related to the environmental (b) Initial operating license stage. In effects of the proposed action and the from the permitting authority, the NRC will connection with the issuance of an consider the assessment in its determination of the alternatives, or any aspect of the storage magnitude of environmental impacts for striking an operating license for a production or of spent fuel for the facility within the overall cost-benefit balance at the construction utilization facility, the NRC staff will permit and operating license stages, and in its scope of the generic determination in prepare a supplement to the final § 51.23(a) and in accordance with determination of whether the adverse environmental impact statement on the environmental impacts of license renewal are so § 51.23(b). The analysis of alternatives great that preserving the option of license renewal construction permit for that facility, in the supplemental environmental for energy planning decisionmakers would be which will update the prior unreasonable at the license renewal stage. When no impact statement should be limited to environmental review. The supplement the environmental impacts of such such assessment of aquatic impacts is available will only cover matters that differ from from the permitting authority, NRC will establish alternatives and should otherwise be on its own or in conjunction with the permitting prepared in accordance with § 51.71 and authority and other agencies having relevant 4 The consideration of reasonable alternatives to expertise the magnitude of potential impacts for a proposed action involving nuclear power reactors appendix A to subpart A of this part. striking an overall cost-benefit balance for the (e.g., alternative energy sources) is intended to (3) The supplemental environmental facility at the construction permit and operating assist the NRC in meeting its NEPA obligations and impact statement shall be issued as a license stages, and in its determination of whether does not preclude any State authority from making final impact statement in accordance the adverse environmental impacts of license separate determinations with respect to these renewal are so great that preserving the option of alternatives and in no way preempts, displaces, or with §§ 51.91 and 51.93 after license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers affects the authority of States or other Federal considering any significant new would be unreasonable at the license renewal stage. agencies to address these issues. information relevant to the proposed 28490 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations action contained in the supplement or otherwise required by the Commission, Appendix A to Subpart A—Format for incorporated by reference. in accordance with the generic Presentation of Material in (4) The supplemental environmental determination in § 51.23(a) and the Environmental Impact Statements impact statement must contain the NRC provisions of § 51.23(b), a supplemental * * * * * staff’s recommendation regarding the environmental impact statement for the 4. Purpose of and need for action. The environmental acceptability of the postoperating license stage or an statement will briefly describe and specify license renewal action. In order to make environmental assessment, as the need for the proposed action. The its recommendation and final appropriate, will address the alternative of no action will be discussed. In conclusion on the proposed action, the environmental impacts of spent fuel the case of nuclear power plant construction NRC staff, adjudicatory officers, and or siting, consideration will be given to the storage only for the term of the license, potential impact of conservation measures in Commission shall integrate the license amendment, or license renewal conclusions, as amplified by the determining the demand for power and applied for. consequent need for additional generating supporting information in the generic capacity. environmental impact statement for 8. In § 51.103, paragraph (a)(3) is issues designated Category 1 (with the revised and paragraph (a)(5) is added to * * * * * exception of offsite radiological impacts read as follows: 10. A new appendix B is added to for collective effects and the disposal of subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 to read as § 51.103 Record of decisionÐGeneral. spent fuel and high level waste) or follows: resolved Category 2, information (a) * * * Appendix B to Subpart A— developed for those open Category 2 (3) Discuss preferences among Environmental Effect of Renewing the issues applicable to the plant in alternatives based on relevant factors, Operating License of a Nuclear Power accordance with § 51.53(c)(3)(ii), and including economic and technical Plant any significant new information. Given considerations where appropriate, the The Commission has assessed the this information, the NRC staff, NRC’s statutory mission, and any environmental impacts associated with adjudicatory officers, and Commission granting a renewed operating license for a shall determine whether or not the essential considerations of national policy, which were balanced by the nuclear power plant to a licensee who holds adverse environmental impacts of either an operating license or construction license renewal are so great that Commission in making the decision and permit as of June 30, 1995. Table B–1 preserving the option of license renewal state how these considerations entered summarizes the Commission’s findings on for energy planning decisionmakers into the decision. the scope and magnitude of environmental would be unreasonable. * * * * * impacts of renewing the operating license for (d) Postoperating license stage. In a nuclear power plant as required by section (5) In making a final decision on a 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy connection with an amendment to an license renewal action pursuant to part Act of 1969, as amended. Table B–1, subject operating license authorizing the 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall to an evaluation of those issues identified in decommissioning of a production or determine whether or not the adverse Category 2 as requiring further analysis and utilization facility covered by § 51.20 or environmental impacts of license possible significant new information, with the issuance, amendment, or represents the analysis of the environmental renewal are so great that preserving the renewal of a license to store spent fuel impacts associated with renewal of any at a nuclear power plant after expiration option of license renewal for energy operating license and is to be used in of the operating license for the nuclear planning decisionmakers would be accordance with § 51.95(c). On a 10-year power plant, the NRC staff will prepare unreasonable. cycle, the Commission intends to review the * * * * * material in this appendix and update it if a supplemental environmental impact necessary. A scoping notice must be statement for the postoperating license 9. Paragraph 4 of appendix A to published in the Federal Register indicating stage or an environmental assessment, subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 is revised the results of the NRC’s review and inviting as appropriate, which will update the as follows: public comments and proposals for other prior environmental review. Unless areas that should be updated.

TABLE B±1.ÐSUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1

Issue Category 2 Findings 3

Surface Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use (for all plants)

Impacts of refurbishment on sur- 1 SMALL. Impacts are expected to be negligible during refurbishment because best manage- face water quality. ment practices are expected to be employed to control soil erosion and spills. Impacts of refurbishment on sur- 1 SMALL. Water use during refurbishment will not increase appreciably or will be reduced during face water use. plant outage. Altered current patterns at intake 1 SMALL. Altered current patterns have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear and discharge structures. power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Altered salinity gradients ...... 1 SMALL. Salinity gradients have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Altered thermal stratification of 1 SMALL. Generally, lake stratification has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear lakes. power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Temperature effects on sedi- 1 SMALL. These effects have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants ment transport capacity. and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Scouring caused by discharged 1 SMALL. Scouring has not been found to be a problem at most operating nuclear power plants cooling water. and has caused only localized effects at a few plants. It is not expected to be a problem dur- ing the license renewal term. Eutrophication ...... 1 SMALL. Eutrophication has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28491

TABLE B±1.ÐSUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1Ð Continued

Issue Category 2 Findings 3

Discharge of chlorine or other 1 SMALL. Effects are not a concern among regulatory and resource agencies, and are not ex- biocides. pected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Discharge of sanitary wastes 1 SMALL. Effects are readily controlled through NPDES permit and periodic modifications, if and minor chemical spills. needed, and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Discharge of other metals in 1 SMALL. These discharges have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power waste water. plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have been satisfactorily miti- gated at other plants. They are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Water use conflicts (plants with 1 SMALL. These conflicts have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power once-through cooling systems). plants with once-through heat dissipation systems. Water use conflicts (plants with 2 SMALL OR MODERATE. The issue has been a concern at nuclear power plants with cooling cooling ponds or cooling tow- ponds and at plants with cooling towers. Impacts on instream and riparian communities near ers using make-up water from these plants could be of moderate significance in some situations. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A). a small river with low flow).

Aquatic Ecology (for all plants)

Refurbishment ...... 1 SMALL. During plant shutdown and refurbishment there will be negligible effects on aquatic biota because of a reduction of entrainment and impingement of organisms or a reduced re- lease of chemicals. Accumulation of contaminants in 1 SMALL. Accumulation of contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear power plants but sediments or biota. has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy condenser tubes with those of an- other metal. It is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Entrainment of phytoplankton 1 SMALL. Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton has not been found to be a problem at and zooplankton. operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license re- newal term. Cold shock ...... 1 SMALL. Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at operating nuclear plants with once- through cooling systems, has not endangered fish populations or been found to be a prob- lem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds, and is not ex- pected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Thermal plume barrier to migrat- 1 SMALL. Thermal plumes have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power ing fish. plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Distribution of aquatic organisms 1 SMALL. Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not expected to affect the larger geographical distribution of aquatic organisms. Premature emergence of aquatic 1 SMALL. Premature emergence has been found to be a localized effect at some operating nu- insects. clear power plants but has not been a problem and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Gas supersaturation (gas bubble 1 SMALL. Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small number of operating nuclear power disease). plants with once-through cooling systems but has been satisfactorily mitigated. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Low dissolved oxygen in the dis- 1 SMALL. Low dissolved oxygen has been a concern at one nuclear power plant with a once- charge. through cooling system but has been effectively mitigated. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Losses from predation, para- 1 SMALL. These types of losses have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear sitism, and disease among or- power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. ganisms exposed to sublethal stresses. Stimulation of nuisance orga- 1 SMALL. Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been satisfactorily mitigated at the single nu- nisms (e.g., shipworms). clear power plant with a once-through cooling system where previously it was a problem. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Aquatic Ecology (for plants with once-through and cooling pond heat dissipation systems)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. The impacts of entrainment are small at many plants but in early life stages. may be moderate or even large at a few plants with once-through and cooling-pond cooling systems. Further, ongoing efforts in the vicinity of these plants to restore fish populations may increase the numbers of fish susceptible to intake effects during the license renewal pe- riod, such that entrainment studies conducted in support of the original license may no longer be valid. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B). Impingement of fish and shellfish 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. The impacts of impingement are small at many plants but may be moderate or even large at a few plants with once-through and cooling-pond cooling systems. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B). Heat shock ...... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Because of continuing concerns about heat shock and the possible need to modify thermal discharges in response to changing environmental condi- tions, the impacts may be of moderate or large significance at some plants. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B). 28492 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B±1.ÐSUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1Ð Continued

Issue Category 2 Findings 3

Aquatic Ecology (for plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish 1 SMALL. Entrainment of fish has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power in early life stages. plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a problem during the li- cense renewal term. Impingement of fish and shellfish 1 SMALL. The impingement has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a problem during the li- cense renewal term. Heat shock ...... 1 SMALL. Heat shock has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a problem during the license re- newal term.

Ground-water Use and Quality

Impacts of refurbishment on 1 SMALL. Extensive dewatering during the original construction on some sites will not be re- ground-water use and quality. peated during refurbishment on any sites. Any plant wastes produced during refurbishment will be handled in the same manner as in current operating practices and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Ground-water use conflicts (po- 1 SMALL. Plants using less than 100 gpm are not expected to cause any ground-water use con- table and service water; plants flicts. that use <100 gpm). Ground-water use conflicts (po- 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Plants that use more than 100 gpm may cause ground- table and service water, and water use conflicts with nearby ground-water users. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C). dewatering; plants that use >100 gpm). Ground-water use conflicts 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Water use conflicts may result from surface water with- (plants using cooling towers drawals from small water bodies during low flow conditions which may affect aquifer re- withdrawing make-up water charge, especially if other ground-water or upstream surface water users come on line be- from a small river). fore the time of license renewal. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A).

Terrestrial Resources

Refurbishment impacts ...... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Refurbishment impacts are insignificant if no loss of impor- tant plant and animal habitat occurs. However, it cannot be known whether important plant and animal communities may be affected until the specific proposal is presented with the li- cense renewal application. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E). Cooling tower impacts on crops 1 SMALL. Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity associated with cooling and ornamental vegetation. tower operation have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Cooling tower impacts on native 1 SMALL. Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity associated with cooling plants. tower operation have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Bird collisions with cooling tow- 1 SMALL. These collisions have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power ers. plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Cooling pond impacts on terres- 1 SMALL. Impacts of cooling ponds on terrestrial ecological resources are considered to be of trial resources. small significance at all sites. Power line right-of-way manage- 1 SMALL. The impacts of right-of-way maintenance on wildlife are expected to be of small signifi- ment (cutting and herbicide cance at all sites. application). Bird collision with power lines .... 1 SMALL. Impacts are expected to be of small significance at all sites. Impacts of electromagnetic fields 1 SMALL. No significant impacts of electromagnetic fields on terrestrial flora and fauna have on flora and fauna (plants, ag- been identified. Such effects are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal ricultural crops, honeybees, term. wildlife, livestock). Floodplains and wetland on 1 SMALL. Periodic vegetation control is necessary in forested wetlands underneath power lines power line right of way. and can be achieved with minimal damage to the wetland. No significant impact is expected at any nuclear power plant during the license renewal term.

Threatened or Endangered Species (for all plants)

Threatened or endangered spe- 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Generally, plant refurbishment and continued operation are cies. not expected to adversely affect threatened or endangered species. However, consultation with appropriate agencies would be needed at the time of license renewal to determine whether threatened or endangered species are present and whether they would be ad- versely affected. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E). Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28493

TABLE B±1.ÐSUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1Ð Continued

Issue Category 2 Findings 3

Air Quality

Air quality during refurbishment 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Air quality impacts from plant refurbishment associated with (nonattainment and mainte- license renewal are expected to be small. However, vehicle exhaust emissions could be nance areas). cause for concern at locations in or near nonattainment or maintenance areas. The signifi- cance of the potential impact cannot be determined without considering the compliance sta- tus of each site and the numbers of workers expected to be employed during the outage. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F). Air quality effects of trans- 1 SMALL. Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is insignificant and does not contribute mission lines. measurably to ambient levels of these gases.

Land Use

Onsite land use ...... 1 SMALL. Projected onsite land use changes required during refurbishment and the renewal pe- riod would be a small fraction of any nuclear power plant site and would involve land that is controlled by the applicant. Power line right of way ...... 1 SMALL. Ongoing use of power line right of ways would continue with no change in restrictions. The effects of these restrictions are of small significance.

Human Health

Radiation exposures to the pub- 1 SMALL. During refurbishment, the gaseous effluents would result in doses that are similar to lic during refurbishment. those from current operation. Applicable regulatory dose limits to the public are not expected to be exceeded. Occupational radiation expo- 1 SMALL. Occupational doses from refurbishment are expected to be within the range of annual sures during refurbishment. average collective doses experienced for pressurized-water reactors and boiling-water reac- tors. Occupational mortality risk from all causes including radiation is in the mid-range for in- dustrial settings. Microbiological organisms (occu- 1 SMALL. Occupational health impacts are expected to be controlled by continued application of pational health). accepted industrial hygiene practices to minimize worker exposures. Microbiological organisms (pub- 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. These organisms are not expected to be a problem at most lic health) (plants using lakes operating plants except possibly at plants using cooling ponds, lakes, or canals that dis- or canals, or cooling towers or charge to small rivers. Without site-specific data, it is not possible to predict the effects ge- cooling ponds that discharge nerically. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G). to a small river). Noise ...... 1 SMALL. Noise has not been found to be a problem at operating plants and is not expected to be a problem at any plant during the license renewal term. Electromagnetic fields, acute ef- 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Electrical shock resulting from direct access to energized fects (electric shock). conductors or from induced charges in metallic structures have not been found to be a prob- lem at most operating plants and generally are not expected to be a problem during the li- cense renewal term. However, site-specific review is required to determine the significance of the electric shock potential at the site. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H). Electromagnetic fields, chronic NA 4 UNCERTAIN. Biological and physical studies of 60±Hz electromagnetic fields have not found effects 5. consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures. However, because the state of the science is currently inadequate, no generic conclusion on human health impacts is possible.5 Radiation exposures to public (li- 1 SMALL. Radiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with normal op- cense renewal term). erations. Occupational radiation expo- 1 SMALL. Projected maximum occupational doses during the license renewal term are within the sures (license renewal term). range of doses experienced during normal operations and normal maintenance outages, and would be well below regulatory limits.

Socioeconomics

Housing impacts ...... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Housing impacts are expected to be of small significance at plants located in a medium or high population area and not in an area where growth con- trol measures that limit housing development are in effect. Moderate or large housing im- pacts of the workforce associated with refurbishment may be associated with plants located in sparsely populated areas or in areas with growth control measures that limit housing de- velopment. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I). Public services: public safety, 1 SMALL. Impacts to public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation are expected to social services, and tourism be of small significance at all sites. and recreation. Public services: public utilities .... 2 SMALL OR MODERATE. An increased problem with water shortages at some sites may lead to impacts of moderate significance on public water supply availability. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I). Public services, education (refur- 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Most sites would experience impacts of small significance bishment). but larger impacts are possible depending on site- and project-specific factors. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I). 28494 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B±1.ÐSUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1Ð Continued

Issue Category 2 Findings 3

Public services, education (li- 1 SMALL. Only impacts of small significance are expected. cense renewal term). Offsite land use (refurbishment) 2 SMALL OR MODERATE. Impacts may be of moderate significance at plants in low population areas. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I). Offsite land use (license renewal 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Significant changes in land use may be associated with term). population and tax revenue changes resulting from license renewal. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I). Public services, Transportation 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Transportation impacts are generally expected to be of small significance. However, the increase in traffic associated with the additional workers and the local road and traffic control conditions may lead to impacts of moderate or large significance at some sites. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J). Historic and archaeological re- 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Generally, plant refurbishment and continued operation are sources. expected to have no more than small adverse impacts on historic and archaeological re- sources. However, the National Historic Preservation Act requires the Federal agency to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine whether there are properties present that require protection. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K). Aesthetic impacts (refurbish- 1 SMALL. No significant impacts are expected during refurbishment. ment). Aesthetic impacts (license re- 1 SMALL. No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term. newal term). Aesthetic impacts of trans- 1 SMALL. No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term. mission lines (license renewal term).

Postulated Accidents

Design basis accidents ...... 1 SMALL. The NRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts of design basis acci- dents are of small significance for all plants. Severe accidents ...... 2 SMALL. The probability weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to ground water, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L).

Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management

Offsite radiological impacts (indi- 1 SMALL. Off-site impacts of the uranium fuel cycle have been considered by the Commission in vidual effects from other than Table S±3 of this part. Based on information in the GEIS, impacts on individuals from radio- the disposal of spent fuel and active gaseous and liquid releases including radon-222 and technetium-99 are small. high level waste). Offsite radiological impacts (col- 1 The 100 year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the fuel cycle, high lective effects). level waste and spent fuel disposal is calculated to be about 14,800 person rem, or 12 can- cer fatalities, for each additional 20 year power reactor operating term. Much of this, espe- cially the contribution of radon releases from mines and tailing piles, consists of tiny doses summed over large populations. This same dose calculation can theoretically be extended to include many tiny doses over additional thousands of years as well as doses outside the U.S. The result of such a calculation would be thousands of cancer fatalities from the fuel cycle, but this result assumes that even tiny doses have some statistical adverse health ef- fect which will not ever be mitigated (for example, no cancer cure in the next thousand years), and that these does projection over thousands of years are meaningful. However these assumptions are questionable. In particular, science cannot rule out the possibility that there will be no cancer fatalities from these tiny doses. For perspective, the doses are very small fractions of regulatory limits, and even smaller fractions of natural background expo- sure to the same populations. Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory NEPA implica- tions of these matters should be made and it makes no sense to repeat the same judgement in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the collective effects of the fuel cycle, this issue is considered Cat- egory 1. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28495

TABLE B±1.ÐSUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1Ð Continued

Issue Category 2 Findings 3

Offsite radiological impacts 1 For the high level waste and spent fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle, there are no cur- (spent fuel and high level rent regulatory limits for offsite releases of radionuclides for the current candidate repository waste disposal). site. However, if we assume that limits are developed along the lines of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, ``Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards,'' and that in accordance with the Commission's Waste Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, a re- pository can and likely will be developed at some site which will comply with such limits, peak doses to virtually all individuals will be 100 millirem per year or less. However, while the Commission has reasonable confidence that these assumptions will prove correct, there is considerable uncertainty since the limits are yet to be developed, no repository application has been completed or reviewed, and uncertainty is inherent in the models used to evaluate possible pathways to the human environment. The NAS report indicated that 100 millirem per year should be considered as a starting point for limits for individual doses, but notes that some measure of consensus exists among national and international bodies that the limits should be a fraction of the 100 millirem per year. The lifetime individual risk from 100 millirem annual dose limit is about 310¥3. Estimating cumulative doses to populations over thousands of years is more problematic. The likelihood and consequences of events that could seriously compromise the integrity of a deep geologic repository were evaluated by the Department of Energy in the ``Final Environ- mental Impact Statement: Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste,'' Oc- tober 1980. The evaluation estimated the 70-year whole-body dose commitment to the maxi- mum individual and to the regional population resulting from several modes of breaching a reference repository in the year of closure, after 1,000 years, after 100,000 years, and after 100,000,000 years. Subsequently, the NRC and other federal agencies have expended con- siderable effort to develop models for the design and for the licensing of a high level waste repository, especially for the candidate repository at Yucca Mountain. More meaningful esti- mates of doses to population may be possible in the future as more is understood about the performance of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. Such estimates would involve very great uncertainty, especially with respect to cumulative population doses over thousands of years. The standard proposed by the NAS is a limit on maximum individual dose. The rela- tionship of potential new regulatory requirements, based on the NAS report, and cumulative population impacts has not been determined, although the report articulates the view that protection of individuals will adequately protect the population for a repository at Yucca Mountain. However, EPA's generic repository standards in 40 CFR part 191 generally pro- vide an indication of the order of magnitude of cumulative risk to population that could result from the licensing of a Yucca Mountain repository, assuming the ultimate standards will be within the range of standards now under consideration. The standards in 40 CFR part 191 protect the population by imposing ``containment requirements'' that limit the cumulative amount of radioactive material released over 10,000 years. The cumulative release limits are based on EPA's population impact goal of 1,000 premature cancer deaths world-wide for a 100,000 metric tonne (MTHM) repository. Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory NEPA implica- tions of these matters should be made and it makes no sense to repeat the same judgement in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the impacts of spent fuel and high level waste disposal, this issue is con- sidered Category 1. Nonradiological impacts of the 1 SMALL. The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle resulting from the renewal of an uranium fuel cycle. operating license for any plant are found to be small. Low-level waste storage and dis- 1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low public doses posal. being achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts to the environment will re- main small during the term of a renewed license. The maximum additional on-site land that may be required for low-level waste storage during the term of a renewed license and asso- ciated impacts will be small. Nonradiological impacts on air and water will be negligible. The radiological and nonradiologi- cal environmental impacts of long-term disposal of low-level waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition, the Commission concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient low-level waste disposal capacity will be made available when needed for facilities to be decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning require- ments. Mixed waste storage and dis- 1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and procedures that are in posal. place ensure proper handling and storage, as well as negligible doses and exposure to toxic materials for the public and the environment at all plants. License renewal will not increase the small, continuing risk to human health and the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition, the Commis- sion concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient mixed waste disposal ca- pacity will be made available when needed for facilities to be decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning requirements. 28496 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B±1.ÐSUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1Ð Continued

Issue Category 2 Findings 3

On-site spent fuel ...... 1 SMALL. The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of op- eration can be safely accommodated on site with small environmental effects through dry or pool storage at all plants if a permanent repository or monitored retrievable storage is not available. Nonradiological waste ...... 1 SMALL. No changes to generating systems are anticipated for license renewal. Facilities and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling and disposal at all plants. Transportation ...... 2 Table S±4 of this part contains an assessment of impact parameters to be used in evaluating transportation effects in each case. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M).

Decommissioning

Radiation doses ...... 1 SMALL. Doses to the public will be well below applicable regulatory standards regardless of which decommissioning method is used. Occupational doses would increase no more than 1 man-rem caused by buildup of long-lived radionuclides during the license renewal term. Waste management ...... 1 SMALL. Decommissioning at the end of a 20-year license renewal period would generate no more solid wastes than at the end of the current license term. No increase in the quantities of Class C or greater than Class C wastes would be expected. Air quality ...... 1 SMALL. Air quality impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible either at the end of the current operating term or at the end of the license renewal term. Water quality ...... 1 SMALL. The potential for significant water quality impacts from erosion or spills is no greater whether decommissioning occurs after a 20-year license renewal period or after the original 40-year operation period, and measures are readily available to avoid such impacts. Ecological resources ...... 1 SMALL. Decommissioning after either the initial operating period or after a 20-year license re- newal period is not expected to have any direct ecological impacts. Socioeconomic impacts ...... 1 SMALL. Decommissioning would have some short-term socioeconomic impacts. The impacts would not be increased by delaying decommissioning until the end of a 20-year relicense pe- riod, but they might be decreased by population and economic growth.

Environmental Justice

Environmental justice 6 ...... NA4 NONE. The need for and the content of an analysis of environmental justice will be addressed in plant-specific reviews.6 1 Data supporting this table are contained in NUREG±1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (xxxx 1996). 2 The numerical entries in this column are based on the following category definitions: Category 1: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown: (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants hav- ing a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristic; (2) A single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except for collective off site radiological im- pacts from the fuel cycle and from high level waste and spent fuel disposal); and (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. The generic analysis of the issue may be adopted in each plant-specific review. Category 2: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown that one or more of the criteria of Category 1 can not be met, and therefore additional plant-specific review is required. 3 The impact findings in this column are based on the definitions of three significance levels. Unless the significance level is identified as bene- ficial, the impact is adverse, or in the case of ``small,'' may be negligible. The definitions of significance follow: SMALLÐFor the issue, environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any im- portant attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the Commission's regulations are considered small as the term is used in this table. MODERATEÐFor the issue, environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource. LARGEÐFor the issue, environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource. For issues where probability is a key consideration (i.e. accident consequences), probability was a factor in determining significance. 4 NA (not applicable). The categorization and impact finding definitions do not apply to these issues. 5 Scientific evidence about a chronic biological effect on humans from exposure to transmission line electric and magnetic fields is inconclusive. If the Commission finds that a consensus has been reached by appropriate Federal health agencies that there are adverse health effects, the Commission will require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews of these health effects. Until such time, applicants for license renewal are not required to submit information on this issue. 6 Environmental Justice was not addressed in NUREG±1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,'' because guidance for implementing Executive Order 12898 issued on February 11, 1994, was not available prior to completion of NUREG±1437. This issue will be addressed in individual license renewal reviews. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28497

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 29th day of Federal Register, 800 North Capitol levels of government. Therefore, in May, 1996. Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. accordance with Executive Order 12612, For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim it is determined that this final rule does John C. Hoyle, Backman, Aerospace Engineer, not have sufficient federalism Secretary of the Commission. Standardization Branch, ANM–113, implications to warrant the preparation [FR Doc. 96–13874 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, of a Federalism Assessment. BILLING CODE 7590±01±P 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, For the reasons discussed above, I Washington 98055–4056; telephone certify that this action (1) is not a (206) 227–2797; fax (206) 227–1149. ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 include an airworthiness directive (AD) FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 14 CFR Part 39 that is applicable to certain Airbus will not have a significant economic Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes impact, positive or negative, on a [Docket No. 95±NM±161±AD; Amendment was published in the Federal Register substantial number of small entities 39±9644; AD 96±12±02] on February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7444). That under the criteria of the Regulatory RIN 2120±AA64 action proposed to require Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has measurements of the thickness of the been prepared for this action and it is Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model inner skin of the longitudinal lap joint contained in the Rules Docket. A copy A300 B2 and B4 Series Airplanes, from the inside of the fuselage at certain of it may be obtained from the Rules Excluding Model A300±600 Series stringers using the ultrasonic thickness Docket at the location provided under Airplanes measurement method. That action also the caption ADDRESSES. proposed to require high frequency List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 AGENCY: Federal Aviation eddy current (HFEC) inspections to Administration, DOT. detect cracking in the subject area, and Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation ACTION: Final rule. repair, if necessary. safety, Incorporation by reference, Interested persons have been afforded Safety. SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a an opportunity to participate in the Adoption of the Amendment new airworthiness directive (AD), making of this amendment. Due applicable to certain Airbus Model consideration has been given to the two Accordingly, pursuant to the A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes, that comments received. authority delegated to me by the requires measurements of the thickness Administrator, the Federal Aviation of the inner skin of the longitudinal lap Support for the Proposal Administration amends part 39 of the joint from the inside of the fuselage at Both commenters support the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR certain stringers. This amendment also proposed rule. part 39) as follows: requires inspections to detect stress corrosion cracking in the subject area, Conclusion PART 39ÐAIRWORTHINESS and repair, if necessary. This After careful review of the available DIRECTIVES amendment is prompted by reports of data, including the comments noted stress corrosion cracking found in the above, the FAA has determined that air 1. The authority citation for part 39 skin at the longitudinal lap joint at safety and the public interest require the continues to read as follows: certain stringers of the fuselage, which adoption of the rule as proposed. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. was caused by the increased stress level Cost Impact § 39.13 [Amended] in the subject area when it was reworked beyond certain limits. The The FAA estimates that 17 airplanes 2. Section 39.13 is amended by actions specified by this AD are of U.S. registry will be affected by this adding the following new airworthiness intended to prevent such stress AD, that it will take approximately 32 directive: corrosion cracking which, if not work hours per airplane to accomplish 96–12–02 Airbus Industrie: Amendment 39– detected and corrected in a timely the required actions, and that the 9644. Docket 95–NM–161–AD. manner, could result in rapid average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Applicability: Model A300 B2 and B4 depressurization of the airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact series airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated DATES: Effective July 10, 1996. 003 through 156 inclusive; on which Airbus to be $32,640, or $1,920 per airplane. The incorporation by reference of Modification 2611 has not been installed; The cost impact figure discussed certificated in any category. certain publications listed in the above is based on assumptions that no regulations is approved by the Director Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane operator has yet accomplished any of identified in the preceding applicability of the Federal Register as of July 10, the requirements of this AD action, and provision, regardless of whether it has been 1996. that no operator would accomplish modified, altered, or repaired in the area ADDRESSES: The service information those actions in the future if this AD subject to the requirements of this AD. For referenced in this AD may be obtained were not adopted. airplanes that have been modified, altered, or from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point repaired so that the performance of the Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, Regulatory Impact requirements of this AD is affected, the France. This information may be The regulations adopted herein will owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in examined at the Federal Aviation not have substantial direct effects on the accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. Administration (FAA), Transport States, on the relationship between the The request should include an assessment of Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, national government and the States, or the effect of the modification, alteration, or 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, on the distribution of power and repair on the unsafe condition addressed by Washington; or at the Office of the responsibilities among the various this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not 28498 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations been eliminated, the request should include Inspector, who may add comments and then cable, which could result in stiff specific proposed actions to address it. send it to the Manager, Standardization operation of the power and condition Note 2: Model A300–600 series airplanes Branch, ANM–113. controls and subsequent reduced engine are not subject to the requirements of this Note 4: Information concerning the control. AD. existence of approved alternative methods of DATES: Effective July 10, 1996. Compliance: Required as indicated, unless compliance with this AD, if any, may be accomplished previously. obtained from the Standardization Branch, The incorporation by reference of To prevent stress corrosion cracking in the ANM–113. certain publications listed in the longitudinal lap joints of the fuselage, which (d) Special flight permits may be issued in regulations is approved by the Director could result in rapid depressurization of the accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Register as of July 10, airplane, accomplish the following: of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 1996. Note 3: Any of the inspections and 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to ADDRESSES: The service information measurements required by this AD that were a location where the requirements of this AD referenced in this AD may be obtained performed before the effective date of this AD can be accomplished. from Jetstream Aircraft, Inc., P.O. Box in accordance with Airbus All Operator (e) The measurements and inspections 16029, Dulles International Airport, Telex (AOT) 53–05 (original issue), dated shall be done in accordance with Airbus All August 16, 1995, are considered acceptable Operator Telex (AOT) 53–05, Revision 1, Washington, DC 20041–6029. This for compliance with the applicable dated August 16, 1993. This incorporation by information may be examined at the requirements of this AD. reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), (a) Within 60 days after the effective date Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules of this AD, accomplish paragraphs (a)(1) and 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., (a)(2) of this AD in accordance with Airbus obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Renton, Washington; or at the Office of All Operator Telex (AOT) 53–05, Revision 1, Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol dated August 16, 1993. France. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. (1) Measure the thickness of the inner skin Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of the longitudinal lap joint from the inside Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the of the fuselage at stringer 57 between frames Office of the Federal Register, 800 North William Schroeder, Aerospace Engineer, 65 and 72 using the ultrasonic thickness Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, Standardization Branch, ANM–113, measurement method, in accordance with the DC. FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, AOT. If the thickness is less than or equal to (f) This amendment becomes effective on 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, the limits specified in the AOT, prior to July 10, 1996. Washington 98055–4056; telephone further flight, repair the longitudinal lap joint Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 28, (206) 227–2148; fax (206) 227–1149. in accordance with a method approved by 1996. the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Bill R. Boxwell, 113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal (2) Perform a high frequency eddy current Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to (HFEC) inspection to detect cracking of the Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. include an airworthiness directive (AD) longitudinal lap joint at stringer 57 between [FR Doc. 96–13798 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] that is applicable to certain Jetstream frames 65 and 72, in accordance with the BILLING CODE 4910±13±P Model 4101 airplanes was published in AOT. If any cracking is detected, prior to the Federal Register on December 19, further flight, repair the longitudinal lap joint 1995 (60 FR 65258). That action in accordance with a method approved by 14 CFR Part 39 the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM– proposed to require replacement of the 113. [Docket No. 95±NM±133±AD; Amendment flexible cables of power and condition (b) Within 6 months after the effective date 39±9643; AD 96±12±01] controls of the engines with new of this AD, accomplish paragraphs (b)(1) and flexible cables. The action also proposed (b)(2) of this AD in accordance with Airbus RIN 2120±AA64 to require installation of protective tape AOT 53–05, Revision 1, dated August 16, on the outside case of the new flexible 1993. Airworthiness Directives; Jetstream Model 4101 Airplanes cables of the power and condition (1) Measure the thickness of the inner skin controls of the engines, and of the longitudinal lap joint from the inside AGENCY: of the fuselage at stringer 52 (left-and right- Federal Aviation reidentification of the assembly number hand) between frames 58 and 65 using the Administration, DOT. of the cable. ultrasonic thickness measurement method, in ACTION: Final rule. Interested persons have been afforded accordance with the AOT. If the thickness is an opportunity to participate in the less than or equal to the limits specified in SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a making of this amendment. Due the AOT, prior to further flight, repair the new airworthiness directive (AD), consideration has been given to the longitudinal lap joint in accordance with a applicable to certain Jetstream Model comments received. method approved by the Manager, 4101 airplanes, that requires Standardization Branch, ANM–113. replacement of the flexible cables of the Request to Provide Additional (2) Perform a HFEC inspection to detect power and condition controls of the Terminating Action cracking of the longitudinal lap joint at engines with new flexible cables. This One commenter requests that the FAA stringer 52 (left- and right-hand) between frames 58 and 65, in accordance with the amendment also requires installation of revise the proposal to require the AOT. If any cracking is detected, prior to protective tape on the outside case of accomplishment of the actions further flight, repair the longitudinal lap joint these flexible cables, and described in Jetstream Service Bulletin in accordance with a method approved by reidentification of the cables. This J41–76–013 () (Modification JM41485A), the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM– amendment is prompted by reports of as interim action only. The commenter 113. stiff operation of the power and states that the flexible cables associated (c) An alternative method of compliance or condition controls of the engines due to with the proposed action have a life adjustment of the compliance time that heat damage to and moisture limit of 6,000 hours time-in-service, and provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, contamination of the flexible cable. The have not demonstrated reliability Standardization Branch, ANM–113. actions specified by this AD are warranting an escalation of this limit. Operators shall submit their requests through intended to prevent heat damage and Instead, the commenter requests that the an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance moisture contamination to the flexible proposal be revised to include a Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28499 requirement to accomplish the actions In addition, the commenter states that substantial number of small entities described in Jetstream Service Bulletin the required modification would under the criteria of the Regulatory SB J41–76–014 () (Modification necessitate 39 work hours, rather than Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has JM41478), as the terminating action. The the 11 work hours specified in the been prepared for this action and it is new improved flexible cable, which is proposal. contained in the Rules Docket. A copy associated with Modification JM41478, After considering the data presented of it may be obtained from the Rules holds the promise of eventually by the commenter, the FAA concurs that Docket at the location provided under qualifying for an escalation of its life the number of U.S.-registered airplanes the caption ADDRESSES. limit to 12,000 hours time-in-service. affected by the AD, and the number of The FAA does not concur with the necessary work hours, are higher than List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 commenter’s request to revise the AD. approximated previously. The FAA has Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation The FAA has determined that revised the cost impact information, safety, Incorporation by reference, accomplishment of the procedures below, accordingly. Safety. specified in Jetstream Service Bulletin Adoption of the Amendment J41–76–013, as proposed, adequately Conclusion addresses the identified unsafe After careful review of the available Accordingly, pursuant to the condition by preventing heat damage data, including the comments noted authority delegated to me by the and moisture contamination to the above, the FAA has determined that air Administrator, the Federal Aviation flexible cables. safety and the public interest require the Administration amends part 39 of the The FAA recognizes that some adoption of the rule, with the changes Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR operators previously may have elected to the cost impact information described part 39) as follows: to accomplish Modification JM41478, previously. The FAA has determined which the FAA considers to address the that these changes will neither PART 39ÐAIRWORTHINESS identified unsafe condition adequately significantly increase the economic DIRECTIVES as well. However, the FAA points out burden on any operator nor increase the 1. The authority citation for part 39 that this AD is applicable only to Model scope of the AD. continues to read as follows: 4101 airplanes on which Modification Cost Impact Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. JM41478 or JM41485A has not been installed. Therefore, those airplanes are The FAA estimates that 44 airplanes § 39.13 [Amended] not subject to the requirements of this of U.S. registry will be affected by this 2. Section 39.13 is amended by AD. AD, that it will take approximately 39 adding the following new airworthiness work hours per airplane to accomplish directive: Request to Require Marking of Part the required actions, and that the Numbers average labor rate is $60 per work hour. 96–12–01 Jetstream Aircraft Limited: This commenter also requests that the Amendment 39–9643. Docket 95–NM– Required parts will be supplied by the 133–AD. FAA revise the proposal to require manufacturer at no cost to the operators. marking part numbers on the two types Applicability: Model 4101 airplanes on Based on these figures, the cost impact which Jetstream Modification JM41478 or of engine control cables (Modifications of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated JM41485A has not been installed, certificated JM414485A and JM41478) after to be $102,960, or $2,340 per airplane. in any category. installation of the cables. The The cost impact figure discussed Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane commenter states that routing during above is based on assumptions that no identified in the preceding applicability installation of the cables requires operator has yet accomplished any of provision, regardless of whether it has been removal of all identification bands, the requirements of this AD action, and modified, altered, or repaired in the area making verification in the absence of that no operator would accomplish subject to the requirements of this AD. For good recordkeeping virtually those actions in the future if this AD airplanes that have been modified, altered, or impossible. were not adopted. repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the The FAA does not consider a revision Regulatory Impact owner/operator must request approval for an to be necessary. The FAA points out alternative method of compliance in that paragraph (a)(2) of the final rule The regulations adopted herein will accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. already requires reidentification of the not have substantial direct effects on the The request should include an assessment of assembly number of the cable. Since States, on the relationship between the the effect of the modification, alteration, or this AD does not require Modification national government and the States, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by JM41478, as stated previously, the FAA on the distribution of power and this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not finds that including a requirement for responsibilities among the various been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it. such a marking need not be specified in levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612, Compliance: Required as indicated, unless this final rule. accomplished previously. To prevent heat it is determined that this final rule does damage and moisture contamination to the Request to Revise Cost Impact not have sufficient federalism Information flexible cable, which could result in stiff implications to warrant the preparation operation of the power and condition This same commenter asserts that the of a Federalism Assessment. controls and subsequent reduced engine cost estimate presented in the preamble For the reasons discussed above, I control, accomplish the following: of the proposal was incorrect. The certify that this action (1) is not a (a) Within 6 months after the effective date commenter notes that the FAA estimates ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under of this AD, accomplish the requirements of that 25 airplanes of U.S. registry would Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD, in be affected by this proposed AD; ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT accordance with Jetstream Service Bulletin J41–76–013, dated May 5, 1995. Both however, the commenter states that it Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 requirements must be accomplished at the currently operates 25 airplanes of U.S. FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) same time. registry, and knows that there are will not have a significant economic (1) Replace the flexible cables of power and additional U.S. operators. impact, positive or negative, on a condition controls of the left and right 28500 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations engines with new flexible cables, in ACTION: Final rule. conform the Customs Regulations to accordance with paragraphs 2.B. and 2.C. of current legal requirements, which have the Accomplishment Instructions of the SUMMARY: This document amends the no substantive effect on the public, service bulletin; and Customs Regulations by removing the pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(B), good (2) Install protective tape on the outside regulatory provisions that implemented case of the new flexible cables of the power cause exists for dispensing with notice the import sanctions against all and public procedure thereon as and condition controls of the left and right products produced by the Toshiba engines; and reidentify the assembly number unnecessary. For the same reasons, it is of the cable; in accordance with paragraph Machine Company and the Kongsberg determined under the provisions of 5 2.D. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Trading Company. The ‘‘Toshiba U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (d)(3) that good the service bulletin. Sanctions’’ were imposed by Executive cause exists for dispensing with a (b) An alternative method of compliance or Order No. 12661 for a three year time delayed effective date. Since this adjustment of the compliance time that period, which expired on December 28, document is not subject to the notice provides an acceptable level of safety may be 1991. and public procedure requirements of 5 used if approved by the Manager, EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 1996. U.S.C. 553, it is not subject to provisions Standardization Branch, ANM–113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 shall submit their requests through an Louis Alfano, Office of Field U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This document does appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Operations, Trade Compliance, not meet the criteria for a ‘‘significant Inspector, who may add comments and then Commercial Enforcement, (202) 927– regulatory action’’ as specified in E.O. send it to the Manager, Standardization 0005. 12866. Branch, ANM–113. List of Subjects Note 2: Information concerning the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: existence of approved alternative methods of Background 19 CFR Part 12 compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Standardization Branch, As part of Customs continuing effort Customs duties and inspection, ANM–113. to ensure that its regulations are Economic sanctions, Imports, Licensing, (c) Special flight permits may be issued in informative and up-to-date, Customs has Prohibited merchandise, Restricted accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 determined that four of its regulatory merchandise, Reporting and of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR provisions in Part 12 of the Customs recordkeeping requirements, Sanctions, 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to Regulations (19 CFR Part 12) are Seizure and forfeiture. a location where the requirements of this AD obsolete and should be removed. The can be accomplished. regulatory sections are found at 19 CFR 19 CFR Part 178 (d) The replacement, installation, and 12.140–143, Customs Regulations, and Administrative practice and reidentification shall be done in accordance were promulgated to implement the with Jetstream Service Bulletin J41–76–013, procedure, Exports, Imports, Reporting dated May 5, 1995. This incorporation by import sanctions mandated by section and recordkeeping requirements. reference was approved by the Director of the 2443(a)(2) of the Omnibus Trade and Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Pub.L. Amendments to the Regulations 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be 100–418, 102 Stat. 1107, 1365, 50 U.S.C. obtained from Jetstream Aircraft, Inc., P.O. App. 2410a note) and imposed by For the reasons stated above, parts 12 Box 16029, Dulles International Airport, Executive Order No. 12661 of December and 178 of the Customs Regulations (19 Washington, DC 20041–6029. Copies may be 27, 1988 (53 FR 779, 3 CFR part 1988 CFR parts 12 and 178) are amended as inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Comp. p. 618, 24 Weekly set forth below: Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Comp.Pres.Doc. 1661) for a three year PART 12ÐSPECIAL CLASSES OF Washington; or at the Office of the Federal time period against all products Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite MERCHANDISE 700, Washington, DC. produced by the Toshiba Machine (e) This amendment becomes effective on Company and the Kongsberg Trading 1. The general authority citation for July 10, 1996. Company. As the three year time period Part 12 continues to read as follows, and Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 28, expired on December 28, 1991, Customs the specific authority citation for 1996. has decided to remove these four §§ 12.140 through 12.143 is removed: Bill R. Boxwell, obsolete regulatory provisions, commonly referred to as the ‘‘Toshiba Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Sanctions’’. Also, because the Toshiba (General Note 20, Harmonized Tariff Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), Sanction regulations required the [FR Doc. 96–13797 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] 1624; submission of information to Customs, BILLING CODE 4910±13±P the listing of Office of Management and * * * * * Budget (OMB) control numbers found at 2. Part 12 is amended by removing the 19 CFR 178.2 is amended to remove the undesignated centerheading ‘‘Sanctions DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY information collection authorization for Against Toshiba Machine Company and § 12.143, which provided for Kongsberg Trading Company’’ and Customs Service declarations of exception from import §§ 12.140 through 12.143. sanctions. 19 CFR Parts 12 and 178 PART 178ÐAPPROVAL OF Inapplicability of Public Notice and [T.D. 96±46] INFORMATION COLLECTION Comment Requirements, Delayed REQUIREMENTS RIN 1515±AB96 Effective Date Requirements, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and 1. The authority citation for part 178 Removal of Toshiba Sanction Executive Order 12866 continues to read as follows: Regulations Because this amendment removes Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 1624; 44 AGENCY: Customs Service, Treasury. obsolete regulatory provisions to U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28501

§ 178.2 [Amended] 1996. The Coast Guard received no Small Entities 2. Section 178.2 is amended by comments during the notice of proposed Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act removing the designation and rulemaking comment period. A public (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard description entry for § 12.143. hearing was not requested and no must consider whether this rulemaking George J. Weise, hearing was held. will have a significant economic impact Commissioner of Customs. Discussion of Regulations on a substantial number of small Approved: May 15, 1996. These regulations are needed to entities. ‘‘Small entities’’ include Dennis M. O’Connell, provide for the safety of life during the independently owned and operated Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Beaufort Water Festival. The regulations small businesses that are not dominant Treasury. are intended to promote safe navigation in their field and that otherwise qualify [FR Doc. 96–14026 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] on the waters of the Beaufort River as ‘‘small business concerns’’ under Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 BILLING CODE 4820±02±P between the Ladys Island swing bridge and Spanish Point by controlling the U.S.C. 632). traffic entering, exiting, and traveling For reasons set forth in the above Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast Guard DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION within these waters. Historically, the raft races, sailboat regattas, aerial certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this Coast Guard demonstrations, power boat races and a rule will not have a significant parade of ships have drawn economic impact on a substantial 33 CFR Part 100 approximately 75 event participants and number of small entities. [CGD07±96±020] 400 spectator craft to the Beaufort River Collection of Information each day of the event. The anticipated RIN 2115±AE46 concentration of spectator and event These regulations contain no participant vessels associated with the collection of information requirements Special Local Regulations: Beaufort Beaufort Water Festival poses a safety under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Water Festival, Beaufort, SC concern, which is addressed in these U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT. special local regulations. Federalism These regulations will not permit ACTION: Final rule. movement of spectator vessels and other This action has been analyzed in non-event participating vessel traffic accordance with the principles and SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is criteria contained in Executive Order establishing permanent special local within the regulated area, between the Ladys Island swing bridge (32°25′40′′ N, 12612, and it has been determined that regulations for the Beaufort Water this rulemaking does not have sufficient Festival. This event will be held 080°40′10′′ W) and a line drawn directly across the Beaufort River at Spanish Federalism implications to warrant the annually on the last two Saturdays and preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Sundays of July, between 7:30 a.m. and Point (32°24′00′′ N) from 7:30 a.m. to 7 7 p.m. e.d.t. (Eastern Daylight Time). p.m. e.d.t, annually on the last two Environmental Assessment Saturdays and Sundays of July. All Historically, the raft races, sailboat The Coast Guard has considered the coordinates referenced use datum: NAD regattas, aerial demonstrations, power environmental impact of this 1983. However, these regulations will boat races, and a parade of ships have rulemaking consistent with Section permit the movement of spectator drawn 75 event participants and 400 2.B.2. of Commandant Instruction vessels and other non-event participant spectator craft to the Beaufort River each M16475.1B. In accordance with that vessels between scheduled events and at day of the event. The anticipated section, this action has been the termination of the last scheduled concentration of spectator and event environmentally assessed (EA event, at the discretion of the Coast participant vessels associated with the completed), and the Coast Guard has Guard Patrol Commander. Beaufort Water Festival poses a safety concluded that it will not significantly concern. Furthermore, the nature of the Regulatory Evaluation affect the quality of the human event and the closure of the Beaufort environment. An environmental River between the Ladys Island swing This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Section 3(f) of assessment and a finding of no bridge and Spanish Point creates an significant impact have been prepared extra or unusual hazard in the navigable Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of the potential and are available in the docket for waters during the event. These inspection. regulations are necessary to provide for costs and benefits under Section 6(a)(3) the safety of life on navigable waters of that order. It has been exempted from List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 during the event. review by the Office of Management and Budget under that order. It is not Marine safety, Navigation (water), EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 1996. significant under the regulatory policies Reporting and recordkeeping FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and procedures of the Department of requirements, Waterways. ENS M.J. DaPonte, project officer, Coast Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; Regulations Guard Group Charleston at (803) 724– February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard 7621. In consideration of the foregoing, Part expects the economic impact of this rule 100 of Title 33, Code of Federal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Regulations, the Coast Guard amends as Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the follows: Regulatory History regulatory policies and procedures of On April 19, 1996, the Coast Guard DOT is unnecessary. These regulations PART 100Ð[AMENDED] published a notice of proposed will last for only 11 and one half hours rulemaking entitled ‘‘Beaufort Water on each day of the event. No public The authority citation for Part 100 Festival, Beaufort, SC [CGD07–96–020] comments were received during the continues to read as follows: in the Federal Register (61 FR 17269). notice of proposed rulemaking comment Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 49 CFR 1.46 and The comment period ended on May 20, period. 33 CFR 100.35. 28502 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

2. A new section 100.715 is added to of navigable channels creates an extra or designated spectator area defined in read as follows: unusual hazard in the navigable waters. paragraph (b) of these regulations, These regulations are necessary to taking action to avoid a close-quarters § 100.715 Annual Beaufort Water Festival, provide for the safety of life on situation until finally past and clear of Beaufort River, Beaufort, SC. navigable waters during the event. the racecourse. (a) Definitions. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 1996. (1) Regulated Area.A regulated area is Regulatory Evaluation FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: established on that portion of the LTJG T. Stuhlreyer, project officer, Coast This rule is not a significant Beaufort River, between the Ladys regulatory action under Section 3(f) of Island swing bridge at 32°25′40′′ N, Guard Group St. Petersburg, FL at (813) 824–7533. the Executive Order 12866 and does not 080°40′10′′ W and a line drawn directly require an assessment of the potential across the Beaufort River at Spanish SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: costs and benefits under Section 6(a)(3) ° ′ ′′ Point, at 32 24 00 N. All coordinates Regulatory History of that Order. It has been exempted from referenced use datum: NAD 1983. review by the Office of Management and (2) Coast Guard Patrol Commander. On March 20, 1996, the Coast Guard Budget under that order. It is not The Coast Guard Patrol Commander is published a notice of proposed significant under the regulatory policies a commissioned, warrant, or petty rulemaking entitled [CGD07–96–005] in and procedures of the Department of officer of the United States Coast Guard the Federal Register (61 FR 11354). The Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; who has been designated by the Coast Guard received no written or oral February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard Commander, Coast Guard Group comments during the proposed expects the economic impact of this rule Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina. rulemaking comment period. A public to be so minimal that a full Regulatory (b) Special local regulations. (1) Entry hearing was not requested and one was Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the into the regulated area by other than not held. regulatory policies and procedures of event participants is prohibited, unless Discussion of Regulations DOT is unnecessary. These regulations otherwise authorized by the Coast These regulations are needed to will last for only 4 hours each day of the Guard Patrol Commander. event. (2) Between scheduled events the provide for the safety of life during the Coast Guard Patrol Commander may Fort Myers Beach Offshore Grand Prix. Small Entities These regulations are intended to authorize vessels to resume normal Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act promote safe navigation on the waters operations. (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard off Fort Myers Beach during the races by (3) After termination of the Beaufort must consider whether this action will controlling the traffic entering, exiting, Water Festival events, all vessels may have a significant economic impact on and traveling within these waters. The resume normal operation at the a substantial number of small entities. anticipated concentration of spectator discretion of the Coast Guard Patrol ‘‘Small entities’’ include independently and participant vessels associated with Commander. owned and operated small businesses the Grand Prix poses a safety concern, (c) Effective Dates. This section that are not dominant in their field and which is addressed in these special become effective annually from 7:30 that otherwise qualify as ‘‘small local regulations. These regulations will a.m. to 7 p.m. EDT, on the last two business concerns’’ under Section 3 of not permit anchoring shoreward of the Saturdays and Sundays of July. the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). shoreside legs of the racecourse, from 11 For reasons set forth in the above Dated: May 14, 1996. a.m. to 3 p.m., on the first Saturday and Roger T. Rufe, Jr., Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast Guard Sunday of June. Spectator craft will be certifies that this action will not have a Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, permitted near the race area but will be Seventh Coast Guard District. significant economic impact on a required to stay clear of the race lanes. substantial number of small entities. [FR Doc. 96–13999 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] These regulations will permit anchoring BILLING CODE 4910±14±M for spectators seaward of the seaside Collection of Information legs of the racecourse, but only in the These regulations contain no designated spectator area defined in collection of information requirements 33 CFR Part 100 paragraph (b) of the regulations. All under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 [CGD07±96±005] vessel traffic, not involved with the Fort U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Myers Beach Offshore Grand Prix, RIN 2115±AE46 exiting Matanzas Pass between 11 a.m. Federalism and 3 p.m. will exit the marked channel Special Local Regulations: Fort Myers This action has been analyzed in at Matanzas Pass Channel daybeacon #3 Beach Offshore Grand Prix; Fort Myers accordance with the principles and (26°25.9′ N, 82°58.2′ W, LLNR 16365) Beach, FL criteria contained in Executive Order and #4 (26°26.1′ N, 82°57.8′ W, LLNR 12612, and it has been determined that AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT. 16370), and will proceed in a the rulemaking does not have sufficient ACTION: Final rule. southwesterly direction seaward of the Federalism implications to warrant the designated spectator area defined in preparation of a Federalism Assessment. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is paragraph (b) of these regulations, establishing permanent special local taking action to avoid a close-quarters Environmental Assessment regulations for the Fort Myers Offshore situation until the vessel finally is past The Coast Guard has considered the Grand Prix. This event will be held and clear of the racecourse. All environmental impact of this action and annually during the first Saturday and coordinates referenced use datum: NAD has concluded that preparation of an Sunday of June, between 12 p.m. and 3 83. All vessel traffic, not involved with Environmental Impact Statement is not p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time). the Fort Myers Beach Offshore Grand necessary. An Environmental Historically, there have been Prix, exiting Big Carlos Pass between 11 Assessment and Finding of No approximately 170 participant and a.m. and 3 p.m. will proceed in a Significant Impact are available in the spectator craft. The resulting congestion southwesterly direction seaward of the docket for inspection or copying. The Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28503

Coast Guard has concluded that this marked channel at Matanzas Pass approximately 160, 16–18 foot drag action will not significantly affect the Channel daybeacon #3 (26°25.9′ N, boats racing two vessels per heat on a quality of the human environment. 82°58.2′ W, LLNR 16365) and #4 quarter mile long course on that portion (26°26.1′ N, 82°57.8′ W, LLNR 16370), of the Savannah River at Augusta, GA, List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 and shall proceed in a southwesterly between U.S. Highway 1 (Fifth St) Marine safety, Navigation (water), direction seaward of the spectator area Bridge at mile marker 199.45 and Eliot’s Reporting and record keeping defined in paragraph (b)(2) of this Fish Camp at mile marker 197. The requirements, Waterways. section, taking action to avoid a close- boats will be competing at high speeds Proposed Regulations quarters situation until finally past and and at close range. The nature of the clear of the racecourse. All coordinates event and the closure of the Savannah For reasons set out in the preamble, referenced use datum: NAD 83. River create an extra or unusual hazard the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR Part (4) All vessel traffic, not involved on the navigable waters. These 100 as follows: with the Fort Myers Beach Offshore regulations are necessary to provide for Grand Prix, exiting Big Carlos Pass the safety of life on navigable waters PART 100Ð[AMENDED] between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. edt will exit during the event. 1. The authority citation for Part 100 the pass in a southwesterly direction EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 1996. continues to read as follows: seaward of the spectator area defined in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: paragraph (b)(2) of this section, taking Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 49 CFR 1.46 and ENS M. J. DaPonte, project officer, Coast 33 CFR 100.35. action to avoid a close-quarters situation Guard Group Charleston at (803) 724– with the spectator craft until finally past 7621. 2. A new section 100.717 is added to and clear of the racecourse. All read as follows: coordinates referenced use datum: NAD SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: § 100.717 Annual Fort Myers Beach 83. Regulatory History Offshore Grand Prix; Fort Myers, FL. (5) Entry into the regulated area shall be in accordance with this regulation. On April 18, 1996, the Coast Guard (a) Regulated Area. The regulated area Spectator vessels shall stay seaward of published a notice of proposed is formed by a line drawn from the start/ the seaside legs of the racecourse at all rulemaking entitled [CGD07–96–021] in finish position, at the Fort Myers Beach times in the spectator areas defined in the Federal Register (61 FR 16885). The pier (26°28.07′ N, 81°58.30′ W), thence paragraph (b)(2) of this section. comment period ended on May 20, to position 26°26.08′ N, 81°55.29′ W, (c) Effective Dates. This section is 1996. The Coast Guard received no thence to position 26°24.76′ N, 81°54.68′ effective at 11 a.m. and terminates at 3 comments on the notice of proposed W, thence to position 26°23.74′ N, p.m. edt annually during the first rulemaking. A public hearing was not 81°55.10′ W, thence to position Saturday and Sunday of June. requested and no hearing was held. 26°23.91′ N, 81°55.40′ W, thence to position 26°24.94′ N, 81°55.24′ W, Dated: May 22, 1996. Discussion of Comments and Changes thence to position 26°26.93′ N, 81°58.53′ Roger T. Rufe, Jr., No comments were received during W, thence to position 26°27.32′ N, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, the comment period. However, the 81°58.16′ W, thence back to the start/ Seventh Coast Guard District. regulations dates for this year are being finish position, at the Fort Myers Beach [FR Doc. 96–13998 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] changed due to the 1996 Olympic pier (26°28.07, 81°58.30′ W). All BILLING CODE 4910±14±M Yachting Competition. The Augusta coordinates referenced use datum: NAD Southern National Drag Races will occur 83. permanently on an annual basis, except (b) Special local regulations. (1) No 33 CFR Part 100 this year, on Thursday, Friday, vessel may anchor shoreward of the [CGD07±96±021] Saturday, and Sunday of the third week shoreside boundaries of the regulated in July from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. edt. area, from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. edt. RIN 2115±AE46 However, due to the Olympics this (2) Spectator craft will be permitted to year’s Augusta Southern National Drag Special Local Regulations: Augusta anchor seaward of the seaside Races will be held on July 18–21 from Southern National Drag Boat Races; boundaries of the regulated area, in the 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. edt. spectator area formed by a line drawn Augusta, GA Discussion of Regulations from the position 29°26.54′ N, 81°58.12′ AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT. ° ′ W, thence to position 28 25.06 N, ACTION: Final rule. These regulations are needed to 81°55.42′ W, thence to position provide for the safety of life during 26°24.45′ N, 81°55.50′ W, thence to SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is Augusta Southern National Drag Boat position 26°26.54′ N, 81°58.30′ W, establishing permanent special local Races. These regulations are intended to thence back to position 29°26.54′ N, regulations for the Augusta Southern promote safe navigation on the waters 81°58.12′ W, and in the spectator area National Drag Boat Races. As a off Augusta on the Savannah River formed by a line drawn from the permanent event, except this year, the during the races by controlling the position 26°25.06′ N, 81°54.18′ W, Augusta Southern National Drag Boat traffic entering, exiting, and traveling thence to position 26°23.47′ N, 81°54.00′ Races will be held annually on within these waters. The anticipated W, thence to position 25°24.05′ N, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday concentration of spectator and event 81°54.47′ W, thence back to position during the third week of July, between participant vessels associated with the 26°25.06′ N, 81°54.18′ W. All 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. edt (Eastern Daylight Drag Boat Races poses a safety concern, coordinates referenced use datum: NAD Time). However, due to the 1996 which is addressed in these special 83. Summer Olympic Games, this year’s local regulations. (3) All vessel traffic, not involved Augusta Southern National Drag Boat These regulations will not permit the with the Fort Myers Beach Offshore Races will be held on July 18–21, 1996 entry or movement of spectator vessels Grand Prix, exiting Matanzas Pass between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. edt. and other non-event participating vessel between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. will exit the Historically, there have been traffic between the U.S. Highway Route 28504 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

1 (Fifth Street) Bridge at mile marker Federalism implications to warrant the (c) Effective Dates. This section is 199.45 and Eliot’s Fish Camp at mile preparation of a Federalism Assessment. effective annually on Thursday, Friday, marker 197 from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. edt, Saturday and Sunday of the third week Environmental Assessment on July 18, 19, 20, and 21, 1996, and of July from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. edt, except then thereafter, annually on Thursday, The Coast Guard has considered the in 1996, the section is effective on July Friday, Saturday and Sunday of the environmental impact of this 18–21, 1996 from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. edt. third week in July. These regulations rulemaking consistent with Section 2.B.2. of Commandant Instruction Dated: May 22, 1996. will permit the movement of spectator Roger T. Rufe, Jr., vessels and other non-event participants M16475.1B. In accordance with that section, this action has been Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, after the termination of race each day, Seventh Coast Guard District. and during intervals between scheduled environmentally assessed (EA [FR Doc. 96–13997 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] events at the discretion of the Coast completed), and the Coast Guard has Guard Patrol Commander. concluded that it will not significantly BILLING CODE 4910±14±M affect the quality of the human Regulatory Evaluation environment. An environmental This regulation is not a significant assessment and a finding of no DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR regulatory action under Section 3(f) of significant impact have been prepared the Executive Order 12866 and does not and are available for copying and National Park Service inspection. require an assessment of the potential 36 CFR Part 6 costs and benefits under Section 6(a)(3) List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 of that Order. It has been exempted from RIN 1024±AC37 review by the Office of Management and Marine safety, Navigation (water), Budget under that order. It is not Reporting and recordkeeping Change in Organizational Title From significant under the regulatory policies requirements, Waterways. Regional Director to Field Director and procedures of the Department of Final Regulations AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; In consideration of the foregoing, Part ACTION: Administrative amendment to February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard 100 of Title 33, Code of Federal final rule. expects the economic impact of this rule Regulations, the Coast Guard amends as to be so minimal that a full Regulatory follows: SUMMARY: The National Park Service Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the (NPS) amended the General Provisions regulatory policies and procedures of PART 100Ð[AMENDED] Definition of ‘‘Regional Director’’ to DOT is unnecessary. These regulations reflect a new organizational structure on will only last for 14 hours each day of 1. The authority citation for Part 100 November 3, 1995. With the recent the event. No public comments were continues to read as follows: reorganization of the NPS eliminating received during the notice of proposed Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 49 CFR 1.46 and existing geographic regions (effective rulemaking comment period. 33 CFR 100.35. May 15, 1995), the term Regional Small Entities 2. A new section 100.709 is added to Director is no longer an agency job read as follows: position. The duties and responsibilities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of these positions have been assumed by (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard § 100.709 Annual Augusta Southern Field Directors. The amendment to the must consider whether this rulemaking National Drag Boat Races; Savannah River, Augusta GA. definitions replaced the term Regional will have a significant economic impact Director with Field Director wherever it (a) Definitions. (1) Regulated area. on a substantial number of small appeared in 36 CFR Parts 1–199, as well The regulated area is formed by a line entities. ‘‘Small entities’’ include as eliminated all reference to the former drawn directly across the Savannah independently owned and operated geographic regions. small businesses that are not dominant River at the U.S. Highway 1 (Fifth This change was necessary because in their field and that otherwise qualify Street) Bridge at mile marker 199.45 and the terms Region and Regional Director as ‘‘small business concerns’’ under directly across the Savannah River at are no longer recognized in the NPS Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 Eliot’s Fish Camp at mile marker 197. reorganizational structure. Certain U.S.C. 632). The regulated area encompasses the responsibilities and delegations of For reasons set forth in the above width of the Savannah River between authority associated with the former Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast Guard these two lines. Regional Directors are now assumed by (2) Coast Guard Patrol Commander. certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this the positions identified by the term The Coast Guard Patrol Commander is rulemaking, would not have a Field Director. Publication of this a commissioned, warrant, or petty significant economic impact on a change is also a requirement of the officer of the Coast Guard who has been substantial number of small entities. Federal Register Act. Unfortunately, the designated by the Commander, Coast necessary amendments to 36 CFR Part 6 Collection of Information Guard Group Charleston, Charleston, were inadvertently omitted from the These regulations contain no South Carolina. original document and are addressed collection of information requirements (b) Special local regulations. (1) Entry through this administrative amendment under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 into the regulated area is prohibited to to the final rule. U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). all non-event participants. (2) After the termination of the EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes Federalism Augusta Southern National Drag Boat effective on June 5, 1996. This action has been analyzed in Races each day, and during intervals FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: accordance with the principles and between scheduled events, at the Dennis Burnett, Ranger Activities criteria contained in Executive Order discretion of the Coast Guard Patrol Division, National Park Service, P.O. 12612, and it has been determined that Commander, all vessels may resume Box 37127, Washington, D.C., 20013– the rulemaking does not have sufficient normal operations. 7127. Telephone 202–208–4874. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28505

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: is warranted because it is merely a (EA) nor an Environmental Impact Background change in agency organizational Statement (EIS) has been prepared. structure. The NPS finds that notice and List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 6 The National Park System of the comment are unnecessary and contrary United States comprises 369 areas to the public interest for this final rule. National parks, Natural resources, covering over 80 million acres in 49 The NPS has also determined, in Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping States, the District of Columbia, accordance with the Administrative requirements, Waste treatment. American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)), that In consideration of the foregoing, and Sampan and the Virgin Islands. These the publishing of this final rule 30 days under the authority at 18 U.S.C. 1 and areas of national significance justify prior to the rule becoming effective 3, 36 CFR Chapter I is amended as special recognition and protection in would be counterproductive and follows: accordance with various acts of unnecessary for the reasons discussed Congress. above. A 30-day delay would be PART 6ÐSOLID WASTE DISPOSAL In 1995, as a result of: (1) the NPS’s contrary to the public interest and the SITES IN UNITS OF THE NATIONAL own assessment of a need to change interest of the agency. Therefore, under PARK SYSTEM how it accomplished its essential work the ‘‘good cause’’ exception of the with increasing constraints; (2) the 1. The authority citation for 36 CFR Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. part 6 continues to read as follows: National Performance Review (NPR), 553(d)(3)), it has been determined that which directed Federal agencies to cut this rulemaking is excepted from the 30- Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 4601–22(c). red tape, put customers first, empower day delay in the effective date and shall 2. 36 CFR Part 6 is amended by employees to get results and reduce therefore become effective on the date layers in organizations; and (3) The removing the term ‘‘Regional Director’’ published in the Federal Register. Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of and inserting the term ‘‘Field Director’’ 1994 (P.L. 103–226), a government-wide Drafting Information. The primary author in its place each time it appears. Workforce reduction, the NPS of this final rule is Dennis Burnett, Dated: May 29, 1996. implemented a Servicewide Washington Office of Ranger Activities, George T. Frampton, National Park Service. restructuring of the organization. The Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and reorganization effort drastically reduces Paperwork Reduction Act Parks. central office staffs. The 10 NPS This rulemaking does not contain [FR Doc. 96–14122 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Regional Directors have been replaced information collection requirements that BILLING CODE 4310±70±P by 7 Field Directors, who provide require approval by the Office of direction, oversight, budget formulation Management and Budget under the and assistance in media relations for the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 36 CFR Part 7 parks and support offices in their RIN 1024±AC42 geographical field areas. With the Compliance With Other Laws change and revision of the regional This rule was not subject to Office of Appalachian National Scenic Trail, concept, all national park units are now Management and Budget review under Powerless Flight grouped into clusters to act Executive Order 12866. The Department collaboratively in sharing limited of the Interior has determined that this AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. resources. A network of 16 system document will not have a significant ACTION: Final rule. support offices provide services and economic effect on a substantial number SUMMARY: The National Park Service support to the parks by cluster. of small entities under the Regulatory (NPS) is adopting this final rule to allow The President of the United States, Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.). powerless flight along the Appalachian through the Secretary of the Interior and The economic effects of this rulemaking National Scenic Trail at times and the Director of the NPS, allowed the are negligible. locations designated by the Park Regional Directors of the ten Regional The NPS has determined that this Manager, pursuant to the terms and Offices certain delegated authorities in proposed rulemaking will not have a conditions of a permit. The terms and the management of the park units. 36 significant effect on the quality of the conditions of a Special Use Permit CFR Parts 1–199 contains many of these human environment, health and safety (SUP) will in all cases prohibit stunt authorities. Because the term Regional because it is not expected to: Director is codified in the CFR, the (a) Increase public use to the extent of flying, commercialization, advertising, definition of Regional Director must be compromising the nature and character publicity, contests, meets, replaced to reflect the new authorities of the area or causing physical damage demonstrations and motor vehicular given to Field Directors as a result of the to it; access on non-public roads. In addition, reorganization. Many of these (b) Introduce incompatible uses the Park Manager may require, as a authorities have the enforcement which compromise the nature and standard condition of the SUP, that all powers of law. On November 3, 1995, characteristics of the area or cause hang gliders using the designated site be the NPS published a final rule in the physical damage to it; qualified pilots licensed by the United Federal Register (60 FR 55789) (c) Conflict with adjacent ownership States Hang Gliding Association. The changing the nomenclature in 36 CFR or land uses; or frequency of launch sites, level of use, Parts 1–199 from Regional Director to (d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent availability of alternate sites and Field Director. owners or occupants. cumulative impacts on the remote The NPS adopts this final rule Based on this determination, the recreational experience and character of pursuant to the ‘‘agency organization’’ regulation is categorically excluded the Appalachian Trail will be significant exception of the Administrative from the procedural requirements of the factors in determining whether new Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)) from National Environmental Policy Act launch and/or landing sites will be general notice and comment (NEPA) by Departmental guidelines in designated. rulemaking. The NPS believes that this 516 DM 6 (49 FR 21438). As such, EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes exception from rulemaking procedures neither an Environmental Assessment effective on July 5, 1996. 28506 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: approximately 300 additional form (d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent Virginia F. Williams, NPS, Appalachian letters were received. All of the owners or occupants. National Scenic Trail, Harpers Ferry respondents to the proposed rule Based on this determination, the Center, Harpers Ferry, WV 25425. endorsed hang gliding use of the Fox regulation is categorically excluded Telephone (304) 535–6278 Gap site. However, the 918 form letters from the procedural requirements of the urged the NPS to seek a broader, non National Environmental Policy Act SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: site-specific special regulation. After (NEPA) by Departmental guidelines in Background considering all of the public comments 516 DM 6 (49 FR 21438). As such, The Appalachian National Scenic received, the NPS has decided to neither an Environmental Assessment Trail (AT) is a north-south hiking trail endorse a broader rule, and to proceed (EA) nor an Environmental Impact that stretches nearly 2,200 miles from with a final rule with a modification of Statement (EIS) has been prepared. Mt. Katahdin, Maine, to Springer the proposed rule from a site specific However, as requests for permits for Mountain, Georgia, along the crest of the regulation to a non site-specific special specific launch or landing sites are Appalachian Mountains. The AT is regulation that may allow powerless received, an EA in accordance with the administered by the Secretary of the flight on AT acquired lands at times and procedural requirements of NEPA, and Interior through the NPS, as part of the locations designated by the Park by Departmental guidelines, may be National Trails System. Manager, pursuant to the terms and required. At its inception, the AT traversed conditions of a permit. List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7 mostly private lands. Use of the private Drafting Information. The primary authors National parks, Reporting and of this final rule are Park Manager Pamela lands was enjoyed not only by hikers, recordkeeping requirements. but also by other types of outdoor Underhill, Landscape Architect Virginia F. In consideration of the foregoing, 36 enthusiasts. In the late 1970’s, hang Williams at the Appalachian National Scenic CFR Chapter I, is amended as follows: gliders in the area of Fox Gap, Trail Office and Dennis Burnett, Washington Office of Ranger Activities, National Park Pennsylvania, with the permission of Service. PART 7ÐSPECIAL REGULATIONS, the landowner, began launching from AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK the ridgetop known as Kirkridge, along Paperwork Reduction Act SYSTEM the crest of the Appalachian Mountains. As required by the Paperwork The hang gliders formally organized and 1. The authority citation for Part 7 Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 continues to read as follows: established the Water Gap Hang Gliding et seq.), the information collection Club (WGHGC) for the purpose of requirements contained in this final rule Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), promoting the safety of hang gliding and have been approved by the Office of 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also issued under D.C. Code 8–137 (1981) and D.C. Code 40–721 (1981). addressing liability issues. Management and Budget and assigned Originally, the WGHGC used the area clearance number 1024–0026. This 2. Section 7.100 is amended by with the express permission of the information is being collected for the adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: landowner and, after the area was Superintendent to issue a permit. The - acquired by the NPS, the WGHGC information will be used to grant § 7.100 Appalachian National Scenic Trail. requested permission from the NPS and administrative benefits. The obligation was issued a SUP to continue using the to respond is required to obtain a * * * * * (C) Powerless flight. The use of AT area as a launch site. During the benefit. review process conducted by the NPS in devices designed to carry persons 1995 for the renewal of the SUP for the Compliance With Other Laws through the air in powerless flight is allowed at times and locations WGHGC, the NPS discovered that a This rule was not subject to Office of designated by the Park Manager, 1983 revision to the general regulations Management and Budget review under pursuant to the terms and conditions of found at 36 CFR 2.17 had created the Executive Order 12866. The Department a permit. requirement of a special regulation of the Interior determined that this before the NPS could renew the document will not have a significant Dated: May 29, 1996. WGHGC permit. Private managing economic effect on a substantial number George T. Frampton, Jr., partners were consulted and they of small entities under the Regulatory Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and endorse seeking the special regulation. Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.). Parks. Other sites along the AT have Any economic effects of this rulemaking [FR Doc. 96–14103 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] historically been used as launch sites for will be local in nature and negligible in BILLING CODE 4310±70±P hang gliders prior to NPS acquisition. scope. To date, the WGHGC is the only The NPS has determined that this organized club that has requested a 36 CFR Part 17 permit to maintain a launch site. final rule will not have a significant A proposed regulation was published effect on the quality of the human RIN 1024±AC27 in the Federal Register on January 31, environment, health and safety because 1996 (60 FR 3358) to allow hang gliding it is not expected to: Conveyance of Freehold and at the Fox Gap site pursuant to the terms (a) Increase public use to the extent of Leasehold Interests compromising the nature and character and conditions of a permit. Public AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. of the area or causing physical damage comment was invited. The comment ACTION: Final rule. period closed March 1, 1996. to it; (b) Introduce incompatible uses SUMMARY: The National Park Service Summary of Comments Received which compromise the nature and (NPS) is revising portions of the During the public comment period, character of the area or causing physical regulations for conveyance of freehold the NPS received 620 letters, of which damage to it; and leasehold interests on lands 618 were identical form letters. After the (c) Conflict with adjacent ownerships administered by the NPS. The final rule close of the comment period, or land uses; or will allow bids for freehold and Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28507 leasehold interests on lands to be were held on four days. There was final 30 days after publication in the accompanied by earnest money considerable interest in the property Federal Register. equivalent to 2 percent of the appraised with 180 prospective buyers attending Drafting Information. The primary author value or $2,500, whichever is greater, the open houses and private showings. of this regulation is John P. Debo, Jr., with the balance of the bid due within Interviews with park officials by news Superintendent, Cuyahoga Valley National 45 days of the award. The NPS has media reporters regarding the property Recreation Area. appeared on local TV stations and in experienced problems selling parcels of Paperwork Reduction Act real estate under the current regulations, local newspapers. which require that bids be accompanied When the property was open for bid This final rule does not contain by certified checks, post office money on June 3, 1993, not a single bid was collections of information requiring orders, bank drafts or cashier’s checks received. This lack of response was a approval by the Office of Management for the full amount of the bids. The concern and inquiries were made of 50 and Budget under the Paperwork changes to the regulations address this people who had attended the open Reduction Act of 1995. issue and will correct the problem houses and expressed a sincere interest Compliance With Other Laws identified with the previous regulations. in buying the property. The major This final rule was not subject to With these changes, the NPS will be reason given for not bidding was the Office of Management and Budget able to convey freehold and leasehold requirement that the full amount of the bid be enclosed with the bid. No review under Executive Order 12866. interests on federally owned lands. The Department of the Interior This final rule also provides for a time lending institution would approve this determined that this document will not frame for submitting the balance of the type of arrangement. have a significant economic effect on a bid and describes what occurs if the The NPS is therefore revising this substantial number of small entities successful bidder is unable to obtain the regulation. The NPS is amending the under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 necessary financing in the case of a sixth sentence of 36 CFR 17.5 as U.S.C. 601 et seq.). In fact, this freehold interest. The NPS is revising follows: ‘‘Bid must be accompanied by rulemaking will lessen the economic and amending the current regulations certified checks, post office money orders, bank drafts or cashier’s checks burden on prospective bidders by not on action at close of bidding, by requiring the full amount of the bid at allowing 45 days from the time of bid made payable to the United States of America for 2 percent of the fair market the time of the bid. award to submit the balance due. The NPS has determined that this Failure to submit the full bid price value or $2,500, whichever is greater, in the case of a freehold interest or for the rulemaking will not have a significant within 45 days will result in forfeiture effect on the quality of the human of $1,000 of the deposited bid amount amount of the first year’s rent in the case of a leasehold interest.’’ environment, health and safety because and the property will be awarded to the it is not expected to: next highest bid. The NPS is also amending 36 CFR 17.6 by adding the following two (a) Increase public use to the extent of EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule becomes final sentences to the end of the section: ‘‘In compromising the nature and character on July 5, 1996. the case of a freehold interest the high of the area or causing physical damage FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff bidder must submit the balance of the to it; Winstel, Historian, Cuyahoga Valley bid within 45 days of the bid award in (b) Introduce non-compatible uses National Recreation Area, 15160 the form of certified check, post office which might compromise the nature Vaughn Road, Brecksville, OH 44114. money order, bank draft or cashier’s and characteristics of the area, or cause Telephone (216) 546–5975. check made payable to the United States physical damage to it; (c) Conflict with adjacent ownerships SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: of America. Failure to submit the full balance within 45 days will result in or land uses; or (d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent Background forfeiture of $1,000 of the bid deposit, owners or occupants. The current NPS regulations regarding unless the bidder has been released Based on this determination, this conveyance of freehold and leasehold from the bid or an extension has been rulemaking is categorically excluded interests on land are codified in 36 CFR granted by the authorized officer, and from the procedural requirements of the part 17 and authorize sale of Federal the property will be awarded to the next National Environmental Policy Act real property acquired from non-Federal highest bidder upon fulfillment of the (NEPA) by Departmental regulations in sources. requirements of this section.’’ 516 DM 6, (49 FR 21438). As such, On June 3, 1993, Cuyahoga Valley These changes will improve the neither an Environmental Assessment National Recreation Area, a unit of the existing regulations by permitting (EA) nor an Environmental Impact National Park System, held a bid prospective bidders to participate Statement (EIS) has been prepared. opening for the purpose of selling 1.13 without an outlay of a large sum of cash. acres of improved Federally owned This amendment will also facilitate the List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 17 land. Improvements included a historic ‘‘sellback’’ of historic structures to the National parks, Reporting and three-bedroom residence, a detached private sector and place real property on recordkeeping requirements. single car garage and two small sheds. the local tax rolls. The historic and In consideration of the foregoing, 36 Historic preservation deed restrictions scenic values of the properties will be CFR Chapter I is amended as follows: were placed on the structures and protected through deed restrictions. scenic deed restrictions were placed on On February 12, 1996, the NPS PART 17ÐCONVEYANCE OF the property. published the proposed regulation that FREEHOLD AND LEASEHOLD The property was marketed will amend these regulations for INTERESTS ON LANDS OF THE extensively. It was listed in the Federal conveyance of freehold and leasehold NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM Register, advertised in a local paper for interests on lands administered by the five consecutive weeks, marketed with a NPS (61 FR 5356). The comment period 1. The authority citation for Part 17 local realtor, listed in the Multiple closed on April 12, 1996. No comments continues to read as follows: Listing Service, advertised on local were received during the public Authority: Sec 5(a) of the Act of July 15, television channels and open houses comment period. This rule becomes 1968, 82 Stat. 354, 16 U.S.C. 4601–22(a). 28508 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

2. Section 17.5 is amended by revising Standards for Tanks, Surface The EPA initially extended the the sixth sentence to read as follows: Impoundments, and Containers’’ until effective date of the requirements in the October 6, 1996. final rule for six months to allow time § 17.5 Bids. DATES: These amendments are effective to clarify certain provisions of the final ** * Bids must be accompanied by June 5, 1996. rule and develop other compliance certified checks, post office money ADDRESSES: Docket. The supporting options (see 60 FR 26828, May 19, orders, bank drafts, or cashier’s checks information used for the final rule is 1995). On August 14, 1995 the EPA made payable to the United States of available for public inspection and published a Federal Register notice, America for 2 percent of the amount of copying in the RCRA docket. The RCRA ‘‘Proposed rule; data availability’’ (60 the fair market value or $2,500, docket numbers pertaining to the final FR 41870) and opened RCRA docket F– whichever is greater, in the case of a rule are F–91–CESP–FFFFF, F–92– 95–CE3A–FFFFF to accept comments freehold interest or for the amount of CESA–FFFFF, F–94–CESF–FFFFF, F– on revisions that the EPA is considering the first year’s rent in the case of a 94–CE2A–FFFFF, F–95–CE3A–FFFFF, for the final standards. The provisions leasehold interest. * ** and F–96–CE4A–FFFFF. The RCRA of the final rule that these revisions 3. Section 17.6 is amended by adding docket is located at Crystal Gateway, would affect are the waste two sentences to the end of the section, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First determination procedures, the standards to read as follows: Floor, Arlington, Virginia. Review of for containers, and the applicability of § 17.6 Action at close of bidding. docket materials is conducted at the the final standards to units that operate Virginia address; an appointment is air emission controls in accordance with ** * In the case of a freehold required to review docket materials. certain Clean Air Act standards. In interest, the high bidder must submit Appointments can be scheduled by addition, these revisions would reduce the balance of the bid within 45 days of calling the Docket Office at (703) 603– the monitoring, record keeping, and the bid award in the form of a certified 9230. The mailing address for the RCRA reporting requirements for affected check, post office money order, bank Docket Office is RCRA Information tanks, surface impoundments, and draft, or cashier’s check, made payable Center (5305W), U.S. Environmental containers. to the United States of America. Failure Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., to submit the full balance within 45 The EPA accepted public comments Washington, D.C. 20460. days will result in the forfeiture of on the appropriateness of these FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: $1,000 of bid deposit, unless the bidder For revisions through October 13, 1995, and has been released from the bid or an information about this postponement is now in the process of finalizing extension has been granted by the contact the RCRA Hotline at (800) 424– amendments to the final rule to authorized officer, and the property will 9346 toll-free, or (703) 920–9810. incorporate the described revisions, be awarded to the next highest bidder SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: based on the information the EPA upon fulfillment of the requirements of noticed and the comments EPA 1. Postponement of Effective Date for this section. received. As anticipated, the Rule Requirements amendments will provide certain Date: May 19, 1996. The effective date of the requirements compliance options for waste George T. Frampton, Jr., in the final rule, originally published determination procedures and for Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and December 6, 1994 (59 FR 62896) and container standards that are not Parks. postponed November 13, 1995 (60 FR currently available in the published [FR Doc. 96–14104 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] 56952), are further postponed until final rule. On November 13, 1995 (60 FR BILLING CODE 4310±70±P October 6, 1996. The requirements of 56952) the EPA again postponed the these final standards were originally effective date of the rule requirements scheduled to become effective as of June until June 6, 1996 to allow time for the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 5, 1995. The EPA specified in the final EPA to publish amendments to the AGENCY rule a schedule that established the December 6, 1994 final standards. The compliance dates by which different EPA expects to publish these 40 CFR Parts 264, 265, 270, and 271 requirements of the final rule must be amendments in the near future. Given [FRL±5509±4] met. These compliance dates and that the EPA is in the process of requirements are explained further in amending the rule in ways that would RIN 2060±AB94 the final rule (59 FR 62896, December increase compliance flexibility and 6, 1994) under SUPPLEMENTARY possibly reduce certain regulatory Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, INFORMATION. Today’s amendment requirements, the EPA considers it and Disposal Facilities and Hazardous changes only the effective date of the appropriate to delay the June 6, 1996 Waste Generators; Organic Air requirements contained in the final effective date of the rule requirements Emission Standards for Tanks, Surface standards. The effective date will be for four months. (See 5 U.S.C. 705, Impoundments, and Containers October 6, 1996 for all provisions of the ‘‘when an agency finds that justice so AGENCY: Environmental Protection standards, including the applicability of requires, it may postpone the effective Agency (EPA). 40 CFR part 265 subparts AA, BB, and date of action taken by it, pending ACTION: Amendment of final rule to CC to 90-day accumulation units at judicial review.’’) In particular, the EPA postpone requirements. hazardous waste generators, the is not sure that it will have adequate applicability of 40 CFR part 265 time to promulgate the amendments SUMMARY: This document amends the subparts AA, BB, and CC to RCRA before June 6, 1996 to allow facilities to EPA standards to postpone the effective permitted units, and the applicability of avoid compliance expenditures based date of the requirements in the the final standards to tanks in which on the December 6, 1994 final rule, December 6, 1994 final rule entitled, waste stabilization activities are expenditures which may prove ‘‘Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, performed. All other compliance dates unnecessary in light of the projected and Disposal Facilities and Hazardous for the final rule remain as published in amendments. This postponement will Waste Generators; Organic Air Emission the final rule (59 FR 62896.) thus allow time for the EPA to publish Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28509 the amendments. The EPA anticipates (Hazardous Waste TSDF Background emission control requirements for these that by October 6, 1996 affected sources Information Document for Promulgated units since the final rule publication on will have had ample time to make any Organic Air Emission Standards, EPA– December 6, 1994. Therefore, the EPA necessary alterations to their 453/R–94–076b, page 9–7.) does not consider it appropriate to compliance plans in response to the The final rule requirements that may postpone the compliance date of amendments. Affected sources have necessitate a major modification, as December 8, 1997, by which all required been on notice of the final regulations described above, for tanks are air emission control equipment must be since they were published in December paragraphs (b) through (d) of 40 CFR operating. of 1994. The EPA expects that by early parts 264.1084 and 265.1085. These 1995, most facilities had begun paragraphs specify air emission control 3. Conclusion preparing their implementation equipment that must be operated on The EPA is amending the final rule strategies and planning for any tanks receiving affected hazardous such that the final rule requirements are necessary equipment modifications, in waste. Similarly, the requirements that not effective until October 6, 1996. The anticipation of the originally scheduled may necessitate such a major final rule text affected by this implementation date of June 6, 1995. modification for surface impoundments postponement is amended as follows. Thus, the EPA considers today’s four are paragraphs (b) through (e) of 40 CFR month extension to be sufficient time parts 264.1085 and 265.1086. These List of Subjects for affected facilities to become familiar paragraphs specify air emission control 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 with the revised requirements contained equipment that must be operated on in the amended standards, and to make surface impoundments receiving Air pollution control, Container, any necessary revisions to their affected hazardous waste. To comply Control device, Hazardous waste, implementation strategies. with these requirements for tanks and Incorporation by reference, Inspection, The EPA has received a request to surface impoundments, facilities may Miscellaneous unit, Monitoring, stay the rule from parties that brought choose to construct new hazardous Reporting and recordkeeping judicial challenges to the December 6, waste management units to replace requirements, Standards, Surface 1994 published rule. In taking this existing units, or may choose to modify impoundment, Tank, TSDF, Waste action to postpone the effective date of existing hazardous waste management determination. the rule requirements, the EPA is not units. Examples of facility equipment 40 CFR Part 271 concurring that the criteria for a stay modifications that could require an (such as likelihood of irreparable harm extended period of compliance would Administrative practice and or likelihood that these parties will be replacing a large open surface procedure, Air pollution control, ultimately prevail should the rule be impoundment with a series of covered Confidential business information, litigated) are met. Rather, as a tanks, or fitting an existing open tank Hazardous waste, Reporting and prudential matter, the EPA believes that with a fixed roof vented to a control recordkeeping requirements. a four month delay is appropriate for the device. The EPA recognizes that such Dated: May 16, 1996. reasons explained above. major modifications or new construction can require several months Mary D. Nichols, 2. Retention of Final Compliance Date or more, and therefore allows until Assistant Administrator for Air and of December 8, 1997 December 8, 1997 for facilities to Radiation. The December 6, 1994 published rule comply with the air emission control For the reasons set out in the set a final compliance date of December requirements of the final subpart CC preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts 264, 8, 1997, by which time all required air standards. 265, and 271 of the Code of Federal emission control equipment must be In addition, certain States may require Regulations are amended as follows: operating (59 FR 62897). The EPA does that a facility obtain a permit not believe that postponing the effective modification prior to performing a major PART 264ÐSTANDARDS FOR date of the rule requirements modification such as those described OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF necessitates any postponement of the above. The EPA recognizes that such HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, December 8, 1997 compliance date. The permit modifications can be a lengthy STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL final compliance date was chosen to process, and therefore felt it was FACILITIES allow time for facility modifications that appropriate to afford an extended may be involved in the compliance compliance period to allow such 1. The authority citation for part 264 approach of certain facilities. The EPA modifications to be obtained (59 FR continues to read as follows: believes that, for many air emission 62919). The EPA does not expect that Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924 control applications, the required such a lengthy period of and 6925. control devices can be installed and in implementation would be required in operation within several months. circumstances other than those Subpart CCÐAir Emission Standards However, the EPA agrees that under described above, although § 264.1082(c) for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and some circumstances, the owner’s or allows that such a period is available if Containers operator’s approach to complying with necessary. the air emission control requirements The final rule provisions that justified 2. Section 264.1080 is amended by under the subpart CC standards may a compliance date of December 8, 1997 revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) to read involve a major design and construction are not among those that are potentially as follows: project which requires a longer time to affected by the revisions currently under § 264.1080 Applicability. complete. In recognition of these cases, EPA’s consideration. Specifically, the the EPA decided that it is reasonable to EPA is not considering changes to the * * * * * allow up to December 8, 1997 for requirements for covers and air (b) * * * affected facilities to install and begin emission controls on tanks and surface (1) A waste management unit that operation of air emission controls impoundments. All affected facilities holds hazardous waste placed in the required by the supbart CC standards. have been on notice of the final rule air unit before October 6, 1996, and in 28510 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations which no hazardous waste is added to § 265.1080 Applicability. (iii) For facilities subject to the the unit on or after this date. * * * * * recordkeeping requirements of § 265.73 * * * * * (b) * * * of this part, the owner or operator shall (c) For the owner and operator of a (1) A waste management unit that enter the implementation schedule facility subject to this subpart and who holds hazardous waste placed in the specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this received a final permit under RCRA unit before October 6, 1996, and in section in the operating record no later section 3005 prior to October 6, 1996, which no hazardous waste is added to than October 6, 1996. the requirements of this subpart shall be the unit on or after this date. (iv) For facilities not subject to incorporated into the permit when the * * * * * § 265.73 of this part, the owner or permit is reissued in accordance with (c) For the owner and operator of a the requirements of 40 CFR 124.15 of operator shall enter the implementation facility subject to this subpart who has schedule specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) this chapter or reviewed in accordance received a final permit under RCRA with the requirements of 40 CFR of this section in a permanent, readily section 3005 prior to October 6, 1996, available file located at the facility no 270.50(d) of this chapter. Until such the following requirements apply: date when the owner and operator later than October 6, 1996. receives a final permit incorporating the * * * * * * * * * * requirements of this subpart, the owner 5. Section 265.1082 is amended by and operator is subject to the revising paragraphs (a) introductory PART 271ÐREQUIREMENTS FOR requirements of 40 CFR Part 265 subpart text, paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2) introductory AUTHORIZATION OF STATE CC. text, (a)(2)(iii), and (a)(2)(iv) to read as HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS follows: PART 265ÐINTERIM STATUS 6. The authority citation for part 271 STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND § 265.1082 Schedule for implementation of air emission standards. continues to read as follows: OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND (a) Owners or operators of facilities Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and DISPOSAL FACILITIES existing on October 6, 1996, and subject 6926. to subparts I, J, and K of this part shall 3. The authority citation for part 265 meet the following requirements: Subpart AÐRequirements for Final continues to read as follows: (1) Install and begin operation of all Authorization Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, control equipment required by this 6925, and 6935. subpart by October 6, 1995, except as 7. Section 271.1(j) is amended by provided for in paragraph (a)(2) of this revising the effective date of the Subpart CCÐAir Emission Standards section. following entry in Table 1 to read as for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and (2) When control equipment required follows: Containers by this subpart cannot be installed and § 271.1 Purpose and Scope. 4. Section 265.1080 is amended by in operation by October 6, 1996, the revising paragraph (b)(1) and paragraph owner or operator shall: * * * * * (c) introductory text to read as follows: * * * * * (j) * * *

TABLE 1.ÐREGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984

Promulgation date Title of regulation Federal Register reference Effective date

******* December 6, 1994 ...... Air Emission Standards for Tanks, 59 FR 62896±62953 ...... October 6, 1996. Surface Impoundments, and Containers.

8. Section 271.1(j) is amended by following entry in Table 2 to read as § 271.1 Purpose and Scope. revising the effective date of the follows: * * * * * (j) * * *

TABLE 2.ÐSELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984

Effective date Self-implementing provision RCRA citation Federal Register reference

******* October 6, 1996 ...... Air Emission Standards for Tanks, 3004(n) ...... December 6, 1994, 59 FR 62896± Surface Impoundments, and 62953. Containers. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28511

[FR Doc. 96–14106 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the NPL remains eligible for Fund- BILLING CODE 6560±50±P Larry Schmitt at (312) 353–6565 (SR– financed remedial actions in the 6J), Remedial Project Manager or Gladys unlikely event that conditions at the site Beard at (312) 886–7253, Associate warrant such action. Section 40 CFR Part 300 Remedial Project Manager, Superfund 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that Division, U.S. EPA—Region V, 77 West Fund-financed actions may be taken at [FRL±5511±9] Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604. sites deleted from the NPL in the Information on the site is available at unlikely event that conditions at the site Substances Contingency Plan: the local information repository located warrant such action. Deletion of a site National Priorities List Update at: The Anoka County Community from the NPL does not affect responsible Health and Environmental Service, party liability or impede agency efforts AGENCY: Environmental Protection Anoka County Government Center, RM. to recover costs associated with Agency (EPA). 360, 2100 3rd Ave., Anoka, MN 55303 response efforts. ACTION: Notice of deletion of the Waste and Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Disposal Engineering Superfund Site Blvd., Andover, MN 55304. Requests for from the National Priorities List (NPL). comprehensive copies of documents Air pollution control, Chemicals, should be directed formally to the Hazardous substances, Hazardous SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Regional Docket Office. The contact for Waste, Intergovernmental relations, Agency (EPA) announces the deletion of the Regional Docket Office is Jan Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping the Waste Disposal Engineering Inc. Site Pfundheller (H–7J), U.S. EPA, Region V, requirements, Superfund, Water in Minnesota from the National 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, pollution control, Water supply. Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is (312) 353–5821. PART 300Ð[AMENDED] Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to is National Oil and Hazardous be deleted from the NPL is: Waste Substances Contingency Plan (NCP), 1. The authority citation for Part 300 Disposal Engineering Inc. Site located in continues to read as follows: which EPA promulgated pursuant to Andover, Minnesota. A Notice of Intent Section 105 of the Comprehensive to Delete for this site was published Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601–9657; 33 U.S.C. Environmental Response, March 26, 1996 (61 FR 13131). The 1321(c)(2); E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 1991 Comp; p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, closing date for comments on the Notice 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.; p. 193. (CERCLA), as amended. This action is of intent to Delete was April 26, 1996. being taken by EPA and the State of EPA received no comments and Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended] Minnesota, because it has been therefore no Responsiveness Summary determined that Responsible Parties 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 was prepared. is amended by removing the Site ‘‘Waste have implemented all appropriate The EPA identifies sites which appear response actions required. Moreover, Disposal Engineering Inc. Site, Andover, to present a significant risk to public Minnesota’’. EPA and the State of Minnesota have health, welfare, or the environment and determined that remedial actions it maintains the NPL as the list of those Dated: May 14, 1996. conducted at the site to date remain sites. Sites on the NPL may be the Valdas V. Adamkus, protective of public health, welfare, and subject of Hazardous Substance Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region V. the environment. Response Trust Fund (Fund-) financed [FR Doc. 96–13985 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 1996. remedial actions. Any site deleted from BILLING CODE 6560±50±M 28512

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 109

Wednesday, June 5, 1996

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Kansas City, MO, address listed above, All information is reported annually. contains notices to the public of the proposed telephone (816) 926–7730. The reporting burden for this collection issuance of rules and regulations. The of information is estimated to average purpose of these notices is to give interested SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 16.9 minutes per response for each of persons an opportunity to participate in the the 3.6 responses from approximately rule making prior to the adoption of the final Executive Order No. 12866 and rules. Departmental Regulation 1512–1 1,755,015 respondents. The total annual burden on the public for this This action has been reviewed under information collection is 2,676,932 United States Department of Agriculture DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE hours. (USDA) procedures established by The comment period for information Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Executive Order No. 12866 and collections under the Paperwork Departmental Regulation 1512–1. This Reduction Act of 1995 continues for the 7 CFR Part 457 action constitutes a review as to the following: (a) whether the proposed need, currency, clarity, and RIN 0563±AB56 collection of information is necessary effectiveness of these regulations under for the proper performance of the Common Crop Insurance Regulations; those procedures. The sunset review functions of the agency, including Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance date established for these regulations is whether the information shall have Provisions April 30, 2001. practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the This rule has been determined to be agency’s estimate of the burden of the AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance not significant for the purposes of proposed collection of information; (c) Corporation, Agriculture. Executive Order No. 12866 and, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and ACTION: Proposed rule. therefore, has not been reviewed by the clarity of the information to be Office of Management and Budget collected; and (d) ways to minimize the SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance (OMB). Corporation (FCIC) proposes specific burden of the collection of information crop provisions for the insurance of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques Texas citrus fruit. The provisions will The information collection be used in conjunction with the or other forms of information gathering requirements contained in these technology. Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic regulations were previously submitted Provisions, which contain standard Comments regarding paperwork to OMB pursuant to the Paperwork reduction should be submitted to the terms and conditions common to most Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. crops. The intended effect of this action Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of chapter 35) under OMB control number Information and Regulatory Affairs, is to provide policy changes to better 0563–0003 through September 30, 1998. meet the needs of the insured and Office of Management and Budget, The amendments set forth in this Washington, D.C. 20503 and to Bonnie combine the current Texas Citrus proposed rule do not contain additional Endorsement with the Common Crop Hart, Advisory and Corporate information collections that require Operations Staff, Regulatory Review Insurance Policy for ease of use and clearance by OMB under the provisions consistency of terms. Group, USDA, Farm Service Agency, of 44 U.S.C. chapter 35. P.O. Box 2145, Ag Box 0570, DATES: Written comments, data, and The title of this information collection Washington, D.C. 20013–2415. opinions on this proposed rule will be is ‘‘Catastrophic Risk Protection Plan Telephone (202) 690–2857. Copies of accepted until close of business July 5, and Related Requirements including, the information collection may be 1996 and will be considered when the Common Crop Insurance Regulations; obtained from Bonnie Hart at the above rule is to be made final. The comment Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance stated address. period for information collections under Provisions.’’ The information to be the Paperwork Act of 1995 continues collected includes: a crop insurance Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of through August 5, 1996. acreage report, an insurance application, 1995 ADDRESSES: Interested persons are and continuous contract. Information Title II of the Unfunded Mandate invited to submit written comments to collected from the acreage report and Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public the Chief, Product Development Branch, application is electronically submitted Law 104–4, establishes requirements for Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, to FCIC by the reinsured companies. Federal agencies to assess the effects of United States Department of Potential respondents to this their regulatory actions on State, local, Agriculture, 9435 Holmes Road, Kansas information collection are producers of and tribal governments and the private City, MO 64131. Written comments will Texas citrus fruit that are eligible for sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, be available for public inspection and Federal crop insurance. FCIC generally must prepare a written copying in room 0324, South Building, The information requested is statement, including a cost-benefit USDA, 14th and Independence Avenue, necessary for the reinsured companies analysis, for proposed and final rules S.W., Washington, D.C., 8:15 a.m.–5:45 and FCIC to provide insurance and with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may p.m., Monday through Friday. reinsurance, determine eligibility, result in expenditures of State, local, or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: determine the correct parties to the tribal governments, in the aggregate, or Louise Narber, Program Analyst, agreement or contract, determine and to the private sector, of $100 million or Research and Development Division, collect premiums or other monetary more in any 1 year. When such a Product Development Branch, FCIC, amounts, and pay benefits. statement is needed for a rule, section Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28513

205 of the UMRA generally requires Executive Order No. 12778 contiguous land,’’ and ‘‘topped,’’ for FCIC to identify and consider a The Office of the General Counsel has clarification. 3. Section 1—Delete the definition for reasonable number of regulatory determined that these regulations meet ‘‘frost’’ because frost as a cause of loss alternatives and adopt the least costly, the applicable standards provided in has been eliminated as unnecessary. more cost-effective or least burdensome sections 2(a) and 2(b)(2) of Executive alternative that achieves the objectives The definition of ‘‘freeze’’ includes Order No. 12778. The provisions of this damage from frost. Also, replace the of the rule. rule will not have a retroactive effect This rule contains no Federal definition of ‘‘excess moisture’’ with prior to the effective date. The mandates (under the regulatory ‘‘excess rain’’ for clarification. provisions of this rule will preempt provisions of title II of the UMRA) of 4. Section 2—Add provisions to allow State and local laws to the extent such State, local, and tribal governments or optional unit division by section, State and local laws are inconsistent the private sector. Thus, this rule is not section equivalent, or FSA Farm Serial herewith. The administrative appeal subject to the requirements of sections Number, or by non-contiguous land so provisions in 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 202 and 205 of the UMRA. that the unit structure will be the same must be exhausted before action for in both the Texas Citrus Fruit Provisions Executive Order No. 12612 judicial review may be brought. and the Texas Citrus Tree Provisions. It has been determined under section Environmental Evaluation The previous provisions only allowed 6(a) of Executive Order No. 12612, basic units to be divided into more than Federalism, that this rule does not have This action is not expected to have a one unit by section if each unit was sufficient Federalism implications to significant impact on the quality of the non-contiguous. warrant the preparation of a Federalism human environment, health, and safety. 5. Section 3(a)—Clarify that an Assessment. The provisions contained Therefore, neither an Environmental insured may select one price election for in this rule will not have a substantial Assessment nor an Environmental each citrus type, and that the price direct effect on States or their political Impact Statement is needed. election selected for each type need not subdivisions, or on the distribution of National Performance Review bear the same percentage relationship to power and responsibilities among the the maximum price offered for each This regulatory action is being taken various levels of government. type. Since each type of Texas citrus as part of the National Performance fruit is considered a separate crop, it Regulatory Flexibility Act Review initiative to eliminate should not be treated any differently This regulation will not have a unnecessary or duplicative regulations than any other crop with a separate significant impact on a substantial and improve those that remain in force. price election. The insured may select number of small entities. Under the Background any available price election. However, if current regulations, an insured is separate price elections are available by required to complete an application and FCIC proposes to add to the Common variety within each type, the price acreage report. If the crop is damaged or Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part elections the insured chooses within the destroyed, the insured is required to 457), a new section, 7 CFR § 457.119, type must have the same percentage give notice of loss and provide the Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance relationship to the maximum price necessary information to complete a Provisions. The provisions will be offered by the insurance provider for claim for indemnity. An insured must effective for the 1998 and succeeding each variety within the type. use actual records of production or crop years. The proposed provisions 6. Section 3(b)—Add a provision for receive a transitional yield. This will replace those found at 7 CFR a 1-year lag period for the insured to regulation does not alter those § 401.115 (Texas Citrus Endorsement). report citrus production for Actual requirements. Therefore, the amount of Upon publication of 7 CFR § 457.119 as Production History (APH) because all of work required of the insurance a final rule, the provisions for insuring the fruit will not be harvested until after companies and Farm Service Agency Texas citrus fruit contained herein will the production reporting date. (FSA) offices delivering and servicing supersede the current provisions 7. Section 3(c)—Add provisions for these policies will not increase contained in 7 CFR § 401.115. By reporting the age and type, if applicable, significantly from the amount of work separate rule, FCIC will revise 7 CFR of any interplanted perennial crop, its currently required. This rule does not § 401.115 to restrict its effect through planting pattern, and any other have any greater or lesser impact on the the 1997 crop year and later remove that information that the insurance provider insured. Therefore, this action is section. requests in order to establish the yield determined to be exempt from the This rule makes minor editorial and upon which the insurance guarantee is provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility format changes to improve the Texas based. If the producer fails to notify the Act (5 U.S.C. 605), and no Regulatory Citrus Crop Insurance Endorsement’s insurance provider of any circumstances Flexibility Analysis was prepared. compatibility with the Common Crop that may cause the expected yield to fall Insurance Policy. In addition, FCIC is below the yield upon which the Federal Assistance Program proposing substantive changes in the insurance guarantee is based, the This program is listed in the Catalog provisions for insuring Texas citrus fruit insurance provider will reduce the of Federal Domestic Assistance under as follows: production guarantee at any time the No. 10.450. 1. Section 1—Add definitions for insurance provider becomes aware of ‘‘days,’’ ‘‘direct marketing,’’ ‘‘FSA,’’ the circumstances. This allows the Executive Order No. 12372 ‘‘good farming practices,’’ insurance provider to limit liability This program is not subject to the ‘‘interplanted,’’ ‘‘irrigated practice,’’ before insurance attaches based on the provisions of Executive Order No. ‘‘local market price,’’ ‘‘production condition of the citrus trees. 12372, which require intergovernmental guarantee (per acre),’’ ‘‘type,’’ ‘‘ton,’’ 8. Section 3(d)—The yield upon consultation with State and local and ‘‘written agreement’’ for which the guarantee is based will be officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR clarification purposes. determined from APH yields unless part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 2. Section 1—Change the definitions previous damage requires establishment 29115, June 24, 1983. for ‘‘freeze,’’ ‘‘harvest,’’ ‘‘hedged,’’ ‘‘non- of the yield based on the appraised yield 28514 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules for the insured acreage. Currently the 21 (except for a late filed application be obtained from the nearest juice plant, guarantee is based on crop appraisals and the 1st year of insurance) even if the if available, or from an appraisal to because a hard freeze severely damaged insurer considers the inspection as determine the average juice content. the citrus trees a few years ago. Enough being acceptable on January 14. Under Delete the provision which allows the time has passed to determine the the current Texas Citrus Endorsement contract price to be an applicable price producers’ guarantee based on the for acreage relinquished on or before the for undamaged citrus fruit if the producers’ individual yield. acreage reporting date but after coverage contract was executed between the 9. Section 5—Change the cancellation had attached, the premium would still producer and buyer before damage and termination dates from November be due from the insured even if the occurred because it allowed a potential 30 to November 20 to be consistent with insured no longer had an insurable for abuse and was seldom used. other perennial crops. interest. In the same situation under 17. Section 13—Add provisions for 10. Section 6—Clarify that all these new provisions, insurance will not providing insurance coverage by written premium computations will be based on be considered to have attached so the agreement. FCIC has a long standing the final stage production guarantee. premium will not be due unless a policy of permitting certain 11. Section 7—Include the insurable transfer of right to an indemnity was modifications of the insurance contract citrus type designations in the Special completed. by written agreement for some policies. Provisions rather than in the Texas 14. Section 10—Add a clause This amendment will extend this Citrus Fruit Provisions. This will clarifying that any failure of the practice to Texas citrus fruit and will prevent the need for an amendment to irrigation water supply must be caused make it possible to tailor the policy to the Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Provisions by an insured peril occurring during the a specific insured in certain instances. if it is later determined that additional insurance period. Delete ‘‘frost’’ as a types need to be added. Also, eliminate cause of loss because the definition of List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457 the provision that requires acceptable freeze also includes damage from frost. Crop insurance, Texas citrus fruit. production records for the previous crop Also, delete damage by Mediterranean year for insurance to attach. There is a Fruit Fly as an insurable cause and Proposed Rule 1 year lag period for reporting specify that we will not insure against Pursuant to the authority contained in production. damage or loss of production due to the Federal Crop Insurance Act, as 12. Section 8—Add a provision disease or insect infestation, unless an amended (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the making interplanted citrus insurable if insured cause of loss prevents the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation planted with another perennial crop proper application of control measures, hereby proposes to amend the Common unless after an inspection, the insurance causes properly applied control Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part provider determines it does not meet measures to be ineffective, or causes 457), effective for the 1998 and insurability requirements. This clause disease or insect infestation for which succeeding crop years, as follows: will make insurance available to more no effective control mechanism is producers and will reduce the number available. PART 457Ð[AMENDED] of acres for which coverage would only 15. Section 11—Require the producer be available under the noninsured crop 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR to give notice at least 15 days before any part 457 continues to read as follows: disaster assistance program (NAP). production from any unit will be 13. Section 9—Change the beginning marketed directly to consumers because Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(l) and 1506(p). of the insurance period from December insureds usually have inadequate 2. A new § 457.119 is added to read 1 to November 21 to be consistent with records of such marketing and an as follows: other perennial crops. However, for the appraisal is necessary to accurately 1st crop year for which insurance is determine the direct marketed § 457.119 Texas Citrus Fruit Crop sought, if the application is accepted by production. Insurance Provisions the insurance provider after November 16. Section 12—Add a provision The Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance 20, insurance will attach on the 10th clarifying the procedure for when the Provisions for the 1998 and succeeding day after the application is received in insured intends to abandon or not care crop years are as follows: the insurance provider’s local office. for the acreage. If the insured and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF The current requirement that insurance insurer agree on potential production on AGRICULTURE will not attach for 30 days after the acreage the insured wishes to abandon Federal Crop Insurance Corporation application is received if not received or no longer care for, the insurance until after November 30, creates an period for that acreage will end. If TEXAS CITRUS FRUIT CROP PROVISIONS unnecessary lag time during which the agreement is not reached, the claim may If a conflict exists among the Basic crop is not covered. Add provisions to be deferred if the insured agrees to Provisions (§ 457.8), these crop provisions, clarify the procedure for insuring continue to care for the crop. The and the Special Provisions, the Special acreage when an insurable share is insurance provider will make another Provisions will control these crop provisions acquired or relinquished on or before appraisal when the insured notifies and the Basic Provisions, and these crop the acreage reporting date. Under the them of further damage or that harvest provisions will control the Basic Provisions. current Texas Citrus Endorsement for is general in the area unless the crop is 1. Definitions acreage acquired (for which an harvested, in which case the harvested Crop year—The period beginning with the application is in place) on or before the production will be used to determine date insurance attaches to the citrus crop and acreage reporting date, coverage would the production to count. If the insured extends through normal harvest time, and attach at the time the insurer considers does not continue to care for the crop will be designated by the calendar year the crop inspection as being acceptable the appraisal made prior to deferring the following the year in which the bloom is normally set. provided it was on or after November 30 claim will be used to determine the Days—Calendar days. (and not a late filed application and the production to count. Also add a Direct marketing—Sale of the insured crop first year of insurance). In the same provision to clarify that if individual directly to consumers without the situation under these new provisions, records of juice content are not intervention of an intermediary such as a coverage will have started on November available, the average juice content will wholesaler, retailer, packer, processor, Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28515 shipper, or buyer. Examples of direct Written agreement—A written document 3. Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, marketing include selling through an on-farm that alters designated terms of a policy in and Prices for Determining Indemnities or roadside stand or a farmer’s market, and accordance with section 13. In addition to the requirements of section permitting the general public to enter the 2. Unit Division 3 (Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, field for the purpose of picking all or a and Prices for Determining Indemnities) of (a) A unit as defined in section 1 portion of the crop. the Basic Provisions (§ 457.8): Excess rain—An amount of precipitation (Definitions) of the Basic Provisions (§ 457.8), (a) You may select only 1 price election that damages the crop. will be divided into basic units by each citrus and coverage level for each citrus fruit type Excess wind—A natural movement of air type designated in the Special Provisions. designated in the Special Provisions that you that has sustained speeds in excess of 58 (b) Unless limited by the Special elect to insure. The price election you choose miles per hour recorded at the U. S. Weather Provisions, these basic units may be divided for each type need not bear the same Service reporting station nearest to the crop into optional units if, for each optional unit percentage relationship to the maximum at the time of crop damage. you meet all the conditions of this section or price offered by us for each type. For Freeze—The formation of ice in the cells of if a written agreement to such division exists. example, if you choose one hundred percent the tree or its fruit caused by low air (c) Basic units may not be divided into (100%) of the maximum price election for temperatures. optional units on any basis including, but not early oranges, you may choose seventy-five FSA—The Farm Service Agency, an agency limited to, production practice, type, and percent (75%) of the maximum price election of the United States Department of variety, other than as described in this for late oranges. However, if separate price Agriculture or any successor agency. section. elections are available by variety within each Good farming practices—The cultural (d) If you do not comply fully with these type, the price elections you choose within practices generally in use in the county for provisions, we will combine all optional the type must have the same percentage the crop to make normal progress toward units that are not in compliance with these relationship to the maximum price offered by us for each variety within the type. maturity and produce at least the yield used provisions into the basic unit from which (b) Instead of reporting your citrus to determine the production guarantee, and they were formed. We will combine the generally recognized by the Cooperative production for the previous crop year, as optional units at any time we discover that required by section 3 of the Basic Provisions Extension Service as compatible with you have failed to comply with these (§ 457.8), there is a one-year lag period. Each agronomic and weather conditions in the provisions. If failure to comply with these crop year you must report your production county. provisions is determined to be inadvertent, from two crop years ago, e.g., on the 1998 Harvest—The severance of mature citrus and the optional units are combined, that crop year production report, you will provide fruit from the tree by pulling, picking, or any portion of the premium paid for the purpose your 1996 crop year production. other means, or by collecting marketable fruit of electing optional units will be refunded to (c) In addition to the reported production, from the ground. you pro rata for the units combined. each crop year you must report by type: Hedged—A process of trimming the (e) All optional units must be identified on (1) The number of trees damaged, topped, branches of the citrus trees for better or more the acreage report for each crop year. hedged, pruned or removed; any change in fruitful growth of the citrus fruit. (f) The following requirements must be met practices that may reduce the expected yield Interplanted—Acreage on which two or for each optional unit: below the yield upon which the insurance more crops are planted in any form of (1) You must have records, which can be guarantee is based; and the number of alternating or mixed pattern. independently verified, of acreage and affected acres; Irrigated practice—A method of producing production for each optional unit for at least (2) The number of bearing trees on a crop by which water is artificially applied insurable and uninsurable acreage; the last crop year used to determine your during the growing season by appropriate (3) The age of the trees and the planting production guarantee; systems and at the proper times, with the pattern; and (2) You must have records of marketed intention of providing the quantity of water (4) For the first year of insurance for needed to produce at least the yield used to production or measurement of stored acreage interplanted with another perennial establish the irrigated production guarantee production from each optional unit crop, and anytime the planting pattern of on the irrigated acreage planted to the maintained in such a manner that permits us such acreage is changed: insured crop. to verify the production from each optional (i) The age of the interplanted crop, and Local market price—The applicable citrus unit, or the production from each unit must type, if applicable; price per ton offered by buyers in the area in be kept separate until loss adjustment is (ii) The planting pattern; and which you normally market the insured crop. completed by us; and (iii) Any other information that we request Non-contiguous land—Any two or more (3) Each optional unit must meet one of the in order to establish your approved yield. tracts of land owned by you, or rented by you following criteria as applicable: We will reduce the yield used to establish for any consideration other than a share in (i) Optional Units by Section, Section your production guarantee as necessary, the insured crop, whose boundaries do not Equivalent, or FSA Farm Serial Number: based on our estimate of the effect of the following: interplanted perennial crop; touch at any point. Land that is separated by Optional units may be established if each removal, topping, hedging, or pruning of a public or private right-of way, waterway or optional unit is located in a separate legally trees; damage; and change in practices on the irrigation canal will be considered to be identified section. In the absence of sections, we may consider parcels of land legally yield potential of the insured crop. If you fail touching. to notify us of any circumstance that may Production guarantee (per acre): identified by other methods of measure including, but not limited to Spanish grants, reduce your yields from previous levels, we (a) First stage production guarantee—The will reduce your production guarantee as railroad surveys, leagues, labors, or Virginia second stage production guarantee necessary at any time we become aware of Military Lands, as the equivalent of sections multiplied by 40 percent. the circumstance. (b) Second stage production guarantee— for unit purposes. In areas that have not been (d) The yield used to compute your The quantity of citrus (in tons) determined by surveyed using the systems identified above, production guarantee will be determined in multiplying the approved yield per acre by or another system approved by us, or in areas accordance with Actual Production History the coverage level percentage you elect. where such systems exist but boundaries are (APH) regulations, 7 CFR part 400, subpart G, Ton—Two thousand (2,000) pounds not readily discernible, each optional unit and applicable policy provisions unless avoirdupois. must be located in a separate farm identified previous damage or changes to the grove or Topped—A process of trimming the upper by a single FSA Farm Serial Number; or trees require establishment of the yield by most portion of the citrus trees for better and (ii) Optional Units on Acreage Located on another method. In the event of such damage, more fruitful growth of the citrus fruit. Non-Contiguous Land: In lieu of establishing your production guarantee will be Type—Classes of fruit with similar optional units by section, section equivalent established based on our appraisal of the characteristics that are grouped for insurance or FSA Farm Serial Number, optional units yield potential for the insured acreage. purposes as specified in the Special may be established if each optional unit is (e) The production guarantee per acre is Provisions. located on non-contiguous land. progressive by stage and increases at specific 28516 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules intervals to the final stage production 9. Insurance Period indemnity if you are unable to market due to guarantee. The stages and production (a) In accordance with the provisions of quarantine, boycott, or refusal of any person guarantees per acre are: section 11 (Insurance Period) of the Basic to accept production. (1) The first stage extends from the date Provisions (§ 457.8): 11. Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss insurance attaches through April 30 of the (1) Coverage begins on November 21 of calendar year of normal bloom. The In addition to the requirements of Section each crop year except that, for the first crop 14 (Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss) production guarantee will be 40 percent of year, if the application is accepted by us after of the Basic Provisions (§ 457.8), you must the yield calculated in paragraph (d) of this November 20, insurance will attach on the notify us at least 15 days before any section multiplied by your coverage level. 10th day after the application is received in production from any unit will be marketed (2) The second or final stage extends from your insurance provider’s local office. directly to consumers. We will conduct an May 1 of the calendar year of normal bloom (2) The calendar date for the end of the appraisal that will be used to determine your until the end of the insurance period. The insurance period for each crop year is May production to count for direct marketed production guarantee will be the yield 31. production. If damage occurs after this calculated in paragraph (d) of this section (b) In addition to the provisions of Section appraisal, we will conduct an additional multiplied by your coverage level. 11 (Insurance Period) of the Basic Provisions appraisal. These appraisals, and any (f) Any acreage of citrus damaged to the (§ 457.8): acceptable records provided by you, will be extent that the majority of producers in the (1) If you acquire an insurable share in any used to determine your production to count. area would not further maintain it will be insurable acreage after coverage begins, but Failure to give timely notice that production deemed to have been destroyed even though on or before the acreage reporting date for the will be marketed directly to consumers will you may continue to maintain it. The crop year, and after any inspection we result in an appraised amount of production production guarantee for such acreage will be consider the acreage acceptable, insurance to count that is not less than the production the guarantee for the stage in which such will be considered to have attached to such guarantee per acre if such failure results in damage occurs. acreage on the calendar date for the our inability to make an accurate appraisal. beginning of the insurance period. 4. Contract Changes (2) If you relinquish your insurable share 12. Settlement of Claim In accordance with Section 4 (Contract on any insurable acreage of citrus on or (a) We will determine your loss on a unit Changes) of the Basic Provisions (§ 457.8), before the acreage reporting date for the crop basis. In the event you are unable to provide the contract change date is August 31 year, insurance will not be considered to production records: preceding the cancellation date. have attached to such acreage for that crop (1) For any optional unit, we will combine 5. Cancellation and Termination Dates year unless; all optional units for which acceptable (i) A transfer of coverage and right to an production records were not provided; or In accordance with Section 2 (Life of indemnity, or a similar form approved by us (2) For any basic unit, we will allocate any Policy, Cancellation, and Termination) of the is completed by all affected parties; and commingled production to such units in Basic Provisions (§ 457.8), the cancellation (ii) We are notified by you or the transferee proportion to our liability on the harvested and termination dates are November 20. in writing of such transfer on or before the acreage for each unit. 6. Annual Premium acreage reporting date. If you relinquish your (b) In the event of loss or damage covered In lieu of the premium computation share, no premium will be due and no by this policy, we will settle your claim on a unit basis by: method in Section 7 (Annual Premium) of indemnity paid unless a transfer of coverage (1) Multiplying the insured acreage for the Basic Provisions (§ 457.8), the annual is properly executed. each type crop by its respective production premium amount is computed by 10. Causes of Loss guarantee (see sections 1 and 3); multiplying the second stage production (a) In accordance with the provisions of (2) Multiplying each result in section guarantee per acre by the price election, the Section 12 (Causes of Loss) of the Basic 12(b)(1) by the respective price election for premium rate, the insured acreage, your Provisions (§ 457.8), insurance is provided each type, or variety within a type; share at the time coverage begins, and by any only against the following causes of loss that (3) Totaling the results in section 12(b)(2); applicable premium adjustment percentages occur within the insurance period: (4) Multiplying the total production to be contained in the Special Provisions. (1) Excess rain; counted of each type or variety, if applicable, 7. Insured Crop (2) Excess wind; (see section 12(c)) by the respective price In accordance with Section 8 (Insured (3) Fire, unless weeds and other forms of election; Crop) of the Basic Provisions (§ 457.8), the undergrowth have not been controlled or (5) Totaling the results of section 12(b)(4); crop insured will be all the acreage in the pruning debris has not been removed from (6) Subtracting the total of section 12(b)(5) county of each citrus type designated in the the grove; from the total in paragraph (3); and Special Provisions that you elect to insure (4) Freeze; (7) Multiplying the result of section and for which a premium rate is provided by (5) Hail; 12(b)(6) by your share. the actuarial table: (6) Tornado; (c) The total production to count (in tons) (a) In which you have a share; (7) Wildlife; or from all insurable acreage on the unit will (b) That are types adapted to the area; (8) Failure of the irrigation water supply, include: (c) That are irrigated; if caused by an insured peril that occurs (1) All appraised production as follows: (d) That has produced an average yield of during the insurance period. (i) Not less than the production guarantee at least three tons per acre the previous year, (b) In addition to the causes of loss per acre for acreage: unless the trees are inspected by us and we excluded in Section 12 (Causes of Loss) of (A) That is abandoned; agree in writing to insure such acreage with the Basic Provisions (§ 457.8), we will not (B) Marketed directly to consumers if you less potential; and insure against damage or loss of production fail to meet the requirements contained in (e) That is grown in a grove that, if due to: section 11; inspected, is considered acceptable by us. (1) Disease or insect infestation, unless a (C) Damaged solely by uninsured causes; or cause of loss specified in section 10(a): (D) For which you fail to provide 8. Insurable Acreage (i) Prevents the proper application of acceptable production records; In lieu of the provisions in Section 9 control measures or causes properly applied (ii) Production lost due to uninsured (Insurable Acreage) of the Basic Provisions control measures to be ineffective; or causes; (§ 457.8), that prohibit insurance attaching to (ii) Causes disease or insect infestation for (iii) Unharvested production; and a crop planted with another crop, citrus which no effective control mechanism is (iv) Potential production on insured interplanted with another perennial crop is available; and acreage you intend to abandon or no longer insurable unless we inspect the acreage and (2) Inability to market the citrus for any care for, if you and we agree on the appraised determine it does not meet the requirements reason other than actual physical damage amount of production. Upon such agreement, for insurability contained in these crop from an insurable cause specified in this the insurance period for that acreage will provisions. section. For example, we will not pay you an end. If you do not agree with our appraisal, Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28517 we may defer the claim only if you agree to approved if, after a physical inspection of the and Renewable Energy, Forrestal continue to care for the crop. We will then acreage, it is determined that no loss has Building, Mail Station EE–43, 1000 make another appraisal when you notify us occurred and the crop is insurable in Independence Avenue SW., of further damage or that harvest is general accordance with the policy and written Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) in the area unless you harvested the crop, in agreement provisions. which case we will use the harvested 586–0371 Signed in Washington, D.C., on May 23, Douglas W. Smith, U.S. Department of production. If you do not continue to care for 1996. the crop, our appraisal made prior to Energy, Office of General Counsel, deferring the claim will be used to determine Kenneth D. Ackerman, Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC– the production to count; and Manager, Federal Crop Insurance 70, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., (2) All harvested production from the Corporation. Washington, DC 20585–0103, (202) insurable acreage. [FR Doc. 96–13590 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] 586–3410 (d) Any citrus fruit that is not marketed as BILLING CODE 3410±FA±P fresh fruit and, due to insurable causes, does Deborah E. Miller, U.S. Department of not contain 120 or more gallons of juice per Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency ton, will be adjusted by: and Renewable Energy, Forrestal (1) Dividing the gallons of juice per ton DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Building, Mail Station EE–1, 1000 obtained from the damaged citrus by 120; Independence Avenue SW., and Office of Energy Efficiency and Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) (2) multiplying the result by the number of Renewable Energy 586–8888. tons of such citrus. If individual records of juice content are 10 CFR Part 430 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The not available, an average juice content from Department has initiated a the nearest juice plant will be used, if Energy Conservation Program for comprehensive process improvement available. If not available, a field appraisal Consumer Products: Public Workshop effort to examine, through a series of will be made to determine the average juice on the Rulemaking Priority Setting for stakeholder meetings and interviews, content. the Appliance Standards Rulemaking issues surrounding the appliance (e) Where the actuarial table provides for, Process standards program. A workshop was and you elect, the fresh fruit option, citrus held on March 19–20, 1996, to discuss fruit that is not marketable as fresh fruit due AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and to insurable causes will be adjusted by: the initial findings from these meetings Renewable Energy, Department of and interviews. Discussion topics (1) Dividing the value per ton of the Energy. damaged citrus by the price of undamaged included the planning and prioritization citrus fruit; and ACTION: Notice of public workshop. process, data collection and analysis, (2) Multiplying the result by the number of and decision making criteria. A SUMMARY: The Department of Energy tons of such citrus fruit. preliminary draft report of the ‘‘Interim (the Department or DOE) will hold a The applicable price for undamaged citrus Results of the Appliance Rulemaking public workshop to discuss rulemaking fruit will be the local market price the week Process Improvement Effort’’ dated before damage occurred. priority setting for the appliance April 26, 1996, was circulated for (f) Any production will be considered standards rulemaking process. The review. marketed or marketable as fresh fruit unless, Department is developing a straw man Based on the criteria discussed in the due solely to insured causes, such list prioritizing the appliance standards March workshop and addressed in the production was not marketed as fresh fruit. rulemakings for stakeholder review and (g) In the absence of acceptable records of preliminary draft report, the Department comment. The Department will discuss disposition of harvested citrus fruit, the has developed a straw man list issues that should be considered in disposition and amount of production to prioritizing the appliance standards determining the rulemaking priority and count for the unit will be the guarantee on rulemakings for stakeholder review and the unit. the order of priority proposed in the comment. (h) Any citrus fruit on the ground that is straw man listing. In addition, there The Department will be holding a not harvested will be considered totally lost may be other issues the participants will workshop on June 14, 1996, at the if damaged by an insured cause. want to address. All persons are hereby Embassy Row Hotel in Washington D.C. 13. Written Agreements given notice of the opportunity to attend to discuss issues that should be the public workshop. Designated terms of this policy may be considered in determining the altered by written agreement. The following DATES: The public workshop will be conditions will apply: rulemaking priority and the order of held on Friday, June 14, 1996, from 9:00 priority proposed in the straw man (a) You must apply in writing for each a.m. to 4:30 p.m. written agreement no later than the sales listing. The finalized priority listing will closing date, except as provided in paragraph ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held be published in the Department’s (e) of this section. at the Embassy Row Hotel, 2015 Regulatory Agenda which will be issued (b) The application for written agreement Massachusetts Avenue NW., in October 1996. must contain all terms of the contract Washington DC 20036, (202) 265–1600. The workshop will be professionally between you and us that will be in effect if Copies of the straw man listing of facilitated to encourage discussion and the written agreement is not approved. appliance standards rulemakings and comments on the topics. (c) If approved, the written agreement will this notice may be viewed at the DOE include all variable terms of the contract, Copies of the straw man listing and including, but not limited to, crop type or Freedom of Information Reading Room, this notice are available in the DOE variety, the guarantee, premium rate, and Forrestal Building, Room 1E–190, 1000 Freedom of Information Reading Room. price election. Independence Avenue SW., A copy of the workshop transcript will (d) Each written agreement will only be Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–6020 be available in the DOE public reading valid for 1 year. If the written agreement is between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. room approximately 10 days after the not specifically renewed the following year, Monday through Friday, except Federal workshop. insurance coverage for subsequent crop years holidays. will be in accordance with the printed The straw man listing will be sent to policy. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: all participants that notify the (e) An application for written agreement Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Department in advance that they will submitted after the sales closing date may be Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency attend and to other interested parties 28518 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules requesting this listing. The Department DATES: Comments must be received by postcard will be date stamped and welcomes written comments on the July 15, 1996. returned to the commenter. proposed priority list. Written ADDRESSES: Submit comments in Availability of NPRMs comments on the proposed priority list triplicate to the Federal Aviation Any person may obtain a copy of this must be received by July 26, 1996. Administration (FAA), Transport NPRM by submitting a request to the Please notify Bryan Berringer at the Airplane Directorate, ANM–103, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, above listed address of your intention to Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM– ANM–103, Attention: Rules Docket No. attend the workshop or if you expect to 81–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., provide written comments. 96–NM–81–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, Renton, Washington 98055–4056. SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056. Issued in Washington, DC on May 28, Comments may be inspected at this 1996. location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 Discussion Christine A. Ervin, p.m., Monday through Friday, except On January 22, 1996, the FAA issued Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Federal holidays. AD 95–26–15, amendment 39–9495 (61 Renewable Energy. The service information referenced in FR 2699, January 29, 1996), applicable [FR Doc. 96–13904 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] the proposed rule may be obtained from to various transport category airplanes BILLING CODE 6450±01±P Allied Signal Aerospace, Technical equipped with Allied Signal Publications, Dept. 65–70, P.O. Box Commercial Avionics Systems CAS–81 52170, Phoenix, Arizona 85072–2170. Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION This information may be examined at Systems (TCAS). That AD requires a the FAA, Transport Airplane revision to the FAA-approved Airplane Federal Aviation Administration Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Flight Manual (AFM) to provide the Renton, Washington. flightcrew with procedures to cycle 14 CFR Part 39 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: power to the TCAS processor via the David Crew, Aerospace Engineer, circuit breaker or power bus, and to [Docket No. 96±NM±81±AD] Systems and Flight Test Branch, ACE– perform a TCAS functional test to verify RIN 2120±AA64 116A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft proper operation of the TCAS. That Certification Office, Small Airplane action was prompted by reports of Airworthiness Directives; Allied Signal Directorate, Campus Building, 1701 failure of the audio output of the CAS– Commercial Avionics Systems CAS±81 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2–160, College 81 TCAS. The requirements of that AD Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Park, Georgia 30337–2748; telephone are intended to ensure that the Systems (TCAS) as Installed In, But (404) 305–7335; fax (404) 305–7348. flightcrew is advised of the potential Not Limited To, Various Transport hazard associated with failure of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Category Airplanes audio output of the CAS–81 TCAS, and Comments Invited of the procedures necessary to address AGENCY: Federal Aviation it. Administration, DOT. Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the Explanation of New Service ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking Information (NPRM). proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as Since the issuance of that AD, Allied SUMMARY: This document proposes to they may desire. Communications shall Signal has issued Service Bulletin TPA– revise an existing airworthiness identify the Rules Docket number and 81A–34–82, dated January 1996, which directive (AD), applicable to various be submitted in triplicate to the address describes procedures for a modification transport category airplanes equipped specified above. All communications (Unit Mod 13) of the TPA–81A TCAS with Allied Signal Commercial Avionics received on or before the closing date processor receiver. This modification Systems CAS–81 TCAS. That AD for comments, specified above, will be adds two 100k ohm resistors to circuitry currently requires a revision to the considered before taking action on the on the voice synthesizer module (VSM) Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to proposed rule. The proposals contained to provide a direct current (DC) return provide the flightcrew with procedures in this notice may be changed in light for the Op-Amp. Additionally, the to cycle power to the TCAS processor of the comments received. modification adds four diodes to the via the circuit breaker or power bus, and Comments are specifically invited on ADV. INHIBIT #1, #2, #3, and #4 lines to perform a TCAS functional test to the overall regulatory, economic, (advisory inhibit) at connector P3011 for verify proper operation of the TCAS. environmental, and energy aspects of isolation. This modification will That action was prompted by reports of the proposed rule. All comments eliminate audio noise and prevent a lack failure of the audio output of the CAS– submitted will be available, both before of AUDIO alert due to the absence of a 81 TCAS. The actions specified by that and after the closing date for comments, return path to ground in an alternate AD are intended to ensure that the in the Rules Docket for examination by current (AC) coupled filter in the VSM. flightcrew is advised of the potential interested persons. A report The modification also will eliminate the hazard associated with failure of the summarizing each FAA-public contact need to isolate diodes of the advisory audio output of the CAS–81 TCAS, and concerned with the substance of this inhibit lines in certain configurations. of the procedures necessary to address proposal will be filed in the Rules Allied Signal also issued Service it. This action would add a revision of Docket. Bulletin TPA–81A–34–84, dated the AFM requirements that would Commenters wishing the FAA to January 1996, which describes provide an alternative method of acknowledge receipt of their comments procedures for modification of the TPA– compliance with the currently required submitted in response to this notice 81A TCAS processor receiver. The AFM revision; and would provide for a must submit a self-addressed, stamped modification involves redesignating modification to the TCAS processor, postcard on which the following (rolling) the part numbers of processors which, if accomplished, terminates the statement is made: ‘‘Comments to modified to Unit Mod 13. This requirements of the AD. Docket Number 96–NM–81–AD.’’ The modification will prevent failure of the Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28519 audio alert annunciation circuit when a The FAA concurs. The FAA points action is estimated to be $180 per unit has power applied for more than out, however, that the proposed AD (as airplane. twelve hours at elevated temperatures. well as the previously issued AD) is Regulatory Impact The FAA has reviewed and approved applicable to the subject TCAS unit these service bulletins, and has itself, notwithstanding the model of The regulations proposed herein determined that accomplishment of airplane on which it is installed. As an would not have substantial direct effects these modifications will positively aid to operators in identifying whether on the States, on the relationship address the unsafe condition identified or not they are subject to the rule, the between the national government and as failure of the audio output of the FAA has included a list of the airplane the States, or on the distribution of CAS–81 TCAS. models on which the TCAS unit is power and responsibilities among the Comments Received in Response to AD known to be installed. However, this list various levels of government. Therefore, 95–26–15 is limited in that it does not include in accordance with Executive Order every airplane on which the TCAS may 12612, it is determined that this In response to the request for be installed. proposal would not have sufficient comments to AD 95–26–15, Airbus federalism implications to warrant the requests that the AD include a currently Explanation of Requirements of preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Proposed Rule approved alternative means of For the reasons discussed above, I compliance with the AFM revision Since an unsafe condition has been certify that this proposed regulation (1) required by paragraph (a) of the AD. For identified that is likely to exist or is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ airplanes on which the manufacturer develop on other products of this same under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not has substantiated 30 degrees Celsius as type design, the proposed AD would a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT a maximum ambient temperature for the revise AD 95–26–15 to add a new AFM Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 avionics compartment, this alternative requirement that would specify an FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if method of compliance revises the alternative method of compliance with promulgated, will not have a significant Limitations Section of the FAA- the currently required AFM revision. economic impact, positive or negative, approved AFM by including the The proposed AD would provide for a on a substantial number of small entities following: modification of the TCAS processor, under the criteria of the Regulatory In order to ensure that the audio output of which, if accomplished, terminates the Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft the CAS–81 TCAS operates properly, requirements of the existing AD. The regulatory evaluation prepared for this accomplish the following: proposed AD also identifies additional Prior to each flight of up to 18 hours action is contained in the Rules Docket. duration, reset the TCAS circuit breaker and airplane models on which the subject A copy of it may be obtained by conduct a TCAS self-test. TCAS unit may be installed. contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption The FAA concurs, and has added a Cost Impact ADDRESSES. new paragraph (b) to this proposal There are approximately 5,000 accordingly. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Airbus also requests that additional various transport category airplanes in information be added to the AD to the worldwide fleet on which the Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation clarify that maintenance personnel subject TCAS unit may be installed. The safety, Safety. FAA estimates that 3,650 airplanes of should perform the revisions to the The Proposed Amendment AFM and should enter and sign-off the U.S. registry would be affected by this Accordingly, pursuant to the required actions into the logbook. proposed AD. The FAA does not concur that this AD The actions that are currently authority delegated to me by the should be revised to include the required by AD 95–26–15, and retained Administrator, the Federal Aviation additional information requested by the in this proposed revision, take Administration proposes to amend part commenter. Persons authorized to approximately 1 work hour per airplane 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations perform the work required by an AD are to accomplish, at an average labor rate (14 CFR part 39) as follows: generally not prescribed by an AD. Part of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the existing PART 39ÐAIRWORTHINESS 43 (‘‘Maintenance, Preventive DIRECTIVES Maintenance, Rebuilding, and AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be Alteration’’) and part 121 (‘‘Certification $219,000, or $60 per airplane. 1. The authority citation for part 39 and Operations: Domestic, Flag, and The cost impact figure discussed continues to read as follows: above is based on assumptions that no Supplemental Air Carriers and Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. Commercial Operators of Large operator has yet accomplished any of Aircraft’’) of the Federal Aviation the proposed requirements of this AD § 39.13 [Amended] Regulations (14 CFR parts 43 and 121) action, and that no operator would 2. Section 39.13 is amended by specify persons authorized to perform accomplish those actions in the future if removing amendment 39–9495 (61 FR maintenance, preventive maintenance, this AD were not adopted. 2699, January 29, 1996), and by adding rebuilding, and alterations, as well as Should an operator elect to a new airworthiness directive (AD), to maintenance record entry requirements, accomplish the proposed optional read as follows: and approval for return to service of the terminating modification rather than continue using the AFM revision, it Allied Signal Commercial Avionics Systems: airplane after maintenance. Docket 96–NM–81–AD. Revises AD 95– Additionally, Airbus requests that would take approximately 3 work hours 26–15, Amendment 39–9495. Models A300B2, A300B4, A310–200, per airplane to accomplish, at an Applicability: CAS–81 Traffic Alert and A310–200, A300–600, A320–100, A320– average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS) that are 200, A321–100, A330–300, A340–200, Required parts would be furnished by installed in, but not limited to, the following and A340–300 series airplanes be the manufacturer at no cost to the airplanes, certificated in any category: included in the list of airplanes operator. Based on these figures, the Aerospatiale Models ATR42 and ATR72 included in the applicability of the AD. cost impact of this optional terminating series airplanes; 28520 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Airbus Industrie Models A300B2, A300B4, • Prior to taxi before takeoff: Initiate the SUMMARY: This document proposes the A310–200, A310–300, A300–600, A320–100, TCAS functional test in accordance with adoption of a new airworthiness A320–200, A321–100, A330–300, A340–200, AFM procedures to verify operational directive (AD) that is applicable to Pratt and A340–300 series airplanes; condition of the CAS–81 TCAS.’’ & Whitney JT9D series turbofan engines. Beech Models 1900 and BE–65 through –90 (b) For airplanes on which the (inclusive) series airplanes; manufacturer has substantiated 30 degrees This proposal would require installing Boeing Models 727–100, 727–200, 737– Celsius as a maximum ambient temperature an improved design turbine exhaust 200, 737–300, 737–400, 737–500, 747–100, for the TCAS processor location, the case (TEC) with a thicker containment 747–200, 747–300, 747–400, 747SP, 757–200, following is considered to be an alternative wall or modified TEC. This proposal is 767–200, and 767–300 series airplanes; method of compliance for the AFM revision prompted by reports of 64 uncontained Convair Model CV–580 airplanes; requirements: Revise the Limitations Section engine failures since 1972. The actions de Havilland DHC–7 series airplanes and of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual specified by the proposed AD are Model DHC–8–100 airplanes; (AFM) to include the following. This may be intended to prevent release of accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD Embraer Model EMB–120 series airplanes; uncontained debris from the turbine Fairchild Model F227 airplanes; in the AFM. After revising the AFM, the Fokker Models F28 Mark 100, Mark 1000, AFM revision required by paragraph (a) of exhaust case following an internal and Mark 4000 series airplanes; this AD may be removed from the AFM. engine failure, which can result in General Dynamics Models Convair 340 and ‘‘In order to ensure that the audio output damage to the aircraft. 440 airplanes; of the CAS–81 TCAS operates properly, DATES: Comments must be received by Gulfstream Models G–159 and G-IV accomplish the following: August 5, 1996. Prior to each flight of up to 18 hours airplanes; ADDRESSES: Submit comments in Lockheed Model L1011 series airplanes; duration, reset the TCAS circuit breaker and McDonnell Douglas Models DC–8–60, DC– conduct a TCAS self-test.’’ triplicate to the Federal Aviation 9–31, DC–9–51, DC–10–10; DC–10–30, DC– (c) Modification of the TPA–81A TCAS Administration (FAA), New England 10–30F, MD–11, and MD–80 series airplanes; processor receiver in accordance with Allied Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Rockwell International NA–265–65 Signal Service Bulletin TPA–81A–34–82, Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. airplanes; dated January 1996, and Allied Signal 95–ANE–57, 12 New England Executive Saab Model 340 series airplanes; and Service Bulletin TPA–81A–34–84, dated Park, Burlington, MA 01803–5299. Shorts Model 360 series airplanes. January 1996, constitutes terminating action for the requirements of this AD. After this Comments may also be submitted to the Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane modification is accomplished, the AFM Rules Docket by using the following on which the TCAS unit identified in the revisions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) Internet address: ‘‘epd- preceding applicability provision has been of this AD may be removed from the AFM. [email protected]’’. installed, regardless of whether it has been (d) An alternative method of compliance or Comments may be inspected at this otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in adjustment of the compliance time that the area subject to the requirements of this location between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 provides an acceptable level of safety may be AD. For affected TCAS units or airplanes that p.m., Monday through Friday, except used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta have been modified, altered, or repaired so Federal holidays. Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, that the performance of the requirements of The service information referenced in Small Airplane Directorate. Operators shall this AD is affected, the owner/operator must the proposed rule may be obtained from submit their requests through an appropriate request approval for an alternative method of FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who Pratt & Whitney, Publications compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) may add comments and then send it to the Department, Supervisor Technical of this AD. The request should include an Manager, Atlanta ACO. Publications Distribution, M/S 132–30, assessment of the effect of the modification, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition Note 3: Information concerning the addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe existence of approved alternative methods of telephone (860) 565–7700. This condition has not been eliminated, the compliance with this AD, if any, may be information may be examined at the request should include specific proposed obtained from the Atlanta ACO. FAA, New England Region, Office of the actions to address it. (e) Special flight permits may be issued in Assistant Chief Counsel, 12 New Note 2: CAS–81 Traffic Alert and Collision accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 England Executive Park, Burlington, Avoidance Systems (TCAS) processors of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR MA. having serial numbers 6066 and subsequent, 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: are not subject to the requirements of this a location where the requirements of this AD AD. can be accomplished. Daniel Kerman, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine Compliance: Required as indicated, unless Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 30, accomplished previously. 1996. and Propeller Directorate, 12 New To ensure that the flightcrew is advised of Darrell M. Pederson, England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803–5299; telephone (617) 238–7130, the potential hazard associated with failure Acting Manager, Transport Airplane of the audio output of the CAS–81 TCAS, and Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. fax (617) 238–7199. of the procedures necessary to address it, accomplish the following: [FR Doc. 96–14038 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (a) Within 3 calendar days after February BILLING CODE 4910±13±P Comments Invited 5, 1996 (the effective date of AD 95–26–15, amendment 39–9495), revise the Limitations Interested persons are invited to Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight 14 CFR Part 39 participate in the making of the Manual (AFM) to include the following. This proposed rule by submitting such [Docket No. 95±ANE±57] may be accomplished by inserting a copy of written data, views, or arguments as this AD in the AFM. RIN 2120±AA64 they may desire. Communications ‘‘In order to ensure that the audio output should identify the Rules Docket of the CAS–81 TCAS operates properly, Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & number and be submitted in triplicate to accomplish the following: Whitney JT9D Series Turbofan Engines the address specified above. All • Prior to the first flight of the day; prior to the accumulation of 10 hours of power; AGENCY: Federal Aviation communications received on or before and at the mid-point of any one flight Administration, DOT. the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking scheduled to exceed hours: Cycle the power ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking action on the proposed rule. The to the TCAS processor via the circuit breaker (NPRM). or power bus. proposals contained in this notice may Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28521 be changed in light of the comments As a result of these uncontainments, PW The regulations proposed herein received. has refined their analytical containment would not have substantial direct effects Comments are specifically invited on model based on the results of ballistics on the States, on the relationship the overall regulatory, economic, testing. PW utilized this data to between the national government and environmental, and energy aspects of establish new casing wall thickness the States, or on the distribution of the proposed rule. All comments requirements for aft containment. Pratt power and responsibilities among the submitted will be available, both before & Whitney has developed three various levels of government. Therefore, and after the closing date for comments, containment improvements: a in accordance with Executive Order in the Rules Docket for examination by redesigned, thick-wall TEC developed 12612, it is determined that this interested persons. A report for all models of the JT9D engine; proposal would not have sufficient summarizing each FAA-public contact containment shields for all models of federalism implications to warrant the concerned with the substance of this the JT9D engine; and a new TEC ‘‘P’’ preparation of a Federalism Assessment. proposal will be filed in the Rules flange and case wall replacement for all For the reasons discussed above, I Docket. models of the JT9D engine excluding the certify that this proposed regulation (1) Commenters wishing the FAA to Model JT9D–7R4D (BG–700 series) is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ acknowledge receipt of their comments turbofan engines. under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not submitted in response to this notice The FAA has reviewed and approved a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT must submit a self-addressed, stamped the technical contents of the following Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 postcard on which the following PW Service Bulletins (SB’s): SB No. FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 6113, dated April 13, 1993; SB No. promulgated, will not have a significant Docket Number 95–ANE–57.’’ The 5977, dated December 14, 1990; SB No. economic impact, positive or negative, postcard will be date stamped and JT9D–7R4–72–479, Revision 1, dated on a substantial number of small entities returned to the commenter. November 12, 1993; SB No. 6243, dated under the criteria of the Regulatory February 1, 1996; SB No. JT9D–7R4–72– Availability of NPRMs Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft 513, Revision 2, dated January 10, 1996; regulatory evaluation prepared for this Any person may obtain a copy of this SB No. 5907, dated March 27, 1990; SB action is contained in the Rules Docket. NPRM by submitting a request to the No. JT9D–7R4–72–407, Revision 1, A copy of it may be obtained by FAA, New England Region, Office of the dated August 16, 1990; SB No. JT9D– contacting the Rules Docket at the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: 7R4–72–466, Revision 2, dated May 10, location provided under the caption Rules Docket No. 95–ANE–57, 12 New 1996; SB No. 6118, Revision 3, dated ADDRESSES. England Executive Park, Burlington, MA January 10, 1996; and SB No. 6157, 01803–5299. dated February 9, 1994. These SB’s List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Discussion describe replacing the previous TEC Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation with a new, thicker case wall TEC, safety, Safety. The Federal Aviation Administration installing a new containment shield for (FAA) has determined that the turbine enhanced containment capability, and The Proposed Amendment exhaust case (TEC) on Pratt & Whitney replacing the TEC ‘‘P’’ flange and case Accordingly, pursuant to the (PW) JT9D–3, –7, –20, –59A, –70A, –7Q, wall with a thicker cross section. authority delegated to me by the and –7R4 series turbofan engines may Since an unsafe condition has been Administrator, the Federal Aviation not be capable of containing a release of identified that is likely to exist or Administration proposes to amend part engine debris should an internal engine develop on other products of this same 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations failure occur. The FAA has determined, type design, the proposed AD would (14 CFR part 39) as follows: based on service experience, that TEC require installing an improved design penetrations have resulted from TEC with a thicker containment wall, PART 39ÐAIRWORTHINESS multiple internal gas path failure modifying the existing TEC to DIRECTIVES modes. Primary penetrations of the TEC incorporate a containment shield, or have been isolated to the outer wall modifying the existing TEC to replace 1. The authority citation for part 39 between the leading edge of the casing the ‘‘P’’ flange and case wall. The FAA continues to read as follows: struts and the forward ‘‘P’’ flange. This has established a compliance end-date Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. condition, if not corrected, could result of 48 months after the effective date of § 39.13 [Amended] in release of uncontained debris from this AD based upon shop visit rates for the turbine exhaust case following an hot section overhaul. The actions would 2. Section 39.13 is amended by internal engine failure, which can result be required to be accomplished in adding the following new airworthiness in damage to the aircraft. accordance with the service bulletins directive: Service experience has demonstrated described previously. Pratt & Whitney: Docket No. 95–ANE–57. that there exists a need for out-of-plane, There are approximately 2,748 Applicability: Pratt & Whitney (PW) JT9D– aft containment. The FAA has received engines of the affected design in the 3, –7, –20, –59A, –70A, –7Q, and –7R4 series reports of 64 uncontained failures of the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that turbofan engines, installed on but not limited TEC since 1972. 740 engines installed on aircraft of U.S. to Airbus A300 and A310 series; Boeing 747 These TEC penetrations have resulted registry would be affected by this and 767 series; and McDonnell Douglas DC– from a variety of failure modes. In some proposed AD, that it would take 10 series aircraft. incidents, the engine failures have approximately 14 work hours per engine Note: This airworthiness directive (AD) occurred as far upstream as the fan to accomplish the proposed actions, and applies to each engine identified in the module No. 1 bearing to as far that the average labor rate is $60 per preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or downstream as the sixth stage low work hour. Required parts would cost repaired in the area subject to the pressure turbine blades. In all instances approximately $1,404 per engine. Based requirements of this AD. For engines that these failures have caused a balling on these figures, the total cost impact of have been modified, altered, or repaired so effect in which downstream debris has the proposed AD on U.S. operators is that the performance of the requirements of penetrated through the TEC shell wall. estimated to be $1,660,560. this AD is affected, the owner/operator must 28522 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules use the authority provided in paragraph (b) (i) Install a thicker-walled TEC, with P/N’s notice soliciting comments and views to request approval from the Federal Aviation listed in PW SB No. JT9D–7R4–72–479, on the administration of the tariff-rate Administration (FAA). This approval may Revision 1, dated November 12, 1993; or quota on leaf tobacco, established on address either no action, if the current (ii) Install a modified TEC that incorporates September 13, 1995, which was a containment shield, with P/N’s listed in configuration eliminates the unsafe operating on a first-come, first-served condition, or different actions necessary to PW SB No. JT9D–7R4–72–407, Revision 1, address the unsafe condition described in dated August 16, 1990, as applicable. basis (61 FR 6333). Because of request this AD. Such a request should include an (5) For PW JT9D–7R4D (BG–800 series), by interested parties for an extension of assessment of the effect of the changed –7R4D (BG–900 series), –7R4D1 (AI–500 the comment period, USTR is extending configuration on the unsafe condition series), –7R4E (BG–800 series), –7R4E (BG– the comment period until June 19, 1996. addressed by this AD. In no case does the 900 series), –7R4E1 (AI–500 series), –7R4E1 DATES: Comment period extended until presence of any modification, alteration, or (AI–600 series), –7R4E4 (BG–900 series), June 19, 1996. repair remove any engine from the –7R4G2 (BG–300 series), and –7R4H1 (AI– ADDRESSES: Office of the U.S. Trade applicability of this AD. 600 series) turbofan engines, accomplish any one of the following actions: Representative, Room 222, 600 17th Compliance: Required as indicated, unless Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508, accomplished previously. (i) Install a thicker-walled TEC, with P/N’s To prevent release of uncontained debris listed in PW SB No. JT9D–7R4–72–513, attention: Tobacco Tariff-Rate Quota. from the turbine exhaust case (TEC) Revision 2, dated January 10, 1996; or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: following an internal engine failure, which (ii) Install a modified TEC that incorporates Tom Perkins, Senior Economist, Office can result in damage to the aircraft, a containment shield, with P/N’s listed in of Agricultural Affairs, USTR, (202) accomplish the following: PW SB No. JT9D–7R4–72–466, Revision 2, 395–6127; or Rachel Shub, Assistant dated May 10, 1996; or (a) At the next removal of the TEC from the (iii) Install a modified TEC that General Counsel, USTR (202) 395–7305. low pressure turbine case ‘‘P’’ flange for incorporates a replacement ‘‘P’’ flange and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Persons overhaul, where the No. 4 bearing, carbon case wall, with P/N’s listed in PW SB No. submitting written comments should seals, lubrication pressurization lines, or JT9D–7R4–72–513, Revision 2, dated January provide a statement, in ten copies, by scavenge lines are removed for maintenance 10, 1996. after the effective date of this AD, but not noon June 19, 1996 to Sybia Harrison, (b) An alternative method of compliance or later than 48 months after the effective date Office of the United States Trade adjustment of the compliance time that of this AD, accomplish the following: Representative, Room 222, 600 17th provides an acceptable level of safety may be (1) For PW JT9D–3A, –7, –7A, –7AH, –7H, Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508, used if approved by the Manager, Engine –7F, –7J, –20, and –20J series turbofan Certification Office. The request should be attention: Tobacco Tariff-Rate Quota. engines, accomplish any one of the following forwarded through an appropriate FAA Non-confidential information received actions: Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may will be available for public inspection (i) Install a thicker-walled TEC, with Part add comments and then send it to the by appointment, in the USTR Reading Numbers (P/N’s) listed in PW SB No. 6113, Manager, Engine Certification Office. Room, Room 101, Monday through dated April 13, 1993, as applicable; or Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and (ii) Install a modified TEC that incorporates Note: Information concerning the existence a containment shield, with P/N’s listed in of approved alternative methods of 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. For an PW SB No. 5907, dated March 27, 1990, as compliance with this airworthiness directive, appointment call Brenda Webb at (202) applicable; or if any, may be obtained from the Engine 395–6186. Business confidential (iii) Install a modified TEC that Certification Office. information will be subject to the incorporates a replacement ‘‘P’’ flange and (c) Special flight permits may be issued in requirements of 15 CFR 2003.6 Any case wall, with P/N’s listed in PW SB No. accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 business confidential material must be 6118, Revision 3, dated January 10, 1996. of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR clearly marked as such on the cover 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to (2) For PW JT9D–7Q and –7Q3 series letter or page and each succeeding page, turbofan engines, accomplish any one of the a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished. and must be accompanied by a non- following actions: confidential summary thereof. (i) Install a thicker-walled TEC, with P/N’s Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on listed in PW SB No. 5977, dated December May 22, 1996. Jennifer Hillman, 14, 1990; or Robert E. Guyotte, General Counsel. (ii) Install a modified TEC that incorporates Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller [FR Doc. 96–13992 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] a containment shield, with P/N’s listed in Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. PW SB No. 5907, dated March 27, 1990, as BILLING CODE 3190±01±M applicable; or [FR Doc. 96–14033 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] (iii) Install a modified TEC that BILLING CODE 4910±13±P incorporates a replacement ‘‘P’’ flange and DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY case wall, with P/N’s listed in PW SB No. 6157, dated February 9, 1994. OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES Customs Service (3) For PW JT9D–59A and –70A series TRADE REPRESENTATIVE turbofan engines, accomplish one of the 19 CFR Part 151 following actions: 19 CFR Part 132 RIN 1515±AB75 (i) Install a thicker-walled TEC, with P/N’s listed in PW SB No. 6243, dated February 1, Extension of Comment Period for Detention of Merchandise 1996; or Administration of Tobacco Tariff-Rate (ii) Install a modified TEC that incorporates Quota AGENCY: Customs Service, Department a containment shield, with P/N’s listed in of the Treasury. PW SB No. 5907, dated March 27, 1990, as AGENCY: Office of the United States ACTION: Proposed rule. applicable; Trade Representative. (iii) Install a modified TEC that SUMMARY: This document proposes incorporates a replacement ‘‘P’’ flange and ACTION: Notice of extension of comment case wall, with P/N’s listed in PW SB No. period. amendments to the Customs Regulations 6157, dated February 9, 1994. to provide for procedures regarding the (4) For PW JT9D–7R4D (BG–700 series) SUMMARY: On February 20, 1996, the detention of merchandise that is turbofan engines, accomplish either of the Office of the United States Trade undergoing extended Customs following actions: Representative (USTR) published a examination. It is intended that the Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28523

Customs Regulations regarding this Customs examination when it is in a notices, disclose available testing results subject accurately reflect recent condition to be viewed and examined and descriptions of procedures and amendments to the underlying statutory by a Customs officer. Mere presentation methodologies that are not proprietary authority, enacted as part of the to the examining officer of a cargo van, to Customs or the holder of any Customs modernization portion of the container or instrument of international copyright or patent, and process any North American Free Trade Agreement traffic in which the merchandise to be exclusion protests within a prescribed Implementation Act. examined is contained will not be statutory time period. If a notice to DATES: Comments must be received on considered to be presentation of the exclude is not issued within such time or before August 5, 1996. merchandise for Customs examination period, the burden of proof is on ADDRESSES: Written comments for purposes of starting the five-day Customs to show, by a preponderance of (preferably in triplicate) may be period in which the decision to detain the evidence, good cause as to why an addressed to the Regulations Branch, or release must be made. Further, admissibility decision had not been Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S. consistent with the provisions of § 151.7 made prior to the time the importer Customs Service, 1301 Constitution of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR commenced suit. If Customs makes the Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20229. 151.7), relating to the examination of decision to exclude, an importer Comments submitted may be inspected merchandise at a place other than the wishing to challenge the decision shall at the Regulations Branch, Office of public stores, the importer shall bear bear the burden of proof. These Regulations and Rulings, Franklin any expense involved in preparing the procedures are applicable to those cases Court, 1099 14th Street, Suite 4000, merchandise for Customs examination. where Customs has the responsibility Washington, DC. Customs is required to issue a written and authority to determine the notice of detention to the importer or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: admissibility of the merchandise. They other party having an interest in the Jeremy Baskin, Penalties Branch, 202– do not apply to those situations where subject merchandise. The notice shall 482–6950. the decision of admissibility lies with advise the importer or other interested another Federal agency. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: party of the initiation of the detention, This document proposes to amend the Background the specific reason for same, the regulations to accurately reflect the anticipated length of the detention, the statutory changes promulgated by the On December 8, 1993, amendments to nature of the tests or inquiries to be Mod Act. certain Customs and navigation laws conducted and the nature of any became effective as the result of the information which, if supplied to Comments enactment of the North American Free Customs, may accelerate the disposition Before adopting the proposed Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of the detention. The importer or other amendments, consideration will be Implementation Act, Public Law 103– interested party shall be afforded the given to any written comments 182, Title VI of which is the Customs opportunity to remedy the cause for (preferably in triplicate) that are timely modernization portion thereof, detention and bring the detained submitted to Customs. Comments popularly known as the Customs merchandise into compliance within 30 submitted will be available for public Modernization Act (Mod Act). Section days after issuance of the notice. After inspection in accordance with the 613 of the Mod Act amended the 30 days or such longer period as Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. provisions of section 499 of the Tariff authorized by law, if Customs has not 552), § 1.4, Treasury Regulations (31 Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. made a final determination to release or CFR 1.4) and § 103.11(b), Customs 1499), to provide for the detention of seize, the goods are deemed to be Regulations (19 CFR 103.11(b)), on merchandise in any case where Customs excluded. Under Customs proposal, the regular business days between the hours is unable, upon initial examination, to 30-day limitation may be extended of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the make a determination as to whether that when the importer or interested party Regulations Branch, 1099 14th Street, imported merchandise complies with requests in writing an extension of the NW., Suite 4000, Washington, DC. requirements of the laws of the United detention period, in order to comply States. Much of the new legislation with Customs requirements. In the Regulatory Flexibility Act and brought the law into conformity with absence of a written request for an Executive Order 12866 existing Customs practice with regard to extension, the importer or interested For the reasons given in the preamble the examination and detention of party may file a protest as to the to this document, pursuant to the merchandise. exclusion. If, within 30 days after filing provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Prior to this amendment, Customs, of the protest, Customs fails to act, the Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), it is certified while having extensive examination importer or interested party may seek that the proposed amendments would authority, had no specific statutory or judicial review in the Court of not have a significant economic impact regulatory procedures for detaining International Trade. The detention/ on a substantial number of small merchandise whose admissibility had exclusion period will generally not entities. Thus, they are not subject to the not yet been determined. The Mod Act extend beyond 60 days (unless a longer requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 or 604. Nor codified Customs current detention period is authorized by law) without the would the proposed rule result in a practices. Importers are provided an importer or interested party being ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under accelerated method to receive afforded judicial review. At any time E.O. 12866. administrative or judicial review of any during the detention period, the decision to exclude. merchandise may be seized and Paperwork Reduction Act Customs has five days after forfeited, if the facts so warrant. The The collection of information merchandise is presented for proposed regulations also permit contained in this notice of proposed examination to determine whether such Customs to allow exportation of the rulemaking has been submitted to the merchandise should be detained or can goods in lieu of seizure with all costs of Office of Management and Budget for be released. Through this document exportation being borne by the importer. review in accordance with the Customs is proposing that merchandise The law compels Customs to make Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 shall be considered to be presented for timely decisions, provide timely U.S.C. 3507). 28524 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules

An agency may not conduct or Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General methodologies are proprietary to the sponsor, and a person is not required to Notes 20 and 21, Harmonized Tariff Schedule holder of a copyright or patent or were respond to a collection of information of the United States), 1624. Subpart A also developed by Customs for enforcement unless the collection of information issued under 19 U.S.C. 1499. * * * 9 purposes). The results and test displays a valid control number. 2. It is proposed to amend part 151 by description shall be in sufficient detail The collection of information in this adding a new § 151.16 to read as to permit the duplication and analysis document is in § 151.16 (d) and (f). This follows: of the testing and the results. information is necessary and will be (e) Seizure and forfeiture; denial of used to determine the admissibility of § 151.16 Detention of merchandise. entry or exportation. If otherwise imported merchandise and to otherwise (a) Other agencies not affected. The provided by law, detained merchandise comply with the requirements of the provisions of this section are not may be seized and forfeited. In lieu of Mod Act and protect the revenue. The applicable to detentions effected by seizure and forfeiture, Customs may likely respondents and/or recordkeepers Customs on behalf of other agencies of deny entry and, where not otherwise are business or other for-profit the U.S. Government. prohibited by law, permit the institutions. (b) Decision to detain or release. merchandise to be exported with all Estimated annual reporting and/or Within the 5-day period (excluding expenses of exportation being borne by recordkeeping burden: 500 hours. weekends and holidays) following the the importer. Estimated average annual burden per date on which merchandise is presented (f) Final decisions; extension of time. respondent/recordkeeper: 2 hours. for Customs examination, Customs shall A final decision with respect to Estimated number of respondents decide whether to release or detain the detained merchandise will be made and/or recordkeepers: 250. merchandise. Merchandise which is not within 30 days from the date the Estimated annual frequency of released within such 5-day period shall shipment was detained. The 30-day responses: 1. be considered to be detained limitation may be extended when the Comments on the collection of merchandise. For purposes of this importer or interested party requests in information should be sent to the Office section, merchandise shall be writing an extension of the detention of Management and Budget, Attention: considered to be presented for Customs period, in order to comply with Desk Officer of the Department of the examination when it is in a condition to Customs requirements. Treasury, Office of Information and be viewed and examined by a Customs (g) Effect of failure to make a Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC officer. Mere presentation to the determination. The failure by Customs 20503. A copy should also be sent to the examining officer of a cargo van, to make a final determination with Regulations Branch, Office of container or instrument of international respect to the admissibility of detained Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs traffic in which the merchandise to be merchandise within 30 days after the Service, 1301 Constitution Avenue, examined is contained will not be merchandise has been presented for NW., Washington, DC 20229. Comments considered to be presentation of Customs examination, or such longer should be submitted within the time merchandise for Customs examination period if specifically authorized by law, frame that comments are due regarding for purposes of this section. All costs or such extension of time as allowed by the substance of the proposal. relating to the preparation of paragraph (f) of this section, shall be Comments are invited on: (a) Whether merchandise for examination shall be treated as a decision by Customs to the collection of information is borne by the importer. exclude the merchandise for purposes of necessary for the proper performance of (c) Notice of detention. If a decision § 514(a)(4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as the functions of the agency, including to detain merchandise is made, Customs amended (19 U.S.C. 1514(a)(4)). Such whether the information shall have shall issue a notice to the importer or decision may be the subject of a protest. practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the other party having an interest in such (h) Effect of failure to decide protest. agency’s estimate of the burden of the merchandise no later than 5 days If a protest which is filed as a result of collection of the information; (c) ways to (excluding weekends and holidays) after exclusion of detained merchandise is enhance the quality, utility, and clarity such decision. The notice shall be not allowed or is denied in whole or in of the information to be collected; and prepared by the Customs officer part before the 30th day after the day on (d) ways to minimize the burden of the detaining the merchandise and shall which the protest was filed, it shall be collection of information on advise the importer or other interested treated as having been denied on such respondents, including through the use party of the: 30th day. of automated collection techniques or (1) Initiation of the detention; (i) Burden of proof and decisions of other forms of information technology. (2) Specific reason for the detention; the court. Once an action respecting a List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 151 (3) Anticipated length of the detention is commenced, unless detention; Customs establishes by a preponderance Examination, Sampling and testing of (4) Nature of the tests or inquiries to of the evidence that an admissibility merchandise. be conducted; and decision has not been reached for good Proposed Amendments to the (5) Nature of any information which, cause, the court shall grant the Regulations if supplied to the Customs, may appropriate relief which may include, accelerate the disposition of the but is not limited to, an order to cancel It is proposed to amend part 151, detention. the detention and release the Customs Regulations (19 CFR part 151), (d) Providing testing results. Upon merchandise. as set forth below: written request by the importer or other George J. Weise, PART 151ÐEXAMINATION, SAMPLING party having an interest in the detained Commissioner of Customs. AND TESTING OF MERCHANDISE merchandise, Customs shall provide copies of the results of any testing Approved: April 18, 1996. 1. The general authority citation for conducted on the merchandise together John P. Simpson, part 151, and the specific authority for with a description of the testing Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. subpart A, would continue to read as procedures and methodologies used [FR Doc. 96–14124 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] follows: (unless such procedures or BILLING CODE 4820±02±P Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28525

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND given until June 3, 1996, to submit DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HUMAN SERVICES written comments on the proposal. The agency has received a request Minerals Management Service Food and Drug Administration from the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and 30 CFR Part 250 Fragrance Association (CTFA) for an 21 CFR Parts 70, 73, 74, 80, 81, 82, 101, extension of the comment period for the RIN 1010±AC19 178, 201, and 701 proposal. Although FDA’s general [Docket Nos. 79N±0043 and 92N±0334] policy is not to extend such comment Unitization periods so that necessary regulations Permanent Listing of Color Additive AGENCY: Minerals Management Service can be issued as expeditiously as (MMS), Interior. Lakes; Extension of Comment Period possible, in this case the agency agrees ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. that the requestor and others may need AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, additional time to study the HHS. SUMMARY: MMS proposes to amend its ramifications of this complex proposal unitization regulations by removing the ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of in order to submit meaningful comment period. model unit agreements for exploration, comments. Therefore, after careful development, and production units and SUMMARY: The Food and Drug consideration, FDA is extending the development and production units. The Administration is extending to August comment period for the proposal for an model agreements would be available 3, 1996, the comment period for a additional 60 days, until August 3, from the Regional Supervisor. The rule proposed rule that published March 4, 1996. would also be written in ‘‘plain 1996 (61 FR 8372). The document Interested persons may, on or before English.’’ We take this action to support proposed to list certain color additive August 3, 1996, submit to the Dockets the President’s initiative to reform lakes permanently as suitable and safe Management Branch (address above) Government regulations. Our interest is for use in foods, drugs, and cosmetics. written comments regarding this to shorten the regulation and clarify the FDA is taking this action in response to proposal. Four copies of any comments wording. a request for additional time to review are to be submitted, except that DATES: MMS will consider all comments and understand the details of the individuals may submit one copy. received by August 5, 1996. We will proposed rule. Comments are to be identified with the begin reviewing comments at that time DATES: Written comments by August 3, docket number of the rulemaking or and may not fully consider comments 1996. rulemakings to which the comment is we receive after August 5, 1996. relevant. As stated in the March 4, 1996, ADDRESSES: Written comments to the ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-carry written proposed rule (61 FR 8372 at 8406), Dockets Management Branch (HFA– comments to the Department of the comments on modifications to the July 305), Food and Drug Administration, Interior, Minerals Management Service, 21, 1995 (60 FR 37611), proposal 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1–23, 381 Elden Street, Mail Stop 4700, regarding label declaration of FD&C Rockville, MD 20857. Process Herndon, Virginia 22070–4817, Yellow No. 6 should be identified with descriptions, identity information for Attention: Chief, Engineering and both docket numbers found in brackets anions in precipitants, and ingredient Standards Branch. in the heading of this document; specifications for substrata (including comments on other aspects of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: rosin), and rosin samples to the Colors proposed rule should be identified with Judith M. Wilson, Engineering and Technology Branch (HFS–126), Food docket number 79N–0043 only. Standards Branch, telephone (703) 787– and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Received comments may be seen in the 1600. Washington, DC 20204. office above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The rules FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monday through Friday. on unitization in 30 CFR part 250, Regarding proposed certification In addition, interested persons may, implementing Section 5(a)7 of the Outer procedures and proposed product on or before August 3, 1996, submit to Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act ingredient declarations: Julie N. the Office of Cosmetics and Colors Amendments of 1978, were published Barrows, Center for Food Safety and (address above) written comments on May 2, 1980. The rules were Applied Nutrition (HFS–105), Food containing process information relating amended on February 16, 1982. The and Drug Administration, 200 C St. to the identity and current use of amended rulemaking removed the SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202– substrata (including rosin) in lakes, and provisions that required segregation of 205–4662. samples of such substrata. Written the portion of the OCS oil and gas lease Regarding other issues: Arthur L. not included in the unit agreement. That Lipman, Center for Food Safety and comments regarding the use of anions other than chloride and sulfate in amendment was based on the Applied Nutrition (HFS–217), Food Department of the Interior (DOI) and Drug Administration, 200 C St. precipitants may also be submitted to this address. Two copies of each Solicitor’s Opinion M–36927. The rules SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202– were amended again in April 1988, 418–3073. comment and one 5-pound sample are to be submitted, and each submission is when MMS restructured and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the to be identified with the docket number consolidated into one document the Federal Register of March 4, 1996 (61 (79N–0043) found in brackets in the rules governing oil, gas, and sulphur FR 8372), FDA issued a proposed rule heading of this document. exploration, development, and to list certain color additive lakes production operations on the OCS. The permanently as suitable and safe for use Dated: May 29, 1996. model unit agreements were in foods, drugs, and cosmetics. The William K. Hubbard, incorporated at this time. The last proposed rule modified a July 21, 1995, Associate Commissioner for Policy revision was in July 1991, to include proposed rule regarding label Coordination. sulphur operations in unitization. declaration of FD&C Yellow No. 6 (60 [FR Doc. 96–14053 Filed 5–31–96; 12:12 pm] This subpart, 30 CFR part 250, FR 37611). Interested persons were BILLING CODE 4160±01±F Subpart M, Unitization, is intended to 28526 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules prevent waste, conserve natural OMB, Attention Desk Officer for the 2. In addition, the Paperwork resources (protection of marine life was Department of the Interior (OMB control Reduction Act of 1995 requires agencies incorporated into conservation in 1971), number 1010–0068), Washington, DC to estimate the total annual cost burden and/or protect correlative rights. The 20503. Send a copy of your comments to respondents or recordkeepers rules include provisions to: to the Chief, Engineering and Standards resulting from the collection of • explain the authority and Branch; Mail Stop 4700; Minerals information. MMS needs your requirements for unitization; Management Service; 381 Elden Street; comments on this item. Your response • provide for compulsory or Herndon, Virginia 22070–4817. You should split the cost estimate into two voluntary unitization; may obtain a copy of the proposed components: • explain requirements for collection of information by contacting (a) Total capital and startup cost competitive reservoir operations; the Bureau’s Information Collection component and • explain how a lessee may request a Clearance Officer at (703) 787–1242. determination of whether a reservoir is The title of this collection of (b) Annual operation, maintenance, competitive; information is ‘‘30 CFR 250, Subpart M, and purchase of services component. • explain how to submit a joint Unitization.’’ OMB previously approved Your estimates should consider the development and production plan; it under OMB control number 1010– costs to generate, maintain, and disclose • explain the process for voluntary 0068. or provide the information. You should unitization; The collection of information consists describe the methods you use to • explain the process for compulsory of a proposed unit agreement; a estimate major cost factors, including unitization; and proposed initial plan of operation; system and technology acquisition, • explain the role of a model supporting geological, geophysical, and expected useful life of capital agreement. engineering data; and any other equipment, discount rate(s), and the This proposed rule does not intend information necessary to show that the period over which you incur costs. any substantive changes to this unitization proposal meets the criteria Capital and startup costs include, regulation. It would shorten existing in § 250.190. If approved, respondents among other items, computers and regulations by removing the model unit will submit to MMS a unit agreement, software you purchase to prepare for agreements. The ‘‘plain English’’ would unit operation agreement, and the initial collecting information; monitoring, clarify the rule. plan of operation as the Regional sampling, drilling, and testing There are two model unit agreements, Supervisor may require. equipment; and record storage facilities. one for exploration, development, and MMS uses the information to ensure Generally, your estimates should not production units, the other for that operations under the proposed unit include equipment or services development and production units. The agreement will prevent waste, conserve purchased: before October 1, 1995; to model agreements would continue to be natural resources, and protect comply with requirements not available from the Regional Supervisor. correlative rights including the associated with the information The Regional Supervisor could approve Government’s interests. collection; for reasons other than to variations from the model agreements Respondnets are Federal OCS oil, gas, provide information or keep records for for good cause. and sulphur lessees. MMS receives the Government; or as part of customary Author: This document was prepared approximately 53 responses each year. and usual business or private practice. by Judy Wilson, Engineering and The frequency of submission varies. Standards Branch, Offshore Resource MMS estimates the annual reporting The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Evaluation Division, MMS. burden to be approximately 2,424 hours, provides that an agency may not an average of 45.7 hours per response. conduct or sponsor, and a person is not Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 Based on $35 per hour, the burden hour required to respond to, a collection of This rule does not meet the criteria for cost to respondents is estimated to be information unless it displays a a significant rule requiring review by $84,840. The estimate of other annual currently valid OMB control number. the Office of Management and Budget costs to respondents is unknown. Takings Implication Assessment under E.O. 12866. MMS will summarize written Regulatory Flexibility Act responses to this notice and address The DOI certifies that this rule does them in the final rule. All comments not represent a governmental action Since this proposed amendment has will become a matter of public record. capable of interference with no economic effects, DOI has 1. MMS specifically solicits constitutionally protected property determined that this proposed rule will comments on the following questions: rights. A Takings Implication not have a significant effect on a (a) Is the proposed collection of Assessment prepared pursuant to E.O. substantial number of small entities. information necessary for the proper 12630, Government Action and Paperwork Reduction Act performance of MMS’s functions, and Interference with Constitutionally will it be useful? Protected Property Rights, is not This proposed rule contains a (b) Are the estimates of the burden required. collection of information which has hours of the proposed collection been submitted to the Office of reasonable? Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 Management and Budget (OMB) for (c) Do you have any suggestions that review and approval under section would enhance the quality, clarity, or This rule does not contain any 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act usefulness of the information to be unfunded mandates to State, local, or of 1995. As part of our continuing effort collected? tribal governments or the private sector. to reduce paperwork and respondent (d) Is there a way to minimize the E.O. 12988 burden, MMS invites the public and information collection burden on those other Federal agencies to comment on who are to respond, including through DOI has certified to OMB that this any aspect of the reporting burden. the use of appropriate automated proposed rule meets the applicable civil Submit your comments to the Office of electronic, mechanical, or other forms of justice reform standards provided in Information and Regulatory Affairs, information technology? Sections 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28527

National Environmental Policy Act § 250.191 What are the requirements for lease consistent with applicable unitization? regulations; or MMS has examined the proposed (a) Voluntary unitization. You and (3) MMS orders or approves a rulemaking and has determined that this other OCS lessees may ask the Regional suspension of production or operations rule does not constitute a major Federal Supervisor to approve a request for for your lease. action significantly affecting the quality voluntary unitization. The Regional (g) Unit operations. If your lease is of the human environment pursuant to Supervisor may approve the request for subject to a unit agreement, the entire Section 102(2)(c) of the National voluntary unitization if unitized lease continues for the term provided in Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 operations: the lease and as long thereafter as any U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)). (1) Will promote and expedite lease portion of your lease remains part of the List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250 exploration and development; or unit area, and as long as operations (2) Are necessary to prevent waste, continue the unit in effect. Continental shelf, Environmental conserve natural resources, or protect (1) Drilling, production, and well- impact statements, Environmental correlative rights, including Federal reworking operations performed on any protection, Government contracts, royalty interests, of a reasonably lease in accordance with the unit Incorporation by reference, delineated and productive reservoir. agreement benefit all leases in the unit. Investigations, Mineral royalties, Oil (b) Compuslory unitization. The If your unit ceases drilling activities for and gas development and production, Regional Supervisor may require you a period between the discovery and Oil and gas exploration, Oil and gas and other lessees to unitize operations delineation of one or more reservoirs reserves, Penalties, Pipelines, Public if unitized operations are necessary to and the initiation of actual development lands—mineral resources, Public prevent waste, conserve natural and production operations and that time lands—rights-of-way, Reporting and resources, or protect correlative rights of period would extend beyond your recordkeeping requirements, Sulphur a reasonably delineated and productive lease’s primary term, you must request development and production, Sulphur reservoir. and obtain MMS approval of a exploration, Surety bonds. (c) Unit area. The area that a unit suspension of production under Bob Armstrong, includes is the minimum number of § 250.10. leases that will allow the lessees to Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals (2) When a lease in a unit agreement Management. minimize the number of platforms, is beyond the primary term and the facility installations, and wells lease or unit is not producing, the lease For the reasons set forth in the necessary for efficient exploration, will expire unless: preamble, the Minerals Management development, and production. A unit (i) You conduct a continuous drilling Service proposes to amend 30 CFR part may include whole leases of portions of or well reworking program designed to 250 as follows: leases. develop or restore the lease or unit (d) Unit agreement. You and the other production; or PART 250ÐSUBPART MÐ lessees of the leases in the unit must (ii) MMS orders or approves a UNITIZATION enter into a unit agreement that suspension of operations under 1. The authority citation for part 250 allocates benefits to unitized leases. The § 250.10. continues to read as follows: unit agreement must designate a unit operator and specify the effective date of § 250.192 What if I have a competitive Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1334. the unit agreement. A unit agreement of reservoir on my lease? 2. Subpart M is revised to read as terminates when the unit no longer (a) The Regional Supervisor may follows: produces unitized substances and the require you to conduct development unit operator no longer conducts and production operations in a Subpart MÐUnitization drilling or well-workover operations competitive reservoir under either a Sec. under the unit agreement, unless the voluntary joint Development and 250.190 What is the purpose of this Director orders or approves a Production Plan or a unitization subpart? suspension of production under agreement. A competitive reservoir has 250.191 What are the requirements for § 250.10. one or more producing or producible unitization? well completions on each of two or 250.192 What if I have a competitive (e) Unit operating agreement. The unit reservoir on my lease? operator and the owners of working more leases, or portions, with different 250.193 How do I get approval for interests in the unitized leases must owners. For purposes of this paragraph, voluntary unitization? enter into a unit operating agreement. a producible well completion is a well 250.194 How will MMS require unitization? The unit operating agreements must which is capable of production and describe how all the unit participants which is shut in but not necessarily Subpart MÐUnitization will apportion all costs and liabilities connected to production facilities, and from which the operator plans future § 250.190 What is the purpose of this incurred maintaining or conducting subpart? operations. When a unit involves one or production. more net-profit-share leases, the unit (b) You may request that the Regional This subpart explains how Outer operating agreement must describe how Supervisor make a preliminary Continental Shelf (OCS) leases are to attribute costs and credits to the net- determination whether a reservoir is unitized. If you are an OCS lessee, use profit-share lease(s). competitive. When you receive the the regulations in this subpart for both (f) Termination or adjustment of a preliminary determination, you have 30 voluntary and required unitization unit agreement. If your unit agreement days (or longer if the Regional situations. The purpose of unitization is expires or terminates, or if MMS adjusts Supervisor allows additional time) to to: the unit area to exclude your lease from concur or to submit an objection with (a) Conserve natural resources; the unit, your lease expires unless: supporting evidence if you do not (b) Prevent waste; and/or (1) Its initial term has not expired; concur. The Regional Supervisor will (c) Protect correlative rights, (2) You conduct drilling, production, make a final determination and notify including Federal royalty interests. or well-reworking operations on your you. 28528 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules

(c) If you conduct drilling or Supervisor unless the Regional (f) The Regional Supervisor will issue production operations in a competitive Supervisor approves a variation. an order that requires or rejects reservoir, you and the other affected (b) If you ask MMS to compel compulsory unitization. That order lessees must submit for approval a joint unitization, you must file a request with must include a statement of reasons for plan of operations. You must submit the the Regional Supervisor. Include a the action taken including identification joint plan within 90 days after the proposed unit agreement as described in of those parts of the record which form Regional Supervisor makes a final § 250.192(b), a proposed unit operating the basis of the decision. Any party may determination that the reservoir is agreement, and a proposed initial plan appeal the final order of the Regional competitive. The joint plan must of operation together with supporting Supervisor under 30 CFR part 290. provide for the development and/or geological, geophysical, and engineering [FR Doc. 96–13990 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] production of the reservoir. You may data, and any other information that BILLING CODE 4310±MR±M submit supplemental plans for the may be necessary to show that Regional Supervisor’s approval. unitization meets the criteria of (d) If you and the other affected § 250.190. The proposed unit agreement 30 CFR Part 256 lessees cannot reach an agreement on a must include a counterpart executed by joint Development and Production Plan each lessee seeking compulsory RIN 1010±AC15 within the approved period of time, unitization. Lessees seeking compulsory Drilling Requirements for Outer each lessee must submit a separate plan unitization must simultaneously serve, Continental Shelf Leases to the Regional Supervisor. The on the non-consenting lessees, copies of: Regional Supervisor may hold a hearing (1) The request; AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, to resolve differences in the separate (2) The proposed unit agreement with Interior. plans. If the differences in the separate executed counterparts; ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. plans are not resolved at the hearing and (3) The proposed unit operating the Regional Supervisor determines that agreement; and SUMMARY: The Minerals Management unitization is necessary under (4) The proposed initial plan of Service (MMS) proposes to amend its § 250.191(b), MMS will initiate operation. lease term regulations to remove the unitization under § 250.194. (c) If the Regional Supervisor initiates requirement that all lessees begin an compulsory unitization, MMS will serve exploratory well within the first 5 years § 250.193 How do I get approval for of the primary term for new 8-year voluntary unitization? all lessees of the proposed unit area with a copy of the plan for unitization leases on the Outer Continental Shelf (a) You must file a request with the and a statement of reasons for the (OCS). MMS is proposing this change Regional Supervisor for approval of a proposed unitization. because recently enacted legislation unit. Your request must include: (d) The Regional Supervisor will not provides more effective incentives to (1) A draft of the proposed unit expedite lease development. A drilling agreement; compel unitization until MMS provides all lessees of the proposed unit area requirement would apply when MMS (2) A proposed initial plan of stipulates a drilling requirement in the operation; written notice and an opportunity for a hearing. If you want MMS to hold a notice of sale. (3) Supporting geological, DATES: MMS will consider all comments geophysical, and engineering data; and hearing, you must request it within 30 days after you receive written notice received by August 5, 1996. We will (4) Other information that may be begin reviewing comments at that time necessary to show that the unitization from the Regional Supervisor or after you are served with a request for and may not fully consider comments proposal meets the criteria of § 250.190. we receive after August 5, 1996. (b) The unit agreement must comply compulsory unitization from anther ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-carry written with the requirements of this part. MMS lessee. comments to the Department of the will provide a model unit agreement for (e) MMS will not hold a hearing Interior; Minerals Management Service; you to follow. If you make changes to under this paragraph until at least 30 381 Elden Street; Mail Stop 4700; the model agreement, you must obtain days after MMS provides written notice Herndon, Virginia 22070–4817; the approval of the Regional Supervisor. of the hearing date to all parties owning Attention: Chief, Engineering and (c) After the Regional Supervisor interests which would be made subject Standards Branch. approves your unitization proposal, you to the unit agreement. The Regional and the unit operator must sign it and Supervisor must give all lessees of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: file copies of the unit agreement, the proposed unit area an opportunity to Judith M. Wilson, Engineering and unit operating agreement, and the plan submit views orally or in writing and to Standards Branch, telephone (703) 787– of operation with the Regional question both those seeking and those 1600. Supervisor. opposing compulsory unitization. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section Adjudicatory procedures are not 8(b) of the Outer Continental Shelf § 250.194 How will MMS require required. The Regional Supervisor will Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331 et unitization? make a decision based upon a record of seq., as amended, 92 Stat. 629, states (a) If the Regional Supervisor the hearing, including any written that an oil and gas lease is issued ‘‘for determines that unitization of information made a part of the record. an initial period of five years; or not to operations within a proposed unit area The Regional Supervisor will arrange for exceed ten years where the Secretary is necessary to prevent waste, conserve a court reporter to make a verbatim finds that such longer period is natural resources of the OCS, or protect transcript. The party seeking necessary to encourage exploration and correlative rights, including Federal compulsory unitization must pay for the development in areas because of royalty interests, the Regional court reporter and pay for and provide unusually deep water * * *.’’ Supervisor may order unitization to the Regional Supervisor within 10 Currently, MMS offers 10-year terms for according to a plan for unitization. This days after the hearing three copies of the leases in water depths of 900 meters or plan will conform to the model unit verbatim transcript, made by a court more. In water depths of 400 to 900 agreement available from the Regional reporter. meters, MMS offers 8-year lease terms Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28529 subject to a requirement that the lessee Branch, and Mary Vavrina, Offshore Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 begin an exploratory well within the Resource Evaluation Division, MMS. first 5 years, 30 CFR 256.37. This rule does not contain any Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 The OCSLA requires a lessee to be unfunded mandates to State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. diligent in exploring and developing a This rule is not a significant rule lease. If production begins within the requiring Office of Management and E.O. 12988 primary term, then the lease continues Budget review under E.O. 12866. for as long as production continues, 30 The DOI has certified to OMB that CFR 256.37(b). However, 5 years may Regulatory Flexibility Act this proposed rule meets the applicable not be adequate time in which to begin civil justice reform standards provided The Department of the Interior (DOI) in Sections 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988. exploratory drilling even for a diligent has determined that this proposed rule lessee. Because of unusual will not have a significant effect on a National Environmental Policy Act circumstances such as deep water, the substantial number of small entities. lessee risks losing a lease through no Most entities that engage in offshore MMS has examined the proposed fault of its own. activities as operators are not small rulemaking and has determined that this Due to the number of changes facing because of the technical and financial rule does not constitute a major Federal the oil and gas leasing program—such as resources and experience necessary to action significantly affecting the quality lower oil prices, technological advances, of the human environment pursuant to conduct offshore activities. Small subsalt discoveries and expansion to Section 102(2)(c) of the National entities are more likely to operate deeper waters—MMS initiated a review Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 onshore or in State waters—areas not of OCS leasing policy several years ago. U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)). covered by the proposed regulation. MMS found that the requirement that 8- When small entities work in the OCS, List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 256 year leases be drilled by the end of the they are more likely to be contractors fifth year did not result in meaningful rather than operators. For example, a Administrative practice and increases in drilling. Most of the offered company that collects geologic and procedures, Continental shelf, tracts were relinquished at the end of geophysical data might be a small Environmental Protection, Government the fifth year. In particular, between entity. While these contractors must contracts, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas 1985 and 1992, 421 tracts were leased follow rules governing OCS operations, exploration, Pipelines, Public lands— for 8-year terms. Only 29 of the 421 we are not changing the rules that mineral resources, Public lands—rights- leases had been drilled. Of those 29 govern the actual operations of a lease. of-way, Reporting and recordkeeping leases, only 18 were still active by the We are only proposing to modify the requirements, Surety bonds. end of 1993. rules that govern the length of time With the enactment of the OCS Deep Bob Armstrong, required for drilling an exploratory well. Water Royalty Relief Act (DWRRA), P.L. Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals The rule could have a positive 104–58, new deepwater leases are Management. secondary effect. By extending the time offered for sale with available royalty available to begin drilling an For the reasons set forth in the volume suspensions. Royalty volume exploratory well in unusual preamble, the Minerals Management suspensions are available for new fields circumstances, more leases may be Service proposes to amend 30 CFR parts in at least 200 meters of water and lying active and this could result in an 256 as follows: west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes West increase in opportunities for small longitude. Royalty payments on entities to perform services. The added PART 256±LEASING OF SULPHUR OR volumes of production are suspended time could also work to benefit small OIL OR GAS IN THE OUTER for at least the first 17.5 million barrels companies who have slower computers CONTINENTAL SHELF of oil equivalent (mmboe) in 200 to 400 and could benefit from a longer period meters of water; 52.5 mmboe in 400 to of time to review data. 1. The authority citation for part 256 800 meters; and 87.5 mmboe in more continues to read as follows: than 800 meters of water. MMS views Paperwork Reduction Act Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. this significant financial incentive as more effective than the drilling The proposed rule does not contain 2. In § 256.37, paragraph (a)(2) is requirement as a means of achieving new information collection revised to read as follows: earlier drilling. In addition, the rental requirements that require approval by rates for all leases lying in waters deeper the Office of Management and Budget § 256.37 Lease term. than 200 meters may be increased (e.g., (OMB). The information collection (a)(1) * * * they were increased from $5.00 to requirements in 30 CFR part 256 are (2) If your oil and gas lease is in water $7.50/acre in Sale 157) to encourage approved by OMB under approval No. depths of 400 meters or more, it will earlier drilling. 1010–0006. Therefore, MMS proposes to amend have an initial lease term of at least 8 Takings Implication Assessment its regulation at 30 CFR 256.37 to years but not more than 10 years. The remove the requirement that the lessee initial term for each lease will be stated The DOI certifies that this rule does in the Final Notice of Sale. must begin drilling within 5 years on 8- not represent a governmental action year leases issued on or after the date capable of interference with (i) For leases issued before [the this rule becomes final. The amendment constitutionally protected property effective date of the final rule], you must would also change the 400 to 900 meter rights. A Takings Implication commence an exploratory well within depth requirement for 8-year leases to Assessment prepared pursuant to E.O. the first 5 years of the initial 8-year term 400 to 800 meters to be consistent with 12630, Government Action and or MMS will cancel the lease. the DWRRA. Interference with Constitutionally (ii) For leases issued on or after [the Author: This document was prepared by Protected Property Rights, is not effective date of the final rule], MMS Judy Wilson, Engineering and Standards required. will incorporate into the lease terms by 28530 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules lease stipulation any drilling was established in 1974 (16 U.S.C. 698). of small entities under the Regulatory requirements. Activities associated with houseboats Flexibility Act (5 USC 601 et seq.). The * * * * * have led to the degradation of Preserve economic effects of this rulemaking are [FR Doc. 96–13989 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] resources in a variety of ways, including local in nature and negligible in scope. the poaching of fish and game, damage The NPS has determined that this BILLING CODE 4310±MR±M to and removal of vegetation to establish proposed rulemaking will not have a egress routes, concentrated human use significant effect on the quality of the National Park Service impacts, stream bank erosion and the human environment, health and safety prohibited discharge of sewage, animal because it is not expected to: 36 CFR Part 7 and fish remains, and other aquatic (a) Increase public use to the extent of pollutants. compromising the nature and character RIN 1024±AC45 Houseboats have been left unattended of the area or causing physical damage for long periods of time and many are to it; Big Thicket National Preserve, Moored (b) Introduce incompatible uses Houseboats utilized only during the approved hunting season. Attempts by Preserve which compromise the nature and AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. personnel to contact houseboat owners character of the area or causing physical ACTION: Proposed rule. to inform them of damage to their damage to it; property or to advise them of violations (c) Conflict with adjacent ownerships SUMMARY: The National Park Service of regulations have proven to be or land uses; or (d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent (NPS) is proposing regulations that will extremely difficult. Many houseboat require all houseboat owners to register owners or occupants. owners do not have telephones and the Based on this determination, the their houseboats at the Office of the park does not have permanent addresses Superintendent of the Preserve to regulation is categorically excluded where the owners can be contacted. from the procedural requirements of the adhere to regulations pertaining The NPS believes that the addition of National Environmental Policy Act specifically to moored houseboats these regulations will provide for better (NEPA) by Departmental guidelines in within the boundaries of the Preserve. management of the land and water This rulemaking will also include 516 DM 6 (49 FR 21438). As such, resources of the Preserve and improve neither an Environmental Assessment regulations pertaining to sanitation and overall communications with houseboat refuse (trash removal), fire extinguishers (EA) nor an Environmental Impact owners by providing accurate and Statement (EIS) has been prepared. and personal flotation devices on board updated information concerning houseboats. The addition of the hunting, fishing, boating and water use List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7 proposed regulations will allow the NPS activities. National parks, Reporting and to identify each houseboat owner in the recordkeeping requirements. event emergency notification is needed Public Participation In consideration of the foregoing, it is while the houseboat is vacant. The It is the policy of the Department of proposed to amend 36 CFR Chapter I as regulations will also assist the park in Interior, whenever practicable, to afford follows: monitoring recreational activities the public an opportunity to participate directly related to houseboats. These in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, PART 7ÐSPECIAL REGULATIONS, regulations will enhance protection of interested persons may submit written AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK the resources in the Preserve while comments regarding this proposed rule SYSTEM providing improved visitor protection to the address noted at the beginning of services by park personnel. this rulemaking. Big Thicket National 1. The authority citation continues to DATES: Written comments will be Preserve will also publish public notices read as follows: accepted through August 5, 1996. in local papers informing the general Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), ADDRESSES: Comments should be public of the proposed rule. The NPS 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also issued under D.C. Code addressed to: Superintendent, Big will review comments and consider 8–137 (1981) and D.C. Code 40–721 (1981). Thicket National Preserve, 3785 Milam, making changes to the final rule based 2. Section 7.85 is amended by adding Beaumont, Texas 77701. upon an analysis of the comments. new paragraph (e) to read as follows: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Drafting Information. The primary authors § 7.85 Big Thicket National Preserve. Robert D. Appling, Chief Ranger Big of this proposed rule are Robert D. Appling, * * * * * Thicket National Preserve, Telephone Chief Ranger and Richard F. Strahan, Chief, (e) Moored houseboats. Except as 409–839–2689. Division of Resource Management, and Dennis Burnett, Washington Office of Ranger otherwise provided, the following SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Activities, National Park Service. regulations will be applicable: (1) All houseboats moored on Background Paperwork Reduction Act waterways within the boundaries of Big Houseboats have been moored on the This proposed rule does not contain Thicket National Preserve are required Neches River and its tributaries since collections of information requiring to be registered with the Office of the before Big Thicket National Preserve approval by the Office of Management Superintendent, Big Thicket National was established. The mooring of and Budget under the Paperwork Preserve. Houseboats will be assigned a houseboats within the Preserve is Reduction Act of 1995. number and a decal at the beginning of considered a traditional use and should each calendar year. It is further required be allowed to continue. Houseboat Compliance With Other Laws that written notification will be given to owners are primarily local residents of This rule was not subject to Office of the Office of the Superintendent prior to the Southeast Texas area. Management and Budget review under relocation of a houseboat from its Houseboat owners and the Executive Order 12866. The Department registered location. recreational activities associated with of the Interior determined that this (2) Houseboats will be located a these moored houseboats have been document will not have a significant minimum distance of one-half mile from mostly unregulated since the Preserve economic effect on a substantial number other houseboats. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28531

(3) New houseboats that have ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1991) and 40 CFR 81.338. The air buoyancy flotation devices enabling the AGENCY quality planning requirements for houseboat to float will be limited to moderate PM–10 nonattainment areas styrofoam-type material or 40 CFR Part 52 are set out in Subparts 1 and 4 of Title 2 commercially made flotation products [OR±14±1±5535; FRL±5514±3] I of the Act. EPA has issued a ‘‘General such as pontoon floats. Houseboats Preamble’’ describing EPA’s preliminary utilizing containers made of metal (e.g., Approval and Promulgation of State views on how EPA intends to review 55 gallon drums for buoyancy/flotation) Implementation Plans: Oregon SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under will not be permitted unless the Title I of the Act, including those state AGENCY: Environmental Protection submittals containing moderate PM–10 container has never been used to store Agency (EPA). nonattainment area SIP requirements any type of product inside and proof to ACTION: Proposed rule. (see generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, this effect is provided. 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, (4) Houseboats will have a chemical SUMMARY: EPA invites public comment 1992)). Because EPA is describing its or other marine-type approved holding on its proposed approval of a State interpretations here only in broad terms, tank or storage container. Discharge of Implementation Plan (SIP) revision the reader should refer to the General sewage into waters within the Preserve submitted by the State of Oregon for the Preamble for a more detailed discussion is prohibited. purpose of bringing about the of the interpretations of Title I advanced attainment of the National Ambient Air (5) All trash and other waste material in this proposed approval and the Quality Standards (NAAQS) for supporting rationale. In this rulemaking accumulated on houseboats will be particulate matter with an aerodynamic action for the PM–10 SIP for the properly disposed of outside the diameter less than or equal to a nominal Klamath Falls nonattainment area, Preserve boundaries. Burying or burning 10 micrometers (PM–10). The EPA’s proposed action is consistent trash is prohibited. implementation plan was submitted by with its interpretations, discussed in the (6) All weapons on houseboats will be the State to satisfy certain Federal General Preamble, and takes into unloaded and cased. requirements for an approvable consideration the specific factual issues moderate nonattainment area PM–10 (7) Houseboats will be equipped with presented in the SIP. Additional SIP for the Klamath Falls, Oregon, PM– information supporting EPA’s action on a minimum of one approved Type B-l 10 nonattainment area. fire extinguisher, one Type I personal this particular area is available for DATES: Comments must be postmarked inspection at the address indicated flotation device for each individual on or before July 5, 1996. above. EPA will consider any comments occupying the houseboat, and one Type ADDRESSES: Written comments should received by the date indicated above. IV buoyant cushion or ring buoy. be addressed to: Montel Livingston, SIP Those states containing initial (8) Houseboats will have a minimum Manager, Office of Air Quality (OAQ– moderate PM–10 nonattainment areas of three reflective devices located so as 107), EPA, Docket #OR–14–1–5535, (those areas designated nonattainment to be visible to other marine type traffic 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, under Section 107(d)(4)(B)) were from sunset to sunrise. Washington, 98101. required to submit, among other things, the following provisions by November (9) Fires on Preserve land will not be Copies of the State’s request and other 15, 1991: left unattended and will be completely information supporting this proposed action are available for inspection 1. Provisions to assure that extinguished before leaving the area of Reasonably Available Control Measures the moored houseboat. during normal business hours at the following locations: EPA, Office of Air (RACM) (including such reductions in (10) Damage to any trees or vegetation Quality (OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, emissions from existing sources in the on Preserve land surrounding the Seattle, Washington 98101, and the area as may be obtained through the moored houseboat is prohibited. This Oregon Department of Environmental adoption, at a minimum, of Reasonably includes such actions as, but not limited Quality, 811 SW., Sixth Avenue, Available Control Technology (RACT)) to: Portland, Oregon 97204–1390. shall be implemented no later than December 10, 1993; (i) Mooring houseboats to trees; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 2. Either a demonstration (including Rindy Ramos, EPA, Office of Air Quality (ii) Nailing objects to trees; air quality modeling) that the plan will (OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, provide for attainment as expeditiously (iii) Clearing of vegetation; and Washington, 98101, (206) 553–6510. as practicable but no later than (iv) Streambank modification. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION December 31, 1994, or a demonstration (11) All persons registering a I. Background that attainment by that date is houseboat within the boundaries of Big impracticable; Thicket National Preserve will comply A. 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air 3. Quantitative milestones which are with all regulations pertaining to Act to be achieved every 3 years and which moored houseboats. The area within the Klamath Falls, demonstrate Reasonable Further Dated: May 9, 1996. Oregon, Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), the Clean Air Act, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The George T. Frampton, Jr., was designated nonattainment for PM– Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in the U.S. 10 and classified as moderate under Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Code at 42 U.S.C., Sections 7401, et seq. Parks. Sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the 2 Subpart 1 contains provisions applicable to Clean Air Act (CAA), upon enactment of nonattainment areas generally and Subpart 4 [FR Doc. 96–14105 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) contains provisions specifically applicable to PM– BILLING CODE 4310±70±P 1 10 nonattainment areas. At times, Subpart 1 and of 1990. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, Subpart 4 overlap or may conflict. EPA has attempted to clarify the relationship among these 1 The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act provisions in the ‘‘General Preamble’’ and, as made significant changes to the Act. See Pub. L. No. appropriate, in today’s notice and supporting 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399. References herein are to information. 28532 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Progress (RFP) toward attainment by emissions. These emissions are referred attainment demonstration. The 1995 December 31, 1994; and to as the area’s transportation emission analysis indicates that the facility’s 4. Provisions to assure that the control budget. impact, at the monitoring site upon requirements applicable to major The second reason was to account for which the Plan’s attainment stationary sources of PM–10 also apply additional emission reductions due to demonstration is based, is not to major stationary sources of PM–10 the area’s woodstove replacement significant. This analysis is discussed in precursors except where the program that were not accounted for in more detail in the Evaluation of Administrator determines that such the 1991 Plan. The 1991 Plan estimated Attainment Demonstration section of sources do not contribute significantly that 325 woodstoves would be replaced the Technical Support Document (TSD) to PM–10 levels which exceed the when, in reality, 743 stoves were that corresponds with this action. NAAQS in the area. See Sections 172(c), replaced. 188, and 189 of the Act. The third reason was to analyze what II. This Action States with initial moderate PM–10 effect an increase in an allowable Section 110(k) of the Act sets out nonattainment areas were required to: 1) emission limit has had on the Plan’s provisions governing EPA’s review of submit a permit program for the attainment demonstration. Since the SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565–13566). construction and operation of new and Plan was first developed in 1991, the In this action, EPA is proposing to modified major stationary sources of state has revised Oregon Administrative approve the plan revisions submitted to PM–10 by June 30, 1992 (see Section Rules (OAR) Chapter 340, Division 25, EPA on November 15, 1991, and 189(a)); and 2) submit contingency Sections 305, 320, and 325, resulting in September 22, 1995. EPA has measures by November 15, 1993, which an increase in the allowable emission determined that the submittals meet all were to become effective without further limit for a Jeld-Wen hardboard plant of the applicable requirements of the action by the state or EPA, upon a located in the nonattainment area. Act due on November 15, 1991, with determination by EPA that the area has Because attainment of the NAAQS is respect to moderate area PM–10 failed to achieve RFP or to attain the determined based on, among other submittals. Also, as described in Part PM–10 NAAQS by the applicable things, allowable point source II.5 below, EPA is proposing to grant the statutory deadline (see Section 172(c)(9) emissions, the State needed to review exclusion from PM–10 control and 57 FR 13543–13544). Oregon has the Plan’s attainment demonstration to requirements applicable to major made submittals in response to both of show that the increase in allowable stationary sources of PM–10 precursors. the above described requirements. EPA emissions would not jeopardize In addition, as described in Part II.7 intends to address that submittal attainment of the NAAQS. below, EPA is proposing to approve the In fact, the 1991 Plan already containing the new source review SIP revision submitted on November 15, accounted for the revised limit. During permit program in a separate action. 1991, as meeting the requirement for development of the 1991 attainment contingency measures. B. Plan Development plan, ODEQ was aware that the The Klamath Falls Attainment Plan hardboard rule emission limit would be Analysis of State Submission was developed by the Oregon revised in the future. In anticipation of 1. Procedural Background Department of Environmental Quality the Division 25 revision (1995), ODEQ (ODEQ) in consultation with officials of estimated that Jeld-Wen’s allowable The Act requires states to observe the City and County of Klamath Falls, emissions would increase by 129 certain procedural requirements in the Oregon Department of pounds per day, up to a maximum of 24 developing implementation plans and Transportation, the Oregon Department tons per year. Therefore, ODEQ plan revisions for submission to EPA. of Forestry, and EPA. allocated these extra emissions to Jeld- Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides The original Attainment Plan was Wen’s inventoried emissions and used that each implementation plan developed under the CAA prior to the these ‘‘adjusted’’ emissions in the Plan’s submitted by a state must be adopted amendments of 1990 and adopted by the 1994 attainment demonstration. When after reasonable notice and public Oregon Environmental Quality the hardboard rule was finalized (1995), hearing.3 Section 110(l) of the Act Commission (OEQC) on January 31, the plant’s emissions did not increase similarly provides that each revision to 1991. To address the 1990 Clean Air Act by the estimated 24 tons per year. an implementation plan submitted by a Amendments, the Plan was initially Instead, the revised emission limit state under the Act must be adopted by revised and adopted by the OEQC on resulted in an allowable increase of only such state after reasonable notice and November 8, 1991. This version of the 13.1 tons per year—10.9 tons per year public hearing. Plan was submitted to EPA on less than the amount originally allotted EPA also must determine whether a November 15, 1991. The Plan was in the 1991 plan (24 tons per year submittal is complete and therefore revised again and adopted by the OEQC estimated in 1991 minus 13.1 tons per warrants further EPA review and action on August 18, 1995, and submitted to year finalized in 1995). (see section 110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565). EPA on September 22, 1995. Therefore, The revision to Division 25 was EPA’s completeness criteria for SIP the 1991 and 1995 submittals constitute adopted by the OEQC on January 20, submittals are set out at 40 CFR part 51, the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 1995, and became state-effective appendix V. EPA attempts to make the Klamath Falls PM–10 nonattainment February 17, 1995. It was submitted to completeness determinations within 60 area. This action will address the 1991 EPA as a revision to the Oregon SIP on days of receiving a submission. and 1995 submittals. August 29, 1995, and will be reviewed However, a submittal is deemed The 1991 Plan was revised for four in accordance with the CAA in a complete by operation of law if a main reasons. The first was to update separate technical support document completeness determination is not made the Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and rulemaking action. by EPA six months after receipt of the estimates and emission inventory. The The fourth main reason the 1991 Plan submission. Oregon Department of Transportation was revised was to use a 1995 has provided ODEQ with more accurate dispersion modeling analysis to re- 3 Also, Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that information to determine the Plan’s base evaluate the effect a Weyerhaeuser plan provisions for nonattainment areas meet the year and attainment year transportation Company facility has on the Plan’s applicable provisions of Section 110(a)(2). Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28533

The State of Oregon held a public fugitive dust (winter road sanding) most significant contributor to hearing on the 1991 Plan on October 24, (8%), industry (7%), transportation exceedances of the NAAQS on a 24- 1991. This Plan was submitted to EPA (4%), and other (1%). Annual emissions hour, worst case day basis. This analysis for review on November 15, 1991. The for the same timeframe are residential also indicated that industrial emissions Attainment Plan was subsequently wood combustion (61%), fugitive dust were relatively minor (7%) when revised in 1995. Public hearings for this (10%), industry (10%), solid waste compared to residential wood revision were held on June 16 and 20, disposal (which includes residential combustion (80%). ODEQ’s analysis 1995. This 1995 revision was submitted open burning, on-site incineration, and further showed that attainment of the to EPA on September 22, 1995, as a agricultural burning) (9%), NAAQS can be demonstrated by revision to the Oregon SIP. transportation (8%), and other (2%). controlling RACM sources (e.g., wood The SIP revisions were reviewed by After implementation of all control smoke, road sanding, and open burning) EPA to determine completeness shortly measures, ODEQ estimates that the 24- instead of industrial sources. after submittal, in accordance with the hour 1994 attainment year inventory It is EPA’s policy that RACM completeness the criteria set out at 40 will be as follows: industry (43%), (including RACT) does not require the CFR part 51, appendix V. Letters dated residential woodburning (21%), implementation of all available control May 7, 1992, and February 28, 1996, transportation (18%), fugitive dust measures where an area demonstrates were forwarded to the Director of ODEQ (16%), other (2%), and solid waste timely attainment and the indicating the completeness of the disposal (0%). Annual emissions for the implementation of additional controls submittals and the next steps to be taken 1994 attainment year are estimated to would not expedite attainment (see 57 in the review process. In this action EPA be: industry (30%), residential FR 13540–13544). Based on the is proposing to approve the State of woodburning (24%), fugitive dust available control measures adopted Oregon’s PM–10 SIP submittal for the (20%), transportation (17%), other (6%), (described below), the SIP demonstrates Klamath Falls PM–10 nonattainment and solid waste disposal (3%). attainment of the PM–10 NAAQS by area and invites public comment on the The emission inventory was originally December 31, 1994. The SIP also action. reviewed and commented on by EPA in demonstrates continued maintenance of October 1991, when this SIP revision 2. Accurate Emissions Inventory the NAAQS between December 1994 was in draft form. The issues raised by and the year 2004. Accordingly, the Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires EPA during October 1991 were resolved attainment demonstration does not that nonattainment plan provisions by ODEQ before the November 15, 1991, include additional industrial controls include a comprehensive, accurate, SIP revision was submitted. beyond those currently required by the current inventory of actual emissions EPA is proposing to approve the Oregon SIP. However, ODEQ has from all sources of relevant pollutants in emissions inventory because it generally included additional point source the nonattainment area. The emissions appears to be accurate and controls as a contingency measure inventory should also include a comprehensive, and provides a should the area not attain the NAAQS comprehensive, accurate, and current sufficient basis for determining the by December 31, 1994, or demonstrate inventory of allowable emissions in the adequacy of the attainment RFP. The Plan’s attainment area. See, e.g., Section 110(a)(2)(K) of demonstration for this area consistent demonstration, contingency measures, the Act. Because the submission of such with the requirements of Sections and RFP are discussed in more detail 4 inventories is necessary to an area’s 172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA. later in this document. In conclusion, attainment demonstration (or 3. RACM (Including RACT) EPA proposes to approve the existing demonstration that the area cannot industrial controls as meeting the As noted, the initial moderate PM–10 practicably attain), the emissions RACM (including RACT) requirement. inventories must be received with the nonattainment areas were required to submission (see 57 FR 13539). submit provisions to assure that RACM Attainment of the 24-hour standard is The base year for analysis was 1986 (including RACT) are implemented no based on the following: (1) A mandatory (July 1, 1986, through June 30, 1987). later than December 10, 1993 (see woodstove curtailment program, (2) a This year was chosen because it Sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)). The woodstove certification program, (3) a represents some of the most severe air General Preamble contains a detailed woodstove removal program, and (4) quality episodes the area has discussion of EPA ’s interpretation of reduction in winter road sanding experienced. There were forty days the RACM (including RACT) emissions. when monitored concentrations of PM– requirement (see 57 FR 13539–13545 Attainment of the annual standard is 10 were above the 24-hour standard. In and 13560–13561). based upon: (1) A mandatory woodstove addition to the base year inventory ODEQ performed a cost and technical curtailment program, (2) woodstove (1986), a design year inventory (1994 analysis of the area’s emission sources certification program, (3) a reduction in attainment year), and a maintenance to evaluate available control measures winter road sanding emissions, (4) a demonstration year inventory (2004) needed to bring the area into attainment woodstove opacity limitation, and (5) a were developed. with the NAAQS. Results of the year-round prohibition on agricultural The 1986 inventory identified that, on emission inventory and Chemical Mass open burning. The following table a 24-hour, worst case day, the major Balance (CMB) analysis indicated that, summarizes the anticipated emission sources of PM–10 emissions are overwhelmingly, emissions from reductions and their associated residential wood combustion (80%), residential wood combustion were the reduction credits.

4 The EPA issued guidance on PM–10 emissions SIP Development Guideline. The guidance provided inventories prior to the enactment of the Clean Air in this document appears to be consistent with the Act Amendments in the form of the 1987 PM–10 Act. See Section 193 of the Act. 28534 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules

SUMMARYÐATTAINMENT STRATEGIES

Credit requested Emission reductions

Attainment measuresÐ1994 Number per Tons per 24-Hour Annual hour year (24-Hour) (Annual)

Woodstove curtailment ...... 86% 74% 16,625 938 Woodstove certification ...... 24% 24% 582 78 Opacity restrictionÐ20% ...... (*) 5% ...... 12 Woodstove removal ...... 53% (**) 973 ...... Winter road sanding ...... 60% 60% 1,265 17 Agricultural burning ...... (***) 100% ...... 156

Total reductions ...... 19,445 1201 Reductions needed by 12/31/94 ...... 18,877 1035

Excess reductions ...... 568 166 * Not applicable on a 24-hour worst case day basis: woodstoves would not be in use due to the curtailment program. ** Not quantified. *** Not applicable; this activity did not occur during exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS.

A. Mandatory Woodburning Curtailment However, after December 31, 1992, it ODEQ’s Attainment Plan contains a Program became unlawful for a solid fuel-fired more detailed discussion). On July 31, 1991, the Klamath County heating appliance to be the sole source Woodburning curtailment advisories Board of Commissions adopted of heat in any nonowner (tenant- are issued at three levels. A green Ordinance No. 63 (codified as Chapter occupied) dwelling. Exemptions to this advisory is issued when NAAQS 406), establishing a mandatory phaseout can be granted to landlords exceedances are unlikely. Woodburning woodburning curtailment program. The due to low income. This sole source, is unrestricted during these periods but City of Klamath Falls adopted low income, nonowner-occupied the public is asked to follow good Ordinance No. 6630 on September 16, exemption terminates December 31, woodburning practices. Green 1991, which grants Klamath County the 1997. All sole source, low income, advisories are issued when PM–10 authority to implement the Klamath nonowner-occupied dwellings must concentrations are forecast to not exceed µ 3 County Air Quality Program (Chapter have a secondary source of heat by that 80 g/m for a 24-hour average. 406) within the city limits of Klamath time. In addition, all sole source heat A yellow advisory is issued when Falls. The program became fully households, except those that are PM–10 concentrations are forecast to µ 3 implemented within the nonattainment tenant-occupied, had until December exceed or are exceeding 81 g/m for a area on November 1, 1991. Prior to the 31, 1995, to install a secondary heat 24-hour average. The public is asked to mandatory program, a voluntary source. No exemptions will be issued curtail all unnecessary woodburning. program had been operated by Klamath after this date unless the household However, permitted pellet stoves and County since 1988. The following is a (person) qualifies under a low income certified stoves may be used; and brief discussion of the program’s key exemption. dwellings granted exemptions described elements. For a detailed analysis and above may burn. A person who demonstrates economic A red advisory is issued when PM–10 discussion, the reader is referred to the need by certifying through proof that TSD that corresponds with this action. concentrations are forecast to exceed or his/her income is less than 1.2 times the are exceeding 150 µg/m3 for a 24-hour Daily wood heating advisories are low income guidelines established by disseminated by the County via local average. No person can operate any the United States Department of solid fuel-fired heating appliance, television and radio stations. The Housing and Urban Development, may County also maintains a burning except for a permitted pellet stove, be granted a low income exemption advisory telephone system which, during a red advisory, unless an from installing a secondary form of heat during the 1990/1991 woodheating exemption has been granted by the to be used during yellow and red season, answered 122,000 public calls. County. curtailment days. After December 31, An additional 5,000 calls were handled In addition, during a yellow or red 1995, no further exemptions will be by the Klamath County Air Quality staff. advisory, all open burning, including granted. During the 1992/1993 woodheating burn barrels/incineration is prohibited season, there were 160,311 public calls. Woodburning curtailment forecasts unless a variance has been approved by The increase in calls between the two are made twice daily at 7 am and 4 pm Klamath County Air Quality. seasons seems to indicate an increase in during the woodheating season (October The Klamath Falls curtailment public awareness of the wood heating 1 through March 31). The curtailment program includes a surveillance and advisory and of the purpose of the calls are based on a forecast algorithm enforcement element. A standard curtailment program. using: National Weather Service upper operating procedure and evaluation For a specified period of time, air and barometric pressure data; measure has been developed to be used Klamath County Air Quality could grant forecasts of synoptic meteorology; during yellow and red advisories. an exemption from complying with the surface temperatures; and wind speed During surveillance and effectiveness curtailment program during poor air and direction. Nephelometer evaluations, infra-red detectors are used quality periods provided that the solid measurements of hourly light scattering at night to detect ‘‘hot’’ chimneys. fuel-fired heating appliance is the sole and local observations of air quality Visible emission readings are taken source of heat for a specific residence. conditions are also used. (Appendix 7 of during the daytime hours. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28535

When Klamath County Air Quality During the 1994/1995 winter season, historically pursued an aggressive inspectors have visually observed that a only two red advisory calls were made. woodstove certification program. person has violated the Klamath County An evening red advisory occurred on Oregon was the first state in the Nation Clean Air Ordinance, Ordinance November 22, 1994, and a daytime red to adopt, implement, and enforce a Number 63, a Notice and Order setting advisory occurred on January 17, 1995. program of this type (1984). EPA forth the alleged violation is required to During these two events, the County did promulgated the NSPS on February 26, be issued. The Notice will require the not conduct surveys. However, both red 1988, modeled after Oregon’s program. alleged violator to take corrective action, advisories were preceded by yellow The projected emission reductions in such as to cease and desist from advisories; therefore, survey data conjunction with a statewide ban (OAR operating the noncomplying appliance. collected during the yellow advisories 340–34–010) on the sale of used The violator is to notify Klamath County can give an indication of compliance on uncertified stoves, a ban on the Air Quality that corrective action has red advisory nights. The data show installation of used uncertified stoves, been taken. compliance with the yellow advisories, and Oregon’s model woodstove In cases when a person has not ranging from 84% to 97%.5 certification program supports EPA’s complied with the Notice and Order, the Considering the above program acceptance of Oregon’s woodstove County is required to issue a elements, survey results, and the certification credit claim. Compliance Order and/or Summons and phasing out of the sole source and low Complaint with the Court of competent income exemptions, EPA believes that C. Woodstove Removal and Home jurisdiction for violation of the the 86% credit requested by ODEQ on Weatherization Program ordinance. The County may also obtain a 24-hour basis is achievable and is Between May 1990 and December injunctive relief, abate the nuisance, or being achieved and, therefore, accepts 1993 the City and County of Klamath otherwise correct the violation of the the credit claimed. EPA also accepts Falls received funds totalling ordinance through the Court. ODEQ’s annual credit of 74%. In approximately $1.9 million from the Continued operation of a solid-fuel acceptance of the credits, EPA State of Oregon Community Block Grant fired device without an exemption, or considered the fact that the funds for a home weatherization and performing open burning following the nonattainment area has not had a woodstove replacement program. declaration of a red or yellow advisory, monitored exceedance of the 24-hour Woodstoves in 743 low income, sole will result in enforcement action. The standard since January 1991, and the source homes have been replaced by penalties which may be imposed upon area has not exceeded the annual natural gas (90%), oil (6%), electric conviction based on Summons and standard since 1989. (2%), certified stove (1%), and propane Complaint for a violation of any B. Woodstove Certification (1%) heating sources. These funds were provision of Chapter 406.100 (General administered under Klamath Falls’s Rules and Regulations) and Chapter In 1983, the Oregon Legislature Particulate Urban Resources Effort 406.150 (Pollution Prohibitions), directed the ODEQ to require that all (PURE) project. The average cost of excluding Prohibited Materials Burning, new woodstoves sold in the State be converting and weatherizing each home of the ordinance are: certified through laboratory testing. As a was $2,200. (1) First offense violators may receive result, stoves sold after July 1986 were For the 1994 attainment year, ODEQ a warning and be fined $25. required to emit particles at a rate at estimates that total PM–10 emissions (2) Second offense violators shall be least 50% less than conventional from low income, sole source homes fined $100. woodstoves. After July 1988, new have been reduced by 973 pounds per (3) Subsequent offense violators shall woodstoves were required to have a day, which equates to 67 tons per year. be fined a maximum of $250 per particle emission rate at least 70% less ODEQ therefore requests a 53% credit occurrence. than conventional woodstoves. for this strategy (973 lbs per day 1994 The County has conducted several The OEQC adopted on March 2, 1990, controlled/1843 lbs per day 1994 curtailment surveys since the 1989/1990 revisions to Oregon’s Woodstove uncontrolled). This 53% credit is woodheating season. During this Certification Program, making it calculated for replacing uncertified voluntary compliance period (the consistent with EPA’s New Source woodstoves as follows: Electric heat program was not a mandatory one until Performance Standard (NSPS) 40 CFR (100% PM–10 reduction), natural gas 1991), red advisory nighttime Part 60, Subpart AAA. Currently, all (99% PM–10 reduction), propane (99% compliance rates ranged from about woodstoves sold in the State of Oregon PM–10 emission reduction), oil (99% 37% to 50% when compared to the must be both ODEQ and EPA-certified. PM–10 reduction), and certified number of woodstoves being used The SIP revision was approved by EPA woodstoves (50% PM–10 reduction). during a green advisory nighttime as part of the Oregon SIP on June 9, Because of the demonstrated success of baseline. The green advisory nighttime 1992 (see 57 FR 24373). the program, EPA proposes to accept the baseline was also established during the ODEQ estimates that the woodstove 53% credit requested by ODEQ. 1989/1990 woodheating season. certification program provides a 24% For the January 1993 and December credit against baseline 1986 woodstove D. Winter Road Sanding Control 1993 to January 1994 periods, five red emissions by 1994.6 Oregon has Program advisory day surveys were conducted in Winter road sanding has been shown the morning hours. When compared to 5 This discussion is based on information in a to adversely affect the PM–10 levels the 1989/1990 green advisory baseline, memorandum from David Collier, ODEQ, to Rindy throughout the Western United States, compliance rates for the five red Ramos, EPA Region 10, dated March 4, 1996. 6 including Klamath Falls, in areas that advisory days were about 95%. This This estimate uses a 1986 baseline inventory and assumes or relies on: 1) a 1% annual growth experience measurable snowfall. The comparison may not be entirely in firewood consumed by woodstoves; 2) silt-laden, friable sand is placed on applicable given the nighttime baseline information from building permit authorities in roads by local and state highway and the morning compliance survey. Klamath Falls that essentially all permitted installations are certified stoves, and that about However, it does provide some 20% of these are pellet stoves; 3) a useful stove life and 90% less PM–10 than a conventional stove. indication of overall compliance during of 20 years; 4) the fact that typical certified EPA believes this is an accurate portrayal of the red curtailment days. woodstoves and pellet stoves respectively emit 50% situation in Klamath Falls. 28536 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules departments to provide better traction E. 20% Woodstove Opacity Limitation 24-hour, worst case day basis, that PM– on snow and ice. However, once the The Klamath County woodsmoke 10 emissions of re-entrained road dust snow has melted and the roads have control ordinance (No. 63) provides for from paved and unpaved roads are dried out, the remaining dry, silty road a year-round 20% woodstove plume negligible due to snow cover. The sand is easily resuspended by moving opacity limitation. Visible emissions are application of road sanding materials is vehicular traffic. not to exceed 20% opacity for a period the main source of road traffic-related In Klamath Falls, winter road sanding or periods aggregating more than three emissions. On an annual basis, emissions peak during periods when minutes in any one hour period. The emissions from paved and unpaved several inches of snow cover the area. ordinance does, however, grant an roads account for 163 tons, or During these periods, as much as 70 exemption during a fire’s start-up approximately 8% of the 1986 annual cubic yards per day of aggregate are period. Visible emission are exempt emission inventory. spread on roads within the UGB. during a fifteen minute start-up period Even though reducing emissions from Because snow covers the roadways and provided they do not exceed 40% this source category is not needed to landscape, it is ODEQ’s position that opacity. If the opacity is greater than attain the standard, the State does essentially all of the fugitive dust 40% during start-up, then the stove is in regulate this category. Referencing the emissions (during this time period) are violation of the ordinance. suggested available fugitive dust control assumed to originate from road sanding. The 5% emission reduction credit measures listed in Appendix C1 (57 FR Chemical analysis of PM–10 samples requested by ODEQ is reasonable and is 18072), rules requiring measures 1, 2, 3, collected on days exceeding the 24-hour consistent with the recommendations in 4, 10, 11, and 12 are currently part of NAAQS indicated that 9% of the PM– EPA’s Guidance Document for the Oregon SIP and are contained in 10 mass was soil dust. Road sanding Residential Wood Combustion Emission OAR 340, Division 21. These rules are emissions were therefore estimated to be Control Measures and, therefore, EPA enforced under OAR 340–21–060. The of similar magnitude in the emission proposes to approve it. rules were previously approved by EPA and are contained in the State of Oregon inventory, or approximately 1,900 F. Open Burning Restriction pounds per day during the 27 days per Air Quality Control Program; Volume 2; year when road sanding occurs. The Chapter 406 of the Klamath County The Federal Clean Air Act State worst case day emission estimates Clean Air Ordinance regulates Implementation Plan (and other State provide the basis for the annual residential open burning, including Regulations). emission estimates for road sanding. burn barrels/incinerators and 2. Prescribed Burning agricultural burning. Residential open Sanding materials used in the Historically, PM–10 emissions from Klamath Falls area are obtained from a burning, including burn barrels/ incinerators, is prohibited during red prescribed burning and slash burning gravel pit located near Merrill, Oregon, have not significantly impacted on the where volcanic cinders, pea gravel, silts, and yellow advisories within Klamath County unless a variance has been nonattainment area on either a 24-hour and clays have been deposited. Nearly basis (zero emissions) or on an annual all of the aggregate used within the UGB approved by Klamath County. ODEQ does not request any credit for this basis (zero emissions); however, this is applied by the Oregon Department of strategy. activity does have the potential to Transportation Highway Division, Agricultural open burning within the significantly impact on the area. mostly on US 97, South Sixth Street, nonattainment area and within one- To address this issue, a voluntary Alameda Bypass, and the South Side fourth mile of the nonattainment area smoke management program was Bypass. The City, County, and State all boundary is prohibited throughout the developed and implemented. The maintain sections of Washburn Way and year. ODEQ estimates that the provisions of this program are other streets in south suburban Klamath elimination of agricultural burning will coordinated by the Oregon Department Falls. The City maintains streets within of Forestry (ODOF) which provides 7 reduce PM–10 emissions by 156 tons on the Central Business District. an annual basis and requests a 100% daily smoke management forecasts and Oregon requests a 60% credit for its emission reduction credit for advisories for Klamath County. A winter road sanding control strategy. elimination of this activity. EPA Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) The 60% credit is based on the Highway believes ODEQ’s claim is reasonable was signed in 1991 by and between the Division’s commitment to reduce winter and, therefore, proposes to approve this Klamath-Lake District of ODOF, road sanding by 60% through: (1) control measure. Cavenham Forest Industries (Bend, Replacement of aggregate with a de- Oregon), Modoc Lumber Company, icing material; (2) a reduction in the G. Other Sources Thomas Lumber Company, amount of aggregate applied; and (3) Where sources of PM–10 contribute Weyerhaeuser Company (Klamath rapid cleanup using street washing or insignificantly to the PM–10 problem in Falls), Whiskey Creek Timber Company, sweeping of road sanding materials used the area, EPA’s policy is that it would Winema National Forest, Fremont on major thoroughfares. During worst be unreasonable and would not National Forest, and the Bureau of Land case winter days, ODEQ estimates that constitute RACM to require the sources Management (Lakeview District). The this strategy will reduce emissions by to implement potentially available MOU provides that the parties will 1,265 pounds per day and, on an annual control measures (see 57 FR at 13540). abide by the elements of the smoke basis, it will reduce emissions by 17 The State does, however, have in place management plan and is based on a tons per year. EPA proposes to accept the following measures which will cooperative operations plan that was in ODEQ’s projection that the road sanding further reduce PM–10 emissions. The effect January 10, 1990, between the measures will reduce PM–10 emissions State does not request any emission above parties. from winter road sanding by 60%. See reduction credits for the measures. EPA has reviewed ODEQ’s submittals Appendix 4 of the SIP for additional and associated documentation and information. 1. Fugitive Dust—Paved and Unpaved concluded that they adequately justify Roads the control measures to be 7 State Implementation Plan for PM–10 in ODEQ determined through their implemented. Because all control Klamath Falls, October 1991, Section 12.3.2. analysis of the nonattainment area, on a measures were implemented by the Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28537

CAA RACM implementation date of may be reasonable to accept a modified adjustments for emission growth. The December 10, 1993, implementation of attainment demonstration in cases 1994 annual design value (without the Klamath Falls PM–10 nonattainment where ‘‘time constraints, inadequate controls) was determined to be 82, µg/ plan control strategies has resulted in resources, inadequate data bases, lack of m3 calculated as an arithmetic average. meeting the requirement of the Act that a model for some unique situations, and Monitored concentrations for the 3-year the attainment of the PM–10 NAAQS be other unavoidable circumstances would period July 1, 1986, through June 30, achieved as expeditiously as practicable leave an area unable to submit an 1989, were used in both cases. and no later than December 31, 1994. attainment demonstration’’ by Appendix 1 of the SIP lists the 24-hour November 15, 1991. The policy further concentrations used to determine the 4. Demonstration explains that its application is reserved design values, and Appendix 2 provides As noted, the initial moderate PM–10 for those initial PM–10 nonattainment detailed information on the design value nonattainment areas must submit a areas that have ‘‘completed the calculations, including which demonstration (including air quality technical analysis * * * and made a concentrations were used when data modeling) showing that the plan will good-faith effort to submit a final SIP by from different methods were collected provide for attainment as expeditiously their November 15, 1991, due date.’’ on the same day. as practicable but no later than During development of the Klamath The Attainment Plan has been December 31, 1994 (see Section Falls initial moderate area PM–10 criticized for not requiring 189(a)(1)(B) of the Act). The General attainment plan, ODEQ did not use implementation of point source Preamble sets out EPA’s guidance on the dispersion modeling to estimate the emission controls on a Weyerhaeuser use of modeling for moderate area design values or in the attainment and facility located outside, but near, the attainment demonstrations (see 57 FR maintenance demonstrations. This was nonattainment area. As discussed in the 13539). Alternatively, the State must due to: (1) the lack of adequate Area Designation History section of the show attainment by December 31, 1994, historical meteorological data, (2) the Technical Support Document (TSD), it or that attainment is impracticable. The late receipt in the development process was ODEQ’s position, during 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS is 150 of spatially resolved emission inventory establishment of the Klamath Falls PM– micrograms/cubic meter (µg/m3), and data needed for modeling, (3) the 10 Group I Areas of Concern, that the the standard is attained when the intense and extremely shallow Weyerhaeuser facility did not expected number of days per calendar inversions and calm winds (typical significantly impact on the Peterson year with a 24-hour average wind speeds during exceedances days School ambient monitoring site during concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal are less than one meter per second) are exceedance days (significant is defined to or less than one (see 40 CFR section not conducive to dispersion modeling as 5 µg/m3). ODEQ took the same 50.6). The annual PM–10 NAAQS is 50 (EPA does not have and has not position, when by operation of law, the µg/m/3, and the standard is attained developed an approved guideline model Klamath Falls Group I area (as defined when the expected annual arithmetic for conditions of this type), and (4) the by the UGB), was designated as a mean concentration is less than or equal fact that on winter days, when worst moderate nonattainment area on µ 3 to 50 g/m (id.). case air quality conditions occur, the November 15, 1990. The classification Generally, EPA recommends that airshed is heavily dominated by of the Klamath Falls area as a Group I attainment be demonstrated according emissions from woodstoves, fireplaces, area and, its subsequent designation as to the PM–10 SIP Development and road sanding. a nonattainment area, was based on Guideline (June 1987), which presents ODEQ conducted an attainment technical information available at that three methods. Federal regulations demonstration based upon receptor time. This information did not indicate require demonstration of attainment ‘‘by modeling proportional roll-back that Weyerhaeuser significantly means of a proportional model or calculations to estimate the emission impacted on the Peterson School dispersion model or other procedure reductions required in 1994 to achieve monitoring site. To support ODEQ’s which is shown to be adequate and the NAAQS. Emission inventory position, ODEQ committed to requiring appropriate for such purposes’’ (40 CFR estimates were reconciled with Weyerhaeuser to dispersion model the Section 51.112). The preferred method Chemical Mass Balance (version 7.0) plant’s impact. A preliminary 1992 is the use of both dispersion and receptor modeling. Results from two modeling analysis was performed and receptor modeling in combination. The emission estimation methods, emission followed by a definitive 1995 modeling regulation and the guideline also allows inventory and receptor modeling, were analysis. The model used was the EPA the use of dispersion modeling alone, or in agreement that woodsmoke and soil point source guideline model-ISCST2. the use of two receptor models in dust are the major sources of emissions [ISCST3 was not yet available when the combination with proportional rollback. on exceedance days. According to the modeling was performed.] As indicated in the General Preamble, emission inventory, woodsmoke equals The 1995 analysis indicates that on 57 FR at 13539, EPA has developed a 80% and soil dust equals 8% of total exceedance days, the Weyerhaeuser supplemental attainment demonstration PM–10 particulate. According to the facility does not have a significant policy for initial PM–10 nonattainment CMB analysis, woodsmoke equals 82% impact at the Peterson School site, areas such as Klamath Falls. The and soil dust equals 10.9% of which is the site on which attainment Preamble provides additional flexibility particulate. with the NAAQS is determined.8 The in meeting the PM–10 attainment EPA guidance on CMB modeling source’s modeled 1995 allowable demonstration requirements. An earlier specifies that the apportionment should emissions are drastically lower than April 2, 1991, memorandum titled, account for at least 80% of the measured 1992 allowable emissions. This is due ‘‘PM–10 Moderate Area SIP Guidance: aerosol mass. ODEQ’s analysis to, among other things, the facility Final Staff Work Product,’’ contained accounted for 96% of the mass. forfeiting unassigned plant site emission ‘‘Attachment 5’’ describing the same ODEQ determined the 1994 24-hour, limits and replacing five hog fuel-fired policy. The policy explains that in worst case day design value (without µ certain circumstances a modified controls) to be 600 g/m3 based on 8 This statement is based on information in a attainment demonstration may be monitored data utilizing EPA’s letter from David Collier, ODEQ, to Rindy Ramos, appropriate on a case-by-case basis. It graphical procedure, including EPA Region 10, dated February 6, 1996. 28538 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules boilers with natural gas fired boilers. 31, 1994. EPA has also considered the which are to be achieved every three Furthermore, Weyerhaeuser’s Air fact that, based on monitored air quality years until the area is redesignated Contaminant Discharge Permit, issued for the calendar years 1992, 1993, 1994, attainment and which demonstrates on November 20, 1995, reflects an and 1995, the area has, in fact, attained RFP, as defined in Section 171(1), allowable pounds per hour limit of 111 both the 24-hour and annual NAAQS. toward attainment by December 31, (down from the previously permitted As to the adequacy of the nonattainment 1994 (see Section 189(c) of the CAA). limit of 152 pounds per hour). The area boundary, the UGB was established While Section 189(c) plainly provides analysis, and subsequent permit, as the nonattainment area boundary that quantitative milestones are to be account for emission credits of 11.79 upon passage of the CAAA of 1990 and, achieved until an area is redesignated pounds per hour (down from the therefore, the existing nonattainment attainment, it is silent in indicating the previous permitted level of 332 pounds area boundary is defined in the CAA starting point for counting the first 3- per hour). Forfeiting of unassigned itself. year period or how many milestones emission credits reduces allowable must be initially addressed. In the 5. PM–10 Precursors emissions alone by over 600 tons per General Preamble, EPA addressed the year to a 1995 permitted level of 371 The control requirements which are statutory gap in the starting point for tons.9 applicable to major stationary sources of counting the 3-year milestone, Based on the previously discussed PM–10 also apply to major stationary indicating that it would begin from the design values, ODEQ estimates that sources of PM–10 precursors, unless due date for the applicable 1994 worst case day emissions must be EPA determines such sources do not implementation plan revision reduced by 75.6%, which equals 18,877 contribute significantly to PM–10 levels containing the control measures for the pounds per day. Thus, percent in excess of the NAAQS in that area (see area (i.e., November 15, 1991, for initial reduction required=((1994 design Section 189(e) of the Act). The General moderate PM–10 nonattainment areas) value¥24-hour standard)/(1994 design Preamble contains guidance addressing (see 57 FR 13539). value¥background)×100); or, how EPA intends to implement Section As to the number of milestones, EPA [((60¥1350 µg/m3)/(600¥7 µg/ 189(e) (see 57 FR 13539–13542). believes that at least two milestones m3)]×100=75.6%. Annual emissions for As previously discussed, ODEQ’s must be initially addressed. Thus, the the projected 1994 attainment year must technical analysis of candidate control submittal to address the SIP revisions be reduced by 47%, which equals 1035 measures indicated that emissions from due on November 15, 1991, for the tons. Percent reduction industrial point sources had initial moderate PM–10 nonattainment required=[((82¥50 µg/m3)/(82¥15 µg/ substantially less of an impact on the areas must demonstrate that two m3)]×100=47%. 24-hour standard than residential wood milestones will be achieved (First ODEQ estimates that 1994 24-hour, combustion (7% vs. 80%). Previous milestone: November 15, 1991, through worst case day emissions must be violations of the 24-hour standard November 15, 1994; Second milestone: reduced by 18,877 pounds to attain the occurred during periods of extensive November 15, 1994, through November 24-hour NAAQS, and annual emissions poor ventilation (stagnation conditions) 15, 1997). must be reduced by 1035 tons in order and cold temperatures. In addition, the For the initial PM–10 nonattainment to attain the annual NAAQS. The CMB analysis indicates that secondary areas that demonstrate attainment, the previously discussed control measures particulate is not a major component of emissions reduction progress made are designed to reduce projected 1994 the area’s PM–10 emissions. This between the SIP submittal (due date of worst case day emissions by 19,445 analysis identified that, on an average November 15, 1991) and the attainment pounds (568 pounds beyond the level winter exceedance day, 3.2% of the date of December 31, 1994 (46 days needed for attainment and annual mass (10.7 µg/m3) comprises secondary beyond the November 15, 1994, emissions by 1,201 tons (166 tons particulate. On an annual basis, 1.9% of milestone date) will satisfy the first beyond the level needed for attainment). the mass (1.5 µg/m3) comprises quantitative milestone (see 57 FR According to the principle of secondary particulate. 13539). For areas that demonstrate proportional roll-back modeling, a Therefore, EPA believes that sources timely attainment of the PM–10 reduction of 19,445 pounds from the of PM–10 precursors do not contribute NAAQS, the milestones beyond the Klamath Falls PM–10 emission sources significantly to PM–10 levels in excess attainment achievement date should, at will result in a 1994 worst case day of the NAAQS, and hereby grants the a minimum, provide for continued ambient concentration of 136.5 µg/m3. exclusion from control requirements maintenance of the standards.10 An annual reduction of 1,201 tons will authorized under Section 189(e) for This SIP demonstrates attainment of result in an annual concentration of 44.9 major stationary sources of PM–10 the PM–10 NAAQS by December 31, µg/m3. Both values demonstrate precursors. 1994, and maintenance of the NAAQS attainment with their respective Note that, while EPA is making a through the year 2004, satisfying five standards. general finding for the Klamath Falls milestones. Therefore, EPA proposes to EPA proposes to approve the area about precursor contribution to approve the submittal as meeting the attainment demonstration. It is EPA’s PM–10 NAAQS exceedances, this opinion that the appropriate air quality finding is based on the current character 10 Section 189(c) of the Act provides that quantitative milestones are to be achieved ‘‘until model was used and all significant of the area including, for example, the the area is redesignated attainment.’’ However, this emission sources and impacts were existing mix of sources in the area. It is endpoint for quantitative milestones is speculative considered. The Attainment Plan possible, therefore, that future growth because redesignation of an area as attainment is demonstrates attainment by December could change the significance of contingent upon several factors and future events. Therefore, EPA believes it is reasonable for states precursors in the area. to initially address at least the first two milestones. 9 EPA is aware, however, that a recent (1995) Addressing two milestones will ensure that the modeling analysis that looked at impacts from the 6. Quantitative Milestones and state continues to maintain the NAAQS beyond the Weyerhaeuser facility in the area outside of the Reasonable Further Progress attainment date for at least some period during UGB indicates that the facility may be causing an which an area could be redesignated attainment. exceedance of the 24-hour NAAQS at an The PM–10 nonattainment area plan However, in all instances, additional milestones unmonitored site. EPA is working with the State to revisions demonstrating attainment must be addressed if an area is not redesignated resolve this distinct and separate issue. must contain quantitative milestones attainment. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28539 quantitative milestone requirement responded to EPA’s understanding of MOU is between the Klamath County currently due. Finally, once a milestone the application of 468.126(2)(e) and Farm Bureau of Directors. has passed, the State will have to agreed that, if federal statutory ODEQ’s submittal and the TSD demonstrate that the milestone was, in requirements preclude the use of the contain further information on fact, achieved for the Klamath Falls area five-day advance notice provision, no enforceability requirements. In addition, as provided in Section 189(c)(2) of the advance notice will be required for the TSD contains a discussion of the Act. violations of SIP requirements personnel and funding intended to support effective implementation of the 7. Enforceability Issues contained in permits. In regard to a separate enforceability control strategy. All measures and other elements in issue, the following is a summary of the 8. Contingency Measures the SIP must be enforceable by ODEQ city, county, and interagency and EPA (See Sections 172(c)(6), commitments which EPA proposes to As provided in Section 172(c)(9) of 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR 13556). EPA approve as part of the SIP as either a the Act, all moderate nonattainment criteria addressing the enforceability of required control measure or SIP area SIPs that demonstrate attainment must include contingency measures. See SIPs and SIP revisions were stated in a strengthening measure. The content of generally 57 FR 13543–13544. These September 23, 1987, memorandum the two ordinances and their measures must be submitted by (with attachments) from J. Craig Potter, relationship to the SIP control strategies November 15, 1993, for the initial Assistant Administrator for Air and are discussed in more detail in the TSD. Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR 13541). moderate nonattainment areas. Nonattainment area plan provisions City and County Ordinances Contingency measures should consist of other available measures that are not must also contain a program that A. City of Klamath Falls—Ordinance part of the area’s control strategy. These provides for enforcement of the control No. 6630. The ordinance grants Klamath measures must take effect without measures and other elements in the SIP County the authority to implement the further action by the State or EPA, upon (see section 110(a)(2)(C)). Klamath County Air Quality Program The particular control measures a determination by EPA that the area (Chapter 406) within the city limits of contained in the SIP were addressed has failed to make RFP or attain the Klamath Falls (authority to regulate— above under the section headed ‘‘RACM PM–10 NAAQS by the applicable control measure). (including RACT).’’ These control statutory deadline. EPA guidance measures apply to the types of activities B. Klamath County Clean Air recommends that the emission identified in that discussion, including Ordinance No. 63. This ordinance adds reductions expected from woodstoves and other wood burning Chapter 406 to the Klamath County implementation of the contingency activities. The SIP provides that the Code and is entitled the ‘‘Klamath measures equal twenty-five percent of control measures apply throughout the County Clean Air Ordinance.’’ The the total reduction in actual emissions entire nonattainment area. provisions in Chapter 406 establish the in the plan’s control strategy (57 FR During EPA’s review of a SIP revision mandatory air quality program, area 13544). However, the CAA does not involving Oregon’s statutory authority, a boundaries, and enforcement controls specify how many contingency problem was detected which affected (control measure). measures are needed or the magnitude the enforceability of point source permit C. Klamath County Air Quality of emissions reductions that must be limitations. Even though the SIP does Program—Resolution 89–116. This provided by these measures (see 57 FR not contain additional point source resolution recognizes the need for 13511). EPA believes that, consistent controls to attain the standard, existing establishing control strategies with the statutory scheme, contingency and federally approved point source (measures) to reduce PM–10 measures must at a minimum provide emission limitations are relied upon to concentrations in Klamath County (SIP for continued progress toward the maintain and demonstrate attainment strengthening measure). attainment goal in the interim period with the PM–10 NAAQS. Interagency Commitments after an area fails to attain and while EPA determined that, because the additional measures required as a result five-day advance notice provision A. Winter Road Sanding Program, of being reclassified to serious are being required by ORS.126(1) (1991) bars civil Oregon Department of Transportation adopted (see 57 FR 13511). The Klamath penalties from being imposed for certain Highway Division—Memorandum of Falls nonattainment area SIP contains permit violations, ORS 468 fails to Understanding. This sets forth the the following contingency measures: provide the adequate enforcement Highway Department’s commitment to: a. Uncertified woodstove removal: authority the State must demonstrate to (1) replace cinder sanding material with The 1991 Oregon Legislature authorized obtain SIP approval, as specified in a liquid de-icing agent, (2) minimize by statute the removal and destruction Section 110 of the Clean Air Act and 40 street sanding application rates of uncertified woodstoves upon sale of CFR 51.230. Accordingly, the consistent with traffic safety objectives, a home within any area that fails to requirement to provide such notice (3) rapid cleanup of sanding materials, meet the PM–10 SIP attainment date of would preclude federal approval of a and (4) ‘‘review construction contract December 31, 1994. EPA approved these PM–10 nonattainment area SIP revision. Standard Specifications and Project rules (OAR 340–34–200 through 215) as EPA notified Oregon of the Provisions for compatibility with local part of the Oregon SIP on June 9, 1992 deficiency. To correct the problem, the ordinances concerning trackout. (see 57 FR 24373). Governor of Oregon signed into law new Tracking mud onto a highway is a b. Industrial Emissions: ODEQ legislation amending ORS 468.126 on citable offense (control measure). developed an industrial contingency September 3, 1993. This amendment B. Voluntary Smoke Management plan designed to reduce industrial added paragraph 468.126(2)(e) which Plans. EPA is proposing to approve both emissions should an area fail to attain provides that the five-day advance of the Memorandums of Understanding by the CAA attainment date. The notice required by ORS 468.126(1) does (MOUs) contained in Appendix 4 of the regulations requiring emission not apply if the notice requirement will SIP as SIP strengthening measures. One reductions, with specific source disqualify the State’s program from MOU is between members of Klamath emission limits, are contained in OAR federal approval or delegation. ODEQ County’s forestry community. The other 340–21–200 through 245. EPA approved 28540 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules these rules as part of the SIP on August PM–10 industrial contingency simply approve requirements that the 19, 1992 (see 57 FR 37468). The rules measures. State is already imposing. Therefore, apply to existing sources in all of ODEQ estimates that PM–10 because the federal SIP-approval does Oregon’s PM–10 nonattainment areas. emissions would be reduced an not impose any new requirements, I The sources regulated include wood additional 108 tons per year by the year certify that it does not have a significant waste boilers, wood particle dryers at 2000 through implementation of the impact on any small entities affected. particleboard plants, hardboard woodstove contingency measures. Moreover, due to the nature of the manufacturing plants, and air conveying Industrial emissions would be reduced federal-state relationship under the systems. The rules also require fugitive an additional 132 tons per year through CAA, preparation of a regulatory emission control plans for large installation of point source controls to flexibility analysis would constitute sawmills, plywood mills or veneer meet the industrial contingency federal inquiry into the economic manufacturing plants, hardboard plants, measure requirement. Additional reasonableness of state action. The CAA and charcoal manufacturing plants. In reductions which cannot be quantified forbids EPA to base its actions addition, OAR 340–21–200 through by the emission inventory would be concerning SIPs on such grounds. 340–21–245 applies to a major source achieved through the fugitive dust Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 located outside of a PM–10 control contingency measures. Total U.S. 246, 256–66 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. nonattainment area which has a reductions are estimated at a minimum 7410(a)(2). significant impact upon a of 240 tons per year (nonattainment area Under Section 202 of the Unfunded nonattainment area. According to OAR industries only), which is 23% of the Mandates Reform Act of 1995 340–21–210(2)(b), upon request by total annual emission reduction needed (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed ODEQ, the owner or operator of any for attainment. into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must source with the potential to have a The SIP provides that each of the prepare a budgetary impact statement to significant impact on a PM–10 above contingency measures would accompany any proposed or final rule nonattainment area shall conduct, prior have taken effect without further action that includes a Federal mandate that to the attainment date required in the by the State or EPA had EPA may result in estimated costs to State, Clean Air Act and in accordance with a determined that the Klamath Falls local, or tribal governments in the study protocol approved by ODEQ, a nonattainment area has failed to achieve aggregate, or to the private sector, of receptor and dispersion modeling study RFP or to attain the PM–10 standard by $100 million or more. Under Section of the impact of emissions from the the statutory attainment date of 205, EPA must select the most cost- source on the PM–10 nonattainment December 31, 1994. effective and least burdensome area. As previously stated, significant EPA is proposing to approve the alternative that achieves the objectives impact is defined as 5µg/m63. Klamath Falls nonattainment area of the rule and is consistent with c. The continuation of the woodstove contingency measures. statutory requirements. Section 203 certification program after December 31, requires EPA to establish a plan for 1994), will provide a net reduction in III. Implications of This Action informing and advising any small residential wood burning emissions EPA is proposing to approve the 1991 governments that may be significantly between the years 1994 and 2004, and Attainment Plan and the 1995 revision or uniquely impacted on by the rule. on into the future. to the Plan as submitted to EPA for the EPA has determined that the d. Chapter 406.650(1) through Chapter Klamath Falls nonattainment area on proposed action promulgated does not 406.650(9) of the Klamath County Clean November 15, 1991, and September 22, include a Federal mandate that may Air Ordinance delineates the 1995, respectively. Among other things, result in estimated costs of $100 million contingency measures adopted by ODEQ has demonstrated that the or more to either State, local, or tribal Klamath County. They include, among Klamath Falls moderate PM–10 governments in the aggregate, or to the other things, measures to further reduce nonattainment area will attain the PM– private sector. This Federal action woodsmoke and fugitive dust. 10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. In approves pre-existing requirements As stated above, the industrial fact, the area has not experienced an under State or local law, and imposes contingency rules apply to existing exceedance of the NAAQS since 1991. no new Federal requirements. sources in all of Oregon’s PM–10 Note that EPA’s action includes Accordingly, no additional costs to nonattainment areas. In actuality, approval of the contingency measures State, local, or tribal governments, or to because of the PM–10 source mix in the for the Klamath Falls nonattainment the private sector, result from this area, the measures applicable to the area. action. Klamath Falls PM–10 nonattainment Nothing in this action should be area include wood waste boilers, wood IV. Administrative Review construed as permitting or allowing or particle dryers at particleboard plants, Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, establishing a precedent for any future hardboard manufacturing plants, air 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare request for revision to any SIP. Each conveying systems, fugitive emission a regulatory flexibility analysis request for revision to the SIP shall be control plans, and the analysis of the assessing the impact of any proposed or considered separately in light of specific impact of emissions from a source final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 technical, economic, and environmental outside the area which has the potential and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify factors, and in relation to relevant to have a significant impact on the that the rule will not have a significant statutory and regulatory requirements. nonattainment area (such as the impact on a substantial number of small This action has been classified as a Weyerhaeuser facility). entities. Small entities include small Table 3 action by the EPA Region 10 Also, as previously discussed, in 1995 businesses, small not-for-profit Regional Administrator under the ODEQ determined through a dispersion enterprises, and government entities procedures published in the Federal modeling study that Weyerhaeuser does with jurisdiction over populations of Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR not have a significant impact at the less than 50,000. 2214–2225), as revised by a July 10, monitoring site of reference (Peterson SIP approvals under Section 110 and 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, School) during NAAQS exceedance Subchapter I, Part D, of the CAA do not Assistant Administrator for Air and days, and therefore is not subject to the create any new requirements, but Radiation. The Office of Management Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28541 and Budget (OMB) has exempted this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: provide further guidance with respect to regulatory action from E.O. 12866 I. Background Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act. The first, review. dated September 4, 1992, was issued by In accordance with requirements of List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Management Division, Subject: Environmental protection, Air (ACT), Walworth County was Procedures for Processing Requests to pollution control, Intergovernmental designated as a marginal ozone Redesignate Areas to Attainment nonattainment area on November 6, relations, and Particulate matter. (Calcagni Memorandum). The second, 1991, (56 FR 56850). The nonattainment dated September 17, 1993, was issued Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. designation was based on air quality by Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Dated: May 24, 1996. monitored violations of the ozone Jane S. Moore, National Ambient Air Quality Standards Administrator for Air and Radiation, Acting Regional Administrator. (NAAQS). Subject: State Implementation Plan (SIP) [FR Doc. 96–14120 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Recent air quality data shows that Requirements for Area Submitting Requests for Redesignation to BILLING CODE 6560±50±P Walworth County is not in violation of the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the area Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon is eligible for redesignation to Monoxide (CO) NAAQS on or after 40 CFR Part 52 and 81 attainment based on a minimum of 3 November 15, 1992, (Shapiro years of ‘‘clean’’ air quality data, as Memorandum). The third, dated [WI70±1±7296; FRL±5510±6] required in the Act. On December 15, October 14, 1994, was issued by Mary Approval and Promulgation of 1995, the WDNR submitted a request for Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air Implementation Plans and Designation redesignation to attainment and a and Radiation, Subject: Part D New of Areas for Air Quality Planning maintenance plan for ozone for Source Review Requirements for Areas Purposes: Wisconsin Walworth County. The remainder of this Requesting Redesignation to Attainment notice will discuss the regulatory (Nichols Memorandum). AGENCY: Environmental Protection requirements for redesignation to Agency (EPA). attainment, the details of the Wisconsin Analysis of State Submittal ACTION: Proposed rule. submittal, and EPA’s rulemaking action. A. The Area must have attained the II. Redesignation Review Criteria Ozone National Ambient Air Quality SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to Standard approve the Wisconsin Department of The Act provide the requirements for Natural Resources (WDNR) request to redesignating a nonattainment area to For ozone, an area may be considered redesignate Walworth County to attainment. Specifically, Section attaining the NAAQS if there are no attainment for ozone. In addition, EPA 107(d)(3)(E) provides for redesignation violations, as determined in accordance is proposing to approve the associated if: (i) The Administrator determines that with 40 CFR § 50.9, based on 3 maintenance plan as a revision to the the area has attained the NAAQS; (ii) complete, consecutive calendar years of Wisconsin State Implementation Plan The Administrator has fully approved quality assured monitoring data. The (SIP). the applicable implementation plan for data that are used should be the product DATES: Comments on this proposed the area under section 110(k); (iii) The of ambient monitoring that is action must be received by July 5, 1996. Administrator determines that the representative of the area believed to improvement in air quality is due to have the highest concentration. A ADDRESSES: Written comments should permanent and enforceable reductions be addressed to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, violation of the NAAQS occurs when in emissions resulting from the annual average number of expected Regulation Development Section, Air implementation of the applicable Toxics and Radiation Branch (AR–18J), daily exceedances is equal to or greater implementation plan and applicable than 1 at any site under consideration. United States Environmental Protection Federal air pollutant control regulations Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson A daily exceedance occurs when the and other permanent and enforceable maximum hourly ozone concentration Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. reductions; (iv) The Administrator has Copies of the State’s submittal and during a given day exceeds 0.124 parts fully approved a maintenance plan for per million (ppm). The data should be EPA’s analysis (Technical Support the area as meeting the requirements of collected and quality-assured in Document) are available for inspection Section 175(A); and (v) The State accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, and at the following location: United States containing such area has met all recorded in the Aerometric Information Environmental Protection Agency, requirements applicable to the area Retrieval System (AIRS). Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 under Section 110 and Part D. West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, The EPA provided guidance on Walworth County contains one ozone Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that redesignation in the General Preamble monitor, located in Lake Geneva, you telephone Randy Robinson at (312) for the Implementation of Title I of the Wisconsin. To demonstrate monitored 353–6713 before visiting the Region 5 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 attainment with the standard, the Office.) (General Preamble), 57 FR 13498 (April WDNR submitted ozone monitoring data FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 16, 1992), supplemented at 57 FR 18070 for the April 15 through October 15 Randy Robinson at (312) 353–6713. (April 28, 1992). Three key memoranda ozone season for 1992, 1993, and 1994.

MONITORED OZONE CONCENTRATIONS [Parts per billion]

County Year 1st High 2nd High 3rd High 4th High

Walworth ...... 1992 120 101 97 96 1993 107 93 91 89 28542 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules

MONITORED OZONE CONCENTRATIONSÐContinued [Parts per billion]

County Year 1st High 2nd High 3rd High 4th High

1994 98 94 91 84

The annual average expected Subpart 2 of Part D establishes conformity applies to transportation exceedance for this 3-year time period is additional requirements for ozone plans, programs and projects developed, 0.0. No violations were recorded during nonattainment areas classified under funded or approved under Title 23 this 3-year time period. Additionally, no table 1 of Section 181(a). As described U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act exceedances were recorded during the in the General Preamble, specific (‘‘transportation conformity’’), as well as 1995 ozone monitoring season. This requirements of Subpart 2 may override to all other Federal actions (‘‘general data has been quality assured and is Subpart 1’s general provisions (57 FR conformity’’). Section 176 further recorded in AIRS. 13501 (April 16, 1992)). Walworth provides that the conformity revision to County was classified as a marginal be submitted by the States must be B. The Area Must Have a Fully nonattainment area. Therefore, in order consistent with Federal conformity Approved State Implementation Plan to be redesignated, the State must meet regulations that the Act required the (SIP) Under Section 110(k); and the the applicable requirements of Subpart EPA to promulgate. Congress provided Area Must Have Met All Applicable 1 of Part D—specifically Sections 172 for the State revisions to be submitted Requirements Under Section 110 and and 176, as well as the applicable 1 year after the date of promulgation of Part D requirements of Subpart 2 of Part D. final EPA conformity regulations. In November 1991, Walworth County Section 172 Requirements. The State The EPA promulgated final was designated marginal nonattainment redesignation request for Walworth transportation conformity regulations on for ozone based on monitored ozone County has satisfied all of the relevant November 24, 1993, (58 FR 62188) and violations occurring in 1988. As a result submittal requirements under Section general conformity regulations on of this designation, the WDNR was 172 necessary for the area to be November 30, 1993, (58 FR 63214). required to submit a revised SIP that redesignated to attainment. Pursuant to Section 51.396 of the meets the requirements of the Act and The reasonable further progress (RFP) transportation conformity rule and demonstrates attainment with the ozone requirement under Section 172(c)(2) is Section 51.851 of the general conformity standards. defined as progress that must be made rule, the State of Wisconsin submitted a Section 110: General Requirements for toward attainment. This requirement is SIP revision containing transportation Implementation Plans. Section 110(a)(2) not relevant because Walworth County and general conformity criteria and of the Act lists the elements to be has already demonstrated monitored procedures on November 23, 1994, and included in each SIP after adoption by attainment of the ozone NAAQS November 30, 1994, respectively. The the State and reasonable notice and (General Preamble, 57 FR 13564). EPA has not yet approved these rules as public hearing. The elements include, Section 172(c)(3) requires submission part of the SIP. but are not limited to, provisions for and approval of a comprehensive, The EPA believes it is reasonable to establishment and operation of accurate, and current inventory of actual interpret the conformity requirements as appropriate devices, methods, systems, emissions. The requirement was not being applicable requirements for and procedures necessary to monitor superseded by the inventory purposes of evaluating the redesignation ambient air quality; implementation of a requirement in Section 182(a)(1). The request under Section 107(d). The permit program, provisions for Part C WDNR submitted such an inventory on rationale for this is based on a Prevention of Significant Deterioration November 15, 1992. It was approved on combination of two factors. First, the (PSD) and D New Source Review (NSR) June 15, 1994 (59 FR 30702). requirement to submit SIP revisions to permit programs, criteria for stationary Section 172(c)(5) requires permits for comply with the conformity provisions source emission control measures, the construction and operation of new of the Act continues to apply to areas monitoring, and reporting, provisions and modified major stationary sources after redesignation to attainment, since for modeling, and provisions for public anywhere in the nonattainment area. such areas would be subject to a Section and local agency participation. For The WDNR submitted information on 175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA’s purposes of redesignation, the Walworth nonattainment area new source review Federal conformity rules require the County SIP was reviewed to ensure that rules on November 15, 1992. The rules performance of conformity analyses in all requirements under the amended Act were approved by EPA on January 18, the absence of federally approved State were satisfied. The EPA has determined 1995 (60 FR 3538 ). The State’s rules. Therefore, because areas are that the Walworth County SIP is Prevention of Significant Deterioration subject to the conformity requirements consistent with the requirements of (PSD) program will become effective in regardless of whether they are Section 110 of the Act. Walworth County upon redesignation to redesignated to attainment and must Part D: General Provisions for attainment. The State was delegated the implement conformity under Federal Nonattainment Areas. Before Walworth PSD program on November 4, 1987. rules if State rules are not yet approved, County may be redesignated as Section 176 Conformity the EPA believes it is reasonable to view attainment, it must have fulfilled the Requirements. Section 176 of the Clean these requirements as not being applicable requirements of Part D. Air Act requires States to revise their applicable requirements for purposes of Under Part D, an area’s classification SIPs to establish criteria and procedures evaluation of a redesignation request. determines the requirements to which it to ensure that, before they are taken, Consequently, the ozone redesignation is subject. Subpart 1 of Part D sets forth Federal actions conform to the air request for the Walworth County area the basic nonattainment requirements quality planning goals in the applicable may be approved notwithstanding the applicable to all nonattainment areas. State SIP. The requirement to determine lack of fully approved State Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28543 transportation and general conformity Section 182(a)(4) 1.1 to 1.0 Offset. attainment of the NAAQS for ozone in rules. This policy was also exercised in Section 182(a)(4) requires all major new the modeled area, which includes the Tampa, Florida ozone redesignation sources or modifications in a marginal Walworth County. The EPA approved finalized on December 7, 1995 (60 FR nonattainment area to achieve offsetting the petition on January 26, 1996 (61 FR 62748). reductions of VOCs at a ratio of at least 2428). Subpart 2 Section 182 Requirements. 1.1 to 1.0 as part of New Source Review (NSR). The Mary Nichols memorandum C. The Improvement in Air Quality Walworth County is classified marginal Must Be Due to Permanent and nonattainment; therefore, Part D, states that areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that an Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Subpart 2, Section 182(a) requirements Resulting From the SIP, Federal apply. In accordance with guidance NSR program be approved prior to redesignation if the State can Measures and Other Permanent and presented in the Shapiro memorandum, Enforceable Reductions the requirements which came due prior demonstrate maintenance of the to the submission of the request to standard without the NSR restrictions. The State must be able to reasonably redesignate the Walworth County area The State has demonstrated that attribute the improvement in air quality maintenance can be maintained without must be fully approved into the SIP to emission reductions which are NSR offsets in effect. Therefore, this before the request to redesignate the permanent and enforceable. To satisfy requirement is not applicable. Upon area to attainment can be approved. this requirement, the State should redesignation to attainment, the sources Those requirements are discussed estimate the percent reduction from the will become subject to PSD below: year that it used to determine the design requirements and offsets will no longer Section 182(a)(1) 1990 Base Year value for designation and classification, apply. Emissions will continue to be Inventory. The 1990 base year emission to the attainment year (Calcagni tracked every 3 years. inventory was due on November 15, Section 182(f) NO Requirement. Memorandum). These reductions may 1992. It was submitted to EPA on X be achieved from Federal measures and Section 182(f) establishes NOX November 15, 1992, and approved by requirements for ozone nonattainment control measures that have been EPA on June 15, 1994, (59 FR 30702). areas. However, it provides that these adopted and implemented by the State. Section 182(a)(3)(B) Emission requirements do not apply to an area if Emission rates, production capacities and other information should be used in Statements. The emission statements the Administrator determines that NOX SIP was due on November 15, 1992. It reductions would not contribute to the estimation. Sources should be was submitted to the EPA on November attainment. On July 13, 1994, WDNR assumed to operate at permitted or 15, 1992, and approved by EPA on submitted, along with the other Lake historic peak levels unless evidence is December 6, 1993 (58 FR 64155). Michigan area states (i.e., Illinois, presented that such an assumption is Section 182(a)(2)(A) RACT Indiana, and Michigan), a Section 182(f) unrealistic. Corrections. The WDNR submitted NOX petition to be relieved of the The WDNR submittal documents information regarding RACT corrections Section 182(f) NOX requirements based reductions in VOC and NOX emissions on November 15, 1992. The EPA on urban airshed modeling. The from 1988 (the design year) to 1993 (the approved the RACT corrections on modeling demonstrated that NOX attainment year). Those reductions are August 15, 1994 (59 FR 41709). reductions would not contribute to shown in the tables below.

Sector 1988 1990 1993

VOC Emissions (Tons per day): Point ...... 1.48 1.51 1.55 Area ...... 7.53 7.58 7.63 Mobile ...... 13.87 12.14 9.59

Totals ...... 22.88 21.23 18.77

% Change from 1988 (design year) ...... ¥7.17 ¥17.9

Sector 1988 1990 1993

NOX Emissions (Tons per day): Point ...... 0.53 0.54 0.55 Area ...... 0.77 0.79 0.73 Mobile ...... 12.07 11.89 11.60

Totals ...... 13.37 13.22 12.88

% Change from 1988 (design year) ...... ¥1.1 ¥3.7

The tables show that VOC and NOX Walworth County experienced the implementation of the Federal emissions decreased 4.1 and 0.49 tons economic and population growth during Motor Vehicle Control Program per day, respectively from 1988 to 1993. the years 1988 to 1993, county-wide (FMVCP). The 1988 emissions in the above Tables VOC and NOX decreased during that were back casted from 1990 base year time period. The majority of the emissions, according to variables such reductions are due to lower highway as population growth, economic growth, motor vehicle emissions. These and vehicle miles traveled. Although reductions are directly attributable to 28544 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules

D. The Area Must Have a Fully period associated with the monitoring sources. This is the most accurate, Approved Maintenance Plan Meeting data showing attainment. Maintenance comprehensive emission inventory the Requirements of Section 175A is demonstrated by showing that future available for the area. The 1990 emissions will not exceed the level of emission inventory was projected to Section 175A of the CAA defines the attainment inventory. The 1993 to provide an emissions inventory requirements for maintenance plans. maintenance plan must also provide for representative of attainment conditions The maintenance plan is a SIP revision continued operation of an appropriate based upon the lack of a monitored which provides for maintenance of the air quality monitoring network to verify ozone violation for the years 1992–1994. relevant NAAQS in the area for at least attainment status of the area. The plan 10 years after redesignation. There are must indicate how the State will track Maintenance Demonstration. The five core provisions which the the progress of the maintenance plan. Walworth County submittal shows maintenance plan should address: the Finally, the maintenance plan must projected VOC and NOX emissions from attainment inventory, maintenance include contingency measures which the 1993 attainment inventory to 2007. demonstration, monitoring network, would promptly correct any violation of The projections show that the level of verification of continued attainment, the ozone NAAQS that occurs after emissions established for the attainment and a contingency plan. The attainment redesignation of the area to attainment. year inventory will not be exceeded inventory should identify the level of Attainment Inventory. The Walworth over the 10-year maintenance period. emissions in the area which is sufficient County submittal contained inventories The following tables list the VOC, and to attain the ozone NAAQS and should of 1990 actual VOC and NOX emissions NOX emissions for the base year, interim include the emissions during the time from stationary, area, and mobile year and the final year.

Sector 1993 attain 1996 proj. 2007 proj.

Summary of VOC Emissions (tons/day): Area ...... 7.62 7.37 7.37 Point ...... 1.55 1.60 1.79 Mobile ...... 9.59 9.39 8.00

Totals ...... 18.77 18.36 17.16

% Change from 1993 ...... ¥2.18 ¥8.58 Summary of NOX Emissions (tons/day): Area ...... 0.73 0.73 0.66 Point ...... 0.55 0.57 0.64 Mobile ...... 11.60 11.39 10.19

Totals ...... 12.88 12.68 11.48

% Change from 1993 ...... ¥1.60 ¥10.87

Emission Projections. All emission to 2.2 percent. These estimates were procedures into the contingency plan projections were made from emissions provided by the Southeastern Wisconsin methodology. calculated for WDNR’s 1990 base year Regional Planning Commission. The The WDNR will the track the progress inventory. The 1990 base year inventory MOBILE5a model was run to produce of the maintenance plan for Walworth reflects tons per typical summer day emission factors for the years 1988, County by generating VOC and NOX emissions as well as an 80 percent rule 1990, 1993, 1996, and 2007. emissions inventories for point, area, effectiveness assumption. Projections Monitoring Network. There is and mobile sources for the years 1996, were generally based on the following currently one monitor measuring ozone 1999, 2002, 2005, and 2007. equation: Proj. Emissions = 1990 in Walworth County. The WDNR has The contingency measures to be Emissions*Proj. Factor*(1–(Cont. committed to continue operating and considered for implementation are Stage Efficiency)*(RE)*(RP)) where RE = rule maintaining it—s ozone monitor in II vapor recovery and non-CTG RACT effectiveness (default = 80 percent) and Walworth County for the 10 year measures. Selection of the contingency RP = rule penetration. maintenance period to verify the measures will take place in the event the ozone NAAQS is violated and if an Projections of stationary source attainment status of the area. emissions through the year 2007 were EPA approved analysis shows that developed based primarily on economic Contingency Plan. The contingency emission sources within Walworth growth projection factors. The annual plan for Walworth County contains County caused the violation. This growth factors were derived from this three major components: attainment analysis is being conducted because the data and those growth factors were used tracking, contingency measures, and a State has maintained that the level of to determine future year inventories. mechanism that triggers the ozone in Walworth County is due to The area source emissions were implementation of the contingency ozone and ozone precursors being projected using a variety of growth measures. In a SIP revision submittal transported from upwind urbanized factors such as population growth, dated April 12, 1996, the State revised areas such as the greater Chicago area. gasoline market, vehicle miles traveled, the section of the redesignation request Both the sudy protocol and the farmland, etc. To project future year pertaining to the triggering and completed analysis will be submitted to mobile VOC emissions, a VMT growth implementation of the contingency EPA for approval. The completed rate of 2.7 percent was used for the plan. As discussed below, the revisions analysis will be subject to public period between 1988 and 1999. The incorporate EPA review and approval, comment. If the analysis shows the VMT growth rate for 2000 to 2007 drops and public review and comment violation not to be attributable to Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28545 transport from other areas, contingency measures will be implemented according to the following schedule:

Activity Completion time

Violation of the ozone NAAQS: Verify violation and submit plan to analyze violation to EPA for approval ...... 60 days after violation measurement. Submit completed analysis, public notice and comment material to EPA for ap- 14 months after violation measurement. proval. Implement Stage II vapor recovery ...... 24 months after violation. Non-CTG RACT measures ...... 24 months after violation.

The Walworth County submittal This action has been classified as a Because this proposed rule is adequately addresses the five basic Table 3 action for signature by the estimated to result in the expenditure by components which comprise a Regional Administrator under the State, local, and tribal governments or maintenance plan (attainment procedures published in the Federal the private sector of less then $100 inventory, maintenance demonstration, Register on January 19, 1989, (54 FR million in any 1 year, the EPA has not monitoring network, verification of 2214–2225), as revised by a July 10, prepared a budgetary impact statement continued attainment, and a 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, or specifically addressed the selection of contingency plan) and, therefore, Assistant Administrator for Air and the least costly, most cost-effective, or satisfies the maintenance plan Radiation. The Office of Management least burdensome alternative. Because requirement in Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). and Budget (OMB) has exempted this small governments will not be regulatory action from Executive Order E. The Area Must Have Met All significantly or uniquely affected by this 12866 review. rule, the EPA is not required to develop Applicable Requirements Under Section Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 110 and Part D 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare a plan with regard to small governments. Section 110 and Part D requirements a regulatory flexibility analysis were discussed under section II B, assessing the impact of any proposed or SIP approvals under Section 110 and above. final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603 Subchapter I, Part D, of the Clean Air and 604.) Alternatively, EPA may certify Act do not create any new requirements, III. Proposed Action that the rule will not have a significant but simply approve requirements that The EPA is proposing to approve impact on a substantial number of small the State is already imposing. Therefore, WDNR’s December 15, 1995, request for entities. Small entities include small because the Federal SIP approval does redesignation to attainment for ozone businesses, small not-for-profit not impose any new requirements, I and Section 175A maintenance plan for enterprises, and government entities certify that it does not have a significant Walworth County. with jurisdiction over populations of impact on any small entities affected. less than 50,000. Moreover, due to the nature of the Nothing in this action should be Section 202 of the Unfunded construed as permitting, allowing or Federal-State relationship under the Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Clean Air Act, preparation of a establishing a precedent for any future (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), 2 U.S.C. regulatory flexibility analysis would request for revision to any SIP. The EPA 1532, requires that the EPA prepare a constitute Federal inquiry into the shall consider each request for revision budgetary impact statement before to the SIP in light of specific technical, promulgating a rule that includes a economic reasonableness of the State economic, and environmental factors Federal mandate that may result in action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA and in relation to relevant statutory and expenditure by State, local, and tribal to base its actions concerning SIPs on regulatory requirements. governments, in aggregate, or by the such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. Ozone SIPs are designed to satisfy the private sector, of $100 million or more EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (1976). requirements of Part D of the Act and to in any 1 year. Section 203, 2 U.S.C. List of Subjects provide for attainment and maintenance 1533, requires the EPA to establish a of the ozone NAAQS. This proposed plan for obtaining input from and 40 CFR Part 52 redesignation should not be interpreted informing, educating, and advising any as authorizing the State to delete, alter, small governments that may be Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Motor or rescind any of the VOC or NOX significantly or uniquely affected by the emission limitations and restrictions rule. vehicle pollution, Nitrogen oxides, contained in the approved ozone SIP. Under Section 205 of the Unfunded Ozone, Volatile organic compounds. Changes to ozone SIP VOC regulations Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1535, the EPA 40 CFR Part 81 rendering them less stringent than those must identify and consider a reasonable contained in the EPA approved plan number of regulatory alternatives before Environmental protection, Air cannot be made unless a revised plan promulgating a rule for which a pollution control, National parks, for attainment and maintenance is budgetary impact statement must be Wilderness areas. submitted to and approved by EPA. prepared. The EPA must select from Unauthorized relaxations, deletions, those alternatives the least costly, most Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. and changes could result in both a cost-effective, or least burdensome Dated: May 13, 1996. finding on nonimplementation [Section alternative that achieves the objectives Valdas V. Adamkus, 173(b) of the Clean Air Act] and in a SIP of the rule, unless the EPA explains why Regional Administrator. deficiency call made pursuant to this alternative is not selected or the [FR Doc. 96–14118 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Section 110(a)(2)(H) of the Clean Air selection of this alternative is BILLING CODE 6560±50±P Act. inconsistent with law. 28546 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR to reorganize, renumber and retitle 43 CONVERSION TABLE FOR 43 CFR CFR Parts 6000–9000; it includes no PARTS 6000±9000ÐContinued Bureau of Land Management regulatory text. The text for these parts will be available in the near future when New 43 CFR Parts 6000±9000 Existing parts Comments the BLM publishes proposed parts [WO±340±1220±00±24 1A] rulemaking in the Federal Register for 8500, 8560.0 6300 RIN 1004±AC87 public review and comment. Some of (All sections), the proposed regulations will be revised 8560.1, Preservation and Conservation Health, substantively; some merely will be 8560.1±1, Safety, and Enforcement rewritten in a more readable format; 8560.2, some will be removed. We will provide 8560.3, AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, detailed explanations for our actions 8560.4 (All Interior. sections), when the proposed rulemakings are ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 8560.5(b). rulemaking. published in the Federal Register. 8350, 8351 ...... 6400 Under the Regulatory Reform effort, 1610.7±2 ...... 6500 SUMMARY: In response to President the BLM has revoked some unnecessary 3622, 8224, 6600 Clinton’s Government-wide regulatory regulations in previous issues of the 8365.1±5(b). reform initiative, the Bureau of Land Federal Register, and will publish 9230 ...... 7100 Management (BLM) has conducted a reinvention proposals in coming issues 4770.1, 4770.4, 7200 page-by-page review of its regulations to in a continuing effort to implement the 4770.5, determine which should be eliminated, 8340.0±7, revised, or moved to internal guidelines. President’s plan. 8341.1, 8343, The purpose of this notice is to share For convenience, this preamble 8343.1, with the public how the BLM plans to includes two charts. The first chart 8560.1±2, restructure Parts 6000–9000 of Title 43 shows the new framework for 43 CFR 8560.5(a), 9000, 9239, CFR into a more streamlined, user- Parts 6000–9000. The second is a 9260, 9261, friendly framework. The notice has no conversion chart for these parts, which 9262, 9263, regulatory text. shows the existing parts and the 9264, 9265, DATES: Comments must be received by corresponding new parts. It also 9266, 9267, July 5, 1996. indicates the parts that have been 9268, 9269. ADDRESSES: Send Comments to the mail deleted and will be deleted, and lists the 6220 ...... Removed 11/30/ address: Regulatory Management Team disposition of those parts that will be 95, 60 FR 61487. (420), Bureau of Land Management, moved out of Parts 6000–9000 to other 1849 C Street, NW., Room 401LS, 8000 ...... Removed 04/09/ parts of Title 43 of the Code of Federal 96, 61 FR Washington, D.C. 20240, OR the Internet Regulations. 15753. address: Framework for 43 CFR Parts 6000–9000 8100 ...... To be removed. [email protected] 8200, 8223 ...... To be removed. [For Internet, please include ‘‘Attn: SUBCHAPTER F—PRESERVATION AND 8300 ...... Removed 04/09/ AC87’’, your name and return address.] CONSERVATION (6000) 96, 61 FR You may also hand deliver comments to Part 15753. the BLM Regulatory Management Team, 6000 [Reserved] 8342.3 ...... Moved to new Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW., 6100 Wildlife Management Part 1500. Washington, D.C. 6200 Wild Free-Roaming Horses & Burros 8340.0±1, ...... Moved to Part Comments will be available for public 6300 Wilderness and Primitive Areas 8340.0±2, 1600. review at the L Street address during 6400 Wild and Scenic Rivers 8340.0±3, 8340.0±5, regular business hours, from 7:45 a.m. to 6500 Areas of Critical Environmental 8340.0±8, 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday. Concern 8341.2, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 6600 Paleontological Resources Frances Watson, Regulatory 8342.1, SUBCHAPTER G—HEALTH, SAFETY, AND 8342.2. Management Team, at 202–452–5006. ENFORCEMENT (7000) 8344 ...... Moved to Part SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 7100 Trespass 2920. 4, 1996, President Clinton issued a 7200 Law Enforcement, Criminal 8360.0 (All sec- ...... To be removed. Memorandum to all Federal tions), 8361, Departments and Agencies directing SUBCHAPTERS H–I [RESERVED] 8362, 8363, them to simplify their regulations. In 7300–9000 [Reserved] 8364, 8365.0, response to this directive, the BLM 8365.1, 8365.1±1, reviewed its regulations using the CONVERSION TABLE FOR 43 CFR 8365.1±2, following criteria: PARTS 6000±9000 • Is the regulation current? 8365.1±3, • Can the regulation be eliminated 8365.1±4, New 8365.1±5(a), without negative consequences? Existing parts parts Comments • 8365.1±6, Is the regulation’s subject matter 8365.1±7, better suited for policy statements or 6000 ...... 6100 8365.2 (All manual/handbook guidance? 4700, 4710, 6200 sections). • Can the regulation be easily 4720, 4730, 8370, 8371 ...... To be removed. understood? 4740, 4750, 8372 ...... Moved to Part This Advance Notice of Proposed 4760, 4770.2, 2920. Rulemaking shows how the BLM plans 4770.3. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28547

CONVERSION TABLE FOR 43 CFR DATES: The comment period will remain The current vision standard specifies PARTS 6000±9000ÐContinued open until further notification in the that drivers must meet the following Federal Register. The public hearing three conditions: will be held on August 9, 1996, at the 1. distant visual acuity in each eye of Existing parts New Comments parts Chicago O’Hare Marriot, 8535 West at least 20/40, and distant binocular Higgins Road, Chicago, IL, 60631, (312) acuity of at least 20/40 in both eyes; and 8400 ...... Removed 04/09/ 693–4444. 2. field of vision of at least 70 degrees 96, 61 FR in the horizontal meridian of each eye; ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed 15722. and 8600 ...... To be removed. comments to FHWA Docket MC–96–4, 3. the ability to recognize the colors 9100, 9180, ...... Moved to Part Room 4232, HCC–10, Office of the Chief of traffic signals. 9183, 9185. 2000. Counsel, Federal Highway 9210 ...... To be removed. In order to improve protection for the Administration, 400 Seventh Street., public and provide for individual SW., Washington, DC 20590. Dated: May 24, 1996. determinations of fitness to drive The literature review and proposed Bob Armstrong, wherever possible, the Agency is research plan are on the Federal interested in developing performance- Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Highway Administration’s World Wide [FR Doc. 96–14095 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] based standards. In a Federal Register Web site (http://cti1.volpe.dot.gov/ notice on the vision waiver program BILLING CODE 4310±84±M ohim/whtnewhd). Users with questions published on November 17, 1994 (59 FR about the operation of the WWW site 59386), the FHWA announced its should call the FHWA Computer Help intention to initiate a research plan to DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Desk at (202) 366–1120. ‘‘develop parameters for performance- Federal Highway Administration FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. based visual standards for all Charles Rombro, Federal Highway commercial drivers.’’ 59 FR at 59389. 49 CFR Part 391 Administration, Office of Motor The research plan outlined in this Carriers, 400 Seventh Street SW., room notice is designed to move the Agency [FHWA Docket No. MC±96±4] 3104, Washington, DC 20590, telephone towards a performance-based vision Proposed Research Plan on Vision (202) 366–5615. Office hours are from standard. This standard would Standard 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday incorporate the measurement of those through Friday, except Federal holidays. visual capabilities deemed necessary for AGENCY: Federal Highway SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The the safe operation of commercial Administration (FHWA), Department of FHWA is authorized by statute to vehicles. The research discussed below Transportation. establish minimum physical is designed to relate specific visual ACTION: Notice; request for comments. qualification requirements for drivers of functions to specific driving tasks, such as the ability to stay in a lane. The SUMMARY: The FHWA is requesting commercial motor vehicles. 49 USC 31502. standards would still be prescriptive in comments on a proposed research plan that they would establish a minimum to explore performance-based The Congress provided the FHWA with complementary regulatory score which individuals would be alternatives to the existing vision required to meet to be allowed to drive; standard for drivers of commercial authority with the enactment of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, however, the scoring scheme would be motor vehicles (CMV). The findings of based on detailed research on the visual this research effort may result in the codified in substantial part at 49 U.S.C. 31101–31162. This Act directed the attributes required to safely operate a modification of that standard. The CMV. FHWA seeks comments on all aspects of Secretary to establish minimum safety the research plan, including its standards to ensure, inter alia, that ‘‘the Research Plan scientific merit, likelihood of achieving physical condition of operators of The FHWA has developed a proposed its objective, methodological validity, commercial motor vehicles is adequate research plan, an outline of which is consideration of all relevant research, to enable them to operate such vehicles provided below. and other practical issues. safely * * *.’’ 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3). The FHWA is also announcing a The physical qualification regulations Background public hearing to obtain comments on for CMV drivers in interstate commerce The FHWA’s review of the existing the proposed research plan. The hearing are found at 49 CFR 391.41. The literature on vision and driving research is designed to obtain public input on the qualification standards cover 13 areas led the FHWA to the following proposed research plan, not to which directly relate to the driving conclusions: determine the status of individual function. All but four of the standards 1. The current testing standard lacks drivers or participants in the vision adopted by the FHWA permit the criterion, or predictive, validity; that is, waiver program. At the hearing, the individual determination of a driver’s it is not clear that central visual acuity FHWA does not intend to discuss the qualification. A person’s qualification to by itself is a good predictor of safe status, results, or recommendations that drive is determined by a medical driving. This detracts from the might result from the vision waiver examiner who is knowledgeable about perceived fairness of the standard. The program. the on-the-job functions performed by a principal shortcoming of the current A review of scientific literature commercial driver and whether a standard is the emphasis on central relevant to the vision standard and the particular condition would interfere visual acuity, which is a measure of proposed research plan have been with the driver’s ability to operate a how well an individual can discern placed in FHWA Docket MC–96–4. In CMV safely. In the case of vision, static images in the center of vision addition, both documents are accessible hearing, insulin-using diabetes and under conditions of high luminance. electronically through the Federal epilepsy, the current standards are Since many driving situations involve Highway Administration’s World Wide absolute, providing no discretion to the dynamic images under low luminance, Web (WWW) site. medical examiner. other visual capacities may be equally 28548 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules or more important than central visual The long-term plan consists of new effectiveness. This will be followed by acuity. research and analysis, which may lead the systematic development of measures 2. Improving the criterion validity of to the development of a new standard. to be validated by the visual the vision standard would most likely Two phases of the research are performance tests. Theoretically, we require testing a broader array of visual already complete. The short-term would prefer to be able to relate a capabilities than those included in the research consists of six or seven driver’s performance on vision tests to current standard. additional stages, as explained below. an actual driving record, especially the The long-term research would consist of 3. There is no assurance that a driver’s accident record. Because of the four additional phases. standard based on a better infrequency of accidents, however, we The phases of the research are would need to test a very large number understanding of the relationship described below. between different visual capabilities and of drivers over many years to obtain driving would result in a significant, Research Completed or Underway reliable results. In addition, a ‘‘clean’’ measurable improvement in safety, in experiment would require that we allow 1. Development of the research plan. drivers who we suspect may be part because vision is a contributor to This phase is complete, and the work only a small number of crashes. CMV deficient in some key visual function to described below is the output of the operate CMVs on the road. Allowing drivers comprise a small proportion of planning effort. This phase describes the drivers, and are represented in a small potentially hazardous drivers to operate proposed approaches in some detail; CMVs poses obvious safety problems, proportion of crashes, not all of which certain elements are necessarily are caused by failures of visual and contravenes the FHWA’s mandate unspecified. For example, the choice of to protect highway safety. performance as currently measured. specific visual function tests cannot be As a proxy for accidents, we are However, the weak observed causal made before further research and developing a list of candidate visually- relationship between vision and crashes analysis are complete. related driving behaviors. This is a may be a shortcoming with the current 2. Design of testing strategy. This reasonable proxy because it is the measurement of vision. It is therefore phase involves selecting and developing driver’s behavior that connects visual possible that the measurement of other the form of the candidate tests, as well deficiencies and accidents. An example visual functions could reveal a more as the measures that the tests must might include the time a driver takes to significant and direct connection predict. This phase is currently initiate a braking maneuver. Behaviors between vision and driving ability. underway. will be selected for further testing based The goals of the proposed research are Selecting the candidate tests includes on their likely validity and practicality. threefold: a general selection of visual functions to be tested, an inventory of the tests Since we will not be measuring 1. Establish a list of visual accidents, it is especially important that performance parameters that appear to already available, and identification of new tests to be developed and validated. the measures are closely related to hold promise as a basis for a new driving performance. standard, and design or adapt Tests should have broad acceptance and stable underlying population norms. After choosing behavioral measures, performance tests to measure these the Agency will develop test procedures capabilities. The protocols for testing should be developed and accepted by researchers and protocols. 2. Evaluate the predictive validity of and testers, and results must be stable these tests. Proposed Short-Term Research regardless of who administers the test. 3. Based on the results of these tests, Acceptable population norms are 3. Define criteria for selection of establish a trial vision standard, and test necessary if a test is to be used to vision tests. The likely criteria will that standard to evaluate its validity. classify individuals based on ‘‘normal’’ include: test availability with little or no modification, scientific reliability, Outline of the Research Plan results in the population of CMV drivers. construct validity, practicality of use in The research contains both a long- While some tests, such as the Snellen a testing environment, and acceptability term and a short-term track. The Agency Letter test of visual acuity, are broadly to researchers and testers. While other may decide to conduct either of the two accepted and have stable and well criteria are possible, the FHWA tracks individually, both tracks understood population norms, other anticipates that the factors listed above simultaneously, both tracks tests of potentially important visual will be used to screen tests for their consecutively, or neither track. The functions do not meet these standards. suitability for further research. Much of emphasis of the short-term plan is to These latter tests would have to be the work required to define the criteria build on existing knowledge to develop evaluated. The evaluation would has already been completed under tasks an improved vision test, with the goal consider how important the visual 1 and 2. of adding two or three existing vision function is in the driving task, the 4. Select candidate tests. The tests to the battery currently tested. This extent to which the test results are researchers would select 3 to 5 track does not call for significant new stable and reliable, and how readily the candidate tests for further research. The research, but rather seeks to take tests can be developed for broad usage. tests would have to meet the criteria advantage of already completed work. Our review of the literature has led us identified above. The researchers would This track could result in the to focus on the following visual determine which tests meet these development of a two-tier standard, functions as most relevant to the driving criteria through a survey of the scientific with an expanded battery of tests in the task: static acuity, contrast sensitivity, community and other interest groups, first (screening) tier, and various dynamic acuity, working field of view, and through the literature review administrative measures proposed for dark focus, low contrast acuity, glare conducted in task 1. the drivers who do not pass this first sensitivity, and vection. 5. Design demonstration/evaluation tier. Administrative measures may The FHWA, with the assistance of a project. This task consists of specifying include provisional or restricted contractor, is in the process of the details of the testing procedures. licenses, waivers, or in-use monitoring identifying the behaviors that the tests The researchers would select a site for of drivers. must predict—the measures of the tests, choose criteria for obtaining Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28549 test subjects, and detail the protocols for documentation required, and individuals in driving behavior can the administering the vision tests. developing the test protocols. vision tests explain? 6. Conduct empirical evaluation of Pilot tests would be conducted on a The agency would also conduct a operational feasibility. This is the actual small sample of drivers to verify test preliminary cost-benefit analysis. In testing component, in which the drivers reliability and suitability for large scale addition to projecting the cost of the will be tested in an operational setting testing. The Agency would modify next phases of the research program, the to ensure that the new test battery’s procedures and protocols as analysis would estimate the cost of facilities requirements are not excessive, appropriate. Upon completion of the implementing a new vision standard its personnel needs are realistic, and pilot test, the FHWA would conduct the and the possible safety benefits. that the tests can be administered, visual function tests on a medium-sized 12. Validation Testing. This phase scored, and interpreted in a timely sample of drivers. The sample would be consists of two sequential activities, test fashion by the individuals responsible large enough to allow the Agency to preparation and data collection, the for administering the tests. analyze test score characteristics. Use of crux of the proposed research. 7. Conduct empirical evaluation of pilot tests would allow the Agency to Test preparation includes selection validity of pass/fail criteria for those ensure that a test would produce and configuration of test sites, plus candidate vision tests without useable results. In addition, correlation selection and preparation of subjects. sufficiently demonstrated construct between tests may be observed, in The site (or sites) selected must have, or validity. The first step in this task which case some tests may be be able to accommodate, a driving would be to define the study sample. eliminated from the final battery as simulator, a closed test course, and a The most likely sample would be age- redundant. road test course. Site preparation includes configuring the testing matched ’visually impaired’ and For driver behavior measures, the equipment for the site, surveying the ’visually unimpaired’ subjects on the agency would develop simulator road test course, and preparing and candidate tests (all subjects would be materials and closed-course testing deploying signs and obstacles for the required to hold a valid CDL). The procedures. To the extent possible, the closed test course. Preparation of the researchers would then conduct the FHWA would employ procedures which subjects consists of briefing the vision and performance tests and can be used on multimedia personal participants and pre-testing them for the analyze the differences in performance computers with a minimum of special between the two groups. Differences visual measures. equipment. The Agency would develop A final closed-course pilot test would would be measured relative to hardware, software, and testing alternative cutoff scores, so that the then be conducted, using a small protocols. number of drivers. This would provide Agency could determine the The extent of the work performed in significance of choosing different levels the Agency with a final opportunity to this task will depend on whether the modify the test procedures. of stringency. Agency conducts the short-term The FHWA could decide to bypass Validation testing would probably research. Some of the work outlined include at least two distinct activities, task 7, the empirical validation phase, if above may be conducted in task 2 of the it determines that enough information simulation and closed-course testing, short-term track. If that is the case, we and would possibly also include currently exists to establish a new will not repeat the work in this task. standard, or that additional research controlled road testing. Variables would 11. Laboratory Simulation. This phase would be unlikely to lead to significant be strictly controlled in these simulation consists of evaluating the candidate safety improvements. The Agency tests to ensure the accuracy and tests in a controlled setting, to identify estimates that skipping task 7 would reliability of results. The FHWA expects and correct any problems in the testing reduce the time needed to complete the that the simulators used for this phase or protocols. This step is essentially a research by one year. would be more sophisticated, with 8. Recommend tests and pass/fail ‘‘dress rehearsal’’ for the full scale test. higher video resolution than those used criteria. Based on the work completed Because the next phase is the most in the previous pilot test. above, the researchers would propose costly in terms of time and resources, Closed-course testing would be used specific tests to be added to the existing this phase was designed to allow the to test drivers under low visibility testing battery and cutoff scores for each Agency to make a final decision about conditions. This is difficult to imitate on test. whether to continue with the research a simulator and is unsafe to test on the 9. Convene interest groups to develop prior to commencing with the next road. operational recommendations. These phase of the plan, the full testing and If road testing is conducted, it would groups would include motor vehicle evaluation. consist of non-intrusive instruments to licensing administrators, researchers, A limited number of subjects would record driver responses, such as eye industry associations, and safety be given all the proposed visual movement patterns, blink rates, pupil advocates. function and driver behavior tests. The diameter, and fixation points. This results of these tests would be analyzed information, combined with data on the Proposed Long-Term Research extensively, including relationships roadway obstacles, provides a stream of 10. Design of tests and protocols. This between and among both sets of tests. data related to working field of view, includes developing the visual The analysis would address the detection time, and how drivers react to performance and behavioral tests following issues: critical events. The road test would be specified in task 2, generating initial a. Are the distributions of scores conducted under normal driving data from a pilot test, and designing useable? conditions to assure that the results are draft protocols to be used in later stages. b. Is there sufficient variance to generalizable to normal CMV operating The visual function test would discern relationships between visual practices. There are a number of hurdles include some combination of existing and driving tests? to using a road test, including the need and new tests. The Agency would c. How well do visual tests predict to perform the test for an impractically arrange the practical testing aspects, driving results, by themselves and in long period to obtain sufficient data, including the purchasing and licensing combination with other tests? How and the possibility that drivers would of tests, acquiring any software and much of the variance between modify their behavior if they are aware 28550 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules that they are under observation. The or in place of, oral testimony. All In the portion of the 1994 notice FHWA would decide whether to commentors will be limited to ten terminating rulemaking, the agency conduct the road test after analyzing the minutes of oral remarks. examined the suitability of using a results obtained in the simulation and The hearing will commence with an variety of vehicle stability metrics 1 as a closed-course tests. explanation of the proposed research basis for a rollover standard. NHTSA 13. Standard Development. The plan, including a brief description of the concluded that two such metrics, tilt results of the preceding task would be background to this effort, the goals of table angle (TTA) 2 and critical sliding analyzed for validity, reliability, and the proposed research, and the steps of velocity (CSV),3 can each separately practicality. If the results of the the proposed plan. The FHWA will then account for approximately half of the validation testing justify specification of accept questions from audience variability in rollover risk in single a new standard, a decision framework members, with individuals who have vehicle accidents remaining after for that standard would be constructed. contacted the FHWA given the first considering driver, roadway, and opportunity to speak. environmental factors. NHTSA stated: Specific Questions (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3), 31502) The suitability of a vehicle safety standard based on rollover stability depends on the The FHWA is specifically interested Issued on: May 20, 1996. in comments addressing the following importance of rollover stability, as Rodney E. Slater, issues: represented by a vehicle metric, relative to 1. Are there any methodological Federal Highway Administrator. other rollover influences, such as vehicle [FR Doc. 96–14041 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] handling properties, vehicle condition, the shortcomings in the research plan nature of the roadway and shoulder terrain, BILLING CODE 4910±22±P outlined above that need to be and driver behavior. The agency sought to addressed? determine whether vehicle stability metrics 2. Is the plan likely to meet the are significant variables in a statistical model objective of leading to an improved, National Highway Traffic Safety of the risk of rollover. If they are, then a performance-based vision standard? Administration standard regulating stability might be justified, depending on the results of a 3. Does the plan reflect an 49 CFR Part 571 understanding of the current literature comparison of benefits and costs for such a standard. [Docket No. 91±68; Notice 5] and consider its implications? After analyzing a number of static and 4. Is the plan capable of adequately RIN 2127±AC64 dynamic rollover metrics, the agency addressing practical matters, such as the concluded that two vehicle metrics, tilt table cost of any new testing machinery Federal Motor Vehicle Safety angle and critical sliding velocity, can developed, the level of training required Standards; Rollover Prevention account for about 50 percent of the variability to conduct new tests, and the time in rollover risk in single vehicle accidents, needed to take tests? AGENCY: National Highway Traffic after considering driver, roadway, and 5. Has this type of research been Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. environmental factors. (Rollover risk is the ACTION: Denial of petitions for number of single vehicle rollovers involving conducted in other professions? What a particular make/model divided by the were the results? reconsideration. number of single vehicle crashes of all types 6. Should the FHWA proceed with the SUMMARY: This notice announces the involving the same make/model.) This short-term plan, the long-term plan, statistical analysis was conducted on all light denial of petitions for reconsideration of both, or neither? duty vehicles treated as a group. However, the agency’s decision to terminate 7. Should the FHWA proceed with an analysis of accident data indicated that rulemaking to develop a vehicle rollover alternative plan? If so, describe that certain subgroups of light duty vehicles are stability standard. plan. more likely to roll over than other subgroups. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The For example, sport utility vehicles and Current Status of the Research Program following persons at the National compact pickup trucks tend to be the most Highway Traffic Safety Administration, likely vehicles to roll over. Large passenger The FHWA is currently in the midst cars tend to be the least likely to roll over. of step 2 of the research plan, which 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, 59 FR 33254, at 33258. consists of inventorying existing tests D.C. 20590: While NHTSA concluded that the two and evaluating them against a number of For non-legal issues: Gayle vehicle stability metrics were of some criteria, including their cost, which Dalrymple, Office of Crash Avoidance value in estimating the likelihood that a visual functions they measure, overlap Standards, telephone (202) 366–5559, single vehicle accident involving a between different tests, and the amount facsimile (202) 366–4329. particular model of vehicle would result of training required to conduct the tests. For legal issues: Steve Wood, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC–20, telephone Format of Public Hearing (202) 366–2992, facsimile (202) 366– 1 A vehicle stability metric is a measured vehicle characteristic that is analyzed to determine whether The FHWA announced in the 3820. it is related to a vehicle’s likelihood of rollover November 17th notice (59 FR 59386) its SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: involvement. intention to hold a public hearing to 2 The tilt table test involves placing the vehicle discuss the research plan. The public I. 1994 Notice Terminating Rulemaking on a platform which is then tilted about an axis parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal axis. TTA is hearing will be held on August 9, 1996, on a Vehicle Rollover Stability Standard the angle at which the last tire on the upper side at the Chicago O’Hare Marriot, 8535 of the platform loses contact with the platform and West Higgins Road, Chicago, IL 60631, On June 28, 1994, NHTSA published the vehicle begins to fall off the platform. This (312) 693–4444. The hearing will begin a notice in the Federal Register metric is influenced by changes in a vehicle’s mass, center of gravity height, track width, and at 8:30 a.m. and conclude at 4:30 p.m. announcing two agency actions: (1) the suspension movement, all of which are physically Individuals wishing to speak at the termination of rulemaking to develop a related to rollover stability. hearing should contact the FHWA at the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 3 Critical sliding velocity includes the roll address or phone number listed above on vehicle rollover stability; and (2) the moment of inertia as well as the various static factors included in tilt table angle. CSV is under the heading ‘‘For Further proposal of a consumer regulation for calculated from an equation which can be found in Information Contact.’’ Individuals may labeling vehicles with rollover stability the June 28, 1994 notice, as corrected on July 26, submit written comments in addition to, information. (59 FR 33254) 1994 (59 FR 38038). Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28551 in a rollover, the agency emphasized of light trucks would probably need to be references to the Advocates/IIHS that analyses also ‘‘show that other substantially redesigned to meet such a petition. factors in addition to those analyzed are standard. This redesign could result in the While the petitioners made numerous affecting rollover risk.’’ (Id., at 33260) elimination of some vehicle types, e.g., sport contentions, they focused on four utility vehicles, as they are known today. As the agency noted, ‘‘[t]he suitability of general areas: the character of a a vehicle safety standard based on Id., at 33258. reasonable rollover standard, the rollover stability depends on the To avoid such drastic consequences agency’s statistical analysis of how a importance of rollover stability, as for light trucks, the agency considered standard could be selected, the agency’s represented by a vehicle metric, relative whether it would be appropriate to set benefit calculations, and the agency’s to other rollover influences, such as one standard for cars and separate statements concerning cost burden to vehicle handling properties, vehicle standards for various classes of light the manufacturing industry. The condition, the nature of the roadway trucks.5 NHTSA concluded that it was following is a summary of the more and shoulder terrain, and driver not appropriate. Since its analysis of the important contentions addressed in this behavior.’’ (Id., at 33258) In other ability of the two vehicle stability notice and the appendix to this notice: words, the issue was not simply metrics to account for the variability in • NHTSA should have more whether there is a statistical rollover risk in single vehicle accidents thoroughly considered establishing relationship, but also whether that was conducted on all light duty vehicles separate standards for separate classes relationship is strong enough, as a group, the agency examined the of vehicles. • considering other influences, so that ability of the metrics to account for To achieve a better relationship improvements in the stability metrics, variability within individual subgroups between costs and benefits, NHTSA especially relatively small of those vehicles. Regarding the results should have considered the alternative improvements, would generate benefits of that examination, NHTSA stated: of setting a standard for the most commensurate with the costs. If the [I]t was necessary to determine whether rollover-prone vehicles within one or relationship is not sufficiently strong, either of the stability metrics exhibited more of the following groups: sport sufficiently high levels of correlation to utility vehicles (SUVs), vans, and even significant changes in the stability assure the agency that a requirement metrics may be overwhelmed by the pickup trucks. applying to only one class of vehicle would • Compact SUVs 6 are the most other influences and thus fail to cause be expected to reduce the incidence of a significant change in rollover rollovers for vehicles in that class. * ** rollover prone group of light duty vehicles. experience. [T]he agency found that the statistical • The agency concluded that while each correlations of the metrics with rollover Minor vehicle changes (e.g., of the stability metrics has some causal accident data within a class of vehicles was suspension changes) could be used to relationship to the potential for rollover not so consistent as for all vehicles grouped achieve stability improvements at together. This weakening of the predictive and a statistical relationship to real- reasonable cost. ability of the metric is, to some extent, the • NHTSA did not provide any factual world rollover frequency, a standard result of the smaller range of the metric based on either of the metrics would support for its assertion that there are within any class of vehicles together with the serious safety problems associated with yield measurable benefits only if it inherent variability in the data. Based on this required that the metrics be increased to analysis, and the general analysis of costs improving vehicle stability metrics an extent that would impose excessive and benefits discussed later, the agency through suspension changes. • NHTSA did not explain the nature costs and necessitate radically determined that proposing a standard and extent of the major design changes redesigning one or more types of light specifying one minimum stability value for cars and others for various classes of light that it said were necessary to meet any trucks.4 The agency reached this trucks could not be justified. stability metric, nor how much such conclusion after examining the merits of Id., at 33528. changes would cost. establishing a single rollover standard • The level of projected benefits of a for all light duty vehicles (i.e., passenger II. Petitions for Reconsideration of rollover standard was understated by cars and light trucks). Decision To Terminate Rulemaking the agency because it: With respect to a single standard, the In July 1994, the agency received two • used average class values in lieu of agency stated: petitions for reconsideration of its model specific rollover accident data for The agency also determined that, decision to terminate rulemaking on a the rollover experience of some vehicle considering the costs and benefits involved, rollover stability standard. One petition models; proposing a safety standard specifying a • used inappropriate statistical single minimum stability value for both cars was submitted by Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety and the measures; and and light trucks could not be justified. While • light trucks have lower stability Insurance Institute for Highway Safety viewed rollover prevention as measurements than cars do, the greatest (Advocates/IIHS) and the other by accident mitigation instead of accident number of rollover-related deaths and Randall and Sandy Vance, Doug White, prevention. • injuries occur in passenger cars because of and Robert and Glenda Cammack Although Congress did not mandate their larger population size. Therefore, if the (Vance, et al.). Both petitions asked the issuance of a rollover stability agency wished to set a stability minimum NHTSA to reconsider its decision to standard, it expected that such a high enough to realize significant reductions standard would be issued. in the number of fatalities in all light duty terminate rulemaking to establish a • minimum standard for vehicle rollover Contrary to NHTSA’s position, the vehicles, it would have to set the minimum statute governing the agency’s vehicle above the stability number of most light stability. The Vance et al. petition trucks. The costs of such a standard, in terms expressed general disagreement with 6 of the cost of vehicle redesign and the loss that decision, while the Advocates/IIHS The vehicles considered compact SUVs in of consumer-desired attributes, were NHTSA’s analysis were: Ford Explorer, Chevy S10 petition identified detailed points of Blazer, Jeep Cherokee, Jeep Wrangler, Toyota 4– determined to be very high, as entire classes disagreement. For this reason, unless Runner, Nissan Pathfinder, Geo Tracker, GMC S–15 otherwise specified, references below to Jimmy (essentially a twin of the Blazer), Isuzu 4 The term ‘‘light trucks’’ includes sport utility Trooper, Isuzu Rodeo, Suzuki Sidekick (essentially vehicles, vans, and pickup trucks with a gross ‘‘the petition’’ or ‘‘the petitioners’’ are a twin of the Tracker), Mazda Navaho (essentially vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 a twin of the 4WD Explorer), Mitsubishi Montero, pounds) or less. 5 Id., at 33258. Isuzu Amigo, and Suzuki Samurai. 28552 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules safety rulemaking readily permits the other impacts of such a standard widening the vehicle track and lowering elimination of a class of vehicles widely manifestly outweigh the estimated but the center of gravity) that could only be accepted in the marketplace. uncertain benefits. achieved through full redesign of the • The agency may not consider the A general response to the petitioners’ vehicle. The petitioners appear to policy concerns underlying the arguments appears below. Certain issues believe that a vehicle can be redesigned Regulatory Flexibility Act without are covered in greater detail in the so it will be significantly less likely to preparing a regulatory flexibility Appendix to this notice. roll over, that the means for analysis. IV. Rationale for Reaffirming Decision accomplishing this will be ‘‘invisible’’ III. Response To Petitions for To Terminate to the consumer, and that the vehicle Reconsideration will look and function as it did before A. Summary the redesign. As discussed below, In response to the petitions, the Following its examination of the redesigning a vehicle to significantly agency has reconsidered its decision to arguments raised by the petitioners, the reduce its likelihood of rolling over terminate rulemaking on a rollover agency has revisited and, in some necessarily involves making stability standard. As explained below, respects expanded, its rationale for fundamental changes in the vehicle’s the agency is, on reconsideration, terminating rulemaking on a vehicle dimensions (making it wider, longer, reaffirming that decision. lower, heavier) and compromising its The petitions raise several points that stability standard. The agency again concludes that it is not appropriate to utility to consumers (e.g., by reducing are not disputed by NHTSA; however, its fuel efficiency, ground clearance, they do not compel the conclusion that establish a vehicle rollover stability standard based on a vehicle stability load-carrying capacity, off-road NHTSA should establish a rollover capability, or driveability on snowy standard based on vehicle stability metric. If a stability standard were set at a roads). metrics. For example, the agency agrees level that would require only minor that single vehicle rollover is a 1. Minor Vehicle Changes To Increase vehicle changes in order for the affected significant safety problem. NHTSA also Vehicle Stability Metrics models to achieve compliance, the agrees that the two vehicle stability standard would not produce any safety Minor vehicle changes have very little metrics are useful in estimating the benefits. Minor vehicle changes, which effect on the vehicle stability metrics. likelihood that a single vehicle accident consist predominately of suspension Moreover, they do not result in net involving a particular model of vehicle changes, would not produce significant safety improvements. will result in a rollover. As the petitioners correctly point out, Finally, the agency agrees that it is improvements in the vehicle stability metrics and would not be likely to result the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation appropriate in determining the (PRE) for the 1992 Advance Notice of desirability of a rollover standard to in any reductions in fatalities and injuries.7 Moreover, there is reason to Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) consider a rollover standard regulating suggested that there were grounds for vehicles in the most rollover-prone conclude that such suspension changes would, in fact, produce negative safety optimism about the ability of minor groups. While the 1994 notice focused vehicle changes, such as suspension primarily on the approach of a single side effects. If a stability standard were set high tuning, to affect stability metrics and standard for all light duty vehicles, the enough to require significant improve rollover stability. (57 FR 242; agency did analyze separate standards improvements in the vehicle stability January 3, 1992) However, after for separate classes of vehicles. The metrics, it would necessitate full vehicle reviewing the comments on the 1992 notice explained that the predictive redesigns and major vehicle changes. ANPRM, the agency concluded in the ability of the vehicle stability metrics However, the safety benefits of such 1994 notice that minor vehicle changes decreased as the vehicle population was changes would nevertheless be could not, in fact, significantly affect the divided into smaller groups. As noted relatively modest. Moreover, the overall vehicle stability metrics. Comments 8 above, the agency concluded that ‘‘a costs and loss of consumer choice from Advocates itself, as well as Ford standard specifying one minimum resulting from full vehicle redesigns and General Motors, on the ANPRM stability value for cars and others for involving major vehicle changes would indicate that suspension changes result various classes of light trucks could not be substantial and excessive. On in very little improvement in rollover be justified.’’ (Id., at 33257). Since the balance, the potential for improved stability. petitioners suggest issuing a rollover vehicle safety associated with such Moreover, vehicle rollover stability is not the same as vehicle handling and standard regulating the most rollover- improvements in the vehicle stability control. Some measures that improve prone vehicles, NHTSA has focused on metrics is not sufficiently large to justify such an approach in responding to the such redesigns. petitions for reconsideration. The 8 In commenting on the ANPRM, Advocates agency agrees with the petitioners that, B. Vehicle Changes To Increase Vehicle indicated that it did not share the agency’s optimism at that time about the desirability of in theory, the comparatively high Stability Metrics relying on suspension changes to improve rollover rollover rate of compact SUVs makes a There are two general categories of stability metrics. Advocates commented that the standard regulating that group of vehicle changes that would increase the selection of TTR as the parameter to be regulated would ‘‘permit a manufacturer to attempt vehicles appear more likely to generate vehicle stability metrics (TTA and CSV). manipulation of other stability-related elements of benefits commensurate with its costs One consists of relatively minor vehicle the vehicle’s design, such as its suspension, in than would a standard regulating any changes (i.e., suspension changes); the order to secure a barely passing tilt- table score.’’ other group of vehicles. other, of major vehicle changes (i.e., It also expressed concern that the agency ‘‘may be These areas of agreement are already tending towards selection of TTRs [see footnote 12] that will not move the industry insufficient, however, to lead the agency 7 As noted above, the agency stated in the 1994 towards safer overall vehicle designs, particularly to the conclusion reached by notice that a standard limited in its application to with regard to wheelbase, width, length, and center petitioners. To the contrary, the a vehicle subgroup (e.g., sport utility vehicles) is of gravity height, but rather will encourage the particularly unlikely to reduce fatalities and perpetuation of the status quo designs especially agency’s detailed analysis below of a injuries given the weaker statistical relationships with regard to very small cars, small pickups, and rollover stability standard based on TTA between the stability metrics and the rollover SUVs that will continue to show high rollover or CSV demonstrates that the costs and involvement for vehicle subgroups. (Id., at 33528) propensities.’’ Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28553

TTA or CSV do not necessarily result in not examined whether those changes the vehicle’s c.g. height and track width, improved directional control and could be made at a reasonable cost, and that even minor changes in those stability. Available information suggests since they are unlikely to yield net parameters may come at the cost of that directional control and stability safety benefits. adversely affecting other attributes would be adversely affected as a result desired by consumers. For example, the 2. Major Vehicle Changes To Increase of relying upon suspension changes to new Jimmy is heavier and more costly Vehicle Stability Metrics make small increases in the vehicle than the prior model. stability metrics. This information was Thus, significant improvements to the The agency agrees that the vehicle supplied in comments from Advocates, vehicle stability metrics could be stability metrics of the new Jimmy are Ford, and General Motors on the achieved only through making major likely to be somewhat better than those ANPRM expressing concern with the changes to the vehicle chassis and body of the old Jimmy. Although the agency side effects of suspension changes to to increase the track width and/or lower has no TTA or CSV data on the new improve TTA. the center of gravity. These major design, its lower body height and wider For example, Ford used a computer changes would require full vehicle track suggest that it has a slightly better simulation of a compact pickup truck to redesigns that substantially change the TTA than its predecessor and its longer, evaluate the effect of a series of parameters affecting vehicle stability wider, and heavier body suggests that it suspension changes on directional metrics. The necessary extent of such may have a greater roll moment of stability and side-to-side load transfer in redesigns is illustrated in the following inertia and, therefore, a slightly greater cornering. (Docket 91–68–N01–21) Ford example. Given that the center of gravity CSV. evaluated substantial suspension height for a typical compact SUV 9 is 27 However, the increases in the Jimmy’s changes, including a 30 percent increase inches, to raise its TTA (42.9 degrees) to vehicle stability metrics are likely to be in spring rates, removal of stabilizer that of the typical full- size SUV (46.4 very small. The reason is that the bars, and a change in the front degrees), it would be necessary to changes made to the parameters suspension roll center by 1.5 inches. It increase the track width (i.e., the affecting those metrics were relatively also examined a ride height change that distance between the left and right tires minor. Although the changes increased would lower the center of gravity by 0.5 on an axle) more than 6 inches. Further, the size and weight of the Jimmy, the inch. Ford noted that, in general, tuning such a track width increase would magnitude of those changes fell short of a suspension system such that both the require a corresponding wheelbase (i.e., the levels needed to make a significant front and rear tires lift from the tilt table the distance between the front and rear improvement in its TTA or CSV. The simultaneously would maximize the axles) lengthening of 10 inches to retain body height of the 2WD model was TTA. However, this optimization the braking stability of the smaller SUV. reduced by 1.6 inches, but the requires either decreasing the front roll As noted later in the sections regarding associated reduction in center of gravity stiffness (by removing the front cost and impact on consumer choice, height is likely to be much less, since stabilizer bar), or increasing the rear roll such modifications would eliminate the location of the engine, drive train, stiffness (by using a 30 percent greater most of the compact SUVs as they suspension, and passenger rear spring rate). The simulation showed currently exist, converting the typical accommodation component masses that, among the suspension changes compact SUV into a full-size SUV. remained unchanged. The height examined by Ford, these two changes Citing the example of the GMC reduction of the 4WD model was only made the greatest improvements in TTA Jimmy, which was redesigned for 1995, 0.8 inches. Likewise, the body width (an increase of 0.62 and 0.55 degrees, petitioners argued that vehicle was increased by 2.4 inches, but the respectively). However, these changes manufacturers can gradually redesign front and rear track widths of the 4WD were also shown to alter directional their compact SUVs so as to increase model were increased less: 1.6 and 1.0 stability toward oversteer (i.e., these their vehicle stability. The petitioners inches, respectively. The 2WD model changes tend to make a vehicle turn presented an article from Automotive track width increases were even less: 0.9 more sharply than a driver intends). News stating that the new Jimmy is inch at the front and 0.5 inch at the rear. Ford’s simulation showed that other longer, lower, and wider than its Taken together, these changes to the suspension changes, such as an increase predecessor.10 The petitioners further Jimmy’s parameters affecting the in front spring rate or a decrease in front attributed to the new Jimmy ‘‘a chassis rollover stability metrics are very minor roll center height, could increase TTA modification that can result in better compared to the ones described above (to a lesser degree than those mentioned stability metrics and in lower rollover as being necessary for a typical compact above), while altering directional crash rates.’’ 11 SUV to achieve a TTA of 46.4 degrees. stability toward understeer (i.e., these NHTSA draws a very different lesson Thus, these changes predict at best a changes tend to make a vehicle turn less than do petitioners from the example of very small improvement in TTA or CSV. sharply that a driver intends). The only the Jimmy. In the agency’s view, the The impact of such small minor change mentioned by Ford in its petitioners underestimate the extent to improvements in vehicle stability comment which improved TTA without which the parameters affecting a metrics on rollover risk is unknown. influencing directional stability was vehicle’s stability metrics must be Since this is a new model for 1995, lowering the vehicle c.g. height by 0.5 changed to significantly improve those neither NHTSA nor the petitioners have inch, resulting in only a 0.17 degree metrics. As explained below, the overall data on the rollover experience of the increase in TTA. lessons of the new Jimmy are that even new Jimmy. There is no way to know at Based on its consideration of such a significant partial redesign of a vehicle this time if the changes will actually comments, the agency concludes that will change its vehicle stability metrics lead to a reduced risk of rollover. suspension changes would not produce little in the absence of major changes to significant improvements in rollover C. Benefits of Improvements in Vehicle stability and would have the potential to 9 A ‘‘typical compact SUV’’ and a ‘‘typical full- Stability Metrics size SUV’’ are hypothetical vehicles with the cause undesirable changes in directional average TTA and dimensions of all the vehicles in NHTSA’s 1994 notice estimated that stability and handling, which in turn their class. the benefits of a rollover standard could lead to an increase in crashes. In 10 Advocates/IIHS petition, attachment 2. requiring a TTA of 46.4 degrees for all view of this conclusion, the agency has 11 Advocates/IIHS petition, page 18. light duty vehicles included a modest 28554 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules amount of benefits for compact SUVs. were not available for some makes and (1) The reduction of rollovers per The agency’s estimate that 63 fatalities models when the analysis was done for single vehicle accident (RO/SVA) and 61 serious injuries might be the 1994 notice.14 The agency estimates predicted for increases in TTR; prevented for all light duty vehicles that, using the more current data and (2) The number of single vehicle included the prevention of 31 fatalities certain optimistic assumptions accidents experienced by vehicles that and 22 serious injuries for compact (discussed below), 22 serious injuries would need to be altered in order to SUVs. The potential compact SUV and 32 fatalities might be prevented comply with the standard; and benefits were predominately attributable annually if all new compact SUVs were (3) The degree of harm mitigation (in to those particular compact SUV models redesigned to the extent necessary so the number of fatalities and serious that would require significant changes that each vehicle in that class had a TTR injuries) as a result of rollover in track width and/or center of gravity of 1.05 and if all existing compact SUVs prevention given that a single vehicle height to achieve the required TTA. with a lower TTR were retired from the accident has occurred. The following table, corresponding to vehicles-in-use fleet. The potential As part of its review of the petitions, Table 1 of the document ‘‘Potential benefits for a rollover stability standard the agency recomputed its estimate of Reductions in Fatalities and Injuries in the benefits of making significant design are computed by considering: Single Vehicle Rollover Crashes as a changes in order to raise the TTR 12 of Result of a Minimum Rollover Stability compact SUVs to 1.05,13 using data that Standard,’’ contains the results of this latest computation. For an explanation of the headings and entries in the table, see that document.

Est % MY 1991 1986±88 5 1986±90 of Est Projected AIS3 + Fatality Compact SUV make Drive produc- TTR state SVA/ Michigan com- AIS3 + Est fa- RO/SVA @ reduction reduction model pact talities min TTR @ min @ min tion RV RO/SVA SUV injuries 1.05 TTR 1.05 TTR 1.05 ROs

Vehicle A ...... 2 WD*15 65,515 0.88 **160.0068 **0.359 6 39 28 0.270 9.6 6.9 4 WD 184,554 0.88 **0.0068 **0.359 16 110 79 0.270 27.2 19.5 Vehicle B ...... 2 WD 29,480 0.95 0.0103 0.342 4 25 18 0.280 4.6 3.3 4 WD 93,866 0.99 **0.0102 0.27 9 63 45 0.244 6.1 4.4 Vehicle C ...... 2 WD* 19,920 1.08 0.0091 0.317 2 14 10 ...... 4 WD 101,541 1.08 0.0091 0.317 11 71 51 ...... Vehicle D ...... 2 WD 0 ...... 4 WD 46,478 1.03 0.0163 0.273 8 50 36 0.263 1.8 1.3 Vehicle E ...... 2 WD* 4,892 1.01 0.0211 0.362 1 9 7 0.338 0.6 0.4 4 WD 39,989 1.01 0.0211 0.362 11 74 53 0.338 4.9 3.5 Vehicle F ...... 2 WD* 3,555 0.93 **0.0215 **0.315 1 6 4 0.258 1.1 0.8 4 WD 35,945 0.93 **0.0215 **0.315 9 59 42 0.258 10.8 7.7 Vehicle G ...... 2 WD 0 ...... 4 WD 30,702 0.978 ...... 0.394 5 31 22 0.348 3.6 2.6 Vehicle H ...... 2 WD 6,479 0.95 0.0114 0.259 1 5 3 0.219 0.7 0.5 4 WD 23,515 0.99 **0.0123 0.252 3 18 13 0.228 1.7 1.2 Vehicle I ...... 2 WD 0 ...... 4 WD 26,776 0.98 ...... **0.481 5 33 24 0.427 3.7 2.7 Vehicle J ...... 2 WD* 740 0.947 ...... 0 1 0 0.281 0.1 0.1 4 WD 23,870 0.947 ...... 3 20 15 0.281 3.3 2.1 Vehicle K ...... 2 WD* 1,257 0.978 ...... 0.407 0 2 1 0.360 0.2 0.1 4 WD 10,492 0.978 ...... 0.407 2 13 10 0.360 1.6 1.1 Vehicle L ...... 2 WD 0 ...... 4 WD 11,404 0.88 **0.0068 **0.359 1 7 5 0.270 1.7 1.2 Vehicle M ...... 2 WD 0 ...... 4 WD 10,616 0.93 ...... 1 9 7 0.274 1.7 1.2 Vehicle N ...... 2 WD* 5,011 1.016 ...... 1 4 3 0.315 0.2 0.2 4 WD 2,818 1.016 ...... 0 2 2 0.315 0.1 0.1 Vehicle O ...... 2 WD* 832 1.04 ...... 0 1 1 0.329 0.0 0.0 4 WD 3,546 1.04 ...... 0 3 2 0.329 0.1 0.0

12 TTR is the tangent of TTA. In its analysis prior a rollover stability standard applicable to all Reductions in Fatalities and Injuries in Single to the 1994 notice, the agency used TTR. Because vehicles, a TTA of 46.4 degrees was the highest Vehicle Rollover Crashes as a Result of a Minimum TTA is an easier concept to depict on labels for the practicable standard. The agency explained that a Rollover Stability Standard.’’ That document is in general public, the agency proposed the use of TTA TTA of 46.4 degrees is representative of the average Docket 91–68; Notice 3. However, while the rather than TTR for the vehicle label under a full-size SUV. Since the design changes to increase procedures were the same, an expanded set of data consumer information regulation that was proposed TTA to that level would cause a compact SUV to (the number of rollover accidents and single vehicle in the 1994 notice. NHTSA used TTA throughout approach the size of full-size SUVs, establishing the 1994 notice for that reason. However, NHTSA any higher standard, whether for all vehicles or for accidents) were used in the recomputation to has not converted the TTR values to TTA values compact SUVs alone, would lead to the virtual increase its accuracy. The use of the new data when discussing its statistical and benefits analyses elimination of compact SUVs as that class currently adequately addresses the petitioners’ concerns in this document. exists. about the agency’s use in the 1994 notice of 13 A TTR of 1.05 is the equivalent of a TTA of 14 The recomputation was performed using the weighted averages for models for which there was 46.4 degrees. On page 33261 of the 1994 notice, the same procedures used for the 1994 estimates and insufficient data to determine the actual rollover agency explained that, if the agency were to adopt explained in detail in the document ‘‘Potential rate. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28555

Est % MY 1991 1986±88 5 1986±90 of Est Projected AIS3 + Fatality Compact SUV make Drive produc- TTR state SVA/ Michigan com- AIS3 + Est fa- RO/SVA @ reduction reduction model pact talities min TTR @ min @ min tion RV RO/SVA SUV injuries 1.05 TTR 1.05 TTR 1.05 ROs

Weighted Averge ...... 0.01049 0.335 ......

Total 17 ...... 783,783 ...... 100 669 480 ...... 85.0 61.0 Total 18 ...... 22.0 32 15 An ``*'' in this column indicates that the agency lacked sufficient data for the 2WD version of the model. For these models, the agency as- sumed that the 2WD version had the same TTR and the same rollover rate as the 4WD version. 16 An ``**'' in this column and in the next one indicates that 1988±91 Michigan accident data were used instead of the data indicated by the col- umn heading. 17 The serious injury and fatality reduction figures in this row are the benefits that might result if the standard prevented not only a rollover, but also an accident of any type. 18 The serious injury and fatality reduction figures in this row are the benefits that might result if the standard prevented a rollover, but still al- lowed an injury-causing accident of some type to occur after the vehicle left the road. The injury and fatality figures in this row were derived by multiplying the figures in the row immediately above by a mitigation factor of 26 percent for injuries and 52 percent for fatalities. For further de- tails on these factors, see section 3 of the Appendix to this notice.

There are two optimistic assumptions improving TTR would only slightly consumer choice and unmet preferences incorporated in the computation process mitigate the more severe rollovers. and in terms of increases in for both the original and new Thus, by assuming that rollovers manufacturer and consumer costs.20 As estimates: 19 prevented by an improvement in TTR noted above, the only way to achieve • The number of rollover injuries and would be average rollovers instead of significant increases in TTR is to fatalities prevented will be proportional the least severe rollovers, the agency is increase the track width and/or lower to the number of rollovers prevented; overstating the benefits obtainable from the center of gravity. Increasing track and such an improvement. Had the agency width or lowering the center of gravity, • The fatality and injury rates of the based its benefit estimates on the fatality using conventional, commonly used late 1980’s will be representative of rate of rollovers involving a single designs and production methods, would future rates. quarter turn, the estimated number of necessarily, and significantly, increase The effect of these optimistic prevented fatalities would have been vehicle size and weight. For NHTSA, in assumptions is that these new estimates, about 11 instead of 32. effect, to require compact SUVs to like the 1994 estimates based on the The second assumption, that the approach the size and weight of full-size same assumptions, may in fact overstate fatality and injury rate in rollovers will SUVs would run counter to consumer the actual benefits, i.e., the number of remain constant, is likely to overstate preferences that have led to the existing fatalities and injuries likely to be the benefits of a vehicle stability fleet of compact SUVs. The strength of prevented by improving the TTR of standard since, if recent trends those preferences is demonstrated by compact SUVs to 1.05. continue, future increases in safety belt the fact that compact SUVs outsold full- The first assumption assumes that the use, as a result of Federal, state, and size SUVs by a margin of six to one in rollover accidents that would be local efforts, can reasonably be expected 1994, the latest year for which the prevented as a result of requiring an to reduce the overall harm from rollover agency has sales data.21 The Ford increase in TTR would have the same accidents. As belt use increases, rollover Explorer, the compact SUV model with fatality and injury rates as rollover casualties decrease, even if the number the lowest TTR and therefore the accidents in general. There is reason to of rollover crashes remains constant. compact SUV which would be most believe that this would not be the case. Consequently, even with liberal affected by any minimum standard, is The likelihood of fatalities and serious assumptions and using the most current the best-selling SUV and is the ninth injuries in rollover accidents is heavily and complete database available, most popular make/model of all car and skewed toward crashes involving more NHTSA estimates that a rollover truck models combined. than one quarter turn. Data show that stability standard requiring compact Upsizing compact SUVs so as to light truck rollover crashes involving SUVs to achieve the same TTR (1.05) as eliminate much of the size and weight only a single quarter turn have about the typical full-size SUV would prevent difference between those vehicles and one-third the fatality rate of the average 22 serious injuries and 32 fatalities full-size SUVs also might have a rollover. This difference in likelihood of annually. While precise quantification significant adverse affect on the harm is significant if moderately is impossible, the agency believes, for 20 As explained in the Appendix, NHTSA made improving TTR would not be equally the reasons stated above, that the actual two cost estimates. The first was based on the likely to prevent a multiple quarter-turn level of safety benefits would be assumption that compact SUVs needing a TTR rollover as a single quarter-turn rollover. significantly lower. increase of more than 0.06 would require a full NHTSA believes that it is more likely vehicle redesign. The second was based on the D. Costs of Improvements in Vehicle assumption that only compact SUVs needing a TTR that the prevented rollovers would tend Stability Metrics increase of more than 0.04 would require such a to be the lowest energy rollovers, i.e., redesign. the single quarter-turn rollovers. At best, The substantial vehicle redesigns 21 Model year 1994 sales data from Automotive necessary to enable many existing News 1995 Market Data Book, Crain 19 The agency made these assumptions because compact SUVs to achieve a TTR of 1.05 Communications, Detroit, Michigan, May 24, 1995. limitations in available data made it impossible to and produce the estimated reductions in All light trucks—6,097,787 vehicles. use more precise values. When making these Compact SUVs—21.9% of light trucks, or assumptions, the agency took an optimistic fatalities and injuries discussed above 1,335,415 vehicles. approach so as to present the prospects of a vehicle would have substantial negative Full-size SUVs—3.6% of light trucks, or 219,520 stability standard in the best possible light. impacts, both in terms of reduced vehicles. 28556 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules production and sales of SUVs. The body their compliance efforts coincide with was lower than the average TTR of vehicles of the average full-size SUV is currently their normal model changeover for which it had RO/SVA data, and therefore about 10 inches wider than that of the timetable. However, providing claimed that use of weighted averages was average compact SUV, and the track additional leadtime would do nothing to inappropriate. The petitioners’ criticism concerning the use of weighted averages as width is about 9 inches greater. The 6- reduce the adverse impacts on substitutes for missing data was focused inch increase in track width necessary consumer preferences. Further, an particularly on the use of those averages for to bring the TTR of compact SUVs up extended lead time would not affect the the large number of vehicles in the to that of full-size SUVs (assuming no costs of additional labor or materials. hypothetical future fleet that were increase in c.g. height) would remove represented by the Ford Explorer. The agency much of those differences between VI. Conclusion had no RO/SVA or single vehicle accident compact SUVs and full-size SUVs. The discussion above and in the involvement rate (SVA/RV) data for the Ford Given the admonition in the legislative Appendix demonstrates that even a Explorer and certain other vehicles at the history of the National Traffic and standard applicable only to compact time of the notice because they were either SUVs, the vehicle type that the recently introduced or comparatively low Motor Vehicle Safety Act against production volume models. The petitioners eliminating vehicle types (see the petitioners characterize as one of the argued that a higher rollover rate should have discussion in section D of the Appendix two ‘‘most rollover-prone vehicle been used for vehicles like the Explorer to this notice), such a dramatic potential types,’’ 23 would generate substantial which have a lower TTA than the vehicles impact on the design of compact SUVs adverse impacts on manufacturers and from which the weighted average was and on the market for those vehicles consumers, both in terms of monetary derived. must be carefully weighed. costs and in loss of consumer choice, It is not appropriate to assume that a higher In addition to impacts on consumer that would outweigh the benefits of than average rollover rate is appropriate for choice and sales, there are substantial such a standard. There is no reason to the Explorer or the other vehicles simply monetary costs associated with based on their having a lower than average believe that a standard that would TTA. The data demonstrate that the order of redesigning those compact SUVs that mandate significant increases in TTR/ vehicle models ranked according to TTA is would need significant increases in TTR TTA or CSV for any other vehicle type not the same as the order of models ranked to meet a standard of 1.05.22 The agency or group of vehicle types would be any according to rollover rate. See Table 1 in the estimated those costs using confidential more cost beneficial. accompanying notice of denial of petitions cost data submitted by domestic Accordingly, NHTSA reaffirms its for reconsideration. Thus, although two automobile manufacturers during the decision to terminate this rulemaking different vehicle models may have the same course of several agency rulemaking without proposing a rollover stability TTA, they may not necessarily have the same proceedings to establish light truck performance standard. rollover rate. Likewise, a vehicle model with a TTA lower than that of another model may Corporate Average Fuel Economy Issued on May 31, 1996. (CAFE) standards. The estimated nevertheless have a lower rollover rate, and Barry Felrice, vice versa. consumer cost of bringing all such new Accordingly, the agency has not assumed compact SUVs into compliance with Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards. a higher rollover rate for those models for such a standard is between $310 million which sufficient rollover data are lacking. and $335 million, depending on which Appendix However, the agency has responded to the of two assumptions is made about the The Advocates/IIHS petition contained petitioners’ concern about the use of vehicles that would require a full many detailed technical arguments. weighted averages in connection with the vehicle redesign. A detailed discussion Responses to the more significant ones are 1994 notice by replacing those averages, of the method used to estimate these provided in this appendix. where possible, with rates based on actual rollover accident data that became available costs is included in the Appendix to A. The Benefits Estimate this notice. after that notice was prepared. 1. Replacing Weighted Averages With Actual The agency believes that the foregoing Where sufficient, the 1988—1991 Michigan Rollover Data Now Available Makes No accident data were used to calculate the estimate of the costs of a rollover Appreciable Change in the Estimate rollover rate figures for models for which standard requiring compact SUVs to data were previously missing. Following the achieve a minimum TTR of 1.05 is The petitioners criticized the benefit estimates made by the agency in connection practice of previous analyses, the agency understated. Those estimates do not with the 1994 notice because, for those used the accident data to calculate rollover include the incremental costs of vehicle models for which the agency lacked rates only for makes and models which had material and labor involved in the sufficient rollover accident data, it used the at least 25 single vehicle accidents. Actual manufacture of a larger vehicle. In average of the rollover per single vehicle rollover rates (RO/SVA) from Michigan were addition, the estimates do not include accident rate (RO/SVA) of the class of added for the 4WD Ford Explorer, Nissan any costs for vehicles that would only vehicles to which that make and model Pathfinder, and Isuzu Trooper, and actual need minor changes, instead of a full belonged, weighted by the 1991 production single vehicle accident rates (SVA/RV) were of each make and model for which the added for the 4WD Ford Explorer, the 4WD vehicle redesign, to comply with the S10 Blazer, the Nissan Pathfinder, and the standard. NHTSA has not attempted to agency had RO/SVA. The benefits were calculated using the TTRs of 1991 makes and 4WD GMC S15 Jimmy. The 4WD Explorer calculate those costs because the models and the accident records of 1991 data were used for the nearly identical, but benefits of the standard are already makes and models (and identical vehicles low production volume, Mazda Navajo. outweighed by the initial cost estimate. from prior model years) to represent a There were still some models for which the The agency recognizes that providing hypothetical future fleet.1 agency lacked sufficient actual make and a lengthy leadtime period would reduce The petitioners pointed out that the model accident data. For most of these the costs of compliance to the extent average TTR for vehicles for which the models, while the agency lacked sufficient that manufacturers were able to make agency did not have adequate RO/SVA data data for the 2WD versions of those models, it had sufficient data for the more numerous 4WD versions. In these instances, the agency 22 23 Advocates/IIHS petition, page 12. As demonstrated by Table 1, the vast majority assumed that the rates for the 2WD versions of the measurable benefits from such a standard 1 A detailed discussion of the method can be would come from improvements to these fully found in ‘‘Potential Reductions in Fatalities and were identical to the rates for the 4WD redesigned vehicles, instead of those vehicles that Injuries in Single Vehicle Rollover Crashes as a versions of the same make and model, would need only lesser changes to comply with the Result of a Minimum Rollover Stability Standard’’ instead of calculating rates based on standard. in Docket 91–68, Notice 3. weighted averages. New weighted averages Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28557 were computed on the basis of the expanded argument for the use of different factors, they compact SUVs, the 75 percent mitigation data and were used only where sufficient noted that rollover accidents account for 80 factor suggested by the petitioners would specific data remained unavailable for a percent of the fatalities of the occupants of result in a fatality reduction of 46 rather than particular model. The instances in which the compact SUVs in single vehicle accidents. the 32 calculated by the agency. This agency computed new weighted averages Based on this, the petitioners concluded that difference is 0.15 percent of the 9,000 annual were limited. Weighted averages of RO/SVA rollovers in compact SUVs are four times as rollover fatalities. Using the estimates and SVA/RV were used for less than 10 deadly as non-rollover accidents, and prepared for the 1994 notice, for the entire percent and 19 percent, respectively, of the therefore the agency should have used a light duty vehicle fleet, the use of different example population of compact SUVs. See mitigation factor of 75 percent for compact mitigation factors resulted in predicting 71, Table 1. SUVs. instead of the agency’s 63, lives saved from Using actual rollover data wherever The agency rejects the petitioners’ requiring a TTR of 1.05. This is a difference available, the agency recomputed the benefit argument. A mitigation factor based on ratios of 0.089 percent. estimates for compact SUVs. Substitution of of absolute numbers of fatalities, instead of the new rollover rates produced very little on fatality rates, is incorrect unless the same B. The Cost Estimate change in the estimate of the numbers of number of occupants were exposed to The petitioners criticized the agency for fatalities and serious injuries that might be rollover accidents and non-rollover failing to provide any costs for the vehicle prevented if a rollover stability standard were accidents. If the exposure is not the same, changes that would be necessary to meet a adopted for compact SUVs. Replacing the then it is impossible to determine the extent minimum rollover stability standard. The weighted averages used in the 1994 notice to which the ratio reflects the difference in agency concluded in the 1994 notice that a with rates based on accident data for accident exposure versus a difference in large number of vehicles would require particular makes and models changed the accident severity. Further, the issue of a fundamental full redesigns to meet a result of the analysis very little, i.e., by less difference in accident severity is not just a than four percent. This may be seen by matter of the difference in severity of a minimum stability standard. Because the comparing the estimates of the benefits that rollover accident and a non-rollover accident agency was aware of the magnitude of costs would be obtained if preventing a rollover at the same speed. It is also a matter of involved in vehicle redesigns, it was meant preventing an accident altogether. possible differences in speed. For example, it apparent that the costs and other impacts Those benefits were estimated to be 83 is necessary to determine whether the would substantially exceed the benefits. serious injuries and 59 fatalities in the 1994 consequences of 60 mph rollovers are being NHTSA did not, however, provide a notice. They have been recomputed to be 85 compared to those of 30 mph non-rollover quantification of those costs and other serious injuries and 61 fatalities, based on the accidents. Finally, it is also necessary to impacts. new accident data and less reliance on examine whether apparent differences To demonstrate the validity of its weighted averages. See Table 1. between vehicle groups are a result of conclusion about the costs and other impacts, 2. Accident Mitigation, Not Accident differences in crashworthiness, or just a the agency has conducted a rough cost 2 Prevention, Is the Proper Measure of Benefits consequence of smaller sample sizes. analysis for this notice as set forth below. To The agency’s use of a single mitigation estimate the compliance costs for those Since an accident would still occur in the factor for fatalities takes these considerations vehicles which would have to be fully vast majority of instances in which a rollover into account. NHTSA considered the number redesigned to make the substantial changes is prevented, the agency reduced those of occupants exposed to rollover and non- necessary to comply with a minimum figures accordingly using an accident rollover single vehicle accidents as well as stability standard, the agency used mitigation factor. The resulting new benefit the number of fatalities for each accident confidential cost data submitted by domestic estimate is 22 serious injuries and 32 type. It also considered the speed limit of the automobile manufacturers during the course fatalities. of several agency rulemaking proceedings for The petitioners criticized the agency for road as a rough indication of the severity of light truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy making the same adjustment to the benefits the accident. (CAFE) standards. These data are in the 1994 notice. Then, as now, NHTSA As a first step in determining the manufacturer estimates of the costs of full assumed that the benefits would come from mitigation factor, NHTSA compared the accident mitigation instead of accident overall fatality rate of rollover accidents to redesigns of compact SUVs that would have prevention. It was appropriate for the agency the overall fatality rate of non-rollover been necessary if the CAFE standards had to assume that the benefits would be in terms accidents, based on single vehicle accidents been set at certain levels. These submissions of accident mitigation since over 90 percent of all cars and light trucks without include estimates of investment costs for a of all single vehicle rollovers are off-road, consideration of accident severity. The redesigned vehicle model, but do not include tripped rollovers, i.e., rollovers that occur fatality rate of rollover accidents was slightly material and labor costs for the manufacture when a vehicle leaves the roadway sideways, more than twice that of non-rollovers, of the vehicle. NHTSA believes a full vehicle encounters a tripping mechanism, and rolls. suggesting a 52 percent mitigation factor. redesign for rollover stability purposes would Since a vehicle is running off the road in a Next, the agency computed a series of necessitate similar investment costs. tripped rollover situation, such a vehicle will relative fatality rates (with and without Accordingly, it is appropriate to use the still likely crash into some off-road object rollover), comparing only accidents occurring investment cost figures from the CAFE even if the vehicle is prevented from rolling on roads with the same range of posted speed program to estimate the investment costs for over after it leaves the road. If a rollover can limits (25 mph or less; 30–35 mph; 40–50 vehicles which would require a full redesign be prevented in that situation, then the mph; 55–65 mph). While the accident data to comply with a rollover stability standard. resulting accident will most likely be one of do not indicate the actual accident speed, The CAFE submissions include investment lower severity than if a rollover had occurred grouping by speed limit acts as a rough cost data for five models of compact SUVs. because rollovers tend to be more severe than control on accident severity, because it Since the specific raw data are confidential, non-rollover accidents. The primary benefits restricts accident groups to the same kinds of they cannot be set forth here or otherwise from a rollover stability standard would roads, even though the actual range of crash publicly released. To convert those data into result from preventing the more severe form speeds may significantly exceed the range of a form in which the original data can not be of off-road accident. posted speed limits for a particular group of determined, the agency divided the per accidents. The relative fatality rate for each model data by the applicable manufacturer’s 3. A Single Accident Mitigation Factor, Not road speed limit group were added and then estimated average annual production Separate Factors for Individual Vehicle averaged. The result was the same 52 percent capacity and then divided by the number of Types, Is the Proper Basis for Measuring mitigation factor for fatalities. Using the same Benefits process led to a mitigation factor of 26 2 The petitioners also criticized the agency percent for serious injuries. As explained below, the agency did not calculate all costs of a standard because it for using a single accident mitigation factor In addition, even if the agency were to use determined that one category of those costs, the (52 percent) for fatalities across the board different mitigation factors for different investment costs for vehicles requiring major instead of computing separate factors for vehicle types, their use would not result in changes, would by itself exceed the benefits of a different types of vehicles. In support of their dramatic changes in benefit estimates. For standard. 28558 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules years of the vehicle’s design cycle life.3 The the logistic regression models, the agency did applicable to the C-statistic as used by the per-vehicle cost estimates for these five use a mathematically equivalent measure, the agency. In an attempt to support their vehicle design cycle lives were then averaged likelihood statistic (-2*ln(likelihood)). Using assertions, the petitioners pointed to an to arrive at the estimate used in this analysis. that measure permitted the agency to example of how the C-statistic can The individual per-vehicle cost estimates compare the effect of adding variables ‘‘misbehave’’ presented on page 146 of range from $317.37 to $532.37 and the (specifically the vehicle stability metrics) to Hosmer and Lemeshow.5 The agency’s use of average is $416.77. Since these costs are costs the hypothesized models. Detailed the C-statistic is not the same as that in to the manufacturer, they were adjusted to discussions of the agency’s analyses are Hosmer and Lemeshow’s example. That represent costs to the consumer by dividing found in the Technical Assessment Paper example simply uses a classification table them by 0.75, a standard factor used by the (TAP) (Docket 91–68–N01–03) and the with an arbitrary cut point to determine, e.g., agency in its vehicle rulemaking in Addendum to the Technical Assessment whether an actual rollover was predicted to estimating consumer costs from Paper (Docket 91–68–N03–02) which were be a rollover. The C-statistic employed by manufacturer’s wholesale costs. The resulting placed in NHTSA’s docket. The TAP and the NHTSA measured the concordance between estimated average consumer cost per vehicle Addendum present analyses using five all possible pairs of observations, taking one resulting from the redesign of a compact SUV measures: the C-statistic, R2, the percentage from the actual rollover population and one is $555.69. change in R2, the likelihood statistic, and the from the actual non-rollover population. The The agency then determined the number of variables’ chi-square. It is true that the C-statistic represents the percentage of those vehicles that would need vehicle redesigns to deviance statistic was not reported because pairs (which number literally in the millions) comply with a vehicle rollover stability the computer software the agency used to for which the actual rollover had a higher standard requiring a minimum TTR of 1.05. conduct this analysis, SAS Institute’s PROC predicted probability than the actual non- Based on available data, the agency believes LOGIST, does not include the deviance rollover’s predicted probability (of rolling at least some models would have to be fully statistic as one of the model diagnostics. over), minus one-half the number of ties. redesigned to achieve TTR increases of more However, the agency does not believe that There is no arbitrary cutoff point. In addition, than 0.04, and that almost all models would this affects the general conclusions regarding the agency’s decision was not based on a have to be fully redesigned to achieve at TTR the importance of the vehicle stability single statistical measure. The agency increase of 0.06. The agency determined next metrics. analyzed the data with a number of statistical that 558,756 vehicles would need to be fully NHTSA believes that it may help to measures, all of which pointed to the same redesigned if the threshold for having to explain this issue in non-statistical terms. conclusions. Accordingly, the agency make a full redesign were 0.06 and 603,637 The petitioners’ argument amounts to a remains confident in its results. vehicles would need to be fully redesigned complaint that the agency described various Finally, the petitioners’ objection to the if the threshold were 0.04. Multiplying these glasses of water in terms of how much water agency’s reliance on Michigan data for numbers of vehicles by the $555.69 per is in the glass, instead of in terms of how performing the statistical regressions instead vehicle investment cost estimate, the agency much water could be added to the glass. In of using the data from the other four states estimated that the total investment costs of a either case, the capacity of the glass is the was based on their concern that the agency standard requiring a TTR of 1.05 would be same. If the capacity is known, and if either did not examine the extent to which the state $310,495,121 to $335,435,044. the amount of water or the amount of unused is anomalous because of its generally flat The agency believes that this range of capacity is known, the other amount can be topography. The petitioners stated that this estimated costs of a rollover standard derived. could lead to a lower proportion of rollovers requiring compact SUVs to achieve a Similarly, the deviance statistic preferred per single vehicle accident than the other minimum TTR of 1.05 is understated. As by the petitioners describes how much of the 4 states in the data base. The agency relied on noted earlier, these cost estimates do not variability in the regression model is left to Michigan data because they included a large include estimates of the incremental costs of be explained. The likelihood statistic, which number of available observations, and were the agency used, describes how much of the material and labor involved in the based on a low reporting threshold and more variability in the model is explained. In manufacture of the vehicle. Since vehicles refined accident reporting variables. The either case, the total variability to be would need significant increases in track agency did examine whether the rollover rate explained is the same. If, as the agency’s width, and attendant increases in wheelbase, in this state was anomalous, and as stated on analysis showed, the addition of TTR to the they would be generally larger and heavier. page 13 of the Addendum, discovered that model decreased the value of the likelihood As a result, the agency concludes that there ‘‘(t)he rollover rate in Michigan is near the statistic, the deviance statistic would have would be significant increases in the costs of midpoint of the range for all five states increased by the same amount. Using either material and labor involved in the studied.’’ The examination of the relative measure would lead to the same conclusion manufacture of such vehicles. In addition, rollover rates of the five different states was about the value of TTR. these cost estimates do not include any costs fully explained in the TAP on pages 59–65. for vehicles which could comply with the The petitioners also assert that the use of standard by changes that are less than a full R2 was inappropriate because it is not D. Legal Arguments weighted, i.e., it does not reflect the number vehicle redesign. The petitioners also addressed the of single vehicle accidents for each vehicle implications of the Intermodal Surface C. Objections to the Statistical Tools Used by make and model. The petitioners also state Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 the Agency in Reaching Its Decision that R2 is sensitive to extreme values. The (ISTEA) (P.L. 102–240), the National Traffic agency’s use of R2 was described fully on The petitioners asserted that the agency and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the page 5–66 of the TAP. The agency agrees, as did not use the ‘‘typical’’ statistical measure, Safety Act) (P.L. 89–563),6 and the Regulatory explained in the TAP, that there are the deviance statistic, to judge the adequacy Flexibility Act (P.L. 96–354) for rulemaking limitations to the use of R2. As also explained of the logistic regression models used by the concerning a vehicle stability standard. The in the TAP, R2 was used as an approach to agency in its analyses of the relationship of petitioners also argue that the decision not to TTA to RO/SVA, and the importance of the providing the types of descriptive statistics of model fit with which more people are issue a rollover standard is judicially vehicle stability metrics. The petitioners also reviewable.7 objected to the agency’s use of two statistical familiar, and not to provide a mathematically measures, R2 and the C-statistic. Finally, the rigorous assessment of model fit. The 5 petitioners questioned the agency’s reliance agency’s use of R2 was an attempt to make D.W. Hosmer and S. Lemeshow, Applied Logistic Regression, Wiley Interscience, New York, on data from the State of Michigan. the explanation of the analysis understandable to a wider audience, and was 1989. Although the agency did not use the 6 not the sole basis of the agency’s decision. After the publication of the termination notice, deviance statistic to judge the adequacy of the Safety Act was codified in volume 49 of the The petitioners’ assertions of problems United States Code. Any cites to provisions of the 3 Since the submissions were made in 1986, with the use of the C-statistic are not Safety Act have been updated to reflect the 1989, 1993, and 1994, submissions for years prior codification. to 1994 were adjusted to 1994 dollars using the 4 Variability is the difference between what the 7 The agency agrees with the petitioners that this implicit gross domestic product deflator as statistical model predicts and actual accident termination is ‘‘final agency action’’ for the calculated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. records. purposes of judicial review. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28559

The petitioners begin by citing the express any expectation about the stability standard. The agency is not provision in ISTEA that required NHTSA to substantive outcome of agency rulemaking on foreclosing any possibility of further initiate rulemaking concerning a rollover rollover, but does express an expectation that rulemaking. As stated above, NHTSA might standard. The petitioners acknowledge that NHTSA will complete the remaining ISTEA reinitiate rulemaking in this area if Congress did not mandate the issuance of a rulemakings expeditiously. Finally, even if information becomes available demonstrating final rule in this area. the Senate committee had specifically the cost effectiveness of a minimum stability Although the petitioners make this expressed an expectation concerning the standard. concession, it bears emphasizing how clearly outcome of the rollover rulemaking, that However, the Safety Act does place limits ISTEA and its legislative history demonstrate expectation would not impose a binding on the agency’s rulemaking authority. The that in each instance in which Congress obligation on NHTSA unless Congress agency lacks authority to eliminate entire mandated that the agency initiate vehicle coupled that expectation with a mandate to classes of vehicles. This interpretation safety rulemaking, it clearly specified issue a final rule on rollover and enacted that reflects the language of 49 U.S.C. 30111(b)(3) whether the agency had the discretion to mandate into law. See Center for Auto Safety and its legislative history. 49 U.S.C. decide not to issue a final rule. In sections v. Peck, 751 F.2d 1336, at 1351 (D.C. Cir. 30111(b)(3) states: 2502–3 of ISTEA, Congress specified that the 1985). Congress did not do so. Instead, it When prescribing a motor vehicle safety agency was to initiate rulemaking regarding expressly decided not to mandate the standard under this chapter, the Secretary five different areas of vehicle safety issuance of a final rule on that subject. shall * * * consider whether a proposed performance. With respect to one area, upper The petitioners argued that neither the standard is reasonable, practicable, and interior head impact protection, Congress Safety Act nor the Regulatory Flexibility Act appropriate for the particular type of motor specified that rulemaking would be provide any legal grounds for terminating vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment considered completed only when a final rule rulemaking on a vehicle stability standard. for which it is prescribed. was issued. However, with respect to the The petitioners quoted statements in the The Senate Report accompanying the 1966 other four areas, including rollover, Congress 1994 notice that 49 U.S.C. § 30111(b)(3) Safety Act explained this provision as did not mandate the issuance of a final rule. would preclude NHTSA from mandating any follows: It expressly provided that rulemaking on stability requirement that is ‘‘incompatible In determining whether any proposed rollover and the other three areas would be with certain types of vehicles,’’ and that a standard is ‘‘appropriate’’ for the particular considered completed either when the stability requirement ‘‘could raise concerns’’ type of motor vehicle or item of motor agency issued a final rule or when the agency under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. (59 FR vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed, decided, after considering public comments, 33254, 33263) They interpreted these the committee intends that the [NHTSA] will not to issue a final rule. The Conference statements as implying that the agency consider the desirability of affording Report on ISTEA emphasized the discretion believed it was prohibited from issuing any consumers continued wide range of choices which it had reserved to the agency. The standard that might require ‘‘the radical in the selection of motor vehicles. Thus it is conferees said, with reference to the redesign of the characteristics [of] many, and not intended that standards will be set which mandated rulemaking on rollover, ‘‘the in some cases all, vehicles of certain classes will eliminate or necessarily be the same for conferees do not predetermine the outcome ** * and possibly even the elimination of small cars or such widely accepted models as of [this rulemaking]. The [NHTSA] is free to certain classes of vehicles as they are known convertibles and sports cars, so long as all conclude the rulemaking in any manner today.’’ The petitioners countered with motor vehicles meet basic minimum consistent with the APA and the 1966 Act’’ alternative propositions, arguing that NHTSA standards. (H. Conf. Rep. 404, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., at has authority to eliminate whole classes of (S. Rep. 1301, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., at 6 397 (1991)). Thus, Congress made no vehicles, and that, even if NHTSA does not (1966)) judgment in ISTEA about the ultimate merits have such authority, it failed to consider a of issuing a final rule on rollover. Instead, Given this legislative history, NHTSA less demanding regulatory approach such as cannot mandate a stability requirement so Congress provided NHTSA with the latitude setting different standards for separate to decide that a rollover standard should not incompatible with the most fundamental vehicle types which would not require all characteristics which define a class of be issued if, in the agency’s judgment, the vehicles in a class to be altered. The vehicles that implementing the requirement facts did not warrant such issuance. The petitioners argued also that NHTSA cannot would cause the elimination of that class. As agency’s conclusion that such a regulation rely on the Regulatory Flexibility Act when an example, the agency noted in the 1994 would not have sufficient benefits to justify the agency did not prepare any analysis of notice that sport utility vehicles have features its cost is an ample and proper basis for a the impacts of a standard on small entities. (high ground clearance and narrow track decision not to issue a final rule. The primary bases for the agency’s width) to facilitate off-road use and use on Although the petitioners concede that decision to terminate rulemaking on a snowy roads. The agency would not have the Congress did not require the agency to issue vehicle stability standard are the limited authority to set a performance level so a final rule on rollover, they assert that safety benefits, and the excessive costs and stringent that no vehicles could have these Congress ‘‘expected the agency to set some market disruption of such a standard, 8 features. This is neither a radical, nor a new form of stability-enhancing regulation.’’ As regardless of whether that standard applies to interpretation of the agency’s authority. authority for that assertion, they cite the all light duty vehicles or to particular class NHTSA is not suggesting, as the petitioners legislative history of the Department of such as compact SUVs. The 1994 notice suggest, that the agency lacks any authority Transportation and Related Agencies discussed the high costs of a standard that to issue a standard that requires significant Appropriations Act of 1995. (P.L. 104–59) specifies a single performance level which change to all vehicles in a class. In fact, there The Senate committee report on that Act was applicable to all light duty vehicles and are many examples of the agency using its contended that NHTSA had ‘‘effectively was high enough to require the full redesign authority to require changes to all vehicles in abandoned efforts at developing a of at least some passenger cars. As explained a particular class. Those changes did not, performance standard for improved rollover previously, the agency concluded that such however, eliminate as a practical matter any protection.’’ a standard would have costs and other recognized classes of vehicles. The 1995 Appropriation Act legislative impacts which outweighed its benefits. Petitioners incorrectly suggested that the history is inapposite here and lacks any NHTSA similarly concludes that the costs agency had a duty under the Regulatory possible binding effect. Since that history and other impacts of a standard applicable to Flexibility Act to prepare a regulatory pertains to a different statute, it carries no compact SUVs would far outweigh its flexibility analysis in connection with either weight in the interpretation of NHTSA’s benefits. Logically, if a standard for the most the 1994 notice or the ANPRM which duties under ISTEA. NHTSA notes further rollover-prone light duty vehicles would fail preceded it. NHTSA did not ‘‘fail’’ to prepare that the language cited by the petitioners is this basis test, it follows that a standard for any required report. That Act mandates the part of a discussion expressing concern about other groups of light duty vehicles would not preparation of analyses in connection with the agency’s delay in publishing some of the be justified. notices of proposed rulemaking and final ISTEA rulemakings. The discussion does not It should be noted that neither 49 U.S.C. rules only. 30111(b)(3) nor the Regulatory Flexibility Act NHTSA believes that the Regulatory 8 Advocates/IIHS petition, page 41. impose an absolute legal bar to a minimum Flexibility Act was a relevant concern in 28560 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules considering the possibility of proposing a One of the specific initiatives singled out FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For stability standard applicable to all light duty for criticism by petitioners was the upgrade labeling issues: Stephen R. Kratzke, vehicles because multistage manufacturers, of Standard 201 to reduce head impact Office of Safety Performance Standards, especially van converters, which are often injuries. The petitioners objected to its NPS–31, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, small business entities, could be affected by inclusion in NHTSA’s comprehensive such a standard. NHTSA is not suggesting rollover plan because the proposed SW., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. that that Act would prevent the issuance of compliance impact speeds ‘‘are often less Kratzke can be reached by telephone at such a standard or that the concerns about than those [speeds] responsible for the very (202) 366–5203 or by fax at (202) 366– impacts on small manufacturers were high rate of severe head trauma that is 4329. insurmountable regardless of what approach suffered by occupants in rollover crashes.’’ For general rollover issues: Gayle is taken by the agency in setting the standard. The final rule upgrading Standard No. 201 Dalrymple, Office of Safety Performance In fact, a standard limited to compact SUVs was published on August 16, 1995. (60 FR Standards, NPS–20, NHTSA, 400 would essentially eliminate those impacts 43031) Even if the petitioners were correct, because few, if any, of those vehicles are Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC the essential fact remains that the final rule 20590. Ms. Dalrymple can be reached by produced by multistage or other small will make substantial reductions in rollover manufacturers. fatalities and injuries. The agency estimated telephone at (202) 366–5559 or by fax at (202) 366–4329. F. NHTSA’s Alleged Lack of a that 244–334 fatalities and 189–273 serious Comprehensive Rollover Program injuries would be averted in rollovers as a For legal issues: Stephen P. Wood, result of that rule. Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, The petitioners characterized NHTSA’s NCC–20, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, identification of seven separate measures as Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, part of a comprehensive agency plan to 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at SW., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Wood address rollovers as simply ‘‘a chronicle of 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. can be reached by telephone at (202) ongoing or prospective crash reduction [FR Doc. 96–14145 Filed 5–31–96; 4:38 pm] 366–2992 or by fax at (202) 366–3820. programs that are not aimed uniquely at BILLING CODE 4910±59±P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA mitigating rollover losses.’’ The petition went currently requires that sport utility on to complain that some of the measures ‘‘may never come to fruition,’’ and that others vehicles with a wheelbase of 110 inches have not been specifically tailored by the National Highway Traffic Safety or less have a prominent label advising agency to address the rollover problem. The Administration drivers that these vehicles are less stable petitioners concluded by stating their belief than passenger cars and more likely to that NHTSA’s comprehensive program for 49 CFR Part 571 roll over during abrupt maneuvers. 49 rollover is really an attempt to try to CFR 575.105. On June 28, 1994 (59 FR persuade the public that the agency is taking [Docket No. 91±68; Notice 06] 33254), NHTSA published a notice action on rollover safety, notwithstanding the proposing to supplement the existing termination of the vehicle stability RIN 2127±AC54 rulemaking. requirement for a rollover label with The agency believes that the question of Consumer Information Regulations; another label. This proposed additional whether the activities comprising its Vehicle Rollover Stability Label rollover stability label would be comprehensive rollover program uniquely required on all passenger cars, trucks, address rollover safety is irrelevant if those AGENCY: National Highway Traffic and multipurpose passenger vehicles activities effectively address that issue. If Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of NHTSA can take actions, such as issuing a ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 10,000 pounds or less. The comment standard, that significantly reduces the reopening of comment period. period for this proposal was scheduled deaths and injuries that occur in rollover to close on August 29, 1994. However, crashes, it should make no difference SUMMARY: This notice reopens the whether that reduction is achieved by means NHTSA extended the comment period comment period for a notice of so that it closed October 21, 1994; 59 FR that also reduce deaths and injuries in other proposed rulemaking published June 28, types of crashes. The agency agrees that there 44121, August 26, 1994. NHTSA is a possibility that some of the regulatory 1994, regarding a rollover stability label received 70 comments to its docket for initiatives announced by the agency as part for light vehicles. The comment period the proposed additional labeling of its rollover program involve proposals that for this proposed rulemaking action requirements. may never become final rules. However, this closed on October 21, 1994. Since that During this comment period, Congress possibility exists with any regulatory time, the National Academy of Sciences enacted the Department of initiative. The agency cannot foretell the (NAS) has published a study of nature of the public comments that it will Transportation and Related Agencies consumer needs for automotive safety Appropriations Act, 1995 (P.L. 103–331; receive or prejudge the outcome of its information. NHTSA would like public analyses of comments and other information September 30, 1994). In that Act, obtained during the rulemaking process. comments on the NAS study and how Congress gave NHTSA funds ‘‘for a NHTSA included those initiatives in its that study should be reflected in study to be conducted by the National rollover program because preliminary NHTSA’s rulemaking decisions on Academy of Sciences (NAS) of motor evaluations of those initiatives indicate that requirements for rollover stability vehicle safety consumer information they are promising avenues for addressing labeling. Accordingly, the agency is needs and the most cost effective rollovers. The agency will pursue these reopening the comment period for an methods of communicating this initiatives expeditiously and conscientiously. additional 60 days. For example, since the 1994 notice was information.’’ The Act directed NAS to published, NHTSA has published a final rule DATES: Comments must be received by complete its study by March 31, 1996. to extend the current requirements for side August 5, 1996. The Act also included the following door latches to rear door latches. (60 FR ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to language: ‘‘In order to ensure that the 50124) This rule is an attempt to reduce the Docket No. 91–68; Notice 5 and be results of the study are considered in number of ejections from the rear door of submitted to: Docket Section, Room the rulemaking process, the conferees vehicles, thus reducing injuries and fatalities. 5109, National Highway Traffic Safety agree that NHTSA shall not issue a final Based on data for years 1988–1992, NHTSA estimates that 147 occupants were fatally Administration, 400 Seventh Street, regulation concerning motor vehicle ejected from the rear door of vehicles. Forty SW., Washington, DC 20590. (Docket safety labeling requirements until after two percent of those fatalities occurred in hours are 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday the NAS study is completed.’’ As a rollover accidents. through Friday.) result of this language, NHTSA deferred Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28561 action on its proposed expanded vehicle requirements for rollover stability comments on these subjects, NHTSA is rollover stability labeling until the NAS labeling. The agency would also like up- reopening the comment period for this study was done. to-date comments on the issues raised in rulemaking action for an additional 60 The NAS study was completed and its 1994 proposal. In light of the NAS days. released to the public on March 26, study, NHTSA is also considering In this reopened comment period, it is 1996. It is titled ‘‘Shopping for Safety— improvements to the existing sport not necessary for commenters to Providing Consumer Automotive Safety utility vehicle label to enhance the resubmit views and information that Information,’’ TRB Special Report 248. effectiveness of that label. NHTSA have been expressed in previous Copies of this study are available in welcomes any views and suggestions comments. NHTSA will consider all of NHTSA Docket No. 91–68; Notice 4. commenters may have on this issue. the comments it has already received. NHTSA’s Docket Section can be reached by telephone at (202)366–4949. NHTSA is also interested in comments Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30117; delegations of NHTSA is reviewing its proposal for on whether the agency should extend its authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8. rollover stability labeling in light of this existing label to cover vehicle groups in Issued on May 31, 1996. NAS report. To aid the agency in this addition to sport utility vehicles. It Barry Felrice, effort, NHTSA would like public would also be helpful to learn if Associate Administrator for Safety comments on the NAS study and how important additional information has Performance Standards. that study should be reflected in become available since the original [FR Doc. 96–14144 Filed 5–31–96; 4:38 pm] NHTSA’s rulemaking decisions on comment period closed. To obtain BILLING CODE 4910±59±P 28562

Notices Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 109

Wednesday, June 5, 1996

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER microorganisms that indicate whether Environmental Impact Statements; and contains documents other than rules or foods have been processed using good identifies the dates and locations for proposed rules that are applicable to the manufacturing practices. seven public information meetings on public. Notices of hearings and investigations, Renewal of this Committee is the Draft Environmental Impact committee meetings, agency decisions and necessary and in the public interest Statement. rulings, delegations of authority, filing of because the development of a sound petitions and applications and agency SUMMARY: The Forest Service will statements of organization and functions are public policy in this area can best be examples of documents appearing in this accomplished by a free and open prepare a draft and final environmental section. exchange of information and ideas impact statement on a proposed action among Federal, State, and local to authorize the Appalachian Power agencies, the industry, the scientific Company (name recently changed to DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE community, consumer organizations, American Electric Power) to construct a and other interested parties. The 765,000-volt transmission line across Food Safety and Inspection Service complexity of the issues to be addressed approximately twelve miles of the George Washington and Jefferson [Docket No. 96±026N] assures that more than one meeting will be required to accomplish the National Forests, as well as portions of National Advisory Committee on Committee’s tasks. the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, Microbiological Criteria for Foods; Members will be appointed by the the New River (at Bluestone Lake) and Renewal Secretary of USDA after consultation R.D. Bailey Lake Flowage Easement with the Secretary of HHS. Because of Land (at Buyandotte River). AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection their interest in the matters to be The federal agencies identified a Service, USDA. addressed by this Committee, advice on study area in which alternatives to the ACTION: Notice of Reestablishment of membership appointments will be proposed action were developed. The Committee. requested from the Department of study area includes land located in the This notice announces the renewal of Commerce’s National Marine Fisheries Virginia counties of Botetourt, Roanoke, the National Advisory Committee on Services and the Department of Craig, Montgomery, Pulaski, Bland and Microbiological Criteria for Foods. The Defense’s Veterinary Service Activity. Giles and the West Virginia counties of Committee is being renewed in For additional information, please Monroe, Summers, Mercer and cooperation with the Department of contact: Mr. Craig Fedchock, Advisory Wyoming. Health and Human Services (HHS), and Committee Specialist, U.S. Department The Applachian Power Company was recommended by a 1985 report of of Agriculture, Food Safety and (APCo) proposal involves federal land the National Academy of Sciences Inspection Service, Room 311, 1255 under the administrative jurisdiction of Committee on Food Protection, 22nd Street, NW., Washington, DC the USDA Forest Service (George Subcommittee on Microbiological 20250–3700. Background materials are Washington and Jefferson National Criteria, ‘‘An Evaluation of the Role of available for inspection by contacting Forests), the USDI National Park Service Microbiological Criteria for Foods.’’ Mr. Fedchock on (202)254–2517. (Appalachian National Scenic Trail) and USDA is charged with the Done at Washington, DC, on: May 23, 1996. the US Army Corps of Engineers (New enforcement of the Federal Meat Wardell Townsend, Jr., River and R.D. Bailey Lake Flowage Easement Land). Inspection Act (FMIA), the Poultry Assistant Secretary for Administration. Products Inspection Act (PPIA), and the The Forest Service is the lead agency [FR Doc. 96–14013 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA). and is responsible for the preparation of Under these Acts, USDA is responsible BILLING CODE 3410±DM±P the environmental impact statement. for the wholesomeness and safety of The National Park Service and the US meat, poultry, egg products and Forest Service Army Corps of Engineers are products thereof intended for human cooperating agencies in accordance with consumption. Similarly, the Secretary of Appalachian Power Company 40 CFR 1501.6. HHS is charged with the enforcement of Transmission Line Construction- In initiating and conducting the the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Cloverdale, Virginia, to Oceana, West analysis the federal agencies are Act (FFDCA). Under this Act, HHS is Virginia. George Washington and responding to the requirements of their responsible for ensuring the safety of Jefferson National Forests, respective permitting processes and the human foods and animal feeds. Appalachian National Scenic Trail, the need for the APCo to cross federal lands In order to continue to meet the New River, and R.D. Bailey Lake with the proposed transmission line. responsibilities of the FMIA, PPIA, EPIA Flowage Land. Virginia Counties of The Forest Service additionally will and the FFDCA, the National Advisory Botetourt, Roanoke, Craig, assess how the proposed transmission Committee on Microbiological Criteria Montgomery, Pulaski, Bland, and Giles line conforms to the direction contained for Foods is being renewed. The and the West Virginia Counties of in the Jefferson National Forest’s Land Committee will be tasked with advising Monroe, Summers, Mercer, and and Resource Management Plan and providing recommendations to the Wyoming (LRMP). Changes in the LRMP could be Secretaries on the development of required if the transmission line is microbiological criteria by which the AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. authorized across the George safety and wholesomeness of food can ACTION: Revised Notice—Revises the Washington and Jefferson National be assessed, including criteria for publication date for the Draft Forests. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28563

The total length of the electric whether the Forest Service, the National from soil disturbance and vegetation transmission line proposed by the APCo Park Service, and the U.S. Army Corps removal; (3) reduce the quantity of is approximately 115 miles. of Engineers will authorize APCO to ground and spring water due to the The Notice of Intent for the proposed cross the George Washington and disturbance of aquifers resulting from action was published in the Federal Jefferson National Forests, the blasting, earthmoving or construction Register on November 21, 1991 (56 FR Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and machinery operation; and (4) 58677–58679). The Notice was revised the New River and R.D. Bailey Lake adversely affect the commercial use of on March 13, 1992 (57 FR 8859), April Flowage Easement Land, respectively, ground and surface waters due to 24, 1992 (57 FR 15049), June 16, 1993 with the proposed 765,000-volt herbicide contamination and (58 FR 33248–33250), June 21, 1994 (59 transmission line and, if so, under what sedimentation. FR 31975–31978), June 9, 1995 (60 FR conditions a crossing would be —The construction and maintenance of 30511–30514) and October 3, 1995 (60 authorized. the 765kV transmission line and the FR 51770–51773). In preparing the draft environmental associated access roads and right-of- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: impact statement, a range of routing way may affect existing cultural Frank Bergmann, Forest Service Project alternatives was considered to meet the resources, and historic structures and Coordinator, George Washington and purpose and need for the proposed districts through the direct effects of Jefferson National Forests, 5162 action. A no action alternative was also the construction and maintenance Valleypointe Parkway, Roanoke, analyzed. Under the no action activities and by changing the existing Virginia, 24019/ (540) 265–6005. alternative APCO would not be resource setting. authorized to cross the George —The operation and maintenance of the TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE FEDERAL 765kV transmission line and the AGENCIES: Washington and Jefferson National Write to the George associated access roads and right-of- Washington and Jefferson National Forests, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, the New River or R.D. way may adversely affect human Forests, Attn: Transmission Line health through (1) direct and indirect Analysis, 5162 Valleypointe Parkway, Bailey Lake Flowage Easement Land. The alternatives developed by VPI and exposure to herbicides; and (2) Roanoke, Virginia, 24019. exposure to electromagnetic fields SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: APCo WVU will also be considered. In July of 1994, the Federal agencies and induced voltage. submitted an application to the Jefferson —The construction of the 765kV identified a number of alternatives to National Forest (name changed to transmission line may adversely affect the proposed action in the Virginia George Washington and Jefferson the safety of those operating aircraft at counties of Botetourt, Roanoke, Craig, National Forest in 1995) for low altitudes or from airports located Montgomery, Pulaski, Bland, and Giles authorization to construct a 765,000-volt near the transmission line. electric transmission line across and the West Virginia counties of —The operation of the 765kV approximately twelve miles of the Monroe, Summers, and Mercer. These transmission line may (1) adversely National Forest. Portions of the alternative corridors were modified by affect communications by introducing Appalachian National Scenic Trail, the the Federal agencies in May 1995. A a source of interference; (2) increase New River (at Bluestone Lake), and R.D. public comment period was afforded by noise levels for those in close Bailey Lake Flowage Easement Land (at the Federal agencies on these alternative proximity to the line. Guyandotte River) would also be corridor modifications between May 25 —The construction, operation, and crossed by the proposed transmission and Jun3 30, 1995. maintenance of the 765kV line. The Federal analysis includes an transmission line and the associated Studies conducted by APCo and analysis of the effects of the proposed access roads and right-of-way may (1) submitted to the Virginia State transmission line along the entire adversely affect trails (including the Corporation Commission, as part of its proposed route as well as all alternative Appalachian Trail) and trail facilities application and approval process, routes which were considered in detail. by facilitating vehicle access through indicate a need to reinforce its extra The significant issues identified for new road construction and the high voltage transmission system by the the Federal analysis are listed below: upgrading of existing roads; and (2) mid-to-late 1990s in order to maintain a —The construction and maintenance of reduce hiker safety by facilitating reliable power supply for projected the 765kV transmission line and the vehicle access to remote trail demands within its service territory in associated access roads and right-of- locations. central and western Virginia and way may (1) affect soil productivity —The construction, operation, and southern West Virginia. by increasing soil compaction and maintenance of the 765kV A study to evaluate potential route erosion; (2) affect geologic resources transmission line and the associated locations for the proposed transmission (karst areas, Peters, Lewis, Potts access roads and right-of-way may line was prepared for APCo through a Mountains, Arnolds Knob) and affect hunting, fishing, hiking, contract with Virginia Polytechnic unique geologic features like caves camping, boating, and birding Institute and State University (VPI) and through blasting, earthmoving or opportunities and experiences West Virginia University (WVU). The construction machinery operations; because (1) the setting in which these information gathered by VPI and WVU, and (3) result in unstable structural pursuits take place may be altered; along with other information collected conditions due to the placement of and (2) the noise associated with the during the analysis process, will be the towers. operation of the line may detract from utilized in the preparation of the —The construction and maintenance of the backcountry or recreation environmental impact statement. the 765kV transmission line and the experience. Information about the transmission line associated access roads and right-of- —The construction and operation of the proposal is available from the George way may (1) degrade surface and 765kV transmission line and the Washington and Jefferson National ground water quality due to the associated access roads and right-of- Forests. application of herbicides; (2) degrade way may affect local communities by The decisions to be made following surface and ground water quality (1) reducing the value of private lands the Federal agencies’ analysis are because of sedimentation resulting adjacent to the line; (2) decreasing tax 28564 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

revenues due to the reductions in observation activities at the VPI Other public participation land value; and (3) influencing seismic stations located near Forest opportunities will be provided economic growth, industry siting, and Hill and Potts Mountain. throughout the federal analysis process. employment. —The construction and maintenance of The draft environmental impact —The construction, operation, and the 765kV transmission line and the statement will be filed with the maintenance of the 765kV associated access roads and right-of- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transmission line and the associated way may affect the cultural and available for public review by June access roads and right-of-way may (1) attachment that residents have for the 28, 1996. This revises the April 12, 1996 conflict with management direction valley between Blacksburg and date previously announced. At that contained in resource management Catawba, Craig County, Giles County, time, EPA will publish a notice of plans and designations; (2) affect the Mercer County and portions of availability of the draft environmental uses that presently occur on and Montgomery County. impact statement in the Federal adjacent to the proposed right-of-way; The following permits and/or licenses Register. (3) affect the wild, scenic, and/or would be required to implement the The federal agencies have established recreational qualities of the New proposed action: the following public meeting schedule River; (4) affect sensitive land uses —Certificate of Public Convenience and to explain the analysis documented in like schools, churches, and Necessity (Virginia State Corporation the draft environmental impact community facilities; (5) affect the Commission) statement and to hear comments related cultural attachment residents feel —Certificate of Public Convenience and to the analysis. The public meetings will toward Peters Mountain; (6) affect the Necessity (West Virginia Public begin at 4:00 p.m. and end at 8:00 p.m. scenic and/or recreational qualities of Service Commission) on the date and at the locations the Appalachian National Scenic Trail —Special use Authorization (Forest indicated: (Appalachian Trail); and (7) result in Service) family displacement. July 31, 1996 —The construction, operation, and —Right-of-Way Authorization (National Park Service) McCleary Elementary School, Highway maintenance of the 765kV 615, New Castle, VA transmission line and the associated —Section 10 Permit (U.S. Army Corps access roads and right-of-way may of Engineers) August 2, 1996 —Right-of-Way Easement (U.S. Army adversely affect the visual attributes Concord College, Vermillian Street, Corps of Engineers) of the area because the line, the Athens, WV associated right-of-way, and access —Consent to Easement (U.S. Army roads may (1) alter the existing Corps of Engineers) August 6, 1996 landscape; and (2) conflict with the Other authorizations may be required Blacksburg High School, 520 Patrick standards established for scenic from a variety of Federal and State Henry Drive, Blacksburg, VA designations. agencies. —The construction, operation, and Public participation will occur at August 8, 1996 maintenance of the 765kV several points during the federal Twin Falls Resort State Park, Route 10, transmission line and the associated analysis process. The first point in the Mullens, WV access roads and right-of-way may analysis was the scoping process (40 August 1, 1996 affect wildlife, plant and aquatic CFR 1501.7). The Forest Service populations, habitat, and livestock obtained information, comments, and James Monroe High School, Weikel because (1) habitats are created, assistance from Federal, State and local Road, Lindside, WV agencies, the proponent of the action, changed, or eliminated; (2) herbicides August 5, 1996 are used and herbicides may be toxic; and other individuals or organizations (3) the transmission line presents a who are interested in or affected by the Lord Botetourt High School, 755 flight hazard to birds; (4) electric transmission line proposal. This Roanoke, Road (Highway 220), electromagnetic fields and induced input will be utilized in the preparation Daleville, VA voltage may be injurious. of the draft environmental impact August 7, 1996 —The construction of the 765kV statement. The scoping process transmission line and the associated included, (1) identifying potential Giles County High School, Route 460 access roads and right-of-way may issues, (2) identifying issues to be (Business), Pearisburg, VA. have a disproportionately high and analyzed in depth, (3) eliminating Reviewers need to be aware of several adverse human health or insignificant issues or those which have court rulings related to public environmental effects on minority and been covered by a relevant previous participation in the environmental low income populations as indicated environmental analysis. impact statement review process. First, in Executive Order 12898. Public participation was solicited reviewers of draft environmental impact —The construction and operation of the through contacts with known interested statements must structure their 765kV transmission line may and/or affected groups, and individuals; participation in the environmental adversely affect astronomical news releases; direct mailings; and/or review of the proposal so that it is observation activities at the Martin newspaper advertisements. Public meaningful and alerts an agency to the Observatory (VPI) due to the meetings were also held to hear reviewer’s position and contentions. introduction of obstructions to the sky comments concerning the APCo Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. (lines and towers), the introduction of proposal and to develop the significant NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, light from coronal discharge, and the issues to be considered in the analysis. environmental objections that could be disruption of sensitive electronic A similar process of public raised at the draft environmental impact equipment by electromagnetic fields. involvement was implemented by the statement stage but that are not raised —The construction and operation of the federal agencies for the Preliminary until after completion of the final 765kV transmission line may Alternative Corridors announced in July environmental impact statement may be adversely affect seismological of 1995. waived or dismissed by the courts. City Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28565 of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, National Scenic Trail, National Park SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Service, Harpers Ferry Center, Harpers I. Abstract Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. Ferry, West Virginia 25425. The 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of responsible official for the US Army The Census Bureau is the preeminent these court rulings, it is very important Corps of Engineers in West Virginia is collector and provider of timely, that those interested in this proposed Colonel Richard Jemiola, US Army relevant and quality data about the action participate by the close of the 90- Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, people and economy of the United day comment period so that substantive 508 8th Street, Huntington, West States. Economic data are the Census comments and objections are made Virginia 25701–2070. The responsible Bureau’s primary program commitment available to the Forest Service at a time official for the US Army Corps of during nondecennial census years. The when it can meaningfully consider them Engineers in Virginia is Colonel Andrew economic census, conducted under and respond to them in the final M. Perkins, Jr., US Army Corps of authority of Title 13 U.S.C., is the environmental impact statement. Engineers, Norfolk District, 803 Front primary source of facts about the To assist the Forest Service in Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510. structure and functioning of the identifying and considering issues and Nation’s economy and features unique concerns on the proposed action, Dated: May 28, 1996. industry and geographic detail. comments on the draft environmental William E. Damon, Jr., Economic census statistics serve as part impact statement should be as specific Forest Supervisor, George Washington and of the framework for the national as possible. It is also helpful if Jefferson National Forests. accounts and provide essential comments refer to specific pages or [FR Doc. 96–14007 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] information for government, business chapters of the draft statement. BILLING CODE 3410±11±M and the general public. The 1997 Comments may also address the Economic Census will cover virtually adequacy of the draft environmental every sector of the U.S. economy impact statement or the merits of the including more than 400,000 alternatives formulated and discussed in DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE manufacturing establishments. the statement. (Reviewers may wish to The information collected from refer to the Council on Environmental Bureau of the Census companies in the manufacturing sector Quality Regulations for implementing of the economic census will produce the procedural provisions of the 1997 Economic Census Covering basic statistics by industry for number National Environmental Policy Act at 40 Manufacturing of establishments, payroll, employment, CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.) value of shipments, value added, capital After the comment period ends on the ACTION: Proposed Agency Information expenditures, depreciation, materials draft environmental impact statement, Collection Activity; Comment Request. consumed, selected purchased services, the comments will be analyzed, electric energy used and inventories considered, and responded to by the SUMMARY: The Department of held. Primary strategies for reducing three federal agencies in preparing the Commerce, as part of its continuing burden in Census Bureau economic data final environmental impact statement. effort to reduce paperwork and collections are to increase electronic The federal agencies have decided to respondent burden, invites the general reporting through broader use of await the decisions of the Virginia State public and other Federal agencies to computerized self-administered census Corporation Commission and the West take this opportunity to comment on questionnaires, electronic data Virginia Public Service Commission on proposed and/or continuing information interchange, and other electronic data the APCo proposal before publishing the collections, as required by the collection methods. final environmental impact statement. It Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. II. Method of Collection is not known when the two L. 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Commission’s will issue their decisions. Establishments included in this When these decisions are made the DATES: Written comments must be collection will be selected from a frame federal agencies will announce the submitted on or before August 5, 1996. given by the Census Bureau’s Standard Statistical Establishment List. To be publication date of the final ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments eligible for selection, an establishment environmental impact statement. to Linda Engelmeier, Acting will be required to satisfy the following The responsible officials will consider Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, conditions: (i) It must be classified in the comments, responses, Department of Commerce, Room 5327, the manufacturing sector; (ii) it must be environmental consequences discussed 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, an active operating establishment of a in the final environmental impact Washington, DC 20230. statement, and applicable laws, multi-establishment company, or it regulations, and policies in making a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: must be an operating single- decision regarding the proposal to cross Requests for additional information or establishment company with payroll; federal lands with a 765,000-volt copies of the information collection and (iii) it must be located in one of the transmission line. The responsible instrument(s) and instructions should 50 states or the District of Columbia. officials will document their decisions be directed to Michael Zampogna for Most establishments will be included in and reasons for their decisions in a Food, Textiles, Apparel, Wood and the mail protion of the collection. Forms Record of Decision. Chemical Products, Bureau of the tailored for the particular kind of The responsible official for the Forest Census, Room 2212, Building 4, business will be mailed to the Service is William E. Damon, Jr., Forest Washington, DC 20233 on (301) 457- establishment to be filled out and Supervisor, George Washington and 4810 and to Kenneth Hansen for returned. Establishments not meeting Jefferson National Forests, 5162 Electrical, Transportation, Metals and certain cutoffs for payroll will be Valleypointe Parkway, Roanoke, Industrial Machinery, Bureau of the included in the non-mail portion of the Virginia, 24019. The responsible official Census, Room 2207, Building 4, collection. We will use administrative for the National Park Service is Pamela Washington, DC 20233 on (301) 457– data in lieu collecting data directly from Underhill, Park Manager, Appalachian 4755. these establishments. 28566 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

Mail selection procedures will statistics and other essential information (including hours and cost) of the distinguish several groups of that is not available from administrative proposed collection of information; (c) establishments. Establishment selection records. ways to enhance the quality, utility, and to a particular group is based on a We estimate that the census mail clarity of the information to be number of factors. The more important canvass for 1997 will include collected; and (d) ways to minimize the considerations are the size of the approximately 54,000 companies in this burden of the collection of information company and whether it is included in category. This category does not contain on respondents, including through the the intercensal annual survey of ASM establishments. use of automated collection techniques manufactures (ASM) sample panel. The 3. All remaining single-establishment or other forms of information ASM panel is representative of both companies with payroll will be technology. large and small establishments from the represented in the census by data Comments submitted in response to mail component of the manufacturing estimated from Federal administrative this notice will be summarized and/or census. The ASM sample panel includes records. Generally, we do not include included in the request for OMB appoximately 60,000 establishments. these small employers in the census approval of this information collection; The various groups of establishments mail canvass. they also will become a matter of public that will constitute the 1997 Census of We estimate that this category for record. Manufactures are outlined below. 1997 will include approximately Dated: May 30, 1996. 140,000 manufacturing companies. A. Establishments of Multi- Linda Engelmeier, Establishment Companies Engaged in III. Data Acting Departmental Forms Clearance Manufacturing Activity Officer, Office of Management and OMB Number: Not Available. Organization. Selection procedures will assign Form Number: The forms used to [FR Doc. 96–14065 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] eligible establishments of multi- collect information from businesses in establishment companies to the mail these sectors of the economic census are BILLING CODE 3510±07±P component of the potential respondent tailored to specific business practices universe. and are too numerous to list separately 1997 Economic Census Covering We estimate that the census mail in this notice. You can obtain Mining Sector canvass for 1997 will include the information on the proposed content of following: the forms by calling Michael Zampogna ACTION: Proposed agency information 1. ASM sample establishments: 35,000 on (301) 457–4810 or Kenneth Hansen collection activity; comment rquest. 2. Non-ASM: 50,000 on (301) 457–4755. SUMMARY: The Department of B. Single-Establishment Companies Type of Review: Regular Review. Affected Public: Businesses or Other Commerce, as part of its continuing Engaged in Manufacturing Activity with effort to reduce paperwork and Payroll for Profit, Non-profit Institutions, Small Businesses or Organizations, and State respondent burden, invites the general As an initial step in the selection or Local Governments public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on process, we will conduct a study of the Estimated Number of Re- potential respondent universe for spondents: proposed and/or continuing information manufacturing. The study of potential ASM ...... 60,000 collections, as required by the respondents will produce a set of Non-ASM (Long Form) ...... 146,000 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, industry-specific payroll cutoffs that we Non-ASM (Short Form) ...... 54,000 Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. will use to distinguish large versus 3506(c)(2)(A)). small single-establishment companies Total ...... 260,000 DATES: Written comments must be within each industry. This payroll size Estimated Time Per Re- submitted on or before August 5, 1996. distinction will affect selection as sponse: ASM ...... 5.6 hrs ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments follows: Non-ASM (Long Form) ...... 3.4 hrs to Linda Engelmeier, Acting 1. Large Single-Establishment Non-ASM (Short Form) ...... 2.2 hrs Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Companies Estimated Total Annual Bur- Department of Commerce, Room 5327, den Hours: 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Single-establishment companies ASM ...... 336,000 Washington, DC 20230. having annualized payroll (from Federal Non-ASM (Long Form) ...... 496,400 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: administrative records) that equals or Non-ASM (Short Form) ...... 118,800 Requests for additional information or exceeds the cutoff for their industry will copies of the information collection be assigned to the mail component of Total ...... 951,200 instrument(s) and instructions should the potential respondent universe. Estimated Total Annual Cost: The be directed to Patricia L. Horning, We estimate that the census mail cost to the government for this work is Bureau of the Census, Room 2125, canvass for 1997 will include the included in the total cost of the 1997 Building 4, Washington, DC 20233 on following: Economic Census, estimated to be $218 (301) 457–4680. a. ASM sample establishments: 25,000 million. b. Non-ASM: 96,000 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: IV. Request for Comments 2. Small Single-Establishment I. Abstract Comments are invited on: (a) Whether Companies the proposed collection of information The Census Bureau is the preeminent In selected industries, small single- is necessary for the proper performance collector and provider of timely, establishment companies that satisfy a of the functions of the agency, including relevant and quality data about the particular criteria (administrative record whether the information shall have people and economy of the United payroll cutoff) will receive a practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the States. Economic data are the Census manufacturing short form, which will agency’s estimate of the burden Bureau’s primary program commitment collect a reduced amount of basic during nondecennial census years. The Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28567 economic census, conducted under small single-establishment firms within Total ...... 18,000 authority of Title 13 U.S.C., is the each industry. This payroll size Estimated Time Per Response: primary source of facts about the distinction will affect selection as Standard Form ...... 4.2 hrs structure and functioning of the follows: Short Form ...... 2.1 hrs Nation’s economy and features unique 1. Large Single-Establishment Firms Estimated Total Annual Burden industry and geographic detail. Hours: Economic census statistics serve as part Selection procedures will assign large Standard Form ...... 63,420 of the framework for the national single-establishment firms having Short Form ...... 6,090 accounts and provide essential annualized payroll (from Federal information for government, business administrative records) that equals or Total ...... 69,510 and the general public. The 1997 exceeds the cutoff for their industry to Estimated Total Annual Cost: The Economic Census will cover virtually the mail component of the potential cost to the government for this work is every sector of the U.S. economy respondent universe. We estimate that included in the total cost of the 1997 including approximately 30,000 mineral the census mail canvass for 1997 will Economic Census, estimated to be $218 establishments. include approximately 7,100 firms in million. The information collected from this category. These firms will receive a establishments in this sector of the standard form. IV. Request for Comments economic census will produce basic 2. Small Single-Establishment Firms Comments are invited on: (a) Whether statistics for number of establishments, the proposed collection of information shipments, payroll, employment, Small single-establishment firms in is necessary for the proper performance detailed supplies and fuels consumed, the crushed stone, sand and gravel, and of the functions of the agency, including depreciable assets, and capital crude petroleum and natural gas whether the information shall have expenditures. It also will yield a variety industries where application of the practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the of subject statistics, including cutoff for nonmail establishments agency’s estimate of the burden shipments by product line, type of results in a large number of small (including hours and cost) of the operation, and other industry-specific establishments included in the mail proposed collection of information; (c) measures. canvass will receive a short form. The ways to enhance the quality, utility, and short form will collect basic statistics II. Method of Collection clarity of the information to be and other essential information that is collected; and (d) ways to minimize the We will select establishments in the not available from administrative mining sector of the economic census burden of the collection of information records. on respondents, including through the for inclusion in the mail canvass from The short form will be mailed to a frame given by the Census Bureau’s use of automated collection techniques approximately 2,900 single- or other forms of information Standard Statistical Establishment List. establishment firms in these industries To be eligible for selection, an technology. which are larger than the nonmail cutoff Comments submitted in response to establishment will be required to satisfy for their industry, but which have an this notice will be summarized and/or the following conditions: (i) It must be annual payroll under a certain criteria. included in the request for OMB classified in the mining sector; (ii) it In terms of employment, this criteria approval of this information collection; must be an active operating will identify establishments with they also will become a matter of public establishment of a multi-establishment approximately 5 to 19 employees. record. firm (including operations under All remaining single-establishment exploration and development), or it firms with payroll will be represented in Dated: May 30, 1996. must be a single-establishment firm the census by data from Federal Linda Engelmeier, with payroll; and (iii) it must be located administrative records. We will not Acting Departmental Forms Clearance in one of the 50 states or the District of include approximately 12,000 of these Officer, Office of Management and Columbia. Mail selection procedures small employers in the census mail Organization. will distinguish the following groups of canvass. [FR Doc. 96–14066 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] establishments: BILLING CODE 3510±07±P III. Data A. Establishments of Multi- OMB Number: Not Available. Establishment Firms Form Number: The forms used to DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Selection procedures will assign all collect information from establishments active mineral operating establishments in this sector of the economic census are Corps of Engineers of multi-establishment firms to the mail tailored to specific mining operations component of the potential respondent and are too numerous to list separately Notice of Availability of Surplus Land universe. We estimate that the census in this notice. You can obtain and Buildings in Accordance With mail canvass for 1997 will include information on the proposed content of Public Law 103±421 Located at approximately 8,000 establishments of the forms by calling Patricia L. Horning Letterkenny Army Depot, multi-establishment firms. on (301) 457–4680. Chambersburg, Pennsylvania B. Single-Establishment Firms With Type of Review: Regular Review. AGENCY: Corps of Engineers, DoD. Affected Public: Businesses or Other Payroll ACTION: Notice of availability. for Profit, Non-profit Institutions, Small As an initial step in the selection Businesses or Organizations, and State process, we will conduct a study of the SUMMARY: This notice identifies the or Local Governments. surplus real property located at the potential respondent universe for Estimated Number of Respondents: mining. The study of potential Letterkenny Army Depot, Standard Form ...... 15,100 Chambersburg, PA, approximately 25 respondents will produce a set of Short Form ...... 2,900 industry-specific payroll cutoffs that we miles north of Hagerstown, MD. will use to distinguish large versus FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 28568 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

For more information regarding the Administrative Services Act of 1949 and The supplemental impact statement particular property identified in this the Base Closure Community will assess potential impacts from the Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plans, existing Redevelopment and Homeless implementation of the New York sanitary facilities, exact location), Assistance Act of 1994. Notices of District Corps of Engineers contact Mr. Gerry Bresee, Real Estate interest should be forwarded to Local recommended flood control plan. The Division, Army Corps of Engineers, P.O. Redevelopment Authority, Judge James District will develop a Draft General Re- Box 1715, Baltimore, MD 21203 M. Carlow, Bowie County Courthouse, evaluation Report for the project that (telephone 410–962–5173, fax 410–962– P.O. Box 248, New Boston, TX 75570– will be available in June 1996. 0866). 0248, (telephone (903) 628–2571). The This notice initiates scoping for this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This surplus real property totals 578.8 acres final study stage of this project. surplus is available under the and includes 8 office buildings, 13 Information is requested for provisions of the Federal Property and storage buildings, and 57 other environmental concerns which may Administrative Services Act of 1945 and buildings. The current range of uses now exist in the project area and were the Base Closure Community include industrial, storage, not discussed in the original NEPA Redevelopment and Homeless administration, housing and recreation. documentation. It is anticipated that Assistance Act of 1994. Notices of Future uses may be limited to those public meetings will be on going interest should be forwarded to Mr. described above. throughout the re-evaluation process. David G. Sciamanna, Executive Director, Hyla J. Head, There will be additional information Franklin County Reuse Committee, 75 Chief, Real Estate Division. presented to the public through the South Second Street, Chambersburg, PA [FR Doc. 96–14079 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Green Brook Flood Control Commission. 17201, telephone (717) 264–7101, fax BILLING CODE 3710±FR±M Agencies and the public are invited to (717) 267–0399. present their environmental concerns to The surplus real property totals the New York District, Army Corps of approximately 1980 acres and contains Intent To Prepare a Draft Supplemental Engineers directly. This supplemental impact statement 339 buildings totaling 4,374,717 square Environmental Impact Statement for will discuss the impacts of the feet of space. Current range of uses the Green Brook Flood Control Project recommended plan on wildlife habitat, include administrative, residential, Located in the Green Brook Sub-Basin aquatic resources and wetlands, storage, open recreation and special of the Raritan River Basin, Middlesex, mitigation for wetland impacts, cultural purpose space. Future uses may include Somerset and Union Counties, NJ resource information, the impact of generally the same type of uses. AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers, New HTRW studies on the project, as well as Gregory D. Showalter, York District, DOD. any new issues which may arise as a Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. ACTION: Notice. result of this process. [FR Doc. 96–14078 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] The need for scoping meetings SUMMARY: A final impact statement was BILLING CODE 3710±41±M completed for this project and filed in specifically related to this process will 1981. This supplemental is being be evaluated based on agency/public response to this notice and follow-up Availability of Surplus Land and prepared to update environmental information and present new potentially mailings. Buildings Located at Red River Army Estimated date of statement significant impacts for review and Depot, Texas availability: June 1996. comment. AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers, DOD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dated: May 9, 1996. ACTION: Notice of availability. William Richardson, New York District, Stuart Piken, Army Corps of Engineers, Att: CENAN– Chief, Planning Division. SUMMARY: This notice identifies the PL–ES, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, [FR Doc. 96–14080 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] surplus real property located at Red N.Y. 10278–0090 (212) 264–1275. BILLING CODE 3710±06±M River Army Depot, Texas (RRAD). SUMMARY INFORMATION: The Green Brook RRAD is located on U.S. Highway 82, in Flood Control Project was created in sight of Interstate 30, and U.S. 59, 71, response to resolutions of the United Department of the Navy and 67 intersect at Texarkana as will the States Senate Public Works Committee Notice of Record of Decision (ROD) for new I–49. Internal rail networks connect resolutions adopted September 14, 1955 with three trunk lines at Texarkana. A and July 10, 1972 published as H.D. No. Land Use and Development Plan Final heliport is located on the installation. A 53, 71st Congress. The original notice of Environmental Impact Statement commercial airport is within 30 miles of intent to prepare an environmental (FEIS) for Bellows Air Force Station the installation. impact statement was published on (AFS), Waimanalo, Hawaii FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: April 6, 1979 and notice of the final SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2) of For more information regarding statement was published on June 12, the National Environmental Policy Act particular properties identified in this 1981. (NEPA) of 1969 and Council on notice (i.e., acreage floor plans, existing The project will provide flood Environmental Quality (CEQ) sanitary facilities, exact street address), protection to the Green Brook sub-basin regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), contact Ms. June Ahrens, U.S. Army to the Raritan River basin. The project the U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) Engineer District, Fort Worth, Attn: area is located in the Counties of announces its decision to implement the CESWF–RE–MD, P.O. Box 17300, Fort Middlesex, Somerset and Union, New Land Use and Development Plan FEIS Worth, TX 76102–0300, (telephone Jersey. The protection will consist of a for Bellows AFS, Waimanalo, Hawaii. (817) 334–4051); or Judge Carlow at the combination of levees, flood walls, below address. channel modification, ponding areas 1.0 Introduction SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This (both excavated and natural) dry In the National Defense Authorization surplus property is available under the detention basins and non-structural Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Pub. L. 102– provisions of the Federal Property and flood proofing measures. 484, section 2853), Congress directed Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28569 the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary Alternative Land Use Changes in the • The preferred alternative is not to of the Air Force, and the Secretary of the Communications Area construct additional military family Navy to prepare a report on the • Expansion of military training housing units at Bellows AFS. • The preferred alternative continued military need for Bellows • Expansion of military training and implements the Bellows AFS long-range AFS. Specifically, the report was to additional helicopter and landing craft, development plan for repair and cover Air Force communications air-cushioned vehicle areas improvement of the Air Force recreation operations and Marine Corps training. • Expansion of military training as and support facilities. These valuable The communications operations have well as construction of permanent since been relocated from Bellows AFS, facilities serve not only Oahu military Hawaii Army National Guard Facilities residents, but DOD identification card but the Marine Corps mission remains. • Siting of up to 500 military family The report was submitted to Congress holders worldwide. Bellows AFS housing units recreation facilities improvements by the Secretary of Defense on April 19, • No action 1993; however, the Congress address an important ‘‘quality of life appropriated $1,000,000 for the Alternative Recreation and Support infrastructure’’ requirement for military ‘‘conduct of an Environmental Impact Area Improvements personnel and their families. • Study at Bellows Air Force Base’’ in the • The preferred alternative identifies Completion of proposed approximately 170 acres as excess to Department of Defense Appropriations recreational area improvements as noted Act, 1993 (Pub. L. 102–396, Title 2). DOD needs conditional upon in the long-range recreation facilities construction of replacement facilities, The National Environmental Policy development plan for Bellows AFS: relocation of activities necessary to Act of 1969 and its implementing Motor pool enclosure, recreation courts, vacate the land, clean-up of potential regulations were used as the framework recreational facilities upgrade, water environmental impairments, and for preparing the study. distribution system upgrade, power imposition of use restrictions on the The Department of Navy, on behalf of distribution system upgrade, excess parcels. the Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific replacement of three beach cabins, The preferred alternative is also the Command (USCINCPAC), prepared a sentry gate area upgrade, campground environmentally preferred alternative. Final Environmental Impact Statement and restroom improvements, pavilion, 1.3 Public Involvement: During the (FEIS) for proposed actions at Bellows and paved road/parking at picnic area 6 EIS process, the Department of the Navy AFS. The FEIS has been prepared in • Reduction in the scale of solicited input from the local accordance with CEQ regulations improvements in the long-range community on several occasions. referred to above, Department of development plan; or postponement; Copies of the Draft EIS, and copies of Defense (DOD) Directive 6050.1 entitled, Changes in land use the FEIS were sent to federal, state and Environmental Effects in the United • No action local government representatives, States of Department of Defense Preferred Alternative individuals, and community groups. Actions, and NEPA. This ROD identifies Notices of Intent (NOI) and Notices of my decisions on this proposal. These The FEIS identifies a subset of all the Availability (NOA) were published in decisions have been made in possible alternatives which appear to local newspapers as well as the Federal consideration of the information best achieve the stated purpose and Register. A chronology follows: contained in the FEIS which was filed need with due respect for the A NOI to prepare an Environmental with the Environmental Protection environmental consequences. This Impact Statement (EIS) for actions at Agency (EPA) and made available to the subset is referred to as the Preferred Bellows AFS was published and sent public by the Federal Register Alternative for the purpose of analysis. out during the second week of March announcement on December 15, 1995, However, it is Section 3.0 of this ROD, 1994. Public scoping meetings were and in consideration of the public and not the preferred alternative held at the Waimanalo Elementary and comments made on the Draft and Final outlined in the FEIS, that determines Intermediate School on March 30, 1994 Environmental Impact Statements. which actions are selected for and again at Washington Intermediate implementation. School on March 31, 1994. The NOA 1.1 Proposed Actions: The action The preferred alternative was selected evaluated in the FEIS was a proposed and announcement of public hearings after consideration of the combined for the Draft EIS (DEIS) were published Land Use and Development Plan for effect of all alternatives on achievement Bellows AFS that consisted of the and distributed on March 13, 1995, and of the stated purpose and need. public comments were accepted through following: Purposes and needs include land of • May 31, 1995. A public hearing to Land use change to provide sufficient size and configuration to meet present the DEIS was conducted at contiguous land, beach, and water areas military training requirements, and Waimanalo Elementary and of sufficient size and configuration to improvement of existing recreational Intermediate School on May 9, 1995. meet Marine Corps and other military resources. Consideration of NOA of the FEIS was published on training requirements environmental and socio-economic December 15, 1995, and public • Development of up to 500 units of effects of the alternatives was a key comments were accepted through military family housing units component in the selection process. January 15, 1996. • • Construction of improvements to The preferred alternative converts A synopsis of issues raised during the existing recreational resources 387 acres of former communications DEIS public review process, and efforts area to training use to help alleviate the • Excessing of land not essential for made to address these issues in the critical state-wide shortage of training military purposes FEIS, follow: lands, provides an inland maneuver • Comment: The U.S. Government’s The FEIS analyzed reasonable area for Marine Corps amphibious ownership of and right to use Bellows alternatives to meet these objectives and exercises, and provides adequate land in AFS were questioned on the basis of assessed their separate and cumulative proximity to Marine Corps Base Hawaii claims that nearly all of the land now impacts. (MCBH), Kaneohe Bay, to meet day-to- comprising Bellows AFS consists of so- 1.2 Alternatives Considered: day small unit tactical training needs. called ceded lands (govrnment lands of 28570 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices the former Hawaiian kingdom and lands alternative. Foremost among off-station 2.0 Consideration for Decision reserved during the monarchy for the impacts is the effect on peak hour traffic The Land Use and Development Plan support of the Crown) and that the in Waimanalo from the addition of up FEIS for Bellows AFS takes place in the ceded lands were all wrongfully taken to 500 military family housing units. from, and should be returned to, Native Kalanianaole Highway would be broader context of military land use on Hawaiians, generally referring to all saturated during peak hours with the Oahu. Sufficient land is required for the persons of Hawaiian ancestry. additional growth. A four-lane road military to carry out its defense Response: The FEIS included a review would be required through Waimanalo obligations in Hawaii and, specifically, of the title of the United States to Town. Apart from impacts to traffic, to meet the need for adequate training Bellows AFS and a legal analysis of the existing wastewater treatment facilities areas. The FEIS supports USCINCPAC’s claims asserted against it. These showed do not have sufficient capacity to treat Hawaii Military Land Use Master Plan that the United States has clear title to sewage flows from the proposed (HMLUMP). The HMLUMP includes all the lands, including the ceded lands development. Population growth in land requirements to meet mission at Bellows AFS, and that the claims Waimanalo would increase by up to 18 tasks. made on behalf of Native Hawaiians, as percent and could not be mitigated The FEIS identifies environmental a group, to the ceded lands have no directly. impacts associated with the choice of legal or historical validity. Although • Potential impacts of training alternatives. It further identifies some of approximately 170 acres of land have activities include stream bank erosion the actions possible to mitigate the been found to be excess to DOD needs, from vehicle stream crossings, wildlife impacts and provides a more reasonable these will be disposed of according to disturbance, noise, exposure of training approach to land use. In addition, the the laws and regulations generally participants to hazardous substances, scoping meetings, public hearings, and applicable to these excess lands. and damage to cultural resources. the comments received from the local • Comment: DEIS was inadequate. Marine Forces Pacific, along with any community and agencies helped Cultural and archaeological impacts are other Service components who conduct formulate a comprehensive approach to inadequately examined. training at Bellows AFS, will develop a addressing important issues for decision Response: The FEIS included a constraints map identifying training making. literature review of the cultural area restrictions and adhere to these In addition to environmental resources of Bellows AFS conducted by constraints. considerations identified in the FEIS, H. David Tuggle, Ph.D., of the • Recreational facilities upgrades and there are other factors considered in the International Archaeological Research release of excess land may impact ROD. Strong public support for Institute. The report summarized cultural resources. The Air Force will returning excess military land resulted archaeological work conducted to date conduct surveys on excess land before in the proposal to construct new at Bellows AFS, including identification release, and on recreational land before facilities in order to relocate activities of known human burial sites. Based on the start of long-range development plan out of approximately 170 acres of the literature search and consultation improvements. These surveys will proposed excess land. with the State Historic Preservation determine the extent and nature of the Officer, a plan was developed to avoid subsurface archaeological deposits in 3.0 Decision adverse impacts on cultural resources of the areas of potential effect. Should The FEIS analyzed possible significance. Each known site at Bellows these surveys reveal the presence of alternatives, considered public AFS is described in the FEIS. cultural resources, appropriate action comments made during open meetings • Comment: Bellows AFS is not will be taken to comply with pertinent and submitted by correspondence, necessary to support military training or law. • potential environmental impacts, recreation. No cultural resources would be mitigative requirements and military Response: Bellows AFS is required to adversely affected by the permanent need for training lands. In consideration help alleviate the critical statewide relocation of the Hawaii National Guard of the FEIS, and comments received on shortage of training lands, to provide an facilities to the southwest corner of the the FEIS (January 1996), the following inland maneuver area for Marine Corps station. land use and development actions will • Training has the potential to affect amphibious exercises, and to provide take place at Bellows AFS: adequate land in proximity to MCBH, wetlands and stream banks, where • Convert 387 acres of land in the Kaneohe Bay, to meet day-to-day small training operations require crossing former communications area to training unit tactical training needs. Military Waimanalo Stream. All practicable means will be taken to avoid or mitigate use. recreation facilities are necessary to • provide quality of life for military any such impacts; these include, but are Implement Bellows AFS long-range personnel and their families. Affordable not limited to, provisions that crossing recreation facilities development plan. • facilities are a key consideration for will be permitted only at designated Do not construct new military military personnel who are typically locations, and vehicles will be required family housing units on Bellows AFS. paid less than their civilian to use existing or tactical bridges or • Declare approximately 170 acres of counterparts. For junior enlisted fords placed at these designated land along the southern boundary of personnel, the military recreational locations. Bellows AFS excess to military facilities represent an essential and • Noise from future training requirements after construction of affordable resource. operations will not extend off-station at replacement facilities, relocation of 1.4 Summary of Environmental levels exceeding community noise activities necessary to vacate the land Impacts: Below is a summary of the standards. Nevertheless, to avoid future (to include relocation of the Hawaii significant impacts and proposed conflicts between community National Guard) and cleanup of actions to minimize impacts: expectations and operational potential environmental impairments • The most significant impacts of the requirements, noise easements will be subject to appropriate use limitations to proposed actions and alternatives that imposed as appropriate on lands avoid incompatibility between future cannot be acceptably mitigated would declared excess to prevent incompatible civilian uses and military activities on result from the housing land use civilian land use of these lands. the retained areas. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28571

4.0 Record of Decision Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy Illinois 60148 AND Mr. Peter Y. Connor, The military will continue to be a (DOE) for authorization to export Esq., 801 15th Street, Wilmette, Illinois good steward of the environment on electric energy to Canada pursuant to 60091. Bellows AFS. All practicable means to section 202(e) of the FPA. MPS neither A final decision will be made on this avoid or minimize environmental harm owns nor controls any facilities for the application after the environmental have been adopted. Efforts will be made transmission or distribution of impacts have been evaluated pursuant to preserve sensitive cultural resources. electricity, nor does it have a franchised to the National Environmental Policy Further subsurface investigations will retail service area. Rather, MPS is a Act of 1969 (NEPA), and a be done prior to any new excavations or power marketer authorized by the determination is made by the DOE that significant soil disturbance. Mitigative Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the proposed action will not adversely actions will be accomplished prior to, (FERC) to engage in the wholesale sale impact on the reliability of the U.S. during, and after training activities. of electricity in interstate commerce at electric power supply system. negotiated rates pursuant to its filed rate Copies of this application will be Signed May 7, 1996 by J.W. Prueher, made available, upon request, for public Admiral, U.S. Navy schedules. In its application, MPS proposes to inspection and copying at the address FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Questions sell electric energy to Canada. The provided above. regarding the FEIS and this Record of electric energy MPS proposes to Decision may be directed to Major Issued in Washington, DC, on May 31, transmit to Canada would be purchased 1996. Matthew Gogan (J446), U.S. Pacific from electric utilities and other Command, Camp H.M. Smith, HI Anthony J. Como. generators. MPS asserts that such energy Director, Office of Coal & Electricity, Office 96851–4020, phone (808) 477–6401, would be surplus to the requirements of facsimile (808) 477–0876. of Fuels Programs, Office of Fossil Energy. the selling utility or generator. MPS [FR Doc. 96–14054 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Dated: May 22, 1996. would arrange for the exported energy BILLING CODE 6450±01±P M.A. Waters, to be wheeled from the selling entities, LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison over existing domestic transmission Officer. facilities, and delivered to the foreign Federal Energy Regulatory [FR Doc. 96–14067 Filed 5–31–96; 2:17 pm] purchaser over one or more of the Commission BILLING CODE 3810±FF±P following international transmission lines for which Presidential permits (PP) [Docket No. RP94±294±007] have been previously issued: New York Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Power Authority’s (NYPA) 230-kilovolt DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Company; Notice of Compliance Filing (kV), lines at Massena, New York (PP– [FE Docket No. EA±114] 25), and Devil’s Hole, New York (PP– May 30, 1996. 30); NYPA 765 kV line at Fort Application to Export Electricity Take notice that on May 22, 1996, Covington, New York (PP–56); the MidCon Power Services Corp. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company NYPA 345-kV lines at Niagara Falls, (Panhandle) tendered for filing as part of AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE. New York (PP–74); Niagara Mohawk its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised ACTION: Notice of application. Power Corporation’s (NIMO) 4.8-kV Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Hogansburg, New York line (PP–13); Appendix A to its filing, to become SUMMARY: MidCon Power Services Corp. and NIMO’s 13.2-kV line at Covington, effective on the dates shown on (MPS) has requested authorization to New York, 230-kV(3 Phase) and 2–69- Appendix A. Panhandle asserts that the export electric energy to Canada. MPS is kV lines at Devil’s Hole, New York, 38- purpose of this filing is to comply with a marketer of electric energy. It does not kV Buffalo, New York lines, 69-kV lines the Commission’s order issued April 1, own or control any electric generation at Queenstown, New York, and 12-kV(3/ 1996 in Docket No. RP94–294–000. or transmission facilities. cables) Rainbow Br., New York lines Panhandle states that in accordance DATES: Comments, protests, or requests (PP–31). with the Commission’s April 1, 1996 to intervene must be submitted on or Any determination by the DOE to Order, it is reflecting the attribution before July 5, 1996. grant the request by MPS for export methodology that was utilized to ADDRESSES: Comments, protests, or authorization will be conditioned to allocate revenues from its discounted requests to intervene should be require MPS to comply with all firm and interruptible transportation addressed as follows: Office of Coal & reliability criteria, standards, and contracts prior to the effective date of Electricity (FE–52), Office of Fuels guidelines of the North American the Natural attribution policy. Programs, Fossil Energy, U.S. Electric Reliability Council and Accordingly, Panhandle is submitting Department of Energy, 1000 Regional Councils. revised tariff sheets to reflect Independence Avenue, S.W., PROCEDURAL MATTERS: Any persons Panhandle’s prior attribution Washington, D.C. 20585–0350. desiring to be heard or to protest this methodology from July 1, 1994, the date FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: application should file a petition to the tariffs sheets herein originally William H. Freeman (Program Office) intervene or protest at the address became effective, and the prospective 202–586- 5883 or Michael T. Skinker provided above in accordance with application of the Natural attribution (Program Attorney) 202–586–6667. §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the rules of policy. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Exports of practice and procedure (18 CFR Panhandle states that a copy of this electricity from the United States to a 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of filing are being served on all affected foreign country are regulated and such petitions and protests should be customers, applicable state regulatory require authorization under section filed with the DOE on or before the date agencies, and parties to this proceeding. 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) listed above. Additional copies are to be Any person desiring to protest this (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). filed directly with: Mr. Dennis Lawler, filing should file a protest with the On May 21, 1996, MPS filed an Vice President, MidCon Power Services Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, application with the Office of Fossil Corp., 701 East 22nd Street, Lombard, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 28572 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

20426, in accordance with Section filed as provided in Section 154.210 of Any person desiring to be heard or to 385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and the Commission’s Regulations. Protests protest said filing should file a motion Regulations. All such protests must be will be considered by the Commission to intervene or protest with the Federal filed as provided in Section 154.210 of in determining the appropriate action to Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 the Commission’s Regulations. Protests be taken, but will not serve to make First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C., will be considered by the Commission protestants parties to the proceeding. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 or in determining the appropriate action to Copies of this filing are on file with the 214 of the Commission’s Rules of be taken, but will not serve to make Commission and are available for public Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 protestants parties to the proceeding. inspection in the Public Reference or 385.214). All such motions to Copies of this filing are on file with the Room. intervene or protest should be filed on Commission and are available for public Lois D. Cashell, or before June 14, 1996. Protests will be inspection in the Public Reference Secretary. considered by the Commission in Room. [FR Doc. 96–14021 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] determining the appropriate action to be Lois D. Cashell, BILLING CODE 6717±01±M taken but will not serve to make Secretary. protestants parties to the proceeding. [FR Doc. 96–14020 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Any person wishing to become a party [Docket No. MG96±12±000] must file a motion to intervene. Copies BILLING CODE 6717±01±M of this filing are on file with the Texas Eastern Transmission Commission and are available for public Corporation; Notice of Filing [Docket No. MT96±14±001] inspection. May 30, 1996. Lois D. Cashell, Texas Eastern Transmission Take notice that on May 17, 1995, Secretary. Corporation; Notice of Proposed Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation [FR Doc. 96–14022 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Changes in FERC Gas Tariff (Texas Eastern) submitted revised BILLING CODE 6717±01±M May 30, 1996. standards of conduct under Order No. 497 et seq.1 and Order No. 566–A.2 Take notice that on May 24, 1996 Texas Eastern states that it is revising its [Docket No. CP90±1777±008] Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation standards of conduct to reflect that it (Texas Eastern) submitted for filing as TransColorado Gas Transmission has two marketing affiliates, PanEnergy part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Company; Notice of Technical Gas Services, Inc. and PanEnergy LNG Revised Volume No. 1, the following Conference Sales, Inc (LNG Sales). In addition, revised tariff sheet: Texas Eastern states that it shares office May 30, 1996. Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 647 space in the same building with LNG Take notice that a technical Texas Eastern states that the above Sales. conference will be convened in the listed tariff sheet is being filed to make Texas Eastern states that copies of this above-docketed proceeding on the language in Texas Eastern’s tariff filing have been mailed to all parties on Wednesday, June 12, 1996, at 10:00 consistent with recently proposed the official service list compiled by the A.M., in Room 3–M–3 at the offices of changes in Texas Eastern’s Statement of Secretary in this proceeding. the Federal Energy Regulatory Standards of Conduct. On May 17, 1996, Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 1 Order No. 497, 53 FR 22139 (June 14, 1988), Washington, D.C., 20426. This technical Texas Eastern made a filing in Docket FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,820 (1988) (Regulations No. MT96–14 which reflected a recent Preambles 1986–1990); Order No. 497–A, order on conference is being convened to discuss change in the name of an affiliated rehearing, 54 FR 52781 (December 22, 1989), FERC issues and matters of concern raised by marketing company and made a filing in Stats. & Regs. 30,868 (1989) (Regulations Preambles TransColorado Gas Transmission 1986–1990); Order No. 497–B, order extending Docket No. MG88–26 which proposed sunset date,, 55 FR 53291 (December 28, 1990), Company’s application. Any party, as changes in Texas Eastern’s Statement of FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,908 (1990) (Regulations defined in 18 CFR 385.102(c), and any Standards of Conduct. Second Revised Preambles 1986–1990); Order No. 497–C, order participant, as defined in 18 CFR Sheet No. 647, which was filed with the extending sunset date, 57 FR 9 (January 2, 1992), 385.102(b) is invited to participate. III FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,934 (1991), rehearing May 17, 1996 Docket No. MT96–14 denied, 57 FR 5815 (February 18, 1992), 58 FERC For additional information, please filing, did not include certain language ¶ 61,139 (1992); Tenneco Gas v. FERC (affirmed in contact William L. Zoller, (202) 208– changes proposed in the Statement of part and remanded in part), 969 F.2d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 1203 at the Commission. 1992); Order No. 497–D, order on remand and Lois D. Cashell, Standards of Conduct filing. Substitute extending sunset date, III FERC Stats. & Regs. Second Revised Sheet No. 647 is being ¶ 30,958 (December 4, 1992), 57 FR 58978 Secretary. filed to include the necessary language (December 14, 1992); Order No. 497–E, order on [FR Doc. 96–14025 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] changes. rehearing and extending sunset date, 59 FR 243 (January 4, 1994), 65 FERC ¶ 61,381 (December 23, BILLING CODE 6717±01±M The proposed effective date of this 1993); Order No. 497–F, order denying rehearing tariff sheet is June 17, 1996. and granting clarification, 59 FR 15336 (April 1, Texas Eastern states that copies of the 1994), 66 FERC ¶ 61,347 (March 24, 1994); and [Docket No. GT96±63±000] filing were served on Texas Eastern’s Order No. 497–G, order extending sunset date, 59 FR 32884 (June 27, 1994), III FERC Stats. & Regs. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line jurisdictional customers, interested state ¶ 30,996 (June 17, 1994). Corporation; Notice of Refund Report commissions, and all current 2 Standards of Conduct and Reporting interruptible customers. Requirements for Transportation and Affiliate May 30, 1996. Any person desiring to protest said Transactions, Order No. 566, 59 FR 32885 (June 27, Take notice that on May 17, 1996, 1994), III FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,997 (June 17, filing should file a protest with the 1994); Order No. 566–A, order on rehearing, 59 FR Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 52896 (October 20, 1994), 69 FERC ¶ 61,044 Corporation (Transco) tendered for 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC (October 14, 1994); Order No. 566–B, order on filing with the Federal Energy 20426, in accordance with Section rehearing, 59 FR 65707 (December 21, 1994); 69 Regulatory Commission (Commission) a FERC ¶ 61,334 (December 14, 1994); appeal 385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and docketed, Conoco, Inc. v. FERC, D.C. Cir. Docket refund report in accordance with Regulations. All such protests must be No. 94–1745 (December 14, 1994). Section 4 of Transco’s Rate Schedule Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28573

LSS and Section 3 of Transco’s Rate The DEA finds that the licensee’s Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Schedule GSS. remediation plan is not a major federal action. In the EA, staff concludes that Transco states that on May 13, 1996, action significantly affecting the quality approval of the dredging management it refunded $290,545.53 to its LSS and of the human environment. The DEA plan would not constitute a major GSS customers. The refund was due was written by staff in the Office of federal action significantly affecting the Transco’s customers from a CNG Hydropower Licensing, Federal Energy quality of the human environment. Transmission Corporation refund in Regulatory Commission. Copies of the Copies of the EA are available for Docket Nos. RP94–96 and RP94–213 DEA can be obtained by calling the review in the Reference and Information (consolidated) for the period July 1, Commission’s Public Reference Room at Center, Room 2A, of the Commission’s 1994 through December 31, 1995. (202) 208–1371. offices at 888 First Street, N.E., Any person desiring to be heard or to Comments on the DEA must be filed Washington, D.C. 20426. protest said filing should file a motion with the Commission within 30 days Lois D. Cashell, to intervene or protest with the Federal from the date of this notice. Comments Secretary. Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 should be addressed to: Ms. Lois D. [FR Doc. 96–14018 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, Cashell, Secretary, Federal Energy BILLING CODE 6717±01±M in accordance with Rules 214 and 211 Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street of the Commission’s Rules of Practice NE., Washington, D.C. 20426. Please and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 and include the project number (2482–021) [Docket No. CP96±541±000] 385.211). All such motions or protests on any comments filed. should be filed on or before June 6, Southern Natural Gas Company, Lois D. Cashell, Notice of Application 1996. Protests will be considered by the Secretary. Commission in determining the [FR Doc. 96–14019 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] May 30, 1996. appropriate action to be taken, but will BILLING CODE 6717±01±M Take notice that on May 24, 1996, not serve to make protestants parties to Southern Natural Gas Company the proceeding. Any person wishing to (Southern), Post Office Box 2563, become a party must file a motion to [Project No. 459±081 Missouri] Birmingham, Alabama 35202–2563, intervene. Copies of this filing are on Union Electric Company; Notice of filed in Docket No. CP96–541–000 an file with the Commission and are application, pursuant to Section 7(c) of available for public inspection. Availability of Environmental Assessment the Natural Gas Act, for a certificate of Lois D. Cashell, public convenience and necessity for Secretary. May 30, 1996. authorization to construct, install, [FR Doc. 96–14023 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] In accordance with the National modify, and operate certain pipeline BILLING CODE 6717±01±M Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and loops, compressors, and appurtenant the Federal Energy Regulatory facilities to permit increased firm Commission’s regulations, 18 CFR Part transportation services in Southern’s [Project No. 2482±021] 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47910), the Zone 3 market area, and for permission Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation; Office of Hydropower Licensing (OHL) to roll in the costs attributable to those Notice of Availability of Draft reviewed an application requesting facilities, all as more fully set forth in Environmental Assessment approval of the dredging management the application, which is on file with plan. Approval of the plan would give the Commission and open for public May 30, 1996. the licensee permission to issue permits inspection. A draft environmental assessment for small excavation activities at the Southern states that it has undertaken (DEA) is available for public review. Osage Project, without obtaining prior an intensive effort to serve new markets The DEA was prepared for an Commission approval for each specific that can be attached economically to its application filed by Niagara Mohawk activity. Specifically, the dredging system and to develop markets already Power Corporation (licensee) to remove management plan would allow permits attached to its system. It is indicated polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from to be issued for non-project dredging that, as part of this effort, and in lands within the boundary of the activities involving up to 500 cubic response to inquiries received by Hudson River Hydroelectric Project. The yards (cy) of material. All proposals to Southern concerning the availability of licensee proposes to remove PCBs at the remove more than 500 cy would be capacity in its Zone 3 market area Queensbury site in accordance with a outside the scope of the plan and would (Georgia, South Carolina and record of decision issued March 1995 by require individual Commission Tennessee), Southern conducted an the New York State Department of approval. The intent of the plan is to open season in mid-1995 to determine Environmental Conservation. In allow the licensee to issue permits for whether there was sufficient demand for summary, the licensee proposes to minor activities requiring dredging, transportation service to support an excavate and remove all surface soil (1 including the installation and repair of expansion of its system. It is also foot from surface) on the upland portion seawalls and construction of boat docks indicated that, as a result of this open of the site with total PCB concentrations and similar minor facilities. Permits season and discussions with interested in excess of 1 ppm and subsurface soil would not be issued without prior customers, Southern received requests with concentrations in excess of 10 authorization from the U.S. Army Corps for long-term transportation service ppm. Further, the licensee proposes to of Engineers. The excavation activities from the following Zone 3 customers: excavate and remove to a depth of 2 feet associated with the dredging near-shore sediments. the Queensbury management plan will occur on project Customer Mcf/day site is located on Corinth Road, Town of lands in Benton, Camden, Miller, and Engelhard Corporation ...... 2,250 Queensbury, Warren County, New York, Morgan Counties, Missouri. The Lake of Kemira Pigments, Inc...... 18,000 on the north bank of the Hudson River, the Ozarks is the reservoir for the Osage Power Silicates Corporation ..... 600 about 5 miles west of Glens Falls, New Project and is located on the Osage Savannah Energy Corporation 200 York. River. The staff prepared an Domtar Gypsum ...... 3,090 28574 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

Customer Mcf/day Southern also requests that the notice of such hearing will be duly Commission issue a predetermination given. City of Wrens, Georgia ...... 2,200 that rolled-in rates are appropriate for Under the procedure herein provided Armstrong World Industries, the proposed facilities. In support of for, unless otherwise advised, it will be Inc...... 3,500 that request, Southern states that the unnecessary for Southern to appear or Southeast Paper Manufacturing proposed facilities will be physically be represented at the hearing. Co...... 9,540 and operationally integrated with Lois D. Cashell, Calsilite Manufacturing Cor- poration ...... 500 existing facilities that serve Southern’s Secretary. Knoxville Utilities Board ...... 5,000 current customers and that the new [FR Doc. 96–14024 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Riverwood International Cor- facilities will be used for the benefit of BILLING CODE 6717±01±M poration ...... 1,000 all shippers on Southern’s system. Southern states that the estimated revenues generated from the proposed Western Area Power Administration ...... 45,880 facilities will exceed the estimated cost of service from the facilities by $440,000 General Eligibility Criteria for the Southern states that each of the above during the first year of operation and Proposed Allocation Procedures and shippers has executed a service $13,500,000 during the 10-year primary Call for Applications, Post-2000 agreement under Rate Schedule FT with term of the related service agreements. Resource PoolÐPick-Sloan Missouri a primary term of 10 years. Southern also claims that the facilities Basin Program, Eastern Division will provide system enhancements at To provide the requested service, AGENCY: seven distinct locations. Southern Western Area Power Southern proposes to construct, install, Administration, DOE. modify and operate pipeline and indicates that the looping and increased ACTION: Notice of clarification, response compression facilities. More compression horsepower will improve to comments and Call for additional specifically, Southern proposes to system reliability for all shippers in the applications. construct (1) approximately 4.6 miles of market area, most particularly on the 30-inch South Main 2nd Loop Line in South Main Line where the majority of SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is Crawford and Monroe Counties, the expansion facilities and load are to respond to comments regarding Georgia; (2) approximately 5.1 miles of located. Section III, General Allocation Criteria, 16-inch Brunswick Loop Line in Jones Any person desiring to be heard or to Paragraph E and to clarify the Post 2000 and Twiggs County, Georgia; (3) make any protest with reference to said Resource Pool Allocation Procedures in approximately 5.9 miles of 30-inch application should on or before June 20, order to more fully fulfill the intent of South Main 3rd Loop Line in Lee 1996, file with the Federal Energy the Energy Planning and Management County, Alabama; (4) approximately 7.3 Regulatory Commission, Washington, Program (Program). All of the comments miles of 24-inch 2nd North Main Loop D.C. 20426, a motion to intervene or a received concerning the use of Mid- Line in Pickens and Tuscaloosa protest in accordance with the Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP) data requirements of the Commission’s Rules Counties, Alabama; and (5) trends to adjust applicant load data in of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR approximately 4.6 miles of 30-inch applying Post 1985 Marketing Criteria 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations Franklinton-Gwinville 2nd Loop Line in suggested that the Western Area Power under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR Walthall, Lawrence, and Marion Administration (Western) not do so. 157.10). All protests filed with the Counties, Mississippi. Southern also Therefore, Western is proposing to not Commission will be considered by it in proposes to place back into operation use MAPP data trends to adjust the determining the appropriate action to be and commence depreciating a 104.6- 1994–1995 load data in determining taken but will not serve to make the mile section of the 20-inch Wrens- allocations for utility and nonutility protestants parties to the proceeding. Savannah Line in Jefferson, Burke, applicants. These clarifications are Any person wishing to become a party Jenkins, Screven, Effingham, and to a proceeding or to participate as a intended to ensure all entities are Chatham Counties, Georgia. party in any hearing therein must file a provided an opportunity to apply for an Southern also proposes to uprate a motion to intervene in accordance with allocation of the resource pool created total of four turbine compressor engines the Commission’s Rules. by the Program. Any new applications, at the Selma Compressor Station in Take further notice that, pursuant to consisting of a letter of interest and Dallas County, Alabama and the Bay the authority contained in and subject to Applicant Profile Data (APD), will be Springs Compressor Station, Jasper the jurisdiction conferred upon the considered in accordance with the County, Mississippi. Southern proposes Federal Energy Regulatory Commission January 29, 1996, Federal Register to rewheel the four Dresser-Rand by Sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Notice (61 FR 2817), as amended herein. compressors and to increase the 6,500 Act and the Commission’s Rules of DATES: All written comments must be rated horsepower at an 80 degree Practice and Procedure, a hearing will sent to the Upper Great Plains Acting ambient temperature at each of the four be held without further notice before the Regional Manager so that they are engines to 9,160 rated horsepower. Commission or its designee on this received 30 days from date of Southern claims that this uprate would application if no motion to intervene is publication. A letter of interest and APD allow Southern to take advantage of the filed within the time required herein, if must be sent by certified or return current physical capabilities of the the Commission on its own review of receipt requested U.S. mail to the Upper engines at minimal cost. the matter finds that a grant of the Great Plains Acting Regional Manager so Southern estimates a facilities cost of certificate and permission and approval that it is received 30 days from date of $36,043,000, which would be financed for the proposed abandonment are publication initially through the use of short term required by the public convenience and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western, a financing, available cash from necessity. If a motion for leave to Federal power marketing agency of the operations or use of both alternatives intervene is timely filed, or if the Department of Energy, published on and ultimately from permanent Commission on its own motion believes January 29, 1996, in the Federal financing. that a formal hearing is required, further Register (61 FR 2817), a notice of Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28575 proposed procedures to implement currently receiving benefits, directly or ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION subpart C–Power Marketing Initiative of indirectly, from a current PSMBP—ED AGENCY the Energy Planning and Management firm power allocation. Qualified Native Program Final Rule, 10 CFR part 905 (60 American applicants are not subject to [FRL±5514±9] FR 54151). The Program, which was this requirement.’’ Agency Information Collection 4. Section II, General Eligibility developed in part to implement section Activities; Submission for OMB Criteria, Paragraph D should read 114 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Review; Comment Request; Vehicle ‘‘Qualified utility and nonutility became effective on November 20, 1995. Emission Control Defect Survey Subpart C of the Program provides for applicants must be able to use the firm Questionnaire the establishment of project-specific power directly or be able to sell it resource pools and the allocation of directly to retail customers.’’ AGENCY: Environmental Protection power from these pools to new 5. Section II, General Eligibility Agency (EPA). Criteria, Paragraph E should read preference customers. These proposed ACTION: Notice. procedures, in conjunction with the ‘‘Qualified utility applicants that desire Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program to purchase power from Western for SUMMARY: In compliance with the Eastern Division (PSMBP—ED) Program resale to consumers, including Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Final Post-1985 Marketing Plan (Post- municipalities, cooperatives, public 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that 1985 Marketing Plan) (45 FR 71860) will utility districts, and public power the following Information Collection establish the framework for allocating districts, must have utility status by Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the power from the resource pool to be December 31, 1996. Utility status means Office of Management and Budget established for the PSMBP—ED. The the entity has responsibility to meet (OMB) for review and approval: Vehicle comment period on the proposed load growth, has a distribution system, Emission Control Defect Survey procedures and call for applications was and is ready, willing, and able to Questionnaire (OMB Control No. 2060– extended to April 8, 1996, by a notice purchase Federal power from Western 0047, approved through 5/31/96). The published in the Federal Register on on a wholesale basis.’’ ICR describes the nature of the March 8, 1996 (61 FR 9449). 6. Section III, General Allocation information collection and its expected Before developing final allocation Criteria, Paragraph E should read burden and cost; where appropriate, it procedures, Western has determined ‘‘Allocations made to qualified utility includes the actual data collection that it is appropriate to address certain and nonutility applicants will be based instrument. comments and clarify features in the on the loads experienced in the 1994 DATES: Comments must be submitted on initial Federal Register notice. Western summer season and the 1994–95 winter or before July 5, 1996. has determined that these proposed season. Western will apply the Post- clarifications are in the best interest of 1985 Marketing Plan criteria to these FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR A COPY the public and that they will not have loads.’’ CALL: Sandy Farmer at EPA, (202) 260– the effect of excluding current 7. Section III, General Allocation 2740, and refer to EPA ICR No. 0184.05. applicants. Based on these Criteria, Paragraph J should read ‘‘The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: clarifications, Western is providing maximum allocation for qualified utility another opportunity for comment and and nonutility applicants shall be 5,000 Title: Vehicle Emission Control Defect call for applications to entities which kilowatts (kW).’’ Survey Questionnaire (OMB Control No. did not apply based upon the earlier 8. Section V, Applications for Firm 2060–0047; EPA ICR No. 0184.05) notice. Those entities that have Power, Paragraph B.1.b.i. should read expiring 5/31/96. This ICR is requesting previously commented or applied for ‘‘Utility and nonutility applicants:’’ an extension of a currently approved firm power need not resubmit or 9. Section V, Applications for Firm collection activity. reapply. Power, Paragraph B.1.b.i.(1) should read Abstract: The Vehicle Compliance ‘‘If applicable, number and type of Programs Group (VCPG) of the Vehicle I. Responses and Clarification of Terms customers served; i.e., residential, Programs and Compliance Division As a result of comments received commercial, industrial, military base, (VPCD) and the Engine Compliance during the comment period and need for agricultural.’’ Programs Group (ECPG) of the Engine clarification of terms, the proposed Post ADDRESSES: All written comments and Programs and Compliance Division 2000 Resource Pool Allocation Applicant Profile Data should be (EPCD), Office of Mobile Sources Procedures and Call for Applications, directed to the following address: Mr. (OMS), Office of Air and Radiation Post-2000 Resource Pool—PSMBP—ED Gerald C. Wegner, Acting Regional (OAR), uses this information collection in Federal Register 61 FR 2817 has been Manager, Upper Great Plains Customer to gather additional data to supplement amended as follows: Service Region, Western Area Power in-use testing programs as well as 1. Section II, General Eligibility Administration, Post Office Box 35800, provide possible evidence in support of Criteria, Paragraph A should read ‘‘All Billings, MT 59107–5800. EPA’s position during an administrative qualified applicants must be preference FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: hearing. When EPA orders a entities in accordance with section 9(c) Robert J. Harris, Power Marketing manufacturer to recall a certain class of of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, Manager, Upper Great Plains Customer motor vehicles (in accordance with CAA 43 U.S.C. 485h(c), as amended and Service Region, Western Area Power section 207(c)) but the manufacturer supplemented.’’ Administration, Post Office Box 35800, disagrees with EPA’s findings, the 2. Section II, General Eligibility Billings, MT 59107–5800, (406) 247– manufacturer may request an Criteria, Paragraph B should read ‘‘All 7394. administrative hearing. During such a qualified applicants must be located hearing, EPA must make a detailed within the currently established Issued at Golden, Colorado, May 22, 1996. presentation of facts showing that the PSMBP—ED marketing area.’’ J. M. Shafer, class of vehicles in question should 3. Section II, General Eligibility Administrator. indeed be recalled. Facts to be included Criteria, Paragraph C should read ‘‘All [FR Doc. 96–14055 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] in such a presentation consist of qualified applicants must not be BILLING CODE 6450±01±P information on the maintenance and 28576 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices performance history of vehicles completing and reviewing the collection FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR A COPY belonging to the class. Dealerships, of information; and transmitting or CALL: Sandy Farmer at EPA, (202) 260– fleets, or individual owners of motor otherwise disclosing the information. 2740, and refer to EPA ICR No. 2060– vehicles or engines may be asked to Respondents/Affected Entities: 0046. provide information on the vehicles or Owners, dealerships, fleets. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: engines at issue. The information is Estimated Number of Respondents: obtained through a questionnaire 200. Title: Emission Recall Audit Program administered by telephone interviews Frequency of Response: 1/yr. Owner Questionnaire (OMB Control No. with individual vehicle owners, and by Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 2060–0046; EPA ICR No. 180.05) telephone or in-person interviews with 166.6 hours. expiring 5/31/96. This ICR is requesting dealerships or fleets. Estimated Total Annualized Cost an extension of a currently approved An agency may not conduct or Burden: $0. collection activity. sponsor, and a person is not required to Send comments on the Agency’s need Abstract: The Vehicle Compliance respond to, a collection of information for this information, the accuracy of the Programs Group (VCPG), Vehicle unless it displays a currently valid OMB provided burden estimates, and any Programs and Compliance Division control number. The OMB control suggested methods for minimizing (VPCD), Office of Mobile Sources numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed respondent burden, including through (OMS), Office of Air and Radiation in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Ch. 15. The the use of automated collection (OAR), uses this information collection Federal Register Notice required under techniques to the following addresses. to enforce the Recall and Defect 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on Please refer to EPA ICR No. 0184.05 and Reporting Regulations of 40 CFR part this collection of information was OMB Control No. 2060–0047 in any 85, subparts S and T. Individual owners published on 3/4/96 (61 FR 8273); no correspondence. of on-highway light-duty motor vehicles comments were received. Ms. Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental and light-duty trucks may be asked to Burden Statement: EPA may perform Protection Agency, OPPE Regulatory provide information on vehicles that two surveys annually, one of Information Division (2137), 401 M have been recalled. The Vehicles manufacturers of on-highway light-duty Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; Compliance Programs Group (VCPG) motor vehicles or light-duty trucks, and and uses such information to evaluate the the other of heavy-duty engines or large Office of Information and Regulatory effectiveness of various aspects of a nonroad compression ignition engines, Affairs, Office of Management and recall campaign, to determine whether which will require either telephone or Budget, Attention: Desk Office for manufacturers are in compliance with in-person interviews with one hundred EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., recall procedural regulations, and to (100) individual vehicle owners or Washington, DC 20503. determine the cause of ineffective recall dealerships or fleets per survey. A Dated: May 29, 1996. campaigns. The information is obtained burden estimate of twenty (20) minutes from individuals through a Richard Westlund, per individual vehicle owner is based questionnaire administered by on agency experience with similar Acting Director, Regulatory Information telephone interviews or in written Division. questions asked of individuals as part of format. the in-use recall testing program. A [FR Doc. 96–14110 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] An agency may not conduct or burden estimate of thirty (30) minutes BILLING CODE 6560±50±M sponsor, and a person is not required to per dealership or fleet is based on respond to, a collection of information contact with dealerships and fleets [FRL±5514±8] unless it displays a currently valid OMB made as part of the in-use recall testing control number. The OMB control program. The burden estimate is Agency Information Collection numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed calculated from an average of the two Activities: Submission for OMB in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Ch. 15. The different burdens assuming that one-half Review; Comment Request; Emission Federal Register Notice required under of the respondents are individual Defect Information and Voluntary 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on vehicle owners and the other half are Emissions Recall Reports this collection of information was dealerships or fleets. Therefore, the total published on 3/4/96 (61 FR 8273); no respondent burden will be 2,500 AGENCY: Environmental Protection comments were received. minutes for each survey. Individuals, Agency (EPA). EPA would like to solicit comments dealerships, or fleets will be asked to ACTION: Notice. to: respond to only one survey in any given (i) Evaluate whether the proposed year. Burden means the total time, SUMMARY: In compliance with the collection of information is necessary effort, or financial resources expended Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. for the proper performance of the by persons to generate, maintain, retain, 3507(a)(1)(D)), this notice announces functions of the agency, including or disclose or provide information to or that the following Information whether the information will have for a federal agency. This includes the Collection Request (ICR) has been practical utility; time needed to review instructions; forwarded to the Office of Management (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the develop, acquire, install, and utilize and Budget (OMB) for review and agency’s estimate of the burden of the technology and systems for the purposes approval: Emission Recall Audit proposed collection of information, of collecting, validating, and verifying Programs Owner Questionnaire (OMB including the validity of the information, processing and Control No. 2060–0046, approved methodology and assumptions used; maintaining information, and disclosing through 5/31/96). The ICR describes the (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and and providing information; adjusting nature of the information collection and clarity of the information to be the existing ways to comply with any its expected burden and cost; where collected; and previously applicable instructions and appropriate, it includes the actual data (iv) Minimize the burden of the requirements; training personnel to be collection instrument. collection of information on those who able to respond to a collection of DATES: Comments must be submitted on are to respond, including through the information; searching data sources; or before July 5, 1996. use of the appropriate automated Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28577 electronic, mechanical, or other [FRL 5515±9] develop, acquire, install, and utilize technological collection techniques or technology and systems for the purposes other forms of information technology, Environmental Radiation Ambient of collecting, validating, and verify e.g., permitting electronic submission of Monitoring System (ERAMS) information, processing and responses. AGENCY: Environmental Protection maintaining information, and disclosing Burden Statement: The annual public Agency (EPA). and providing information; adjust the reporting and recordkeeping burden for ACTION: Notice. existing ways to comply with any this collection of information is previously applicable instructions and estimated to average .25 hours per SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements; train personnel to be able response. Burden means the total time, Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. to respond to a collection of effort, or financial resources expended 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that information; search data sources; by persons to generate, maintain, retain, the following Information Collection complete and review the collection of or disclose or provide information to or Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the information; and transmit or otherwise for a federal agency. This includes the Office of Management and Budget disclose the information. (OMB) for review and approval: Respondents/Affected Entities: time needed to review instructions; Environmental Radiation Ambient Sample collectors, who are usually develop, acquire, install, and utilize Monitoring System (ERAMS); OMB employed by state or, in a few cases, technology and systems for the purposes Control Number 2060–0015; expires local government. of collecting, validating, and verifying July 31, 1996. The ICR describes the Estimated Number of Respondents: information, processing and nature of the information collection and 313. maintaining information, and disclosing its expected burden and cost; where Frequency of Response: From twice and providing information; adjusting appropriate, it includes the actual data weekly to four times annually, the existing ways to comply with any collection instrument. depending upon type of media being previously applicable instructions and sampled. requirements; training personnel to be DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 5, 1996. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: able to respond to a collection of 9201.8 hours. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR A COPY information; searching data sources; Estimated Total Annualized Cost CALL: Sandy Farmer at EPA, (202) 260– completing and reviewing the collection Burden: $0. of information; and transmitting or 2740, and refer to EPA ICR No. 877.05. Send comments on the Agency’s need otherwise disclosing the information. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: for this information, the accuracy of the Environmental Radiation Ambient Respondents/Affected Entitles: 300. provided burden estimates, and any Monitoring System (OMB Control No. suggested methods for minimizing Estimated Number of Respondents: 2060–0015; EP ICR No. 877.05) expiring respondent burden, including through 300; July 31, 1996. This is a request for the use of automated collection Frequency of Response: Once per extension of a currently approved techniques to the following addresses. respondent per year. collection. Please refer to the EPA ICR No. 877.05 Abstract: The Environmental Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: and OMB Control No. 2060–0015 in any Radiation Ambient Monitoring System 75 Hours. correspondence. (ERAMS) is a national network of Estimate Total Annualized Cost stations collecting sampling media that Ms. Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental Burden: $900.00. include air, precipitation, drinking Protection Agency, OPPE Regulatory water, surface water, and milk. Samples Information Division (2136), 401 M Send comments on the Agency’s need Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, for this information, the accuracy of the are sent to EPA’s National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory and provided burden estimates, and any Office of Information and Regulatory (NAREL) in Montgomery, AL, where suggested methods for minimizing Affairs, Office of Management and they are analyzed for radioactivity. respondent burden, including through Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for ERAMS provides emergency response the use of automated collection EPA, 725 17th Street NW., and ambient monitoring information techniques to the following addresses. Washington, DC 20503. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 180.05 and regarding levels of environmental OMB Control No. 2060–0046 in any radiation across the nation. All stations, Dated: May 30, 1996. correspondence. usually manned by state and local Richard Wilson, personnel, participate in ERAMS Acting Director, Regulatory Information Ms. Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental voluntarily. Station operators complete Division. Protection Agency, OPPE Regulatory information forms that accompany the [FR Doc. 96–14121 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Information Division (2137), 401 M samples. The forms request descriptive BILLING CODE 6560±50±M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, information related to sample and collection, e.g., sample type, sample Office of Information and Regulatory location, length of sampling period, and [FRL±5513±7] Affairs, Office of Management and volume represented. Risk Assessment and Risk Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Burden Statement: The annual public Management Commission; Meeting EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., reporting and recordkeeping burden for Dates: June 13, 1996 in Washington, Washington, DC 20503. this collection of information is DC, and July 23, 1996 in Boston, MA estimated to average 0.37 hours per Dated: May 28, 1996. response. Burden means the total time, Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Richard Westlund, effort, or financial resources expended Committee Act, Public Law 92–463, Acting Director Regulatory Information by persons to generate, maintain, retain, notice is hereby given that the Division. or disclose or provide information to or Commission on Risk Assessment and [FR Doc. 96–14111 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] for a Federal agency. This includes the Risk Management, established as an BILLING CODE 6560±50±M time needed to review instructions; Advisory Committee under Section 303 28578 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices of the Clean Air Act Amendments of as observers. However, in the interest of [OPP±300427; FRL±5374±8] 1990, will release of its draft report on time and efficiency, the meeting is June 13 from 11:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. structured to provide maximum Iprodione; Request for Comment on Petition to Revoke Food Additive at the J. W. Marriott, 1331 Pennsylvania opportunity for state, tribal, and EPA Regulations for Raisins and Dried Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. invited participants to discuss items on Ginseng Earlier it was reported that the meeting the predetermined agenda. At the would take place at 1:00 p.m. at the discretion of the chair of the project, an AGENCY: Environmental Protection National Press Building; however, that effort will be made to accommodate Agency (EPA). has been changed to the earlier time and participation by observers attending the ACTION: Notice of receipt and new location. proceedings. There will be a briefing and the draft availability of petition. report will be available to the public at DATES: The four Projects will meet June SUMMARY: This document announces the that time. If you are unable to attend, 24, 1996, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., with a receipt of and solicits comments on a but wish to receive a copy of the draft plenary session including a brief update petition proposing the revocation of the report, either fax your request to 202– on the ‘‘State Access to Confidential section 409 food additive regulation 233–9540, mail your request to the Business Information Data Project’’ and established under the Federal Food, Commission on Risk Assessment and ISO 14001 from 8 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., and Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), for Risk Management, 529 14th Street, NW., on June 25, 1996, from 8 a.m. to noon. iprodione in or on raisins and dried Room 452, Washington, DC 20045, or Any observer wishing to speak should ginseng. This notice sets forth the basis obtain via the Internet at http:// advise the Designated Federal Official, for the petitioner’s proposal and www.riskworld.com. Be sure to indicate Darlene Harrod, at the telephone provides opportunity for comment by your complete mailing address and a number or e-mail address listed below the public. phone number where you can be no later than 4 p.m. on June 17, 1996. DATES: Written comments, identified by reached. If you have already requested the docket number [OPP–300427] must a copy of the draft report, it is not ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at be received on or before July 5, 1996. necessary to send another request. The Holiday Inn, 480 King St., ADDRESSES: By mail, requests for copies Comments on the draft report are Alexandria, VA. of the petition and comments should be welcomed by July 18, 1996. Those FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: forwarded to Public Response and comments will be considered for Program Resources Branch, Field discussion at a public meeting in Darlene Harrod, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7408), Operations Division (7506C), Office of Boston, MA on July 23 from 1 p.m. until pesticide Programs, 401 M St., SW., 5 p.m. at the John F. Kennedy Federal Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, Washington, DC 20460. Copies of the Building, One Congress Street, Boston, petition will be available for public MA 02203–0001 in conference room 11 Telephone: (202) 260-6904, e-mail: [email protected]. inspection in the public docket from 8 A & B on the 11th floor. Comments not a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through received by July 18 must be received no SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FOSTTA, Friday, except legal holidays, in Rm. later than August 9, 1996 for a group of state and tribal toxics 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., consideration prior to the completion of environmental managers, is intended to Arlington, VA. The telephone number of the final report. Please send your foster the exchange of toxics-related the docket is 703–305–5805. comments to the Commission on Risk program and enforcement information Information submitted as a comment Assessment and Risk Management among the states/tribes and between the concerning this document may be address listed above. claimed confidential by marking any If you need additional information, states/tribes and EPA’s Office of part or all of that information as please call 202–233–9537. The report Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic ‘‘Confidential Business Information’’ will not be available prior to June 13th. Substances (OPPTS) and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (CBI). Information so marked will not be Dated: May 23, 1996. (OECA). FOSTTA currently consists of disclosed except in accordance with Gail Charnley, the Coordinating Committee and four procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Executive Director, Commission on Risk issue-specific Projects. The Projects are: A copy of the comment that does not Assessment and Risk Management. contain CBI must be submitted for (1) The Toxics Release Inventory [FR Doc. 96–13984 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] inclusion in the public record. Project; (2) The State and Tribal Information not marked confidential BILLING CODE 6560±50±M Enhancement Project; (3) The Chemical may be disclosed publicly by EPA Management Project; and (4) The Lead without prior notice. All written [OPPTS±00187; FRL±5375±8] (Pb) Project. comments will be available for public inspection at the address and hours Forum on State and Tribal Toxics List of Subjects Action (FOSTTA) Projects; Open given above. Meetings Environmental protection. Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending Dated: May 29, 1996. AGENCY: Environmental Protection electronic mail (e-mail) to: opp- Agency (EPA). Susan B. Hazen, [email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ACTION: Notice of open meetings. Director, Environmental Assistance Division, ASCII file avoiding the use of special Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. SUMMARY: The four Projects of the characters and any form of encryption. Forum on State and Tribal Toxics [FR Doc. 96–14081 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Comments and data will also be Action (FOSTTA) will hold meetings BILLING CODE 6560±50±F accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 open to the public at the time and place file format or ASCII file format. All listed below in this notice. The public comments and data in electronic form is encouraged to attend the proceedings must be identified by the docket number Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28579

[OPP–300427]. No CBI should be and the residue in the processed food growing season. Therefore, grapes submitted through e-mail. Electronic when ready to eat is below the RAC intended to be grown for table use or comments on this document may be tolerance. This exemption in section wine production would never be sold as filed online at any Federal Depository 402(a)(2) is commonly referred to as the raisins. Library. Additional information on ‘‘flow-through’’ provision because it To ensure compliance with the electronic submissions can be found allows the section 408 raw food proposed label restriction, Rhone- below in this document. tolerance to flow through to the Poulenc commits to conducting an FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By processed food forms. Thus, a section industry educational program. This mail: Niloufar Nazmi, Special Review 409 FAR is only necessary to prevent effort would be in California which is and Reregistration Division (7508W), foods from being deemed adulterated the only state where raisins are Office of Pesticide Programs, when the level of the pesticide residue commercially produced. The program Environmental Protection Agency, 401 in a processed food when ready to eat would target the Licensed Pest Control M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. is greater than the tolerance prescribed Advisors (PCA), reseller, County Office location and telephone number: for the RAC, or if the processed food Agricultural Commissioner, and raisin Rm. WF32C5, Crystal Station #1, 2800 itself is treated or comes in contact with buyers to inform them of the label Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA, a pesticide. If a FAR must be restriction. Telephone: 703–308–8028, e-mail: established, section 409 of the FFDCA Rhone-Poulenc proposes to: [email protected]. requires that the use of the pesticide (1) Develop a direct mail notice to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: will be ‘‘safe’’ (21 U.S.C. 348(c)(3)). PCAs in the predominant raisin growing counties of Fresno, Tulare, and Madera, I. Introduction Relevant factors in this safety determination include (1) the probable in California. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic consumption of the pesticide or its (2) Develop a product bulletin for Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., metabolites; (2) the cumulative effect of Rhone-Poulenc’s sales associates to authorizes the establishment by the pesticide in the diet of man or distribute to resellers and County regulation of maximum permissible animals, taking into account any related Agricultural Commissioners. levels of pesticides in foods. Such substances in the diet; and (3) (3) Place the label restriction in the regulations are commonly referred to as appropriate safety factors to relate the Crop Data Management System (CDMS). ‘‘tolerances.’’ Without such a tolerance animal data to the human risk The Petitioner claims that 80 to 90 or an exemption from the requirement evaluation. Section 409 also contains percent of the recommendations written of a tolerance, a food containing a the Delaney clause, which specifically by a PCA are generated by computer pesticide residue is ‘‘adulterated’’ under provides that ‘‘no additive shall be through CDMS. section 402 of the FFDCA and may not deemed safe if it has been found, after (4) Communicate in person with the be legally moved in interstate tests which are appropriate for the management of raisin buying companies commerce. 21 U.S.C. 331, 342. EPA was evaluation of the safety of food such as SunMaid. Rhone-Poulenc will authorized to establish pesticide additives, to induce cancer when attempt to have these companies put in tolerances under Reorganization Plan ingested by man or animal.’’ writing, that they will not accept any No. 3 of 1970. 5 U.S.C. App. at 1343 FARs are currently established in 40 raisins treated with iprodione products. (1988). Monitoring and enforcement of CFR 185.3750 for iprodione in or on B. Dried Ginseng pesticide tolerances are carried out by dried ginseng and raisin. the U.S. Food and Drug Administration The petitioner claims that ginseng is (FDA) and the U.S. Department of II. Petition not a ready-to-eat commodity because of the significant amount of dilution of Agriculture (USDA). EPA can establish A. Raisins a tolerance in response to a petition dried ginseng in preparation of a ready- (FFDCA section 408(d)(1), 409(b)(1)), or Rhone-Poulenc is proposing labeling to-eat food. According to Rhone- on its own initiative (FFDCA sections restrictions which would prohibit the Poulenc, once dried ginseng is in its 408(e), 409(d)). use of iprodione products on grapes ready-to-eat form, residues are unlikely The FFDCA has separate provisions used to produce raisins. The Petitioner to exceed the RAC tolerance. for tolerances for pesticide residues on believes that enforcement of the label EPA isvites comment on the petition raw agricultural commodities (RACs) restriction is possible because: (1) Early to withdraw the food additive regulation and tolerances on processed food. For in the growing season, several cultural for raisins and dried ginseng. pesticide residues in or on RACs, EPA practices differentiate grapes grown for It should be noted that on January 18, establishes tolerances, or exemptions raisin production from those grown for 1995, EPA published a proposed rule in from tolerances when appropriate, table or wine grape; and 2) raisins are the Federal Register to revoke the under FFDCA section 408. 21 U.S.C. the only commodity produced from section 409 FAR for iprodione in or on 346a. EPA regulates pesticide residues raisin grapes and introduced into dried ginseng and raisins. That proposal in processed foods under FFDCA commerce. Rhone-Poulenc contends was based on a determination that section 409, which pertains to ‘‘food that a less elaborate trellis system is iprodione induces cancer in animals, additives.’’ 21 U.S.C. 348. Maximum used for raisin grapes than for table and thus, the regulation violates the residue regulations established under grapes. In addition, raisin grapes are not Delaney clause in section 409 of the section 409 are commonly referred to as irrigated after early August whereas the FFDCA. However, the Agency could food additive regulations (hereafter table and wine grapes require irrigation finalize revocation of the dried ginseng referred to as ‘‘FARs’’). Section 409 late into the season. Furthermore, and raisin regulation on the grounds FARs are needed, however, only for producers growing grapes for table use requested in the petition announced in certain pesticide residues in processed tend to use gibberellin early in the this notice. food. Under section 402(a)(2) of the season to increase size which makes Pursuant to 40 CFR 177.125 and FFDCA, a pesticide residue in processed those grapes undesirable as raisins. 177.130, EPA may issue an order ruling food generally will not render the food Rhone-Poulenc also claims that all on the petition or may issue a proposal adulterated if the residue results from raisins are sold under a contract with a in response to the petition and seek application of the pesticide to a RAC buyer, prior to the beginning of the further comment. If EPA issues an order 28580 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices in response to the petition, any person and Trichoderma hamatum isolate 382 the experimental use permit and with adversely affected by the order may file (ATCC 20765) in or on certain raw the following provisions: written objections and a request for a agricultural commodities. 1. The total amount of the active hearing on those objections with EPA on DATES: These temporary exemptions ingredients to be use must not exceed or before the 30th day after date of the from the requirement of tolerances the quantity authorized by the publication of the order, (40 CFR expire March 1, 1998. experimental use permit. 178.20). A record has been established for this FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By 2. Earthgro, Inc., must immediately document under docket number [OPP– mail: Diana Horne, Biopesticides and notify the EPA of any findings from the 300427] (including comments and data Pollution Prevention Division (7501W), experimental use that have a bearing on submitted electronically as described Office of Pesticide Programs, safety. The company must also keep below). A public version of this record, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 records of production, distribution, and including printed, paper versions of M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. performance and on request make the electronic comments, which does not Office location and telephone number: records available to any authorized include any information claimed as CBI, Rm., Crystal Station, 5th Fl., 2800 officer or employee of the EPA or the is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA (703) 308– Food and Drug Administration. 8367; e-mail: 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, These temporary exemptions from the [email protected]. excluding legal holidays. The public requirement of tolerances expire March record is located in Room 1132 of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Earthgro, 1, 1998. Residues remaining in or on all Public Response and Program Resources Inc., Route 207, P.O. Box 143, Lebanon, raw agricultural commodities after this Branch, Field Operations Division CT 06249, has requested in pesticide expiration date will not be considered (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, petitions (PP) 5E4477 and 5E4478 the actionable if the pesticides are legally Environmental Protection Agency, establishment of exemptions from the applied during the term of, and in Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis requirement of tolerances for use on accordance with, the provisions of the Highway, Arlington, VA. selected ornamentals and vegetable experimental use permit and temporary Electronic comments can be sent bedding plants in or on certain raw exemptions from the requirement of directly to EPA at: agricultural commodities as follows: tolerances. These temporary exemptions [email protected] 1. Pesticide petition (PP) 5E4477 has from the requirement of tolerances may established an exemption from the be revoked if the experimental use Electronic comments must be requirement of a tolerance for permit is revoked or if any experience submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the Flavobacterium balustinum strain 299 with or scientific data on this pesticide use of special characters and any form (ATCC 53198) for use on selected indicate that such revocation is of encryption. The official record for ornamentals and vegetable bedding necessary to protect the public health. this document, as well as the public plants in or on the raw agricultural The Office of Management and Budget version, as described above will be kept commodities broccoli, cabbage, has exempted this notice from the in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will cauliflower, cucumber, eggplant, requirement of section 3 of Executive transfer all comments received lettuce, cantaloupe, pepper, tomato and Order 12866. electronically into printed, paper form watermelon. as they are received and will place the 2. Pesticide petition (PP) 5E4478 has Pursuant to the requirements of the paper copies in the official record which established an exemption from the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96– will also include all comments requirement of a tolerance for 354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601–612), submitted directly in writing. The Trichoderma hamatum isolate 382 the Administrator has determined that official record is the paper record (ATCC 20765) for use on selected regulations establishing new tolerances maintained at the address in ornamentals and vegetable bedding or raising tolerance levels or ADDRESSES at the beginning of this plants in or on the raw agricultural establishing exemptions from tolerance document. commodities broccoli, cabbage, requirements do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial Dated: May 23, 1996. cauliflower, cucumber, eggplant, lettuce, cantaloupe, pepper, tomato and number of small entities. A certification Daniel M. Barolo, watermelon. statement to this effect was published in Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. These temporary exemptions from the the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950). [FR Doc. 96–13823 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] requirement of tolerances will permit BILLING CODE 6560±50±F the marketing of the above raw Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a(j). agricultural commodities when treated in accordance with the provisions of List of Subjects [PP 5E4477 and 5E4478/T689; FRL 5371± experimental use permit 69006–EUP–1, 2] which is being issued under the Federal Environmental protection, Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Administative practice and procedure, EarthGro Inc.; Establishment of Act (FIFRA), as amended (Pub. L. 95– Agricultural commodities, Pesticides Exemptions From Requirement of 396, 92 Stat. 819; 7 U.S.C. 136). and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping Tolerances requirements. The scientific data reported and other AGENCY: Environmental Protection relevant material were evaluated, and it Dated: May 20, 1996. Agency (EPA). was determined that exemptions from Janet L. Andersen, ACTION: Notice. the requirement of tolerances will protect the public health. Therefore, the Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide SUMMARY: EPA has established temporary exemptions from the Programs. exemptions from the requirement of requirement of tolerances have been tolerances for Flavobacterium established on the condition that the [FR Doc. 96–13822 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] balustinum strain 299 (ATCC 53198) pesticides be used in accordance with BILLING CODE 6560±50±F Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28581

[FRL±5515±8] taken into consideration by the EPA Border Office—El Paso: 4050 Rio binational workgroups in the Bravo, Suite 100, El Paso, Texas 79902; U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental development of this draft document. Telephone (915) 533–7273; FAX (915) Plan To provide additional opportunity for 533–2327. Office Hours: 8 a.m.–5:30 AGENCY: Environmental Protection input, the public will have 45 days from p.m. Agency. the date of release to comment on the EPA Border Office—San Diego: 610 Draft Border XXI Framework Document, ACTION: Notice of the availability of the West Ash Street, Suite 703, San Diego, Draft Framework Document for the U.S.- which is the first of related documents California 92101; Telephone (619) 235– Mexico Border XXI Program. that will be released under Border XXI. 4765; FAX (619) 235–4771. Office Additional public meetings for receiving Hours: 8 a.m.–5 p.m. SUMMARY: verbal comments on the draft will be The Border XXI Program is a U.S. EPA Public Information Center, binational environmental planning held during this comment period. Locations and dates of the meetings will 401 M Street, SW., Washington DC program for the border area and is the 20460; Telephone (202) 260–2080; FAX second phase of the Integrated Border be announced separately. The Final Framework Document will be released (202) 260–6257. Office Hours: 8 a.m.– Environmental Plan (IBEP), released in 5:30 p.m. February 1992. The goal of the Border in the Fall of 1996. XXI Program is to protect human health DATES: The Draft Border XXI Framework EPA Headquarters: EPA Library and the environment and promote Document will be made available to the (INFOTERRA), Room Mall 2904, 401 M sustainable development in the border public beginning June 13, 1996. Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. area (the area extending 100 Km on Comments must be submitted no later Telephone: (202) 260–5917; FAX (202) either side of the boundary between the than July 29, 1996. 260–3923. Library Hours: 10 a.m.–2 p.m. Telephone Hours: 9 a.m.–3 p.m. U.S. and Mexico). It broadens the scope AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENT AND of issues beyond those addressed under SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS: Copies of the Dated: May 28, 1996. the IBEP and, through binational document and information on Alan D. Hecht, workgroups, deals with the following submission of written comments may be Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of concerns: natural resources; obtained through an EPA ‘‘Toll-Free’’ International Activities. environmental health; air; water; Telephone number: (800) 334–0741. In [FR Doc. 96–14115 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] hazardous and solid wastes; addition, interested persons in Texas BILLING CODE 6560±50±P contingency planning and emergency and New Mexico may obtain copies by response; enforcement; pollution contacting the EPA El Paso Border prevention; and, environmental Office; interested persons in California information resources. Strategies which and Arizona may obtain copies through FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS are central to the Border XXI Program the EPA San Diego Border Office. These COMMISSION include public involvement, offices also have information on the decentralization of border decision locations of information repositories for [CC Docket 96±45; DA 96±855] making, and increased environmental the Border XXI Program in various cities cooperation between the different along the border. The address and Federal-State Joint Board on Universal governmental agencies operating in the phone numbers for these EPA offices are Service, Meeting border region. To promote integrated listed below. Copies may also be regional planning, the Draft Framework obtained through the following EPA AGENCY: Federal Communications Document is organized around five Home Page: http://www.epa.gov/region Commission. geographic regions: California-Baja 09. California, Arizona-Sonora, New ACTION: Notice. Comments may be submitted in Mexico-Texas-Chihuahua, Texas- writing to the Border Offices or Coahuila-Nuevo Leon, and Texas- SUMMARY: On May 29, 1996, Federal electronically to the following Internet Tamaulipas. The Draft Framework Communications Commission released a address: [email protected]. Document, developed in cooperation public notice, as required by law, to with the Department of Interior and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For announce a meeting of the Federal-State Department of Health and Human obtaining information in Texas or New Joint Board on June 5, 1996. The Services, reflects an evolving process Mexico contact: Marvin P. Waters, purpose of the notice is to inform the that will benefit from the experiences Director, EPA El Paso Border Office, general public of a meeting that will be and input of various stakeholders, such 4050 Rio Bravo, Suite 100, El Paso, held by the Federal-State Joint Board on as the four U.S. and six Mexican border Texas 79902; Telephone (915) 533– universal service. states, as well as tribal nations, local 7273; FAX (915) 533–2327. For FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: communities, academia, non- obtaining information in Arizona or Jonathan Reel, Accounting and Audits governmental organizations, the private California contact: Colleen M. Smith, Division, Common Carrier Bureau, at sector and border citizens. Director, EPA San Diego Border Office, (202) 418–0834. Through a series of both domestic and 610 West Ash Street, Suite 703, San binational public meetings which took Diego, California 92101; Telephone SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The place during September through (619) 235–4768; FAX (619) 235–4771. Federal-State Joint Board in CC Docket November of 1995 in various border SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 96–45 will hold an Open Meeting on communities, efforts were made to addition to copies of the Draft Wednesday, June 5, 1996 at 12:30 p.m., inform the public of objectives of the Framework Document, fact sheets on in Room 856 at 1919 M Street, NW., program and the process adopted for its the Border XXI Program and summaries Washington, DC. At the meeting, the involvement. At that time, the public of the domestic meetings held last year Federal-State Joint Board will hear from also was given an opportunity to may be obtained by contacting the Toll- a panel of experts addressing universal comment on the workgroup objectives free number listed above or by service issues set forth in Section 254 of for the program. These comments were contacting one of the following: the Telecommunications Act. 28582 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

Federal Communications Commission. 0650 (phone), 202–418–2643 (fax), or Room 8010, 2025 M Street NW., John S. Morabito, [email protected]. (e.mail). You may also Washington, DC 20554. Deputy Chief, Accounting and Audits contact Ms. Behlin for general Federal Communications Commission. Division, Common Carrier Bureau. information concerning the Public David E. Horowitz, [FR Doc. 96–14046 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Safety Wireless Advisory Committee. Deputy Chief, Private Wireless Division, BILLING CODE 6712±01±P Information is also available from the Internet at the Public Safety Wireless Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Advisory Committee homepage (http:// [FR Doc. 96–14047 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Public Safety Wireless Advisory pswac.ntia.doc.gov.). BILLING CODE 6712±01±P Committee; Steering and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Subcommittee Meetings Steering Committee and the five AGENCIES: The National Subcommittees of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee will hold FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE Telecommunications and Information CORPORATION Administration (NTIA), Larry Irving, consecutive meetings over a three-day period, Tuesday through Thursday, June Assistant Secretary for Communications Notice of Agency Meeting and Information, and the Federal 25, 26, 27, 1996. The expected arrangement of the meetings, which is Communications Commission (FCC), Pursuant to the provisions of the subject to change at the time of the Reed E. Hundt, Chairman. ‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5 meetings, is as follows: ACTION: Notice of the Next Meetings of U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that June 25: The Steering Committee the Spectrum Requirements, at 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 28, 1996, meeting will start at 9 a.m. Interoperability, Technology, the Board of Directors of the Federal June 26: The Operational Operational Requirements and Deposit Insurance Corporation met in Requirements Subcommittee, the Transition Subcommittees, and the closed session to consider the following Technology Subcommittee and then the Steering Committee of the Public Safety matters: Transition Subcommittee will meet Wireless Advisory Committee. consecutively starting at 9 a.m. Matters relating to the Corporation’s SUMMARY: In accordance with the June 27: The Interoperability corporate and supervisory activities. Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. Subcommittee and then the Spectrum Matters relating to the probable failure L. 92–463, as amended, this notice Requirements Subcommittee will meet of an insured depository institution. consecutively starting at 9 a.m. advises interested persons of the next Personnel matters. meetings of the five Subcommittees and The tentative agenda for the Steering Steering Committee of the Public Safety Committee and each subcommittee In calling the meeting, the Board Wireless Advisory Committee. The meeting is as follows: determined, on motion of Vice NTIA and the FCC established a Public 1. Welcoming Remarks. Chairman Andrew C. Hove, Jr., Safety Wireless Advisory Committee, 2. Approval of Agenda. seconded by Director Joseph H. Neely Subcommittees, and Steering Committee 3. Administrative Matters. (Appointive), concurred in by Director to prepare a final report to advise the 4. Work Program/Organization of Jonathan L. Fiechter (Acting Director, NTIA and the FCC on operational, Work. Office of Thrift Supervision), Ms. Julie technical and spectrum requirements of 5. Meeting Schedule. Williams, acting in the place and stead Federal, state and local Public Safety 6. Agenda for Next Meeting. of Director Eugene A. Ludwig entities through the year 2010. All 7. Other Business. (Comptroller of the Currency), and interested parties are invited to attend 8. Closing Remarks. Chairman Ricki Helfer, that Corporation and to participate in the next round of Anyone who is submitting papers, business required its consideration of meetings of the Subcommittees and the information, or written comments for the matters on less than seven days’ Steering Committee. consideration by the Steering notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; DATES: June 25, 26, 27, 1996. Committee or any of the five that the public interest did not require ADDRESSES: Postal Square Museum subcommittees is asked to bring 100 copies to the meeting. consideration of the matters in a Building, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., meeting open to public observation; and Washington, DC 20002. The tentative schedule and general location of future meetings of the that the matters could be considered in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Subcommittees of the Public Safety a closed meeting by authority of information regarding the Wireless Advisory Committee is as subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), Subcommittees, contact: follows: September 1996, in (c)(8)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the Interoperability Subcommittee: James ‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5 E. Downes at 202–622–1582. Washington, D.C. The tentative schedule and general U.S.C. 552b (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), Operational Requirements (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and—(c)(10)). Subcommittee: Paul H. Wieck at 515– location of the next full meeting of the 281–5261. Public Safety Wireless Advisory The meeting was held in the Board Spectrum Requirements Committee is: September 1996, in Room of the FDIC Building located at Subcommittee: Richard N. Allen at 703– Washington, D.C. 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC. The Co-Designated Federal Officers of 630–6617. Dated: May 29, 1996. Technology Subcommittee: Alfred the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Mello at 401–738–2220. Committee are William Donald Transition Subcommittee: Ronnie Speights, NTIA, and John J. Borkowski, Valerie J. Best, Rand at 904–322–2500 or 800–949–2726 FCC. For public inspection, a file Assistant Executive Secretary. ext. 600. designated WTB–1 is maintained in the [FR Doc. 96–14228 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am] For information regarding Private Wireless Division of the BILLING CODE 6714±01±M accommodations and transportation, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, contact: Deborah Behlin at 202–418– Federal Communications Commission, Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28583

FEDERAL EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and Figure II–2, Onscene Response MANAGEMENT AGENCY Background Operations Structure, referred to at 61 FR 20961, E. Stages of the Federal Federal Radiological Emergency The notice that is the subject of these Response, 3. Response Operations, were Response Plan (FRERP); Operational corrections gives notice of and inadvertently omitted. These figures publishes the Federal Radiological Plan; Correction depict graphically a process and Emergency Response Plan (FRERP) as operations structure important to the AGENCY: Federal Emergency the operational plan for Federal notification and response operations Management Agency (FEMA). agencies to discharge their ACTION: Correction to notice. responsibilities during peacetime stages of the Federal response to a radiological emergencies. The FRERP radiological emergency. SUMMARY: This document contains establishes an organized, integrated John P. Carey, corrections to the Federal Radiological capability for participating Federal General Counsel. Emergency Response Plan (FRERP) agencies to respond to a wide range of published as a notice in the Federal peacetime radiological emergencies. The Correction of Publication Register on Wednesday, May 8, 1996 Plan provides a concept of operations, (61 FR 20944). Two figures were Accordingly, the publication on May outlines Federal policies and planning inadvertently omitted from that notice. 8, 1996 of the notice, Federal considerations, and specifies authorities Radiological Emergency Response Plan EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1996. and responsibilities of each Federal (FRERP); Operational Plan, which was FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: agency that has a significant role in such the subject of FR Doc. 96–11313, is Thomas M. Antush, Operations emergencies. Division, Response and Recovery corrected by inserting on 61 FR 20962 Directorate, Federal Emergency Need for Correction before Appendix A the following Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Figure II–1, Notification Process, figures: Washington, DC 20472, telephone (202) referred to at 61 FR 20960, E. Stages of 646–3617. the Federal Response, 1. Notification, 28584 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

[FR Doc. 96–14005 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6718±02±C Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28585

[Docket No. FEMA±REP±4±TN±2] $0.10 per page, payable with the request Change in Bank Control Notices; for copy. Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Tennessee Multi-Jurisdictional Under 44 CFR 350.10, which requires Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; Radiological Emergency Response Correction Plan for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant a public meeting on the plan before it is approved by FEMA, FEMA held a This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. AGENCY: Federal Emergency public meeting at the Sweetwater Hotel, 96-13653) published on page 27352 of Management Agency (FEMA). Sweetwater, Tennessee, on November the issue for Friday, May 31, 1996. ACTION: Notice. 16, 1995. Under the Federal Reserve Bank of SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice of receipt Dated: May 24, 1996. Minneapolis heading, the entry for of the Tennessee Multi-Jurisdictional Kenneth D. Hutchison, Peterka Family Partnership, Miller, Radiological Emergency Response Plan South Dakota, is revised to read as Regional Director, FEMA Region IV. follows: for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. This [FR Doc. 96–13988 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] plan supports a nuclear power plant 1. Peterka Family Partnership, Miller, that has impacts on the State of BILLING CODE 6718±06±P South Dakota; to become a bank holding Tennessee, and includes plans for local company by acquiring 36.87 percent of governments near the Tennessee Valley the voting shares of M&H Financial Authority’s Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Services, Inc., Miller, South Dakota, and FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM located in Rhea County, Tennessee. thereby indirectly acquire First State Bank of Miller, Miller, South Dakota. DATES: FEMA received the plan on April Change in Bank Control Notices; Comments on this application must 12, 1996. We invite comments on the Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or be received by June 24, 1996. entire plan or portions of it, which must Bank Holding Companies be received on or before July 5, 1996. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 31, 1996. ADDRESSES: Please send any comments The notificants listed below have William W. Wiles, to Kenneth D. Hutchison, Regional applied under the Change in Bank Director, FEMA Region IV, 1371 Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § Secretary of the Board. Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, GA 30309, 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 [FR Doc. 96–14154 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] (facsimile) (404) 853–4230 and to the CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank BILLING CODE 6210±01±F Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the holding company. The factors that are General Counsel, Federal Emergency considered in acting on the notices are Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 Mergers of Bank Holding Companies room 840, Washington, DC 20472, U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). (facsimile) (202) 646–4536. Please refer The notices are available for The companies listed in this notice to Docket No. FEMA–REP–4–TN–2. immediate inspection at the Federal have applied to the Board for approval, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reserve Bank indicated. Once the pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Kenneth D. Hutchison, Regional notices have been accepted for Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) Director, FEMA Region IV, 1371 processing, they will also be available (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, GA 30309, for inspection at the offices of the Board 225), and all other applicable statutes (404) 853–4200. Please refer to Docket of Governors. Interested persons may and regulations to become a bank No. FEMA–REP–4–TN–2. express their views in writing to the holding company and/or to acquire the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant Reserve Bank indicated for that notice assets or the ownership of, control of, or to 44 CFR Part 350.8, ‘‘Review and or to the offices of the Board of the power to vote shares of a bank or Approval of State Radiological Governors. Comments must be received bank holding company and all of the Emergency Plans and Preparedness’’, not later than June 20, 1996. banks and nonbanking companies the State of Tennessee Multi- owned by the bank holding company, A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas Jurisdictional Radiological Emergency including the companies listed below. City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice Response Plan for the Watts Bar Nuclear The applications listed below, as well President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas Plant was received by the Federal as other related filings required by the City, Missouri 64198: Emergency Management Agency Region Board, are available for immediate IV office on April 12, 1996. 1. Kosman, Inc., Scottsbluff, Nebraska, inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank The Tennessee Multi-Jurisdictional to acquire a total of 23.0 percent; Henry indicated. Once the application has Radiological Emergency Response Plan H. Kosman, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, to been accepted for processing, it will also for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant contains acquire a total of 23.6 percent; Dianna be available for inspection at the offices plans for local governments that are L. Kosman, Alachua, Florida, to acquire of the Board of Governors. Interested wholly or partially within the plume a total of 23.6 percent; and Ann K. persons may express their views in exposure pathway emergency planning Burkholder, Cozad, Nebraska, to acquire writing on the standards enumerated in zones of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, a total of 23.6 percent, of the voting the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the including plans for Rhea, Meigs, shares of FirstMorrill Co., Morrill, proposal also involves the acquisition of McMinn, Hamilton, Cumberland and Nebraska, and thereby indirectly acquire a nonbanking company, the review also Roane Counties. First National Bank in Morrill, Morrill, includes whether the acquisition of the Copies of the plan are available for Nebraska. nonbanking company complies with the review at the FEMA Region IV office, or Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve standards in section 4 of the BHC Act, are available upon request in System, May 31, 1996. including whether the acquisition of the accordance with the fee schedule for nonbanking company can ‘‘reasonably FEMA Freedom of Information Act William W. Wiles, be expected to produce benefits to the requests, as set out in subpart C of 44 Secretary of the Board. public, such as greater convenience, CFR Part 5. There are 1434 pages in the [FR Doc. 96–14153 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] increased competition, or gains in Tennessee plan; reproduction fees are BILLING CODE 6210±01±F efficiency, that outweigh possible 28586 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices adverse effects, such as undue in securities brokerage services thereby indirectly acquire Whidbey concentration of resources, decreased or restricted to buying and selling Island Bank, Coupeville, Washington. unfair competition, conflicts of securities solely as agent for the account Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve interests, or unsound banking practices’’ of customers, pursuant to § System, May 30, 1996. (12 U.S.C. 1843). Any request for 225.25(b)(15)(i) of the Board’s William W. Wiles, a hearing must be accompanied by a Regulation Y; in providing execution, Secretary of the Board. statement of the reasons a written clearing and other services incidental to [FR Doc. 96–14029 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] presentation would not suffice in lieu of brokerage, for affiliates and for third- a hearing, identifying specifically any parties, pursuant to § 225.25(b)(15)(i) of BILLING CODE 6210±01±F questions of fact that are in dispute, the Board’s Regulation Y; in the summarizing the evidence that would purchase and sale of securities on the Formations of, Acquisitions by, and be presented at a hearing, and indicating order of customers as riskless principal, Mergers of Bank Holding Companies how the party commenting would be pursuant to authority granted in aggrieved by approval of the proposal. previous Board Orders (Bankers Trust The companies listed in this notice Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking New York Corp., 75 Fed. Res. Bull. 829); have applied to the Board for approval, activities will be conducted throughout and in software development activities pursuant to the Bank Holding Company the United States. incidental to its securities brokerage Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) Unless otherwise noted, comments business, pursuant to §§ (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part regarding each of these applications 225.25(b)(7)&(15) of the Board’s 225), and all other applicable statutes must be received at the Reserve Bank Regulation Y, through the acquisition of and regulations to become a bank indicated or the offices of the Board of a 50 percent interest in a joint venture, holding company and/or to acquire the Governors not later than June 28, 1996. Marketware International, Inc. assets or the ownership of, control of, or A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston C. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta the power to vote shares of a bank or (Robert M. Brady, Vice President) 600 (Zane R. Kelley, Vice President) 104 bank holding company and all of the Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia banks and nonbanking companies 02106: 30303: owned by the bank holding company, 1. Assabet Valley Bancorp, Hudson, 1. Fidelity National Corporation, including the companies listed below. Massachusetts; to become a bank Decatur, Georgia; to acquire 100 percent The applications listed below, as well holding company by acquiring 100 of the voting shares of Friendship as other related filings required by the percent of the voting shares of Hudson Community Bank, Ocala, Florida. Board, are available for immediate Savings Bank, Hudson, Massachusetts. D. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 2. UFS Bancorp, Whitinsville, City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice indicated. Once the application has Massachusetts; to become a bank President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas been accepted for processing, it will also holding company by acquiring 100 City, Missouri 64198: be available for inspection at the offices percent of the voting shares of UniBank 1. Citizens Holding Corporation of the Board of Governors. Interested for Savings, Whitinsville, ESOP, Keenesburg, Colorado; to acquire persons may express their views in Massachusetts. up to 35 percent of the voting shares of writing on the standards enumerated in B. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Citizens State Bank, Keenesburg, the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the (Christopher J. McCurdy, Senior Vice Colorado. proposal also involves the acquisition of President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, E. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas a nonbanking company, the review also New York 10045: (Genie D. Short, Vice President) 2200 includes whether the acquisition of the 1. HUBCO, Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey; North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201- nonbanking company complies with the to merge with Hometown 2272: standards in section 4 of the BHC Act, Bancorporation, Inc., Darien, 1. Oakwood Bancshares, Inc., including whether the acquisition of the Connecticut, and thereby indirectly Roanoke, Texas; to become a bank nonbanking company can ‘‘reasonably acquire The Bank of Darien, Darien, holding company by acquiring 100 be expected to produce benefits to the Connecticut. percent of the voting shares of Oakwood public, such as greater convenience, 2. Toronto-Dominion Bank, Toronto, Nevada Financial Corporation, Reno, increased competition, or gains in Canada, and TD/Oak, Inc., New York, Nevada, and thereby indirectly acquire efficiency, that outweigh possible New York; to become bank holding Oakwood National Bank, Westlake, adverse effects, such as undue companies by acquiring up to 100 Texas, a de novo bank. concentration of resources, decreased or percent of the voting shares of In connection with this application, unfair competition, conflicts of Waterhouse Investor Services, Inc., New Oakwood Nevada Financial interests, or unsound banking practices’’ York, New York, and thereby indirectly Corporation, Reno, Nevada, also has (12 U.S.C. 1843). Any request for acquire Waterhouse National Bank, applied to become a bank holding a hearing must be accompanied by a White Plains, New York. company by acquiring 100 percent of statement of the reasons a written In addition, Toronto-Dominion Bank, the voting shares of Oakwood National presentation would not suffice in lieu of Toronto, Canada, also has applied to Bank, Westlake, Texas a de novo bank. a hearing, identifying specifically any acquire up to 6.9 percent of the voting F. Federal Reserve Bank of San questions of fact that are in dispute, shares of Waterhouse Investor Services, Francisco (Kenneth R. Binning, summarizing the evidence that would Inc., New York, New York, and thereby Director, Bank Holding Company) 101 be presented at a hearing, and indicating indirectly acquire Waterhouse National Market Street, San Francisco, California how the party commenting would be Bank, White Plains, New York. 94105: aggrieved by approval of the proposal. In connection with this application, 1. Frontier Financial Corporation, Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking Applicants also have applied to acquire Everett, Washington; to acquire 9.9 activities will be conducted throughout Waterhouse Securities New York, Inc., percent of the voting shares of the United States. and thereby indirectly acquire Washington Banking Company, Oak Unless otherwise noted, comments Washington Discount Brokerage Corp., Harbor, Washington (formerly known as regarding each of these applications both of New York, and thereby engage Western Washington Bancorp.), and must be received at the Reserve Bank Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28587 indicated or the offices of the Board of interests, or unsound banking practices’’ report to Congress on whether the Truth Governors not later than July 1, 1996. (12 U.S.C. 1843). Any request for a in Lending Act cost disclosure and other A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta hearing on this question must be rules for home equity lines of credit (Zane R. Kelley, Vice President) 104 accompanied by a statement of the provide adequate consumer protections. Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia reasons a written presentation would The Board’s report may include 30303: not suffice in lieu of a hearing, suggestions for legislative revisions. 1. Appalachian Bancshares, Inc., identifying specifically any questions of Community Reinvestment Act Reform. Ellijay, Georgia; to become a bank fact that are in dispute, summarizing the Discussion led by the Bank Regulation holding company by acquiring 100 evidence that would be presented at a Committee on the results of the small percent of the voting shares of Gilmer hearing, and indicating how the party bank examinations conducted since the County Bank, Ellijay, Georgia. commenting would be aggrieved by implementation of revised CRA B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas approval of the proposal. regulations. City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice Unless otherwise noted, comments Interim Report on Streamlining President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas regarding the applications must be Mortgage Loan Closing Process. City, Missouri 64198: received at the Reserve Bank indicated Discussion led by the Community 1. Platte Valley Banc, Inc., Scottsbluff, or the offices of the Board of Governors Affairs and Housing Committee on its Nebraska; to become a bank holding not later than June 19, 1996. efforts, jointly with the Consumer Credit company by acquiring 100 percent of A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Committee, to identify and recommend the voting shares of Platte Valley (R. Chris Moore, Senior Vice President) areas to streamline the mortgage closing National Bank, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, a 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio paperwork process. de novo bank. 44101: Regulatory Coverage for Stored-Value Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 1. BancFirst Ohio Corp., Zanesville, Cards and Electronic Banking. System, May 31, 1996. Ohio; to acquire County Savings Bank, Discussion led by the Depository and William W. Wiles, Newark, Ohio, and thereby engage in Delivery Systems Committee on the Secretary of the Board. operating a savings association, proposal by the Federal Reserve Board [FR Doc. 96–14152 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] pursuant to § 225.25(b)(9) of the Board’s to exempt many types of stored-value BILLING CODE 6210±01±F Regulation Y. cards from consumer protections B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago included in Regulation E. (James A. Bluemle, Vice President) 230 Governor’s Report. Report by Federal Notice of Proposals to Engage in South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois Reserve Board Member Lawrence B. Permissible Nonbanking Activities or 60690: Lindsey on economic conditions, recent to Acquire Companies that are 1. Southwest Financial Group of Iowa, Board initiatives, and issues of concern, Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Inc., Red Oak, Iowa; to engage de novo with an opportunity for questions from Activities in making and servicing loans, pursuant Council members. to § 225.25(b)(1) of the Board’s Members Forum. Presentation of The companies listed in this notice Regulation Y. individual Council members’ views on have given notice under section 4 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve the economic conditions present within Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. System, May 30, 1996. their industries or local economies. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation William W. Wiles, Committee Reports. Reports from Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, Council committees on their work for or to acquire or control voting securities Secretary of the Board. 1996. or assets of a company that engages [FR Doc. 96–14030 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210±01±F Other matters previously considered either directly or through a subsidiary or by the Council or initiated by Council other company, in a nonbanking activity members also may be discussed. that is listed in § 225.25 of Regulation Consumer Advisory Council; Notice of Persons wishing to submit to the Y (12 CFR 225.25) or that the Board has Meeting of Consumer Advisory Council their views regarding any of the determined by Order to be closely Council above topics may do so by sending related to banking and permissible for written statements to Deanna Aday- bank holding companies. Unless The Consumer Advisory Council will Keller, Secretary, Consumer Advisory otherwise noted, these activities will be meet on Thursday, June 27. The Council, Division of Consumer and conducted throughout the United States. meeting, which will be open to public Community Affairs, Board of Governors Each notice is available for inspection observation, will take place in Terrace of the Federal Reserve System, at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Room E of the Martin Building. The Washington, D.C. 20551. Comments Once the notice has been accepted for meeting is expected to begin at 9:00 a.m. must be of a quality suitable for processing, it will also be available for and to continue until 4:00 p.m., with a reproduction. inspection at the offices of the Board of lunch break from 1:00 p.m. until 2:30 Information with regard to this Governors. Interested persons may p.m. The Martin Building is located on meeting may be obtained from Ms. express their views in writing on the C Street, Northwest, between 20th and Aday-Keller, 202-452-6470. question whether the proposal complies 21st Streets in Washington, D.C. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf with the standards of section 4 of the The Council’s function is to advise (TDD) users may contact Dorothea BHC Act, including whether the Board on the exercise of the Board’s Thompson, 202-452-3544. consummation of the proposal can responsibilities under the Consumer Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve ‘‘reasonably be expected to produce Credit Protection Act and on other System, May 30, 1996. benefits to the public, such as greater matters on which the Board seeks its convenience, increased competition, or advice. Time permitting, the Council William W. Wiles, gains in efficiency, that outweigh will discuss the following topics: Secretary of the Board possible adverse effects, such as undue Home Equity Lines of Credit. [FR Doc. 96–14052 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] concentration of resources, decreased or Discussion led by the Consumer Credit BILLING CODE 6210±01±F unfair competition, conflicts of Committee on the Board’s upcoming 28588 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION persons contemplating certain mergers The following transactions were or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade granted early termination of the waiting Granting of Request for Early Commission and the Assistant Attorney period provided by law and the Termination of the Waiting Period General advance notice and to wait premerger notification rules. The grants Under the Premerger Notification designated periods before were made by the Federal Trade Rules consummation of such plans. Section Commission and the Assistant Attorney 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, General for the Antitrust Division of the Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 in individual cases, to terminate this Department of Justice. Neither agency U.S.C. § 18a, as added by Title II of the waiting period prior to its expiration intends to take any action with respect Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust and requires that notice of this action be to these proposed acquisitions during Improvements Act of 1976, requires published in the Federal Register. the applicable waiting period.

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION BETWEEN: 050696 AND 051796

Date Name of acquiring person, name of acquired person, name of acquired entity PMN No. terminated

K±III Communications Corporation, Westcott Communications, Inc., Westcott Communications, Inc ...... 96±1727 05/06/96 Palmer Communications Incorporated, Horizon Cellular Telephone Company, L.P., Horizon Cellular Telephone Company of Spalding, L.P ...... 96±1731 06/07/96 Hayes Wheels International, Inc., Joseph Littlejohn & Levy Fund II, L.P., MWC Holdings, Inc ...... 96±1612 05/07/96 Joseph Littlejohn & Levy Fund II, L.P., Hayes Wheels International, Inc., Hayes Wheels International, Inc ...... 96±1613 05/07/96 TSG Capital Fund II, L.P., Hayes Wheels International, Inc., Hayes Wheels International, Inc ...... 96±1622 05/07/96 Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Hayes Wheels International, Inc., Hayes Wheels International, Inc ...... 96±1623 05/07/96 Mohawk Industries, Inc., J. Chadwick McEntire, Fiber One, Inc ...... 96±1701 05/07/96 Bankers Trust New York Corporation, Homer Tolliver, Acutus Holdings, Incorporated ...... 96±1702 05/07/96 Warburg, Pincus Capital Company, L.P., Keepco II, Keepco II ...... 96±1710 05/07/96 Warburg, Pincus Capital Company, L.P., Keepco I, Keepco I ...... 96±1711 05/07/96 Mason Best Company, L.P., Tracor, Inc., Tracor, Inc ...... 96±1715 05/07/96 Robert M. Davidson and Janice G. Davidson, CUC International Inc., CUC International Inc ...... 96±1717 05/07/96 CUC International Inc., Robert M. Davidson and Janice G. Davidson, Davidson & Associates, Inc ...... 96±1718 05/07/96 Union Camp Corporation, The Alling & Cory Company, The Alling & Cory Company ...... 96±1719 05/07/96 Warburg, Pincus Capital Company, L.P., Panavision International, L.P., Panavision International, L.P ...... 96±1721 05/07/96 Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. Voting Trust, Nelson-Ball Ground Telephone Holding, Inc., Nelson-Ball Ground Telephone Holding, Inc ...... 96±1557 05/08/96 John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., Willamette Industries, Inc., Willamette Industries, Inc ...... 96±1561 05/08/96 Rockwell International Corporation, Intercolor Corporation, Intercolor Corporation ...... 96±1565 05/08/96 Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe VII, L.P., Global Financial Information Corporation, Global Financial Infor- mation Corporation ...... 96±1628 05/08/96 Heritage Media Corporation, EZ Communications, Inc., Professional Broadcasting, Inc ...... 96±1692 05/08/96 EZ Communications, Inc., Heritage Media Corporation, Heritage Media, Inc ...... 96±1693 05/08/96 Clear Channel Communications, Inc., Tomlin Family Trust II, Stephen I. Burr Esq., Trustee, Roy H. Park Broadcasting of Virginia, Inc ...... 96±1699 05/08/96 Clear Channel Communications, Inc., Dr. Gary B. Knapp, Roy H. Park Broadcasting of Virginia, Inc ...... 96±1700 05/08/96 Hellman & Friedman Capital Partners III, L.P., Advanstar Holdings, Inc., Advanstar Holdings, Inc ...... 96±1704 05/08/96 Tyler Capital Fund, L.P., Niagara Envelope Company, Inc., Niagara Envelope Company, Inc ...... 96±1724 05/08/96 Nichols Research Corporation, Advanced Marine Enterprises, Inc., Advanced Marine Enterprises, Inc ...... 96±1746 05/08/96 Roundy's, Inc. Voting Trust, Rindt Enterprises, Inc., Rindt Enterprises, Inc ...... 96±1748 05/08/96 Ruddick Corporation, Daniel K. Frierson, Dixie Yarns, Inc ...... 96±1262 05/09/96 Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation, Pasadena Healthcare Management, Inc., Southmore Medical Center, Ltd ...... 96±1575 05/09/96 Computer Associates International Inc., Digital Equipment Corporation, Digital Equipment Corporation ...... 96±1631 05/09/96 Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., Amoco Corporation, ATx Telecom Systems, Inc ...... 96±1660 05/09/96 Tenet Healthcare Corporation, Versacare, Inc., Tenet Hialeah Health System, Inc ...... 96±1674 05/09/96 Protective Life Corporation, American General Corporation, The Franklin Life Insurance Company ...... 96±1667 05/10/96 Corporate Express, Inc., ASAP Software Express, Inc., ASAP Software Express, Inc ...... 96±1729 05/10/96 Automobile Club of Southern California, American Automobile Association, American Automobile Association 96±1740 05/10/96 Sony Corporation, The News Corporation Limited, Etak, Inc ...... 96±1744 05/10/96 North Dakota Telephone Company, US WEST, Inc., US WEST Communications, Inc ...... 96±1713 05/14/96 West River Telecommunications Cooperative, US WEST, Inc., US WEST Communications, Inc ...... 96±1720 05/14/96 Discovery Communications, Inc., CML Group, Inc., The Nature Company and The Nature Company Inter- national ...... 96±1745 05/14/96 Furnishings International Inc., Masco Corporation, Masco Corporation's Home Furnishings Group ...... 96±1747 05/14/96 Alusuisse-Lonza Holding Ltd., Mebane Packaging Group, Inc., Mebane Packaging Group, Inc ...... 96±1749 05/14/96 PacifiCorp, GTE Corporation, GTE North Incorporated ...... 96±1750 05/14/96 Ford Motor Company, Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., Fleetwood Credit Corp ...... 96±1751 05/14/96 Allegheny Power System, Inc., DQE, Inc., Duquesne Light Company ...... 96±1753 05/14/96 Genstar Capital Partners II, L.P., Domtar Inc. (a Canadian corporation), Domtar Industries Inc./The Melamine Group, Inc ...... 96±1763 05/14/96 American Radio Systems Corporation, Howard P. Tanger, Marlin Broadcasting, Inc ...... 96±1765 05/14/96 The Titan Corporation, Jack D. Witt, Eldyne, Unidyne & assets of Diversified Control Systems ...... 96±1766 05/14/96 Roper Industries, Inc., Fluid Metering, Inc., Fluid Metering, Inc ...... 96±1769 05/14/96 Questor Partners Fund, L.P., Anacomp, Inc., Anacomp, Inc ...... 96±1773 05/14/96 Long Reach Holdings, Inc., Tredegar Industries, Inc., Brudi, Inc ...... 96±1774 05/14/96 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28589

TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION BETWEEN: 050696 AND 051796ÐContinued

Date Name of acquiring person, name of acquired person, name of acquired entity PMN No. terminated

Palmer Communications Incorporated, Telephone and Data Systems, Inc., Voting Trust, USCOC of Georgia RSA #1, Inc ...... 96±1775 05/14/96 Seacor Holdings, Inc., McCall Enterprises Inc., McCall Enterprises Inc ...... 96±1776 05/14/96 Golder, Thoma, Cressey, Rauner Fund IV, L.P., Scott L. Sumsion, Valley Asphalt, Inc ...... 96±1782 05/14/96 ASEA AB, Itochu Corporation (a Japanese corporation), Kalaeloa Partners, L.P ...... 96±1785 05/14/96 BBC Brown Boveri Ltd., Itochu Corporation (a Japanese corporation), Kalaeloa Partners, L.P ...... 96±1786 05/14/96 Golder, Thoma, Cressey, Rauner Fund IV, L.P., Brent R. Sumsion, Valley Asphalt, Inc ...... 96±1794 05/14/96 BWAY Corporation, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Davies Can Division of Van Dorn Company ...... 96±1795 05/14/96 Warburg, Pincus Investors, L.P., AGRA Industries Limited, Contain-A-Way Holdings, Inc ...... 96±1797 05/14/96 Sumitomo Corporation, Komatsu Ltd. (a Japanese company), Linder Industrial Machinery Company ...... 96±1798 05/14/96 Sara Lee Corporation, Ralph Lauren, Polo Ralph Lauren, L.P ...... 96±1799 05/14/96 Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, Richard L. and Mary M. Rosenberg, Associated Chemists, Inc ...... 96±1801 05/14/96 The Robert Rosenkranz Trust, Acadia Partner, L.P., BMK Acquisition, Inc ...... 96±1802 05/14/96 LG Information & Communications, Inc., Allen Salmasi, Next Wave Telecom Inc ...... 96±1803 05/14/96 Berkshire Hathaway Inc., Kansas Bankers Surety Company, Kansas Bankers Surety Company ...... 96±1810 05/14/96 Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, Nowsco Well Service Ltd., Nowsco Well Service Ltd ...... 96±1820 05/14/96 Tyco International Ltd., Nashua Corporation, Nashua Tape Products Division ...... 96±1651 05/15/96 General Instrument Corporation, Compression Labs, Incorporated, Broadcast Products Group of CLI ...... 96±1679 05/15/96 H&R Block, Inc., Kenton and GrayNell Richard, Bay Colony, Ltd ...... 96±1698 05/15/96 Alusuisse-Lonza Holding, Ltd., Wheaton Inc., Wheaton Inc ...... 96±1777 05/15/96 TBC Corporation, Big O Tires, Inc., Big O Tires, Inc ...... 96±1800 05/15/96 Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., River City Broadcasting, L.P., River City Broadcasting, L.P ...... 96±1861 05/15/96 Thermo Electron Corporation, XRE Corporation, XRE Corporation ...... 96±1615 05/16/96 World Color Press, Inc., Verlags A.G., Krueger Acquisition Corporation ...... 96±1705 05/16/96 Baker, Fentress & Company, Mr. John A. Levin, John A. Levin & Co., Inc ...... 96±1725 05/16/96 John A. Levin, Baker, Fentress & Company, Baker, Fentress & Company ...... 96±1726 05/16/96 Battle Mountain Gold Company, Hemlo Gold Mines Inc., Hemlo Gold Mines Inc ...... 96±1736 05/16/96 Meridian Insurance Group, Inc., Citizens Security Mutual Insurance Company, Citizens Security Group, Inc ..... 96±1768 05/16/96 Circle Investors, Inc., J. Steven Wilson, Secures Financial Corporation ...... 96±1695 05/17/96 Noranda Inc., Battle Mountain Gold Inc., Battle Mountain Canada Holdco Inc ...... 96±1737 05/17/96 Exor Group S.A. Kenneth D. Lewis, KSQ Blowmolding, Engineering, Manufacturing, Inc ...... 96±1783 05/17/96 Blackstone Capital Partners II Merchant Banking Fund LP, GS Capital Partners II, L.P., AMF Holdings Inc ...... 96±1796 05/17/96 Robert R. Dyson, Bucilla Corporation, Bucilla Corporation ...... 96±1809 05/17/96 Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Ted Davis, Ted's Restorations, Inc ...... 96±1813 05/17/96 ReSound Corporation, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Com- pany ...... 96±1818 05/17/96 CRH plc, Herbert Smilowitz, Allied Building Products Corp ...... 96±1821 05/17/96 AMNEX, Inc., Robert A. Rowland, Capital Network Systems, Inc ...... 96±1826 05/17/96 Aurora Equity Partners L.P., Larry Ross Weinberger, Larry Ross Advertising, Inc., Staten Island Publication .... 96±1832 05/17/96 Vanstar Corporation, Dataflex Corporation, Dataflex Southwest Corporation ...... 96±1834 05/17/96 Richard E. Rainwater, MESA Inc., MESA Inc ...... 96±1835 05/17/96 Stonington Capital Appreciation 1994 Fund, L.P., Rockwell International Corporation, Rockwell International Corporation ...... 96±1838 05/17/96 Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., ABRY Communications III, L.P.,Kansas City 62 TV Limited Partnership ...... 96±1841 05/17/96 Howard P. Tanger, American Radio Systems Corporation, Marlin Broadcasting of Miami, Inc ...... 96±1842 05/17/96 Fred's, Inc. Rose's Stores, Inc ...... 96±1847 05/17/96 FMR Corp, Wagner Stott Mercator Partners, L.P., Wagner Stott Mercator Partners. L.P ...... 96±1854 05/17/96

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: GENERAL SERVICES (DOD). It is currently located at the Sandra M. Peay or Renee A. Horton, ADMINISTRATION Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Contact Representatives, Federal Trade Northwest Washington, DC. Commission, Premerger Notification Notice of Availability of Draft Agencies and the public are invited Office, Bureau of Competition, Room Environmental Assessment and encouraged to provide written 303, Washington, D.C. 20580, (202) 326– comments on this document and/or The General Services Administration 3100. proposed project. All comments must be (GSA) has filed with the Environmental received by June 30, 1996. Written By direction of the Commission. Protection Agency and made available comments should be sent to: Donald S. Clark, to other governmental and private Secretary. bodies a draft environmental assessment General Services Administration, National Capital Region, Portfolio [FR Doc. 96–14049 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] of the proposed construction of a building on or near the National Mall in Management Division (WPT), Seventh BILLING CODE 6750±01±M Washington, DC, to house the National and D Streets, SW., Room 7618, Museum of Health and Medicine. Washington, DC 20407, Attention: The National Museum of Health and Frank T. Thomas Medicine (NMHM) is a component of Additional copies of the Draft EA are the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology available for public inspection at the (AFIP) of the Department of Defense following locations: 28590 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

1. General Services Administration, Dated: May 30, 1996. sites. The purpose of this meeting is to National Capital Region, Bid Room, Carolyn J. Russell, provide a forum for community, and labor Room 1701, 7th and D Streets, SW., Director, Management Analysis and Services interaction and serve as a vehicle for community concern to be expressed as Washington, DC 20407 Office, Centers for Disease Control and advice and recommendations to CDC and Prevention (CDC). 2. Martin Luther King Jr., Memorial ATSDR. Library, 901 G Street, NW., [FR Doc. 96–14035 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items Washington, DC BILLING CODE 4163±19±M include: presentations from the National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) 3. Southwest Branch Library, 7th and D regarding current activities; the National Streets, SE., Washington, DC Citizens Advisory Committee on Public Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Health Service Activities and Research and ATSDR, will address the progress of If you have further questions on this current studies; and Radiologic Assessments project or would like to obtain a copy at Department of Energy (DOE) Sites: Fernald Health Effects Subcommittee Corporation will present an update of the of the Draft Environmental Assessment, Fernald Dose Reconstruction. please contact Mr. Brian Peper, Project In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of Agenda items are subject to change as Officer, NCR Property Development the Federal Advisory Committee Act priorities dictate. Division, at (202) 708–7248. (Pub. L. 92–463), the Agency for Toxic Contact Persons for more Information: Steven A. Adams or Nadine Dickerson, Dated: May 28, 1996. Substances and Disease Registry Radiation Studies Branch, Division of Linda Eastman, (ATSDR) and Centers for Disease Environmental Hazards and Health, NCEH, Director, NCR Portfolio Management (WPT). Control and Prevention (CDC) announce CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE., (F–35), the following meeting. [FR Doc. 96–14008 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Atlanta, Georgia 30341–3724, telephone 770/ 488–7040, FAX 770/488–7044. BILLING CODE 6820±34±M Name: Citizens Advisory Committee on Public Health Service Activities and Due to difficulty in location of meeting Research at DOE Sites: Fernald Health Effects facility, this notice is being published less Subcommittee. than 15 days prior to the meeting. Times and Dates: 9 a.m.–4 p.m., June 12, Dated: May 30, 1996. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 1996. 9 a.m.–12 noon, June 13, 1996. Carolyn J. Russell, HUMAN SERVICES Place: Sheraton Springdale Hotel, 11911 Director, Management Analysis and Services Sheraton Lane, Springdale, Ohio 45246, Office, Centers for Disease Control and Centers for Disease Control and telephone 513/671–6600, FAX 513/671– Prevention. Prevention 0507. Status: Open to the public, limited only by [FR Doc. 96–14034 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Board of Scientific Counselors, the space available. The meeting room BILLING CODE 4163±18±M National Institute for Occupational accommodates approximately 50 people. Safety and Health: Meeting Background: Under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in December Scientific and Technical Meeting on 1990 with DOE, the Department of Health In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of Occupational Exposure to Asphalt and Human Services (HHS) has been given During Paving Operation the Federal Advisory Committee Act the responsibility and resources for (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease conducting analytic epidemiologic The National Institute for Control and Prevention (CDC) investigations of residents of communities in Occupational Safety and Health announces the following committee the vicinity of DOE facilities, workers at DOE (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease meeting. facilities, and other persons potentially Control and Prevention (CDC) exposed to radiation or to potential hazards announces the following meeting. Name: Board of Scientific Counselors, from non-nuclear energy production use. National Institute for Occupational Safety HHS delegated program responsibility to Name: Scientific and Technical Meeting on and Health (BSC, NIOSH). CDC. Occupational Exposure to Asphalt During Time and Date: 9 a.m.–4 p.m., July 9, 1996. In addition, an MOU was signed in October Paving Operations. Place: The Washington Court Hotel, 1990 and renewed in November 1992 Times and Dates: 12 noon–5 p.m., July 8, Montpelier Room, 525 New Jersey Avenue between ATSDR and DOE. The MOU 1996. 8:30 a.m.–5 p.m., July 9, 1996. 8:30 NW., Washington, DC 20001. delineates the responsibilities and a.m.–12 noon, July 10, 1996. Status: Open to the public, limited only by procedures for ATSDR’S public health Place: The Omni Netherland Plaza Hotel, the space available. activities at DOE sites required under Landmark Center Meeting Room, 5th and Purpose: The Board reviews research sections 104, 105, 107, and 120 of the Race Streets, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. activities to provide guidance on the quality, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Status: Open to the public, limited only by timeliness, and efficacy of the Institute’s Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or the space available. The meeting room programs. ‘‘Superfund’’). These activities include health accommodates approximately 250 people. Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items consultations and public health assessments Purpose: NIOSH is planning to convene a include a report from the Director of NIOSH, at DOE sites listed on, or proposed for, the public meeting to discuss the scientific and implementation of the National Occupational Superfund National Priorities List and at technical issues relevant to the development sites that are the subject of petitions from the of recommendations for controlling Research Agenda, update on Musculoskeletal public; and other health-related activities occupational exposures to asphalt during Program Evaluation, Research/Capacity such as epidemiologic studies, health asphalt paving operations. Building in Developing Countries (and other surveillance, exposure and disease registries, NIOSH is convening a panel of individuals international occupational safety and health health education, substance-specific applied knowledgeable of the potential health effects activities), and future activities of the Board. research, emergency response, and and of current control technologies of asphalt Agenda items are subject to change as preparation of toxicological profiles. exposure. The panel will be asked to priorities dictate. Purpose: This subcommittee is charged prescribe the types of remedial action (e.g., Contact Person for More Information: with providing advice and recommendations engineering controls, exposure limit) that Bryan Hardin, Ph.D., Acting Executive to the Director, CDC, and the Administrator, may be needed to protect workers’ health. Secretary, BSC, NIOSH, and Acting Deputy ATSDR, regarding community, American The goal of the meeting is to seek the Director, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road Indian Tribes, and labor concerns pertaining widespread support of the participants in NE., M/S D–35, Atlanta, GA 30333, telephone to CDC’s and ATSDR’s public health identifying and resolving issues relevant to 404/639–3773. activities and research at respective DOE reducing exposure to asphalt. However, Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28591

NIOSH retains the responsibility for the proposal by name and should be The TOP offers the Basic and developing the conclusions and sent to: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr., HUD Desk Additional technical assistance grants to recommendations in the final document. The Officer, Office of Management and Resident Councils (RCs)/Resident public is invited to attend and comment on Budget, New Executive Office Building, Management Corporations (RMCs)/ the deliberations of this meeting. NIOSH plans to hold a similar meeting at Washington, DC 20503. Resident Organizations (ROs) and a later date to discuss the scientific and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: National Resident Organizations (NROs)/Regional Resident Organizations technical issues relevant to controlling Kay F. Weaver, Reports Management (RROs) and Statewide Resident exposures to asphalt during asphalt roofing Officer, Department of Housing and operations. Organizations (SROs). The grants are Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, Contact Persons for Additional awarded on a competitive basis and the SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone Information: Technical information may be maximum amount is $100,000 per (202) 708–0050. This is not a toll-free obtained from Ralph Zumwalde, NIOSH, project. number. Copies of available documents CDC, 4676 Columbia Parkway, M/S C–32, To appropriately determine which Cincinnati, Ohio, 45226, telephone 513/533– submitted to OMB may be obtained RCs/RMCs/ROs and NROs/RROs/SROs 8319, e-mail address: from Ms. Weaver. [email protected]. should be awarded a Tenant Persons wishing to attend the meeting, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Opportunities Program Technical obtain a copy of the draft document, or Notice informs the public that the Assistance Grant (TOP/TAG), all reserve overnight accommodations at the Department of Housing and Urban applicants must complete certain Omni Netherland Plaza Hotel, should Development (HUD) has submitted to information to be eligible for funding. respond by close of business June 31, 1996, OMB, for emergency processing, an The Department has submitted the to Kellie Wilson, NIOSH, 4676 Columbia information collection package with proposal for the collection of Parkway, M/S C–34, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226, respect to a proposed ‘‘Application Kit information to OMB for review, as telephone 513/533–8362, fax 513/533–8285, for the Tenant Opportunities Program’’ required by the Paperwork Reduction e-mail address: [email protected]. Persons interested in providing comments (TOP). Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The on the draft document should submit The TOP Program meets the needs in Department has requested emergency comments by close of business June 17, 1996, many communities for business clearance of the collection of to Diane Manning, NIOSH Docket Office, development, education, job training information, as described below, with 4676 Columbia Parkway, M/S C–34, and development, social services, and approval being sought by June 3, 1996: Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. Information may opportunities for other self-help (1) Title of the information collection also be obtained by calling 1–800–35–NIOSH initiatives. The program enables proposal: or by the Internet NIOSH Homepage: http:/ resident entities to establish priorities, www.cdc.gov/niosh/homepage.html. Application Kit—Tenant based on the efforts in their public and Opportunities Program Dated: May 29, 1996. Indian housing communities, that are (2) Summary of the collection of Carolyn J. Russell, aimed at furthering economic lift and information: Director, Management Analysis and Services independence. Financial assistance in Each respondent seeking to obtain a Office, Centers for Disease Control and the form of technical assistance grants is TOP technical assistance grant Prevention (CDC). provided by the Secretary to resident would be required to submit current [FR Doc. 96–14050 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] grantees to prepare for management information, as listed below as: BILLING CODE 4160±19±M activities in their housing development. 1. Fact Sheet—information about the The TOP technical assistance grants are respondent: name, address, telephone, available for ‘‘the development of the local housing authority information, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND resident management entities, including and elected Board information. URBAN DEVELOPMENT the formation of such entities, the 2. Work Plan/Training Programs/ [Docket No. FR±4066±N±02] development of the management Budget Requirements—an outline of the capability of newly formed or existing TOP activities/timeframes/costs of Office of Administration; Notice of entities, the identification of the social accomplishing the RCs/RMCs/ROs goals Submission of Proposed Information support needs of residents of public within 3–5 years. Criteria—rating factors Collection to OMB housing projects and the securing of established for the Basic, Additional such support.’’ and NROs/RROs/SROs applicants. AGENCY: Office of Administration Residents may use TOP technical 5. Form S.F. 424—Application for (HUD). assistance grants for training related to Federal Assistance. ACTION: Notice. any TOP initiative. The results from 6. Form S.F. 424A—Budget organizations in training have been Information—Non-Construction SUMMARY: The proposed information significant and multifaceted. For Programs. collection requirement described below example, resident-managed activities 7. HUD 2880—Applicant/Recipient has been submitted to the Office of have resulted in economic development, Dislcosure/Update Report. Management and Budget (OMB) for resident self-sufficiency, improved 8. S.F. LLL–A—Disclosure of emergency review and approval, as living conditions, and enhanced social Lobbying Activities. required by the Paperwork Reduction services for residents (i.e., child care 9. Certification Assurances with Act. The Department is soliciting public and other youth projects). TOP will applicable Federal requirements. comments on the subject proposal. provide public and Indian housing 10. Certification Regarding Drug-Free DATES: The due date for comments is residents the opportunity to be trained workplace Requirements. June 12, 1996. and move toward responsible roles in 11. Other documentation ADDRESSES: Interested persons are their communities. The training will (Certification of RC/RMC Board invited to submit comments regarding aim to enhance the functioning of the Election, Resolution of Agreement to this proposal. Comments must be resident council as well as develop Comply with HUD Terms and received with 7 days from the date of skills to engage in resident-managed Conditions for Technical Assistance, this Notice. Comments should refer to activities in its community. and Other Funding Sources). 28592 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

12. Form HUD–52370—Tenant Copies of the proposed collection of SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that as Opportunities Semi-Annual Report. information and related forms and a result of a Coal Lease Application filed 13. Form HUD–52371—Tenant explanatory material may be obtained by Drummond Company Incorporated, Opportunities Program Consultant by contacting the BLM Information for the tract below will be offered for Application. Collection Clearance Officer at the competitive lease by sealed bid. This is (3) Description of the need for the telephone number listed below. in accordance with the provisions of the information and its proposed use: Comments and suggestions on the Federal Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as To appropriately determine which requirement should be made within 30 amended and supplemented (30 U.S.C. RCs/RMCs/ROs and NROs/RROs/ days directly to the BLM Information 181 et seq). The application area SROs should be awarded the TOP/ Collection Clearance Officer and to the consists of private surface with TAG, certain information is Office of Management and Budget, federally-owned coal. The coal tract to Interior Department Desk Officer, necessary as stated in the TOP be offered is underground-minable, Washington, DC 20503, telephone (202) Notice of Funding Availability. potentially bypass coal. The coal tract is 395–7340. (4) Description of the likely described as the Prescott Tract in the respondents, and proposed Title: Mineral Materials Disposal (43 CFR part 3600). Mary Lee Seam, T. 16 S., R. 6 W., Sec. frequency of response to the 30, SWSW, Walker County, Alabama, collection of information: OMB approval number: 1004–0103. Huntsville Principal Meridian, Respondents will be RCs/RMCs/ROs Abstract: The Bureau of Land containing 40.08 acres more or less. The and NROs/RROs/SROs. Management is proposing to renew the approval of an information collection Prescott Tract will be leased to the The estimated number of respondents for the rule at 43 CFR part 3600. This highest qualified bidder provided that is 1,500. The proposed frequency of the rule manages the disposal of mineral the high bid equals or exceeds the Fair response to the collection of information materials such as sand, gravel, and Market Value (FMV) for the tract as is one-time. petrified wood from public lands by sale determined by the Authorized Officer. (5) Estimate of the total reporting and or free use. Such disposals are made at The Department has established a recordkeeping burden that will the discretion of the Secretary of the minimum bid of $100.00 per acre for the result form the collection of Interior. The information that the tract. The minimum bid may not information: regulations require an applicant or represent the amount for which the tract Reporting Burden: permittee to submit will be used by the may actually be leased, since FMV will Number of respondents: 1,500 BLM to determine if the disposal of Total burden hours: 19,400 be determined in a separate postsale materials is in the public interest, to analysis. (@ 0.5 hours per response): 5 mitigate environmental impacts of Total Estimated Burden Hours: 19,400 mineral materials development, to get DATES: The lease sale will be held at 10 Authority: Sec. 3507 of the Paperwork fair market value for the materials sold, a.m. Friday, June 28, 1996. Each bid Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and to prevent trespass removal of the must be clearly identified on the outside as amended. materials. of the sealed envelope containing the Dated: May 29, 1996. Bureau Form Number: 3600–4 and bid. The bid should be sent by certified David S. Cristy, 3600–5. mail, return receipt or be hand delivered Director, IRM Policy and Management Frequency: Generally once; annually on or before 4:30 p.m., Thursday, June Division. for some. 27, 1996 to Bureau of Land Management Description of respondents: [FR Doc. 96–14100 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] at the address below. If any bid is Individuals or entities who want to BILLING CODE 4210±01±M received after the time specified it will purchase or use federally owned not be considered. mineral materials. Estimated completion time: 0.25 hour ADDRESSES: The sale will be held at the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (approx.) or 15 minutes for Form 3600– Bureau of Land Management, Eastern 4; 0.8 hour (approx.) or 50 minutes for Bureau of Land Management States, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Form 3600–5. Springfield, Virginia 22153. [WO±320±1330±01±24 1A] Annual responses: 3070. Annual burden hours: 1560. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any lease RIN 1004±0103 Information Collection Clearance issued as a result of this offering will Information Collection Submitted to Officer: Wendy Spencer, 303–236–6642. require an annual rental payment of the Office of Management and Budget Dated: May 31, 1996. $3.00 per acre and a royalty payable to for Review Under the Paperwork Ted Hudson, the United States of 8.0 percent of the Reduction Act Acting Chief, Regulatory Management Team. value of the coal mined by underground [FR Doc. 96–14096 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] methods. The value of the coal shall be The proposed renewal for the determined in accordance with 43 CFR BILLING CODE 4130±84±P collection of information listed below 3485.2. Bidding instructions and bidder has been submitted to the Office of qualifications are included in the Management and Budget (OMB) for [ES±930±06±1320±01±241A; ALES±46611] Detailed Statement. approval under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Alabama: Notice of Coal Lease FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 3501 et seq.). On February 27, 1996, Offering; Coal Lease Application ALES Copies of the Detailed Statement and of BLM published a notice in the Federal 46611 the proposed coal lease and case file documents are available at the Bureau of Register (61 FR 7272–7273) requesting AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Land Management, Eastern States, 7450 comment on this proposed collection. Interior. The comment period ended on April 29, Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia ACTION: Competitive coal lease offering 1996. BLM received no comment from 22153. Please contact Ida V. Doup at by sealed bid. the public in response to that notice. (703) 440–1541. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28593

Dated: May 30, 1996. [NV±050±96±1220±00] b. Park, stop, or stand personal Walter Rewinski, property, whether attended or Temporary Occupancy and Camping Deputy State Director, Resources Planning, unattended, continuously for more than Closure on Certain Public Lands 4 hours. Use and Protection. Managed by the Bureau of Land [FR Doc. 96–14064 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Management, Las Vegas District c. Park any vehicle in violation of BILLING CODE 4310±HC±M posted restrictions, or in such a manner AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, as to obstruct or impede normal or Department of Interior. emergency traffic movement, create a [NV±930±1990±01; Nev-066123] ACTION: Temporary occupancy and safety hazard, or endanger any person, camping closure on selected public property, or natural feature. Vehicles so Realty Action; Termination of lands in Clark County, Nevada. parked are subject to citation, and to Recreation and Public Purposes removal and impoundment at the SUMMARY: The District Manager of the (R&PP) Classification; Nevada Las Vegas District announces a owner’s expense. temporary occupancy and camping d. Take, drive, or operate any vehicle AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, closure on selected public lands under through, around, or beyond a restrictive Interior. its administration. sign, barricade, fence, or traffic control ACTION: Notice. The increase in population and barrier or device. growth in employment in the Las Vegas e. Fail to follow orders or directions SUMMARY: This notice terminates R&PP area has attracted many short term and of an authorized officer relating to this Classification Nev-066123. The transient residents and workers. Many closure order. of these individuals set up residence on associated R&PP lease has expired and f. Obstruct, resist, or attempt to elude the land is now within the Toiyabe public lands under the guise of ‘‘camping’’. The existing 14 day stay a law enforcement officer, or fail to National Forest. The termination of this limit has not been effective in correcting follow their orders or directions, classification is for record-clearing this situation. This problem is relating to this closure order. purposes. particularly prone to occur on public Definitions EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 1996. lands along State Highway 160. Trash accumulations and human refuse are ‘‘Camp’’ or ‘‘camping’’ means the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: impacting public lands. This action is erecting of a tent or shelter, preparing a Carmen Donelson, BLM Nevada State being taken to help ensure public safety, sleeping bag or other bedding material Office, P.O. Box 12000, Reno, Nevada prevent unnecessary environmental for use, or the parking of a vehicle, 89520, 702–785–6532. degradation and prevent long-term motor vehicle, motor home, or trailer for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March occupancy of public lands. the apparent purpose of sleeping or 17, 1966, R&PP Lease Nev-066123 was EFFECTIVE DATE: The closure will be overnight occupancy. issued to the Washoe County School effective June 19, 1996. It will remain in ‘‘Personal property’’ includes District. The lease expired on March 16, effect until final action is taken to bicycles, vehicles whether propelled by establish closures, restrictions, and/or 1986, without the land ever being living or non-living power sources, supplementary rules to implement the developed. Subsequent to the expiration motor vehicles, trailers, tents, campers, Resource Management Plan currently of the lease, the land was transferred to pets, and livestock. the Forest Service pursuant to Public under consideration for the Stateline Maps depicting the area affected by Law 100–550. The classification was Resource Area, Las Vegas District. this closure order are available for never terminated. CLOSURE AREA: Public lands within one mile of State Highway 160, from State public inspection at the Las Vegas Pursuant to the R&PP Act of June 14, Highway 160’s intersection with District Office, Bureau of Land 1926, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869 et Interstate 15 westward to the boundary Management. seq.), the regulation contained in 43 of the Red Rock Canyon National This closure order is issued under the CFR 2091.7–1, and the authority Conservation Area (RRCNCA); and authority of 43 CFR 8364.1. Violation of delegated by Appendix 1 of the Bureau within one mile of State Highway 159 any of the terms, conditions, or of Land Management Manual 1203, from its junction with State Highway restrictions contained within this R&PP Classification Nev-066123 is 160 west to the RRCNCA boundary. closure order may subject the violator to hereby terminated in its entirety for the These lands all fall within Township 22 citation or arrest, with the penalty of following described land: South, Ranges 59, 60, and 61 E, Mount fine or imprisonment as specified by Mount Diablo Meridian Diablo Meridian. law. Exceptions to the closure are: T. 18 N., R. 19 E., Camping locations which may be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sec. 24, W1⁄2SE1⁄4 and SE1⁄4SE1⁄4. designated by the Las Vegas District Dave Wolf, Recreation Manager; or The area described contains 120 acres in Manager for overnight use. Such Randolph August, District Ranger; at the Washoe County. The land is within the designations may be by the posting of Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas Toiyabe National Forest and subject to such appropriate signs, by publication in the District Office, 4765 W. Vegas Drive, Las forms of disposition as may by law be made Federal Register, or be made available Vegas, NV 89108, telephone (702) 647– of National Forest System lands. to the public by such other means as 5000. Dated: May 31, 1996. deemed most appropriate by the Dated: May 21, 1996. authorized officer. William K. Stowers, Michael F. Dwyer, Lands Team Lead. Closure Restrictions: Unless otherwise authorized, within the closure area no District Manager. [FR Doc. 96–14221 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] person shall: [FR Doc. 96–14076 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310±HC±P a. Camp or engage in camping. BILLING CODE 4310±HC±M 28594 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

[CO±050±1610±00] (7) Grape Creek—15,978 acres— under the mineral leasing laws, subject riparian, recreational, visual and to valid existing rights: Notice of Availability; Royal Gorge wildlife resources; (8) Mosquito Pass— Willamette Meridian Resource Area Approved Resource 4,036 acres—visual resources and Management Plan and Record of sensitive plants; and (9) Phantom Federal Lands Decision Canyon—6,096 acres—cultural, T. 34 N., R.1 W., (Tract H), AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, recreational, riparian, visual and Sec. 17, those portions of the south 200 feet 1 1 1 1 Interior. wildlife resources. of the N ⁄2SE ⁄4 and SW ⁄4SE ⁄4 and SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 as more particularly identified ACTION: Notice of availability. Special management will be provided to minimize surface disturbing activities and described in the official records of the Bureau of Land Management, SUMMARY: The Canon City District (e.g., motorized vehicle limitations, Oregon/Washington State Office and the provides announces the availability of mineral development restrictions, etc.) Wenatchee Area Office, Wenatchee, the approved Resource Management that would adversely affect the Washington. Plan (RMP) and Record of Decision significant values within these nine T. 34 N., R. 1 W., (Tract J), (ROD) for the Royal Gorge Resource areas. Integrated Activity Plans will be Sec. 21, those portions of lot 2 and the Area. This RMP/ROD supersedes the prepared to detail these protective SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, TOGETHER with tidelands existing management framework plans measures. of the second class abutting thereon as more particularly identified and and other related documents for Kenneth L. Smith, described in the official records of the managing BLM-administered public Acting District Manager. lands located in southeastern Colorado. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/ [FR Doc. 96–14009 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] The approved RMP contains decisions Washington State Office and the BILLING CODE 4310±JB±P Wenatchee Area Office, Wenatchee, for managing 653,000 acres of Federal Washington. surface estate and 2,566,000 acres of T. 34 N., R.1 W., (Cape St. Mary, Tract L) Federal subsurface mineral estate within [OR±958±0777±54; GP6±0054; OR± Sec. 15, lot 1. Baca, Bent, Chaffee, Crowley, Custer, El 51831(WA)] T. 35 N., R.1 W., (Lopez Pass, Tract M) Paso, Fremont, Huerfano, Kiowa, Lake, Sec. 33, lot 1. Las Animas, Otero, Park, Prowers, Proposed Withdrawal and Opportunity T. 36 N., R. 2 E., (Eliza Island, Tract N) Pueblo and Teller Counties. for Public Meeting; Washington Sec. 5, unsurveyed portion of Eliza Island. T. 36 N., R. 2 E., (Carter Point, Tract O) DATES: The effective date of the RMP/ Sec. 6, unsurveyed portion of Lummi ROD was May 13, 1996. AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. Island. ADDRESSES: Copies of the RMP/ROD are T. 37 N., R. 1 E., (Lummi Rocks, Tract P) ACTION: available upon request by writing to the Notice. Sec. 27, unsurveyed Lummi Rocks in the Bureau of Land Management, Royal NW1⁄4 and SW1⁄4NE1⁄4. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Gorge Resource Area, 3170 East Main T. 37 N., R. 2 E., (Chuckanut Rock, Tract Q) Management proposes to withdraw 160 Sec. 24, unsurveyed Chuckanut Rock. Street, Canon City, CO 81212 or by acres of public lands and 80 acres of calling (719) 269–8500. The areas described aggregate non-Federal lands, to protect the natural approximately 160 acres of Federal lands in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Levi and recreational values on seven Deike, Area Manager or Pete Zwaneveld, San Juan and Whatcom Counties, waterfront tracts, one inland tract, and Washington. Land-Use Planner at the above address two islands in the San Juan and phone number. Archipelago. This notice closes the Non-Federal Land SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Royal lands for up to 2 years from surface Tract I Gorge RMP/ROD is essentially the same entry and mining. The public lands T. 34 N., R.1 W., as the Royal Gorge Proposed Resource have been and will remain open to Sec. 21, lot 1 and NW1⁄4NW1⁄4. Management Plan and Final mineral leasing. Upon acquisition, the Tract K Environmental Impact Statement non-Federal lands will be opened to the T. 34 N., R. 1 W., (PRMP). No changes to the proposed mineral leasing laws. Sec. 21, that portion of lot 2 as more decisions have been made. Some DATES: Comments and requests for a particularly identified and described in clarifying language, however, has been public meeting must be received by the official records of the Bureau of Land included as a result of four protests that September 3, 1996. Management, Oregon/Washington State were received on the PRMP. Approval Office and the Wenatchee Area Office, of the plan resulted in the designation ADDRESSES: Comments and meetings Wenatchee, Washington. of nine Areas of Critical Environmental requests should be sent to the Oregon/ The areas described aggregate Concern (ACEC). The following lists the Washington State Director, BLM, P.O. approximately 80 acres of non-Federal lands ACECs, the acreage designated, and the Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 97208– in San Juan County, Washington. 2965. area’s significant resources: (1) Arkansas The purpose of the proposed Canyonlands—23,921 acres—botanical, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: withdrawal is to protect the unique cultural, recreational, visual and Betty McCarthy, BLM Oregon/ natural and recreational values and wildlife resources; (2) Beaver Creek— Washington State Office, 503–952–6155. improvements as to ten tracts of public 12,081 acres—recreational, visual and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April and non-Federal lands located in the wildlife resources; (3) Browns Canyon— 30, 1996, a petition was approved San Juan Islands. 11,697 acres—cultural, recreational, allowing the Bureau of Land For a period of 90 days from the date visual and wildlife resources; (4) Management to file an application to of publication of this notice, all persons Cucharas Canyon—1,866 acres— withdraw the following described who wish to submit comments, cultural, riparian and visual resources; public lands and non-Federal lands suggestions, or objections in connection (5) Droney Gulch—705 acres—sensitive from settlement, sale, location, or entry with the proposed withdrawal may plants; (6) Garden Park—2,728 acres— under the general land laws, including present their views in writing to the cultural, paleontological, riparian and the United States mining laws (30 State Director at the address indicated wildlife resources and sensitive plants; U.S.C. Ch. 2 (1988)) but not from leasing above. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28595

Notice is hereby given that an accessible and appropriate use of those D.C. 20013–7127. Written comments opportunity for a public meeting is resources by visitors. Based on these should be submitted by June 20, 1996. afforded in connection with the strategies, the GMP will identify the Carol D. Shull, proposed withdrawal. All interested programs, actions and support facilities Keeper of the National Register. parties who desire a public meeting for needed for their implementation. California the purpose of being heard on the Persons wishing to comment or proposed withdrawal must submit a San Francisco County express concerns on the management written request to the State Director at issues and future management direction Folger Coffee Company Building, the address indicated above within 90 of Whiskeytown Unit should address 101 Howard St., days from the date of publication of this San Francisco, 96000679 these to the Superintendent, notice. Upon determination by the Louisiana authorized officer that a public meeting Whiskeytown Unit, P.O. Box 188, will be held, a notice of the time and Whiskeytown, California 96095. Webster Parish place will be published in the Federal Questions regarding the plan should be Downtown Minden Historic District, Register at least 30 days before the addressed to the superintendent either Roughly bounded by Monroe, Pine, Main, E. scheduled date of the meeting. by mail to the above address, or by Union, Chevrolet, and Fogle Sts., Minden, The application will be processed in telephone at (916) 241–6584. Comments 96000680 accordance with the regulations set on the scoping of the proposed GMP/EIS Nebraska forth in 43 CFR part 2300. should be received no later than July 31, For a period of 2 years from the date 1996. Jefferson County of publication of this notice in the Three public scoping sessions have Fairbury Rock Island Depot and Freight Federal Register, the lands will be House, been scheduled as follows to receive S side of 2nd St. between I and J Sts., segregated as specified above unless the comments and suggestions: application is denied or canceled or the Fairbury, 96000681 withdrawal is approved prior to that Date: June 10, 1996 Platte County date. The temporary land uses which Time: 6:00–10:00 p.m. Humphrey City Hall, may be permitted during this Place: Red Lion Inn, 1830 Hilltop Drive, 407 S. 4th St., segregative period include leases, Humphrey, 96000682 licenses, permits, rights-of-way, and Redding, California Polk County disposal of mineral or vegetative Date: June 11, 1996 resources other than under the mining Strickland Site, Time: 6:00–10:00 p.m. laws. Approximately 3.5 mi. N of NE 92, 5.7 mi. Place: French Gulch Elementary School, S and 3 mi W of Silver Cr., Dated: May 23, 1996. French Gulch, California Silver Creek vicinity, 96000683 Kenneth J. St.Mary, New York Acting Chief, Branch of Realty and Records Date: June 12, 1996 Services. Time: 6:00–10:00 p.m. Rensselaer County [FR Doc. 96–14077 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Delaney Hotel, Place: Igo Elementary School, Igo/Ono, BILLING CODE 4310±33±P Jct. of NY 22 and NY 67, California North Hoosick, 96000684 The responsible official is Stanley T. South Carolina National Park Service Albright, Field Director, Pacific West Beaufort County Area, National Park Service. The draft General Management Plan, GMP/EIS is expected to be available for Bluffton Historic District, Whiskeytown Unit, California; Notice of public review in early summer 1997, Roughly bounded by the May River, Huger Intent To Prepare an Environmental Cove, and Bridge St., Impact Statement and the final GMP/EIS and Record of Bluffton, 96000686 Decision completed in late 1997. SUMMARY: The National Park Service Charleston County Dated: May 16, 1996. will prepare a General Management Porter Military Academy, Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Patricia L. Neubacher, 175—181 Ashley Ave., (GMP/EIS) for Whiskeytown Unit, Acting Field Director, Pacific West Area. Charleston, 96000685 Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National [FR Doc. 96–13996 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Tennessee Recreation Area, California and initiate BILLING CODE 4310±70±P the scoping process for this document. Rutherford County This notice is in accordance with 40 Williamson, Thomas, House, CFR 1501.7 and 40 CFR 1508.22, of the National Register of Historic Places; 2263 Little Rock Rd., regulations of the President’s Council on Notification of Pending Nominations Eagleville vicinity, 96000687 Environmental Quality for the National Texas Nominations for the following Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Hunt County Public Law 91–190. properties being considered for listing Hunt County Courthouse, BACKGROUND: in the National Register were received The purpose of the GMP/ 2500 Lee St., EIS will be to state the management by the National Park Service before Greenville, 96000688 philosophy for the unit and provide MAY 25, 1996. Pursuant to § 60.13 of 36 strategies for addressing major issues CFR Part 60 written comments Vermont facing the area. Two types of strategies concerning the significance of these Bennington County will be presented in the GMP: (1) Those properties under the National Register East Arlington Village Historic District, required to manage AND preserve criteria for evaluation may be forwarded Roughly bounded by Old Mill, Ice Pond, E. cultural and natural resources; and (2) to the National Register, National Park Arlington, and Warm Brook Rds., Maple those required to provide for safe, Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, and Pleasant Sts., and the Lane, 28596 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

Arlington, 96000689 DC 20005. In requesting a copy please Notice Pursuant to the National A proposed move is being considered refer to the referenced case and enclose Cooperative Research and Production for the following property: a check in the amount of $8.50 (25 cents Act of 1993ÐDialkyl Project per page reproduction costs), payable to Notice is hereby given that, on May Wisconsin the Consent Decree Library. 15, 1996, pursuant to section 6(a) of the Dane County Joel M. Gross, National Cooperative Research and Waunaukee Railroad Depot Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 Jct. of South and Main Sts. Environment and Natural Resources Division. et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Lonza Inc. has filed Waunaukee, 78000092 [FR Doc. 96–14069 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] written notification simultaneously with [FR Doc. 96–13995 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410±01±M the Attorney General and the Federal BILLING CODE 4310±70±P Trade Commission regarding a Second Restated and Revised Agreement Among Antitrust Division Members of the Dialkyl Project (the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ‘‘Second Restated and Revised Notice Pursuant to the National Agreement’’). The notification was filed Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant Cooperative Research and Production for the purpose of extending the Act’s to the Comprehensive Environmental Act of 1993ÐCable Television provisions limiting the recovery of Response, Compensation, and Liability Laboratories, Inc. antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages Act (``CERCLA'') under specified circumstances. Pursuant Notice is hereby given that, on August to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities In accordance with the Department 2, 1995, pursuant to section 6(a) of the of the parties to the Second Restated policy, notice is hereby given that a National Cooperative Research and and Revised Agreement and its general proposed consent decree in United Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 objectives are given below. States v. Koppers Industries, Inc., et al, et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Cable Television The parties to the Second Restated Civil Action No. 93–10136, was lodged and Revised Agreement are the same as on May 20, 1996 with the United States Laboratories, Inc. (‘‘CableLabs’’) has filed written notifications in the original notice: Lonza Inc., Fair District Court for the Northern District Lawn, NJ; Huntington Laboratories, Inc., of Florida. The consent decree resolves simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Huntington, IN; Mason Chemical the liability under CERCLA of Company, Arlington Heights, IL; and defendants Koppers Industries Inc., Commission disclosing additions to the membership. The notifications were Stepan Company, Northfield, IL. Beazer East, Inc., and CSX The objectives of the project are to filed for the purpose of extending the Transportation, Inc. under section 107 conduct toxicological research to be of CERCLA in connection with response Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of submitted to the United States actions at the Cabot Carbon/Koppers antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages Environmental Protection Agency in Superfund Site in Gainesville, Alachua under specified circumstances. connection with the reregistration and County, Florida. Under the consent Specifically the following company has data call-in of pesticides containing decree, the defendants will reimburse joined CableLabs: these Dialkyl quaternary ammonium the United States for $1,290,071.11 in Cable Atlantic Inc., St. John’s, compounds as active ingredients. The past response costs and pay oversight Newfoundland, CANADA. purpose of the Second Restated and costs incurred by the United States in Revised Agreement is to revise certain connection with certain response No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned conditions for data citation. actions being conducted at the site. On August 3, 1988, the Dialkyl Project activity of CableLabs. Membership The Department of Justice will filed its original notification pursuant to receive, for a period of thirty days (30) remains open and CableLabs intends to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department from the date of this publication, file additional written notifications of Justice published a notice in the comments relating to the proposed disclosing all changes in membership. Federal Register pursuant to section consent decree. Comments should be On August 8, 1988, CableLabs filed its 6(b) of the Act on August 25, 1988, (53 addressed to the Assistant Attorney original notification pursuant to section FR 32480). The last notification was General for the Environment and 6(a) of the Act. The Department of filed with the Department on July 17, Natural Resources Division, Department Justice published a notice in the Federal 1991. A notice was published in the of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Federal Register pursuant to section should refer to United States v. Koppers Act on September 7, 1988 (53 FR 6(b) of the Act on August 8, 1991, (56 Industries, Inc., et al., DOJ Ref. #90–11– 34593). The last notification with FR 37722). 2–622A. respect to membership changes was Constance K. Robinson, The proposed consent decree may be filed with the Department on December Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. examined at the office of the United States Attorney, 315 South Calhoun 7, 1994. A notice was published in the [FR Doc. 96–14074 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Street, Suite 510, Tallahassee, Florida Federal Register pursuant to section BILLING CODE 4410±01±M 32301; the Region IV Office of the 6(b) of the Act on March 23, 1995 (60 Environmental Protection Agency, 345 FR 15307). Corrections to the December 7, 1994 filing were published on July 25, Notice Pursuant to the National Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia Cooperative Research and Production 30365; and at the Consent Decree 1995 (60 FR 38058) and on April 30, 1996 (61 FR 19089). Act of 1993ÐNational Center for Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th Floor, Manufacturing Sciences, Inc. (NCMS) Washington, DC 20005, (202) 624–0892. Constance K. Robinson, A copy of the proposed consent decree Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. Notice is hereby given that, on May 9, may be obtained in person or by mail [FR Doc. 96–14071 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] 1996, pursuant to section 6(a) of the from the Consent Decree Library, 1120 National Cooperative Research and BILLING CODE 4410±01±M G Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28597 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), the National Center column, in the first full paragraph, in Specifically, the identity of the new for Manufacturing Sciences, Inc. the 25th line, the words ‘‘San Antonio, member to the Group is Cascade (‘‘NCMS’’) has filed written notifications TX’’ should be deleted. Communications Corporation, Westford, simultaneously with the Attorney Constance K. Robinson, MA. General and the Federal Trade Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. No other changes have been made in Commission disclosing changes in its [FR Doc. 96–14072 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. membership and providing information BILLING CODE 4410±01±M on the status of its research projects. Membership in this group research The notifications were filed for the project remains open, and the Group purpose of extending the Act’s Notice Pursuant to the National intends to file additional written provisions limiting the recovery of Cooperative Research and Production notifications disclosing all changes in antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages Act of 1993; Southwest Research membership. under specified circumstances. Institute Transguide System Media On April 19, 1991, the Group filed its Specifically, the following company was Services Software Project original notification pursuant to section accepted as an active member of NCMS: 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Vacuum Instrument Corporation, Notice is hereby given that, on March Justice published a notice in the Federal Ronkonkoma, NY. The following 8, 1996, pursuant to section 6(a) of the Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the organizations were also approved for National Cooperative Research and Act on May 23, 1991, (56 FR 23723). affiliate membership: Forging Industry Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 The last notification was filed with the Association, Cleveland, OH; Iowa State et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), the Southwest Department on June 23, 1994. A notice University, Ames, IA; Michigan State Research Institute, on behalf of the was published in the Federal Register University, E. Lansing, MI; ORTECH Transguide System Media Services pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Software Project, has filed written September 26, 1994, (59 FR 49084). Canada and The University of Michigan, notifications simultaneously with the Constance K. Robinson, College of Engineering, Ann Arbor, MI. Attorney General and the Federal Trade Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. Commission disclosing changes in its The following companies have resigned [FR Doc. 96–14070 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] from active membership in NCMS: membership. The notifications were BILLING CODE 4410±01±M AlliedSignal Inc., Morristown, NJ; filed for the purpose of extending the Franklin Consulting, Ltd., Troy, MI; Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of Groupe Procycle Inc., St. Georges, antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages Drug Enforcement Administration Quebec, Canada and Labbe Designers & under specified circumstances. Inc., Montreal, Quebec. The following Specifically, the changes are as follows: Manufacturer of Controlled organization has resigned from affiliate Metro Networks Ltd., San Antonio, TX Substances; Correction membership in NCMS: Texas State has been added to the venture. On March 4, 1996, a Notice of Technical College, Waco, TX. On August 23, 1995, the Southwest No other changes have been made in Research Institute, on behalf of the Application for Johnson Matthey, Inc. either the membership or planned Transguide System Media Services (Johnson Matthey), Custom activity of the group research project. Software Project, filed its original Pharmaceuticals Department, 2003 Membership in this group research notification pursuant to section 6(a) of Nolte Drive, West Deptford, New Jersey project remains open, and NCMS the Act. The Department of Justice 08066, was published in the Federal intends to file additional written published a notice in the Federal Register requesting registration as a bulk notification disclosing all changes in Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the manufacturer of Schedules I and II membership. Act on December 5, 1995 (60 FR 62262). controlled substances. See 61 FR 8303. On February 20, 1987, NCMS filed its Constance K. Robinson, The notice invited that comments or original notification pursuant to section Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. objections be filed by May 3, 1996. A correction was subsequently published 6(a) of the Act. The Department of [FR Doc. 96–14073 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] on April 10, 1996, adding Justice published a notice in the Federal BILLING CODE 4410±01±M Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the dihydrocodeine (9120) and meperidine Act on March 17, 1987 (52 FR 8375). (9230) to the list of controlled The last notification was filed with Notice Pursuant to the National substances that Johnson Matthey made the Department on February 16, 1996. Cooperative Research and Production application to manufacture in bulk. See This notice was published in the Act of 1993ÐSwitched Multi-Megabit 61 FR 15974. Comments regarding Federal Register on April 8, 1996 (61 FR Data Service Interest Group Johnson Matthey’s application for 15521). dihydrocodeine and meperidine must Constance K. Robinson, Notice is hereby given that, on March be filed by June 10, 1996. 6, 1996, pursuant to section 6(a) of the It has come to the Drug Enforcement Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. National Cooperative Research and Administration’s (DEA) attention that [FR Doc. 96–14068 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 Johnson Matthey does not wish to be BILLING CODE 4410±01±M et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), the Switched Multi- registered as a bulk manufacturer of Megabit Data Service Interest Group meperidine. Therefore, meperidine is Notice Pursuant to the National (‘‘the Group’’) has filed written hereby deleted from the list of Cooperative Research and Production notifications simultaneously with the controlled substances for which Johnson Act of 1993; Southwest Research Attorney General and the Federal Trade Matthey made application to Institute Transguide System Media Commission disclosing changes to its manufacture in bulk. However, the list Services Software Project; Correction membership. The notifications were of controlled substances for which filed for the purpose of extending the Johnson Matthey has applied to In notice document 95–29504 Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of manufacture in bulk should have appearing on page 62262 in the issue of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages included thebaine (9333) and alfentanil Tuesday, December 5, 1995, in the first under specified circumstances. (9737). 28598 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

Any other such applicant and any Sched- and with United States obligations person who is presently registered with Drug ule under international treaties, DEA to manufacture thebaine and conventions, or protocols in effect on alfentanil may file comments or Poppy Straw Concentrate (9670) ...... II May 1, 1971, at this time. Therefore, objections to the issuance of the above Alfentanil (9737) ...... II pursuant to section 1008(a) of the Sufentanil (9740) ...... II application. Fentanyl (9801) ...... II Controlled Substances Import and Any such comments or objections Export Act and in accordance with Title may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to The firms plans to manufacture the 21, Code of Federal Regulations, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, listed controlled substances for § 1311.42, the above firm is granted Office of Diversion Control, Drug distribution as bulk pharmaceutical registration as an importer of the basic Enforcement Administration, United products to its customers. classes of controlled substances listed States Department of Justice, Any other such applicant and any above. Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA person who is presently registered with Dated: May 23, 1996. Federal Register Representative (CCR), DEA to manufacture such substances Gene R. Haislip, and must be filed no later than (60 days may file comments or objections to the from publication). Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of issuance of the above application. Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Dated: May 28, 1996. Any such comments or objections Administration. Gene R. Haislip, may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to [FR Doc. 96–14059 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of the Deputy Assistant Administrator, BILLING CODE 4410±09±M Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Office of Diversion Control, Drug Administration. Enforcement Administration, United [FR Doc. 96–14058 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service BILLING CODE 4410±09±M Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative (CCR), [INS No. 1776±96] and must be filed no later than August Discontinuation of the Nicaraguan Manufacturer of Controlled 5, 1996. Review Process Substances; Application Dated: May 22, 1996. Gene R. Haislip, AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization Pursuant to § 1301.43(a) of Title 21 of Service, Justice. the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of ACTION: Notice. this is notice that on April 22, 1996, Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. Penick Corporation, 158 Mount Olivet SUMMARY: This notice announces the Avenue, Newark, New Jersey 07114, [FR Doc. 96–14057 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] extension until June 12, 1997, of the made application to the Drug BILLING CODE 4410±09±M transitional work authorization criteria Enforcement Administration (DEA) for to be applied to applications filed by registration as a bulk manufacturer of Importer of Controlled Substances; Nicaraguans affected by the termination the basic classes of controlled Registration of the Nicaraguan Review Program substances listed below: (NRP) on June 13, 1995. The extension By Notice dated March 27, 1996, and of these criteria is designed to afford Drug Sched- published in the Federal Register on Nicaraguans affected by the termination ule April 4, 1996, (61 FR 15121), Radian of the NRP, who have yet to file a Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370) ...... I Corporation, 8501 Mopac Blvd., PO Box motion to reopen their deportation Dihydromorphine (9145) ...... I 201088, Austin, Texas 78720, made proceedings to apply for suspension of Pholcodine (9314) ...... I application to the Drug Enforcement deportation as well as those who will Methylphenidate (1724) ...... II Administration (DEA) to be registered as not have met the seven-years physical Coca Leaves (9040) ...... II an importer of the basic classes of presence requirement for suspension of Cocaine (9041) ...... II controlled substances listed below: deportation by June 12, 1996, the Codeine (9050) ...... II opportunity to benefit from these Dihydrocodeine (9120) ...... II Sched- transitional criteria. Oxycodone (9143) ...... II Drug: ule Hydromorphone (9150) ...... II EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 1996. Diphenoxylate (9170) ...... II Ibogaine (7260) ...... I FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benzoylecgonine (9180) ...... II Etorphine (except HCL) (9056) ...... I Robert A. Jacobson, Director, Policy Ethylmorphine (9190) ...... II Heroin (9200) ...... I Development and Special Programs Hydrocodone (9193) ...... II Cocaine (9041) ...... II Branch, Detention and Deportation Meperidine (9230) ...... II Codeine (9050) ...... II Division, Immigration and Methadone (9250) ...... II Oxycodone (9143) ...... II Naturalization Service, 425 I Street, Methadone-intermediate (9254) ...... II Dextropropoxyphene, bulk (non-dos- II NW., Room 3008, Washington, DC Dextropropoxyphene, bulk (non-dos- II age forms) (9273). age forms) (9273). Morphine (9300) ...... II 20536, telephone (202) 514–2871. Morphine (9300) ...... II Thebaine (9333) ...... II SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thebaine (9333) ...... II Oxymorphone (9652) ...... II Opium, raw (9600) ...... II Background Opium extracts (9610) ...... II No comments or objections have been In a Federal Register Notice dated Opium fluid extract (9620) ...... II received. DEA has considered the June 13, 1995, 60 FR 31168, the INS Opium tincture (9630) ...... II Opium powdered (9639) ...... II factors in Title 21, United States Code, announced the termination of the Opium granulated (9640) ...... II section 823(a) and determined that the Nicaraguan Review Program. The INS Levo-alphacetylmethadol (9648) ...... II registration of Radian Corporation to advised that Nicaraguans affected by the Opium poppy (9650) ...... II import the listed controlled substances termination of the NRP, i.e. certain Oxymorphone (9652) ...... II is consistent with the public interest Nicaraguans who are subject to orders of Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28599 deportation that became final before DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DC 20201, telephone (202) 219–6375 June 13, 1995, may be eligible to apply (this is not a toll-free number), fax 202– for suspension of deportation pursuant Employment Standards Administration 219–6592. to section 244 of the Immigration and Proposed Collection; Comment SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254, if they: Request (1) Have been present in the United I. Background States for at least 7 years; (2) are persons ACTION: Notice. EPPA prohibits most private of good moral character; (3) are persons employers (Federal, State and local whose deportation would impose an SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as governments are exempted from this extreme hardship to themselves or to part of its continuing effort to reduce Act) from using any lie detector tests paperwork and respondent burden, their spouse, parent, or child who is either for preemployment screening or conducts a preclearance consultation either a United States citizen or a during the course of employment. The program to provide the general public law contains certain limited exceptions lawful, permanent resident. The INS and Federal agencies with an further advised that to apply for such which authorize polygraph tests under opportunity to comment on proposed certain conditions, including (1) Testing relief, aliens with final orders must file and/or continuing collections of of employees who are reasonably a motion to reopen with the information in accordance with the suspected of involvement in a Immigration Court pursuant to 8 CFR Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 workplace incident that results in 3.23 and 242.22 or the Board of (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This economic loss or injury to the Immigration Appeals (BIA) pursuant to program helps to ensure that requested employer’s business; (2) testing by the 8 CFR 3.2 and 3.8. data can be provided in the desired Federal government of experts, The INS also announced certain format, reporting burden (time and consultants, or employees of Federal transitional criteria for the processing of financial resources) is minimized, contractors engaged in national security work authorization requests filed by collection instruments are clearly intelligence or counterintelligence Nicaraguans affected by the termination understood, and the impact of collection functions; (3) testing of some of the NRP and whose employment requirements on respondents can be prospective employees of private authorization no longer would be properly assessed. Currently, the armored car, security alarm, and extended automatically. Specifically, Employment Standards Administration security guard firms; and (4) the testing the INS provided that it would treat the is soliciting comments concerning the of some current and prospective proposed revision collection of the employees in firms authorized to filing of a motion to reopen deportation Application of the Employee Polygraph manufacture, distribute or dispense proceedings accompanied by an Protection Act (EPPA) of 1988. controlled substances. Employers who application for suspension of violate any of the Act’s provisions may deportation as a sufficient basis upon A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by be assessed civil monetary penalties up which such a person may apply for contacting the office listed below in the to $10,000. This information collection work authorization. In such cases, work ADDRESSES section of this notice. is necessary to carry out this Act and authorization may be granted upon a DATES: Written comments must be require the keeping of records necessary finding that the alien has met the submitted to the office listed in the or appropriate for administration of the physical presence requirement for ADDRESSES section below on or before Act. In addition to recordkeeping suspension of deportation. August 8, 1996. The Department of requirements which were previously In an effort to moderate any lingering Labor is particularly interested in cleared under OMB 1215–0170, this disruptive effects that the termination of comments which: information collection contains a third the NRP may cause, the transitional • Evaluate whether the proposed party notification which was not criteria for suspension-based work collection of information is necessary previously subject to PRA. authorization applications filed by for the proper performance of the II. Current Actions Nicaraguans subject to orders of functions of the agency, including The Department of Labor seeks the deportation that became final before whether the information will have revision approval to collect this June 13, 1995, will be extended for one practical utility; information in order to carry out its • Evaluate the accuracy of the year, through June 12, 1997. This responsibility to ensure that individuals agency’s estimate of the burden of the extension will afford Nicaraguans subjected to polygraph testing are proposed collection of information, affected by the termination of the NRP afforded the rights and protections including the validity of the who have yet to file a motion to reopen contained in EPPA. Failure to collect methodology and assumptions used; their deportation proceedings to apply this information would make it • Enhance the quality, utility and for suspension of deportation as well as extremely difficult for the Wage and clarity of the information to be Hour Division to enforce the provisions those who will not have met the seven- collected; and years physical presence requirement for • Minimize the burden of the of the Act. Hours for third party suspension of deportation by June 12, collection of information on those who notification not previously in the 1996, the opportunity to benefit from are to respond, including through the information collection are now these transitional criteria. use of appropriate automated, included. Type of Review: Revision. Dated: May 24, 1996. electronic, mechanical, or other Agency: Employment Standards Doris Meissner, technological collection techniques or Administration. other forms of information technology, Commissioner, Immigration and Title: Application of the Employee e.g., permitting electronic submissions Naturalization Service. Polygraph Protection Act of 1988. of responses. [FR Doc. 96–14031 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] OMB Number: 1215–0170. ADDRESSES: Mr. Rich Elman, U.S. Affected Public: Individuals or BILLING CODE 4410±01±M Department of Labor, 200 Constitution households; Businesses or other for- Ave., NW., Room S–3201, Washington, profit; Not-for-profit institutions. 28600 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

Total Respondents: 328,000. (2) Location Secretary of Health and Human Services Frequency: On occasion. The meeting will be held on both days on matters relating to the administration Total Responses: 328,000. at the Ramada Inn Downtown (Beehive of the Act, will meet on June 26, 1996, in Room N4437 B–D of the Department Average Time Per Response for North & South Room), 230 West, 600 of Labor Building located at 200 Reporting: 1⁄2 hour. South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101. Phone: 801–364–5200. Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, Average Time For Recordkeeping Per DC. The meeting is open to the public Record: 1 to 5 minutes. The Secretary of Labor established this advisory committee (60 FR 5947) to and will begin at 9 a.m. lasting until Estimated Total Burden Hours: develop recommendations for improved approximately 4 p.m. 82,406. standards or other appropriate actions Agenda items for the morning will Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): addressing: permissible exposure limits include a brief overview of current $0. to eliminate black lung disease and activities in the Occupational Safety and Total Burden Cost (operating/ silicosis; the means to control respirable Health Administration (OSHA) and the maintenance): $0. coal mine dust levels; improved National Institute of Occupational Comments submitted in response to monitoring of respirable coal dust levels Safety and Health (NIOSH), as well as this notice will be summarized and/or and the role of the miner in that an extensive planning session to included in the request for Office of monitoring; and the adequacy of determine issues and topics for future Management and Budget approval of the operator sampling programs to committee action. The afternoon will be information collection request; they will determine the actual levels of dust devoted to a discussion of current also become a matter of public record. concentrations to which miners are ‘‘partnership initiatives’’ and how they Dated: May 31, 1996. exposed. The advisory committee is fit into the overall mix of OSHA Cecily A. Rayburn, chartered through September 30, 1996 interventions. (60 FR 55284), but must complete its Director, Division of Financial Management, Written data, views or comments for Office of Management, Administration and deliberations by August 19, 1996. The agenda for the fourth meeting consideration by the committee may be Planning, Employment Standards submitted, preferably with 20 copies, to Administration. will include discussions on: Joanne Goodell at the address provided [FR Doc. 96–14091 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] (1) Ventilation plans. below. Any such submissions received BILLING CODE 4510±27±M (2) Permissible exposure limits. (3) The application of the Respirable prior to the meeting will be provided to Dust Program to surface mines and the members of the Committee and will Mine Safety and Health Administration surface miners. be included in the record of the (4) Medical surveillance, including meeting. Anyone wishing to make an Advisory Committee on the Elimination the use of medical records. oral presentation should notify Ms. of Pneumoconiosis Among Coal Mine (5) Role of miners. Goodell before the meeting. The request Workers; Meeting A presentation will be made regarding should state the amount of time desired, the University of Utah’s study on air- the capacity in which the person will AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health stream helmets. appear and a brief outline of the content Administration, Labor. The public is invited to attend. The of the presentation. Persons who request ACTION: Notice of advisory committee chairperson will provide one hour the opportunity to address the Advisory meeting. during the afternoon of the meeting on Committee may be allowed to speak to June 20, 1996, to allow interested the extent time permits, at the discretion SUMMARY: This notice announces the persons to make comments. Official of the Chair of the Advisory Committee. date, time, place, and agenda summary records of the meeting will be available Individuals with disabilities who need for the fourth meeting of the Mine for public inspection at the above special accommodations should contact Safety and Health Administration’s MSHA address. Tom Hall one week before the meeting Advisory Committee on the Elimination Dated: May 31, 1996. at the address indicated below. of Pneumoconiosis Among Coal Mine An official record of the meeting will Workers. J. Davitt McAteer, Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and be available for public inspection in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Health. OSHA Technical Data Center (TDC) Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of [FR Doc. 96–14108 Filed 5–31–96; 3:53 pm] located in Room N2625 of the Standards, Regulations, and Variances, BILLING CODE 4510±43±P Department of Labor Building (202– Mine Safety and Health Administration, 219–7500). 4015 Wilson Boulevard, room 631, For additional information contact: Arlington, Virginia 22203; phone 703– Occupational Safety and Health 235–1910. Joanne Goodell, Directorate of Policy, Administration Occupational Safety and Health SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A public National Advisory Committee on Administration, Room N–3641, 200 meeting of the advisory committee will Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, be held as follows: Occupational Safety and Health; Full Committee Meeting DC 20210, telephone (202) 219–8021, (1) Date and Time ext. 107. Notice is hereby given that the a. June 20, 1996, in Salt Lake City, Signed at Washington, DC this 30th day of National Advisory Committee on May, 1996. Utah. The meeting will begin at 8:00 Occupational Safety and Health a.m. and end at 9:00 p.m. (NACOSH), established under section Joseph A. Dear, b. June 21, 1996, in Salt Lake City, 7(a) of the Occupational Safety and Assistant Secretary of Labor. Utah. The meeting will begin at 8:00 Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 656) to [FR Doc. 96–14089 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] a.m. and end at 3:30 p.m. advise the Secretary of Labor and the BILLING CODE 4510±26±7 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28601

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND [Notice (90±056)] NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SPACE ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION NASA Advisory Council, Life and Microgravity Sciences and Records Schedules; Availability and [Notice 96±055] Applications Advisory Committee, Request for Comments NASA±NIH Advisory Subcommittee on NASA Advisory Council, Life and Behavioral and Biomedical Research; AGENCY: National Archives and Records Microgravity Sciences and Meeting Administration, Office of Records Applications Advisory Committee, Administration. Task Force on Countermeasures; AGENCY: National Aeronautics and ACTION: Notice of availability of Meeting Space Administration. proposed records schedules; request for ACTION: Notice of meeting. comments. AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. SUMMARY: In accordance with the SUMMARY: The National Archives and Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. Records Administration (NARA) ACTION: Notice of meeting. L. 92–463, as amended, the National publishes notice at least once monthly Aeronautics and Space Administration of certain Federal agency requests for SUMMARY: In accordance with the announces a meeting of the NASA records disposition authority (records Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. Advisory Council, Life and Microgravity schedules). Records schedules identify L. 92–463, as amended, the National Sciences and Applications Advisory records of sufficient value to warrant Aeronautics and Space Administration Committee, NASA–NIH Advisory preservation in the National Archives of announces a meeting of the NASA Subcommittee on Behavioral and the United States. Schedules also Advisory Council, Life and Microgravity Biomedical Research. authorize agencies after a specified period to dispose of records lacking Sciences and Applications Advisory DATES: June 20, 1996, 12:30 p.m. to 5:30 administrative, legal, research, or other Committee, Task Force on p.m.; and June 21, 1996, 8:30 a.m. to value. Notice is published for records Countermeasures. 3:00 p.m. schedules that (1) Propose the DATES: June 27, 1996, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 ADDRESSES: Cocoa Beach Hilton, 1550 destruction of records not previously p.m.; and June 28, 1996, 8:00 a.m. to North Atlantic Avenue, Cocoa Beach, authorized for disposal, or (2) reduce 3:00 p.m. Florida 32930. the retention period for records already FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. authorized for disposal. NARA invites ADDRESSES: Universities Space Research Arnauld Nicogossian, Code U, National public comments on such schedules, as Association, 3600 Bay Area Blvd., Aeronautics and Space Administration, required by 44 USC 3303a(a). Houston, TX, 77058. Washington, DC 20546, 202/358–0215. DATES: Request for copies must be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The received in writing on or before July 22, Dr. Frank Sulzman, Code UL, National meeting will be closed to the public on 1996. Once the appraisal of the records Aeronautics and Space Administration, Thursday, June 20, 1996, from 5:00 p.m. is completed, NARA will send a copy of the schedule. The requester will be Washington, DC 20546, 202/358–0220. to 5:30 p.m. in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), to allow for discussion on given 30 days to submit comments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The qualifications of individuals being ADDRESSES: Address requests for single meeting will be open to the public up considered for membership to the copies of schedules identified in this to the seating capacity of the room. The Committee. The remainder of the notice to the Records Appraisal and agenda for the meeting is as follows: meeting will be open to the public up Disposition Division (NIR), National to the seating capacity of the room. The Archives and Records Administration, —Status and review of Report Outline agenda for the meeting is as follows: College Park, MD 20740. Requesters —Reports and presentations —Review of the Office of Life and must cite the control number assigned —Sub-group status reports Microgravity Sciences and to each schedule when requesting a copy. The control number appears in —Discussion Applications Status —Status of NASA–NIH Activities the parentheses immediately after the —Tag up —Global Health and Remote Sensing name of the requesting agency. —Sub-group break-out sessions —Behavioral Studies SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each year —Sub-group reports —International Space Station U.S. Government agencies create billions of records on paper, film, —Sub-group break-out sessions —Science Institutes —Pharmacology magnetic tape, and other media. In order It is imperative that the meeting be —Committee Discussion Regarding to control this accumulation, agency held on these dates to accommodate the Future Activities records managers prepare records schedules specifying when the agency scheduling priorities of the key It is imperative that the meeting be no longer needs the records and what participants. Visitors will be requested held on these dates to accommodate the happens to the records after this period. to sign a visitor’s register. scheduling priorities of the key Some schedules are comprehensive and participants. Visitors will be requested Dated: May 30, 1996. cover all the records of an agency or one to sign a visitor’s register. Leslie M. Nolan, of its major subdivisions. These Advisory Committee Management Officer, Dated: May 29, 1996. comprehensive schedules provide for National Aeronautics and Space Leslie M. Nolan, the eventual transfer to the National Administration. Advisory Committee Management Officer, Archives of historically valuable records [FR Doc. 96–14039 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] National Aeronautics and Space and authorize the disposal of all other Administration. BILLING CODE 7510±01±M records. Most schedules, however, cover [FR Doc. 96–14040 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] records of only one office or program or BILLING CODE 7510±01±M a few series of records, and many are 28602 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices updates of previously approved NUCLEAR REGULATORY proposed change to substitute a system leak schedules. Such schedules also may COMMISSION test at normal operating pressure in lieu of include records that are designated for the hydrostatic test at 2335 psig will [Docket No. 50±286] permanent retention. minimize challenge to plant safety and demonstrate leak tightness of the RCS. Destruction of records requires the Port Authority of the State of New York Therefore, the proposed change would not approval of the Archivist of the United Consideration of Issuance of involve a significant increase in the States. This approval is granted after a Amendment to Facility Operating probability or consequences of an accident thorough study of the records that takes License, Proposed No Significant previously evaluated. into account their administrative use by Hazards Consideration Determination, 2. Does the proposed license amendment the agency of origin, the rights of the and Opportunity for a Hearing create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident Government and of private persons The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory previously evaluated? directly affected by the Government’s Response: The proposed license activities, and historical or other value. Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment amendment does not create the possibility of This public notice identifies the a new or different kind of accident from any to Facility Operating License No. DPR– accident previously evaluated. The proposed Federal agencies and their subdivisions 64 issued to New York Power Authority requesting disposition authority, changes do not involve the addition of any for operation of the Indian Point new or different type of equipment, nor do includes the control number assigned to Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 (IP3) they involve the operation of equipment each schedule, and briefly describes the located in Westchester County, New required for safe operation of the facility in records proposed for disposal. The York. a manner different from those addressed in records schedule contains additional The proposed amendment would the Final Safety Analysis Report. As stated in information about the records and their allow the reactor coolant system (RCS) Section 2 [see application dated April 26, disposition. Further information about leak test, which is performed after each 1996] based on industry experience, it is the disposition process will be refueling outage, to be conducted at expected that any leaks would be discovered furnished to each requester. by the leak test at normal operating pressure. normal operating pressure as opposed to 3. Does the proposed amendment involve Schedules Pending being conducted at 2335 psig. a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Before issuance of the proposed Response: The proposed license 1. Department of Agriculture, license amendment, the Commission amendment does not involve a significant Agricultural Marketing Service (N1– will have made findings required by the reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed 136–96–1). Change in retention period Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended changes do not adversely affect performance for regulatory enforcement case files. (the Act) and the Commission’s of any safety related system or component, regulations. instrument operation, or safety system 2. United States Department of the setpoints and do not result in increased Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (N1– The Commission has made a proposed determination that the severity of any of the accidents considered in 115–94–8). General administrative the safety analysis. Although the current records pertaining to project and power amendment request involves no basis states that if the system does not leak management. significant hazards consideration. Under at 2335 psig (operating pressure +100 psig) it the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR will be leak tight during normal operation, 3. Department of State (N1–59–96– 50.92, this means that operation of the industry experience demonstrates that leaks 12). Routine, facilitative, duplicative, facility in accordance with the proposed are not discovered as a result of hydrostatic and fragmentary files identified during amendment would not (1) involve a test pressure propagating a pre-existing flaw review of the 1964–66 office files. significant increase in the probability or through wall. In most cases, leaks are 4. Department of Transportation, consequences of an accident previously discovered when the system is at normal Federal Transit Administration, Office evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of operating pressure. Also, testing will continue to be performed as required by of Grants Management (N1–408–94–1). a new or different kind of accident from ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Triennial review files for the Capital any accident previously evaluated; or Section XI. and Operating Assistance Program. (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR The NRC staff has reviewed the 5. Department of Transportation, licensee’s analysis and, based on this Surface Transportation Board (N1–134– 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant review, it appears that the three 96–2). Change in retention standards for standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are recordation files. hazards consideration, which is presented below: satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 6. Environmental Protection Agency proposes to determine that the (N1–412–95–7). Reduction in retention 1. Does the proposed license amendment amendment request involves no periods for permit and compliance files involve a significant increase in the significant hazards consideration. probability or consequences of an accident The Commission is seeking public and administrative files relating to previously evaluated? computer center operations. Response: The proposed license comments on this proposed 7. Tennessee Valley Authority (N1– amendment does not involve a significant determination. Any comments received 142–95–12). Printouts and reports increase in the probability or consequences within 30 days after the date of produced by the Human Resource of an accident previously evaluated. The publication of this notice will be Information System (the electronic change proposes a system leakage test for the considered in making any final RCS that is comparable to the hydrostatic test determination. records produced by this system are that it replaces, as acknowledged by the NRC designated for permanent retention). Normally, the Commission will not approval of ASME [American Society of issue the amendment until the Dated: May 23, 1996. Mechanical Engineers] Code Case N–498, expiration of the 30-day notice period. James W. Moore, ‘‘Alternative Rules for 10-Year Hydrostatic Pressure Testing for Class 1 and 2 Systems However, should circumstances change Assistant Archivist for Records Section XI, Division 1,’’ and the ASME Boiler during the notice period such that Administration. and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI. As failure to act in a timely way would [FR Doc. 96–14010 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] discussed in Section 2 [see application dated result, for example, in derating or BILLING CODE 7515±01±M April 26, 1996], ‘‘Evaluation of Change,’’ the shutdown of the facility, the Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28603

Commission may issue the license Board will issue a notice of hearing or limitations in the order granting leave to amendment before the expiration of the an appropriate order. intervene, and have the opportunity to 30-day notice period, provided that its As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a participate fully in the conduct of the final determination is that the petition for leave to intervene shall set hearing, including the opportunity to amendment involves no significant forth with particularity the interest of present evidence and cross-examine hazards consideration. The final the petitioner in the proceeding, and witnesses. determination will consider all public how that interest may be affected by the If a hearing is requested, the and State comments received. Should results of the proceeding. The petition Commission will make a final the Commission take this action, it will should specifically explain the reasons determination on the issue of no publish in the Federal Register a notice why intervention should be permitted significant hazards consideration. The of issuance and provide for opportunity with particular reference to the final determination will serve to decide for a hearing after issuance. The following factors: (1) The nature of the when the hearing is held. Commission expects that the need to petitioner’s right under the Act to be If the final determination is that the take this action will occur very made party to the proceeding; (2) the amendment request involves no infrequently. nature and extent of the petitioner’s significant hazards consideration, the Written comments may be submitted property, financial, or other interest in Commission may issue the amendment by mail to the Rules Review and the proceeding; and (3) the possible and make it immediately effective, Directives Branch, Division of Freedom effect of any order which may be notwithstanding the request for a of Information and Publications entered in the proceeding on the hearing. Any hearing held would take Services, Office of Administration, U.S. petitioner’s interest. The petition should place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, also identify the specific aspect(s) of the amendment request involves a Washington, DC 20555, and should cite subject matter of the proceeding as to significant hazards consideration, any the publication date and page number of which petitioner wishes to intervene. hearing held would take place before this Federal Register notice. Written Any person who has filed a petition for the issuance of any amendment. comments may also be delivered to leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the A request for a hearing or a petition Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, for leave to intervene must be filed with 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, petition without requesting leave of the Board up to 15 days prior to the first the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal workdays. Copies of written prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended Washington, DC 20555, Attention: comments received may be examined at Docketing and Services Branch, or may the NRC Public Document Room, the petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above. be delivered to the Commission’s Public Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Not later than 15 days prior to the first Document Room, the Gelman Building, Washington, DC. prehearing conference scheduled in the 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by The filing of requests for hearing and proceeding, a petitioner shall file a the above date. Where petitions are filed petitions for leave to intervene is supplement to the petition to intervene during the last 10 days of the notice discussed below. which must include a list of the period, it is requested that the petitioner By July 5, 1996, the licensee may file contentions which are sought to be promptly so inform the Commission by a request for a hearing with respect to litigated in the matter. Each contention a toll-free telephone call to Western issuance of the amendment to the must consist of a specific statement of Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri subject facility operating license and the issue of law or fact to be raised or 1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union any person whose interest may be controverted. In addition, the petitioner operator should be given Datagram affected by this proceeding and who shall provide a brief explanation of the Identification Number N1023 and the wishes to participate as a party in the bases of the contention and a concise following message addressed to Jocelyn proceeding must file a written request statement of the alleged facts or expert A. Mitchell: petitioner’s name and for a hearing and a petition for leave to opinion which support the contention telephone number, date petition was intervene. Requests for a hearing and a and on which the petitioner intends to mailed, plant name, and publication petition for leave to intervene shall be rely in proving the contention at the date and page number of this Federal filed in accordance with the hearing. The petitioner must also Register notice. A copy of the petition Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for provide references to those specific should also be sent to the Office of the Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 sources and documents of which the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear CFR part 2. Interested persons should petitioner is aware and on which the Regulatory Commission, Washington, consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 petitioner intends to rely to establish DC 20555, and to Mr. Charles M. Pratt, which is available at the Commission’s those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New Public Document Room, the Gelman must provide sufficient information to York 10019, attorney for the licensee. Building, 2120 L Street, NW., show that a genuine dispute exists with Nontimely filings of petitions for Washington, DC, and at the local public the applicant on a material issue of law leave to intervene, amended petitions, document room located at the White or fact. Contentions shall be limited to supplemental petitions and/or requests Plains Public Library, 100 Martine matters within the scope of the for hearing will not be entertained Avenue, White Plains, New York 10601. amendment under consideration. The absent a determination by the If a request for a hearing or petition for contention must be one which, if Commission, the presiding officer or the leave to intervene is filed by the above proven, would entitle the petitioner to presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing date, the Commission or an Atomic relief. A petitioner who fails to file such Board that the petition and/or request Safety and Licensing Board, designated a supplement which satisfies these should be granted based upon a by the Commission or by the Chairman requirements with respect to at least one balancing of the factors specified in 10 of the Atomic Safety and Licensing contention will not be permitted to CFR 2.714(a)(1) (i)–(v) and 2.714(d). Board Panel, will rule on the request participate as a party. For further details with respect to this and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Those permitted to intervene become action, see the application for designated Atomic Safety and Licensing parties to the proceeding, subject to any amendment dated April 26, 1996, which 28604 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices is available for public inspection at the create the possibility of a new or filed in accordance with the Commission’s Public Document Room, different kind of accident from any Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, accident previously evaluated; or (3) Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 NW., Washington, DC, and at the local involve a significant reduction in a CFR Part 2. Interested persons should public document room located at the margin of safety. The basis for this consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 White Plains Public Library, 100 proposed determination for each which is available at the Commission’s Martine Avenue, White Plains, New amendment request is shown below. Public Document Room, the Gelman York 10601. The Commission is seeking public Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Dated at Rockville, MD, this 31st day of comments on this proposed Washington, DC and at the local public May 1996. determination. Any comments received document room for the particular For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. within 30 days after the date of facility involved. If a request for a publication of this notice will be George F. Wunder, hearing or petition for leave to intervene considered in making any final is filed by the above date, the Project Manager, Project Directorate I–1, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of determination. Commission or an Atomic Safety and Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Normally, the Commission will not Licensing Board, designated by the issue the amendment until the [FR Doc. 96–14044 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Commission or by the Chairman of the expiration of the 30-day notice period. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board BILLING CODE 7590±01±P However, should circumstances change Panel, will rule on the request and/or during the notice period such that petition; and the Secretary or the Biweekly Notice failure to act in a timely way would designated Atomic Safety and Licensing result, for example, in derating or Board will issue a notice of a hearing or Applications and Amendments to shutdown of the facility, the an appropriate order. Facility Operating Licenses Involving Commission may issue the license As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a No Significant Hazards Considerations amendment before the expiration of the petition for leave to intervene shall set 30-day notice period, provided that its forth with particularity the interest of I. Background final determination is that the the petitioner in the proceeding, and Pursuant to Public Law 97-415, the amendment involves no significant how that interest may be affected by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission hazards consideration. The final results of the proceeding. The petition (the Commission or NRC staff) is determination will consider all public should specifically explain the reasons publishing this regular biweekly notice. and State comments received before why intervention should be permitted Public Law 97-415 revised section 189 action is taken. Should the Commission with particular reference to the of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as take this action, it will publish in the following factors: (1) the nature of the amended (the Act), to require the Federal Register a notice of issuance petitioner’s right under the Act to be Commission to publish notice of any and provide for opportunity for a made a party to the proceeding; (2) the amendments issued, or proposed to be hearing after issuance. The Commission nature and extent of the petitioner’s issued, under a new provision of section expects that the need to take this action property, financial, or other interest in 189 of the Act. This provision grants the will occur very infrequently. the proceeding; and (3) the possible Commission the authority to issue and Written comments may be submitted effect of any order which may be make immediately effective any by mail to the Chief, Rules Review and entered in the proceeding on the amendment to an operating license Directives Branch, Division of Freedom petitioner’s interest. The petition should upon a determination by the of Information and Publications also identify the specific aspect(s) of the Commission that such amendment Services, Office of Administration, U.S. subject matter of the proceeding as to involves no significant hazards Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which petitioner wishes to intervene. consideration, notwithstanding the Washington, DC 20555-0001, and Any person who has filed a petition for pendency before the Commission of a should cite the publication date and leave to intervene or who has been request for a hearing from any person. page number of this Federal Register admitted as a party may amend the This biweekly notice includes all notice. Written comments may also be petition without requesting leave of the notices of amendments issued, or delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Board up to 15 days prior to the first proposed to be issued from May 11, Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, prehearing conference scheduled in the 1996, through May 23, 1996. The last Rockville, Maryland from 7:30 a.m. to proceeding, but such an amended biweekly notice was published on May 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of petition must satisfy the specificity 22, 1996 (61 FR 25696). written comments received may be requirements described above. examined at the NRC Public Document Not later than 15 days prior to the first Notice Of Consideration Of Issuance Of Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L prehearing conference scheduled in the Amendments To Facility Operating Street, NW., Washington, DC. The filing proceeding, a petitioner shall file a Licenses, Proposed No Significant of requests for a hearing and petitions supplement to the petition to intervene Hazards onsideration Determination, for leave to intervene is discussed which must include a list of the And Opportunity For A Hearing below. contentions which are sought to be The Commission has made a By July 5, 1996, the licensee may file litigated in the matter. Each contention proposed determination that the a request for a hearing with respect to must consist of a specific statement of following amendment requests involve issuance of the amendment to the the issue of law or fact to be raised or no significant hazards consideration. subject facility operating license and controverted. In addition, the petitioner Under the Commission’s regulations in any person whose interest may be shall provide a brief explanation of the 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation affected by this proceeding and who bases of the contention and a concise of the facility in accordance with the wishes to participate as a party in the statement of the alleged facts or expert proposed amendment would not (1) proceeding must file a written request opinion which support the contention involve a significant increase in the for a hearing and a petition for leave to and on which the petitioner intends to probability or consequences of an intervene. Requests for a hearing and a rely in proving the contention at the accident previously evaluated; or (2) petition for leave to intervene shall be hearing. The petitioner must also Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28605 provide references to those specific should also be sent to the Office of the process in 10 CFR 50.54(a). Therefore, the sources and documents of which the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear changes do not involve a significant increase petitioner is aware and on which the Regulatory Commission, Washington, in the probability or consequences of an petitioner intends to rely to establish DC 20555-0001, and to the attorney for accident previously evaluated. those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner the licensee. 2. The proposed amendment does not Nontimely filings of petitions for create the possibility of a new or different must provide sufficient information to kind of accident from any accident show that a genuine dispute exists with leave to intervene, amended petitions, previously evaluated. the applicant on a material issue of law supplemental petitions and/or requests The change will relocate the administrative or fact. Contentions shall be limited to for a hearing will not be entertained controls related to the quality assurance matters within the scope of the absent a determination by the review and audit requirements from the amendment under consideration. The Commission, the presiding officer or the technical specifications to the quality contention must be one which, if Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that assurance plan. The quality assurance proven, would entitle the petitioner to the petition and/or request should be program is a logical candidate for such relief. A petitioner who fails to file such granted based upon a balancing of relocation due to the controls imposed by a supplement which satisfies these factors specified in 10 CFR such regulations as Appendix B to 10 CFR requirements with respect to at least one 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d). [Part] 50, the existence of NRC approved contention will not be permitted to For further details with respect to this quality assurance plans and commitments to industry quality assurance standards, and the participate as a party. action, see the application for established quality assurance program Those permitted to intervene become amendment which is available for change control process in 10 CFR 50.54(a). parties to the proceeding, subject to any public inspection at the Commission’s The proposed changes do not involve a limitations in the order granting leave to Public Document Room, the Gelman physical alteration of the plant or changes in intervene, and have the opportunity to Building, 2120 L Street, NW., methods governing plant operation. The participate fully in the conduct of the Washington, DC, and at the local public changes will not impose or eliminate any hearing, including the opportunity to document room for the particular new or different requirements. Therefore the present evidence and cross-examine facility involved. changes do not create the possibility of a new witnesses. or different kind of accident from any If a hearing is requested, the Boston Edison Company, Docket No. accident previously evaluated. Commission will make a final 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, 3. The proposed amendment does not determination on the issue of no Plymouth County, Massachusetts involve a significant reduction in a margin of significant hazards consideration. The safety. Date of amendment request: May 1, The change will relocate the administrative final determination will serve to decide 1996 controls related to the quality assurance when the hearing is held. Description of amendment request: review and audit requirements from the If the final determination is that the The proposed amendment will relocate technical specifications to the quality amendment request involves no the administrative controls related to assurance plan. These changes are significant hazards consideration, the the quality assurance review and audit administrative in nature. The quality Commission may issue the amendment requirements of Section 6 from the assurance program is a logical candidate for and make it immediately effective, Pilgrim Station Technical Specifications such relocation due to the controls imposed notwithstanding the request for a to the Boston Edison Quality Assurance by such regulations as Appendix B to 10 CFR hearing. Any hearing held would take Manual. This change is in accordance [Part] 50, the existence of NRC approved quality assurance plans and commitments to place after issuance of the amendment. with the guidance contained in NRC If the final determination is that the industry quality assurance standards, and the Administrative Letter 95-06, established quality assurance program amendment request involves a ‘‘Relocation of Technical Specification change control process in 10 CFR 50.54(a). significant hazards consideration, any Administrative Controls Related to The proposed change will not reduce a hearing held would take place before Quality Assurance.’’ margin of safety because it has no impact on the issuance of any amendment. Basis for proposed no significant any safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, A request for a hearing or a petition hazards consideration determination: the operation of PNPS [Pilgrim Nuclear for leave to intervene must be filed with As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Power Station] in accordance with the the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. licensee has provided its analysis of the proposed license amendment will not Nuclear Regulatory Commission, issue of no significant hazards involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: consideration, which is presented Docketing and Services Branch, or may below: The NRC staff has reviewed the be delivered to the Commission’s Public 1. The proposed amendment does not licensee’s analysis and, based on this Document Room, the Gelman Building, involve a significant increase in the review, it appears that the three 2120 L Street, NW., Washington DC, by probability or consequences of an accident standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. the above date. Where petitions are filed previously evaluated. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to during the last 10 days of the notice The change will relocate the administrative determine that the amendment request period, it is requested that the petitioner controls related to the quality assurance review and audit requirements from the involves no significant hazards promptly so inform the Commission by technical specifications to the quality consideration. a toll-free telephone call to Western assurance plan. These changes are Local Public Document Room Union at 1-(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri administrative in nature and do not impact location: Plymouth Public Library, 11 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union initiators of analyzed events, accident North Street, Plymouth, Massachusetts mitigation capabilities, or transient events. operator should be given Datagram 02360. Identification Number N1023 and the The quality assurance program is a logical following message addressed to (Project candidate for such relocation due to the Attorney for licensee: W. S. Stowe, Director): petitioner’s name and controls imposed by such regulations as Esquire, Boston Edison Company, 800 Appendix B to 10 CFR [Part] 50, the telephone number, date petition was Boylston Street, 36th Floor, Boston, existence of NRC approved quality assurance Massachusetts 02199. mailed, plant name, and publication plans and commitments to industry quality date and page number of this Federal assurance standards, and the established NRC Project Director: Jocelyn A. Register notice. A copy of the petition quality assurance program change control Mitchell, Acting 28606 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

Boston Edison Company, Docket No. standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Proposed Change ι2: Secondary 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to Containment Plymouth County, Massachusetts determine that the amendment request The current specifications are revised to involves no significant hazards specify more clearly when secondary Date of amendment request: May 1, containment is required, what actions to take 1996 consideration. if secondary containment is inoperable, and Description of amendment request: Local Public Document Room time frames for completing the actions. These The proposed amendment will reflect location: Plymouth Public Library, 11 revisions enhance the existing specification the implementation of 10 CFR Part 50, North Street, Plymouth, Massachusetts and serve to make it more definitive by Appendix J, Option B at the Pilgrim 02360. encompassing the conditions currently Nuclear Power Station. Attorney for licensee: W. S. Stowe, specified by TS and supplementing them to Basis for proposed no significant Esquire, Boston Edison Company, 800 specify other conditions when secondary Boylston Street, 36th Floor, Boston, containment is required. hazards consideration determination: Surveillances 4.7.C.1.a and b were only As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Massachusetts 02199. NRC Project Director: Jocelyn A. necessary during initial and Cycle 1 licensee has provided its analysis of the operations. Removing obsolete information issue of no significant hazards Mitchell, Acting from the existing specifications, re- consideration, which is presented Boston Edison Company, Docket No. numbering and re-arranging the wording is below: 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, an administrative change. 1. The operation of Pilgrim Station in Plymouth County, Massachusetts These changes are administrative in nature accordance with the proposed amendment and do not impact initiators of analyzed will not involve a significant increase in the Date of amendment request: May 1, events, accident mitigation capabilities, or probability or consequences of an accident 1996 transient events. Therefore, the changes do previously evaluated. Description of amendment request: not involve a significant increase in the The proposed changes do not involve a The proposed amendment would probability or consequences of an accident significant increase in the probability or modify the definition of ‘‘Core previously evaluated. consequences of an accident previously Alteration,’’ and the Limiting Condition 2. The proposed amendment does not evaluated. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different for Operation, Surveillance conditions kind of accident from any accident involve any physical or operational changes and Bases section associated with to structures, systems or components. The previously evaluated. proposed changes provide a mechanism Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.C, The operation of PNPS in accordance with within the TS [Technical Specifications] for ‘‘Secondary Containment.’’ the proposed license amendment will not implementing a performance-based leakage Basis for proposed no significant create the possibility of a new or different rate test program which was promulgated by hazards consideration determination: kind of accident from any accident the revision to 10CFR50 to incorporate As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the previously evaluated because of the Option B into Appendix J. The TS Limiting licensee has provided its analysis of the following: Conditions for Operation (LCO) remain Proposed Change ι1: Definition of issue of no significant hazards ≥ unaffected by these changes. Thus, the safety consideration, which is presented ‘‘Alteration of the Reactor Core The definition change specifies more design basis for the accident mitigation below: functions of the primary containment is accurately which component movements 1. The proposed amendment does not maintained. Therefore, these changes will not constitute a ‘‘Core Alteration’’. This change involve a significant increase in the increase the probability or consequences of does not involve a physical alteration of the probability or consequences of an accident plant (no new or different type of equipment an accident previously evaluated. previously evaluated. 2. The operation of Pilgrim Station in Operation of PNPS [Pilgrim Nuclear Power will be installed) or changes in methods accordance with the proposed amendment Station] in accordance with the proposed governing normal plant operation. The will not create the possibility of a new or license amendment will not involve a proposed changes will allow movement of different kind of accident from any accident significant increase in the probability or some components (camera, lights, etc.) previously evaluated. consequences of an accident previously during times when ‘‘Core Alterations’’ have Revising surveillance requirement evaluated because of the following: been halted since these components will not acceptance criteria and frequencies does not Proposed Change ι1: Definition of affect core reactivity. Removal of a control physically modify the plant and does not ‘‘Alteration of the Reactor Core≥ rod involves unlatching and withdrawal/ modify the operation of any existing The definition, ‘‘Alteration of the Reactor insertion from over-vessel handling equipment. Further, the TS LCOs remain Core’’, is being revised so that the term will equipment. These activities necessitate, by unaffected by these changes. apply only to those activities that create the design, the removal of the adjacent four fuel 3. The operation of Pilgrim Station in potential for a reactivity excursion and, assemblies. With this configuration (no fuel accordance with the proposed amendment therefore, warrant special precautions or in the cell; handling the associated control will not involve a significant reduction in a controls in the TS. The proposed definition rod), the proposed change will allow margin of safety. includes normal control rod movement in the movement of a ‘‘reactivity control The proposed changes do not involve a definition, but excludes control rod drive component’’ while not imposing significant reduction in the margin of safety, movement (such as rod removal from the requirements unique to ‘‘Core Alterations’’ nor do they affect a safety limit, an LCO, or core) when all four fuel bundles surrounding (note: other requirements, such as those for the manner in which plant equipment is a control rod are removed. The proposed handling loads over irradiated fuel, will operated. The NRC letter dated November 2, change does not increase the probability or remain applicable). The reactivity effects of 1995, recognizes that changes similar to the consequences of an accident because the this control rod movement are more than proposed changes are required to implement proposed definition, by identifying activities compensated for by the initial removal of the Option B of 10CFR50, Appendix J. In with the potential for causing a reactivity fuel assemblies. Therefore, this change will NUREG-1493, ‘‘Performance-Based excursion, ensures that the additional not create the possibility of a new or different Containment Leak-Test Program,’’ which precautions and controls in the TS are kind of accident from any accident forms the basis for the Appendix J revision, implemented at all appropriate times. In previously evaluated. the NRC concludes that adoption of addition, the movement of components Proposed Change ι2: Secondary performance-based test intervals for excluded by this definition is not assumed in Containment Appendix J testing will not significantly the initiation of any analyzed event. The proposed change does not eliminate or reduce the margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not relax any existing TS condition. Rather, it The NRC staff has reviewed the involve a significant increase in the better defines when secondary containment licensee’s analysis and, based on this probability or consequences of an accident is required, provides action statements for review, it appears that the three previously evaluated. inoperability and removes obsolete Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28607 requirements (from first operating cycle). Carolina Power & Light Company, et The updated safety limit minimum critical This change does not involve a physical al., Docket No. 50-325, Brunswick power ratio assures that fuel cladding change to structures, systems or components, Steam Electric Plant, Unit 1, Brunswick protection equivalent to that provided with and the safety design bases for the accident County, North Carolina the existing safety limit minimum critical mitigating function of the secondary power ratio value is maintained. This ensures that the consequences of previously containment is maintained. Therefore, these Date of amendment request: April 8, 1996 evaluated accidents are not significantly changes will not create the possibility of a increased. new or different kind of accident from any Description of amendment request: The licensee has proposed to revise the Proposed Change 2 accident previously evaluated. The standby liquid control system provides 3. The proposed amendment does not Technical Specifications (TS) to include a means of reactivity control that is involve a significant reduction in a margin of the following changes: 1. The Minimum independent of the normal reactivity control safety. Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) Safety system. The standby liquid control system The operation of PNPS in accordance with Limit specified in TS 2.1.2 from 1.07 to must be capable of assuring that the reactor the proposed license amendment will not 1.09 for Unit 1 Cycle 11 operation; TS core can be placed in a subcritical condition involve a significant reduction in a margin of 5.3.1 to reflect the new fuel type (GE13) at any time during reactor core life. Technical Specification Figure 3.1.5-1 specifies the safety because of the following: that will be inserted during Unit 1 ι Refueling Outage 10; 2. The acceptable acceptable range of concentrations and Proposed Change 1: Definition of volumes for sodium pentaborate solution ≥ ‘‘Alteration of the Reactor Core range of sodium pentaborate used as a neutron absorber (i.e., for reactivity The proposed definition more accurately concentration for the standby liquid control). The portion of the sodium identifies those activities with the potential control system shown in TS Figure pentaborate concentration range shown in for causing a reactivity excursion. The more 3.1.5-1 to reflect changes to poison Technical Specification Figure 3.1.5-1 accurate identification of ‘‘Core Alterations’’ material concentration needed to applicable to the lower range of tank volumes will ensure that when there is a potential for achieve reactor shutdown based on the is being revised to increase the required reactivity excursions, appropriate new GE13 fuel type. concentration of sodium pentaborate precautions are applied. The components Basis for proposed no significant solution. This change is needed to account now excluded from the proposed definition hazards consideration determination: for the additional shutdown reactivity needed based on the planned use of GE13 are those that do not have the capability for As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the fuel assemblies as reload fuel for the Unit 1 adversely impacting core reactivity. The licensee has provided its analysis of the reactor core. Since the standby liquid control proposed change has no impact on safety issue of no significant hazards system is independent from the normal analysis assumptions. Therefore, the change consideration, which is presented means of controlling reactor core reactivity will not involve a significant reduction in a below: and not used to control core reactivity during margin of safety. 1. The proposed amendment does not normal plant operations, the proposed Proposed Change ι2: Secondary involve a significant increase in the revision to the sodium pentaborate Containment probability or consequences of an accident concentration curve for the standby liquid The proposed additions of applicability previously evaluated. control system does not alter any plant conditions provide a more precise Proposed Change 1 safety-related equipment, safety function, or understanding of when secondary The proposed amendment will allow the plant operations that could change the loading and use of GE13 fuel assemblies in probability of an accident. containment integrity is required and what the Brunswick Unit 1 reactor core. The use The current volume-concentration range of actions to take if it becomes inoperable. The of GE13 fuel assemblies requires that the sodium pentaborate used in the standby change does not eliminate any existing safety limit minimum critical power ratio liquid control system will achieve a conditions. The deletion of surveillances value also be revised. The safety limit sufficient concentration of boron in the applicable only for the first operating cycle minimum critical power ratio is established reactor vessel to ensure reactor shutdown. and re-numbering and re-arranging the to maintain fuel cladding integrity during Based on the increased reactivity of the new remaining surveillance wording is an operational transients. The GE13 fuel GE13 reload fuel assemblies, the required administrative change and has no impact on assembly design has been analyzed using sodium pentaborate volume-concentration the operation of the plant or mitigation of methods that have been previously approved range is being revised to ensure sufficient accidents. Therefore, the operation of the by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and neutron absorbing solution is available to facility in accordance with this proposed documented in General Electric Nuclear achieve reactor shutdown; therefore, the Energy’s reload licensing methodology consequences of an accident previously amendment would not involve a significant Topical Report (NEDE-24011-P-A-11, evaluated are not significantly increased. reduction in a margin of safety. ‘‘General Electric Standard Application for 2. The proposed amendment would not The NRC staff has reviewed the Reactor Fuel (GESTAR II)’’ dated November create the possibility of a new or different licensee’s analysis and, based on this 1995). kind of accident from any accident review, it appears that the three The proposed revision of the safety limit previously evaluated. standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. minimum critical power ratio does not alter Proposed Change 1 Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to any plant safety-related equipment, safety The GE13 fuel assembly has been designed function, or plant operations that could and complies with the acceptance criteria determine that the amendment request change the probability of an accident. The contained in General Electric Nuclear involves no significant hazards change does not affect the design, materials, Energy’s standard application for reactor fuel consideration. or construction standards applicable to the (GESTAR-II), which provides the latest Local Public Document Room fuel bundles in a manner that could change acceptance criteria for new General Electric location: Plymouth Public Library, 11 the probability of an accident. fuel designs. The GE13 fuel assembly North Street, Plymouth, Massachusetts A methodology that has been previously complies with GESTAR-II acceptance criteria reviewed and accepted by the Nuclear that have been previously reviewed and 02360. Regulatory Commission was used to derive accepted by the Nuclear Regulatory Attorney for licensee: W. S. Stowe, both the existing and updated safety limit Commission. The similarity of the GE13 fuel Esquire, Boston Edison Company, 800 minimum critical power ratio value. The design to the previously accepted GE11 fuel Boylston Street, 36th Floor, Boston, same methodology and criteria have been design, in conjunction with the increased Massachusetts 02199. applied to derive the existing safety limit critical power capability of the GE13 fuel minimum critical power ratio of 1.07 as that design, ensure that no new mode or NRC Project Director: Jocelyn A. used to derive the updated safety limit condition of plant operation is being Mitchell, Acting minimum critical power ratio value of 1.09. authorized by the loading and use of the 28608 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

GE13 fuel type. The proposed revision of the rated power conditions to subcritical over the Westinghouse Standard Technical safety limit minimum critical power ratio entire reactor temperature range from Specifications. from 1.07 to 1.09 does not modify any plant maximum operating to cold shutdown Basis for proposed no significant controls or equipment that will change the conditions. General Electric methodology hazards consideration determination: plant’s responses to any accident or transient establishes a fuel type dependent standby as given in any current analysis. Therefore, liquid control system shutdown margin to As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the the proposed change to allow the loading and account for calculational uncertainties. licensee has provided its analysis of the use of the GE13 fuel type and the revision of General Electric calculations show that an in- issue of no significant hazards the safety limit minimum critical power ratio vessel concentration of 660 ppm will provide consideration, which is presented value from 1.07 to 1.09 will not create the a standby liquid control system minimum below: possibility for a new or different kind of shutdown margin in excess of the 1. [The proposed change does not involve] accident from any accident previously 3.2%[delta]k value required for the GE13 a significant increase in the probability or evaluated. fuel. To achieve an in-vessel concentration of consequences of an accident previously Proposed Change 2 660 ppm, the acceptable range of standby evaluated. As discussed above, the standby liquid liquid control system tank concentrations is The proposed change to the Action control system provides a means of reactivity being revised for the lower range of tank Statement of LCO [Limiting Condition for control that is independent of the normal volumes. Thus, the proposed revision of the Operation] 3.7.1.1.1 will allow indefinite reactivity control system and is capable of standby liquid control system sodium operation at less than or equal to 75% power assuring that the reactor core can be placed pentaborate volume-concentration range in the event that the self actuation function in a subcritical condition at any time during ensures that there will not be a significant of no more than one safety valve per steam reactor core life. The proposed revision to the reduction in the amount of available generator is inoperable, and allow indefinite sodium pentaborate concentration range does shutdown margin and, therefore, not a operation at less than or equal to 50% power not modify the standby liquid control system significant reduction in the margin of safety. in the event that the self actuation function or its controls, does not modify other plant The NRC staff has reviewed the of no more than two safety valves per steam systems and equipment, and does not permit licensee’s analysis and, based on this generator is inoperable. The requirement to a new or different mode of plant operation. reduce power will ensure that there is no As such, the proposed revision to the review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are increase in the consequences of a loss of load minimum pentaborate concentration value accident. The proposed change is consistent does not create the possibility of a new or satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff with the methodology in the Westinghouse different kind of accident from any accident proposes to determine that the Standard Technical Specifications. The previously evaluated. amendment request involves no methodology is conservative, since the 3. The proposed license amendment does significant hazards consideration. PORVs [power operated relief valves] cannot not involve a significant reduction in a Local Public Document Room affect the time of reactor trip on high margin of safety. location: University of North Carolina at pressurizer pressure. Thus, it is concluded Proposed Change 1 that the change does not increase the As previously discussed, the GE13 fuel Wilmington, William Madison Randall Library, 601 S. College Road, consequences of any previously evaluated assembly design has been analyzed using accident. methods that have been previously approved Wilmington, North Carolina 28403- The change only specifies a power by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 3297. reduction in the event that the self actuation documented in General Electric Nuclear Attorney for licensee: William D. function of steam generator safety valves is Energy’s reload licensing methodology Johnson, Vice President and Senior inoperable. It does not affect the probability Topical Report (NEDE-24011-P-A-11, Counsel, Carolina Power & Light of any accident. The change by itself does not ‘‘General Electric Standard Application for affect the likelihood of an inoperable safety Reactor Fuel (GESTAR II)’’ dated November Company, Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 valve. 1995). The safety limit minimum critical 2. [The proposed change does not create] power ratio value is selected to maintain the NRC Project Director: Eugene V. the possibility of a new or different kind of fuel cladding integrity safety limit (i.e., that Imbro accident from any previously evaluated. 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core are The change only specifies a power expected to avoid boiling transition during Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Docket No. 50-213, Haddam reduction in the event that the self actuation operational transients). Appropriate function of steam generator safety valves is operating limit minimum critical power ratio Neck Plant, Middlesex County, inoperable. This does not create the potential values are established, based on the safety Connecticut for a new or different kind of accident. The limit minimum critical power ratio value, to lower power level assures that peak steam ensure that the fuel cladding integrity safety Date of amendment request: February 27, 1996 generator pressure and RCS [reactor coolant limit is maintained. The operating limit system] pressure will remain below 110% of minimum critical power ratio values are Description of amendment request: design. This provides assurance that no incorporated in the Core Operating limits The proposed license amendment equipment failure will occur due to Report as required by Technical Specification would modify the Action Statement of overpressurization. Thus, the change does 6.9.3.1. The new GE13 safety limit minimum Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.1.1.1. not create the possibility for a new or critical power ratio value of 1.09 is based on Currently, the TS action statement different kind of accident. the same fuel cladding integrity safety limit requires that with the self actuation 3. [The proposed change does not involve] criteria [as] that for the GE11 safety limit a significant reduction in a margin of safety. minimum critical power ratio value of 1.07 function on one or more main steam line code safety valves associated with The allowable power levels have been (i.e., that 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the selected, consistent with the Westinghouse core are expected to avoid boiling transition an operating loop inoperable, the Standard Technical Specifications, to assure during operational transients); therefore, the licensee must restore the inoperable that steam generator and RCS pressure will proposed change does not result in a valve to operable status within 4 hours. remain below 110% of design. Thus, there is significant reduction in the margin of safety. Otherwise, the plant must be in hot no reduction in a margin of safety for Proposed Change 2 standby within the next 6 hours and in overpressure protection. As previously stated, the purpose of the hot shutdown within the following 30 The NRC staff has reviewed the standby liquid control is to inject a neutron absorbing solution into the reactor in the hours. The proposed change will allow licensee’s analysis and, based on this event that a sufficient number of control rods continued power operation at reduced review, it appears that the three cannot be inserted to maintain subcriticality. power levels with main steam safety standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Sufficient solution is to be injected such that valves inoperable. The proposed change satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff the reactor will be brought from maximum is consistent with the philosophy of the proposes to determine that the Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28609 amendment request involves no procedurally opened during establishment of add an additional footnote to Limiting significant hazards consideration. containment sump recirculation, the Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.4.2.1 Local Public Document Room elimination of the requirement to lock open and revise an existing footnote for LCO location: Russell Library, 123 Broad the breaker for RH-MOV-22 will not affect the 3.4.2.2. Currently, the footnote for LCO consequences of a LOCA. The proposed Street, Middletown, CT 06457. changes that reflect the conversion of RH-V- 3.4.2.2 requires the pressurizer code Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. 808A to a MOV and the proposed changes in safety valve as-found lift setting to be Cuoco, Esq., Senior Nuclear Counsel, how the valve is used do not increase the within +3 percent and -1 percent of the Northeast Utilities Service Company, consequences of a LOCA. setpoint. The proposed change will P.O. Box 270, Hartford, CT 06141-0270. 2. [The proposed change does not create] relax the negative as-found lift tolerance NRC Project Director: Phillip F. the possibility of a new or different kind of to -3 percent. The as-left lift tolerance McKee accident from any previously evaluated. will remain as plus or minus 1 percent. The proposed changes will require RH- The same footnote will be added to LCO Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power MOV-808A to be closed with the hand wheel 3.4.2.1. Company, Docket No. 50-213, Haddam locked. This provides assurance that the Basis for proposed no significant valve is in the required position. Also, RH- Neck Plant, Middlesex County, hazards consideration determination: Connecticut MOV-808A will be capable of remote manual operation during the monthly surveillance As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Date of amendment request: March 7, which provides assurance that the valve can licensee has provided its analysis of the 1996 be repositioned if necessary. The proposed issue of no significant hazards Description of amendment request: opening of RH-MOV-808A at the same time consideration, which is presented The licensee will be replacing a locally as RH-MOV-22 is opened, provides greater below: operated (manual) containment sump assurance that a suction path is available to 1. [The proposed change does not involve] suction isolation valve, RH-V-808A, the RHR pumps as well as lowering the total a significant increase in the probability or effective piping resistance from the with a remote manually operated (motor consequences of an accident previously containment sump to the pump suction. evaluated. operated) valve, RH-MOV-808A during Therefore, the proposed changes do not The proposed change will relax the the upcoming Cycle 19 refueling outage. introduce the possibility of a new or different pressurizer safety valve negative as-found lift As a result, changes are being requested kind of accident. tolerance to -3 percent. The as-left lift to the Haddam Neck Plant Technical 3. [The proposed change does not involve] tolerance will remain as plus or minus 1 Specifications to reflect this design a significant reduction in a margin of safety. percent. This proposed technical change. The proposed changes make RH-MOV- specification change will allow for the full Basis for proposed no significant 808A identical to RH-MOV-22 with the use of the plus or minus 3 percent as-found exception that RH-MOV-808A will not get a hazards consideration determination: acceptance criterion for valve testing closure signal on Safety Injection Actuation. consistent with 1989 ASME Section XI, As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Both RH-MOV-22 and RH-MOV-808A are Subsection IWV. The relaxing of the as-found licensee has provided its analysis of the containment isolation valves in a closed lift tolerance can not cause an accident. The issue of no significant hazards system. For closed systems, the containment relaxing of the tolerance will allow the safety consideration, which is presented isolation requirement is that the valves be valve setpoint to be closer to the Power below: either: a) automatic, b) locked closed, or c) Operated Relief Valve (PORV) setpoint and 1. [The proposed change does not involve] capable of remote manual operation. RH- could result in a slightly lower pressure for a significant increase in the probability or MOV-808A and RH-MOV-22 are both capable overheating events. The analysis that takes consequences of an accident previously of remote manual operation and therefore do credit for the increase in pressure to the evaluated. not need automatic closure when they are PORV setpoint is the Loss of Load analysis. The proposed technical specification opened as part of the technical specification The minimum departure from nucleate change to Section 3/4.4.6.2 and its bases are required surveillance. Therefore, the boiling ratio (DNBR) was reanalyzed without the replacement of the designation RH-V- proposed changes can not cause a significant taking any credit for the transient increase in 808A with RH-MOV-808A. There are no reduction in the margin of safety. pressure. The minimum DNBR still remains changes to the requirements of this The NRC staff has reviewed the above the acceptance criterion as well as specification and this change is therefore an licensee’s analysis and, based on this above the limiting minimum DNBR predicted administrative change. The changes to review, it appears that the three for all Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Chapter 15 accidents. Also, the relaxed Section 3/4.5.1 will make the requirements standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are tolerance in conjunction with a lower safety for RH-MOV-808A identical to those of RH- satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff valve blowdown, yet still conservative, MOV-22. RH-V-808A is being converted to a proposes to determine that the results in a slightly higher average pressure motor operated valve (MOV). This MOV will amendment request involves no for a valve lift/reset cycle. This means that make the ability to establish a suction path significant hazards consideration. pressurizer overfill will not be predicted for from the containment to the Residual Heat the limiting transient, loss of feedwater. Removal (RHR) System single failure proof Local Public Document Room location: Russell Library, 123 Broad Thus, the proposed relaxation of as-found lift from the control room. Both RH-MOV-22 and tolerance does not increase the probability or RH-MOV-808A will be opened to establish Street, Middletown, CT 06457. Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. consequences of the design basis accidents containment sump recirculation post-loss of previously evaluated. coolant accident (LOCA). This will provide Cuoco, Esq., Senior Nuclear Counsel, 2. [The proposed change does not create] added assurance that core cooling will be Northeast Utilities Service Company, the possibility of a new or different kind of maintained in the switch from injection to P.O. Box 270, Hartford, CT 06141-0270. accident from any previously analyzed. containment sump recirculation following a NRC Project Director: Phillip F. The proposed relaxation of the lift LOCA. The requirement for RH-MOV-808A McKee tolerance still requires the safety valve lift to be closed and its hand wheel locked can setpoint to be above both the PORV setpoint not cause an accident. The credit for Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power and the pressurizer high pressure reactor trip operation of RH-MOV-808A to ensure that Company, Docket No. 50-213, Haddam setpoint. In addition, the as-left setpoint is the establishment of containment sump Neck Plant, Middlesex County, not being changed. The relaxed tolerance in recirculation is single failure proof is Connecticut combination with a conservative safety valve equivalent to the current crediting of RH-V- blowdown still will preclude the prediction 808A with the only difference being that Date of amendment request: March of water relief from the pressurizer. This operation of the valve can now be performed 28, 1996 means that the proposed change does not from the control room. Also, since both RH- Description of amendment request: introduce the possibility of a new or different MOV-22 and RH-MOV-808A will be The proposed license amendment will kind of accident. 28610 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

3. [The proposed change does not involve] previously evaluated is not increased by a increases from 6 to 14 hours the time a significant reduction in a margin of safety. short-term increase in the average water required before the plant must proceed to Hot The proposed relaxation of the as-found lift temperature of the UHS. An evaluation of the Standby should the average water tolerance for valve testing is consistent with service water loads associated with the loss- temperature of the UHS temperature [exceed] 1989 ASME Section XI, Subsection IWV. The of-offsite power and a coincident worst case 90°F. An evaluation has been performed to as-left lift tolerance will remain plus or single failure of a diesel generator to start demonstrate that the risk significance minus 1 percent. In addition, the design basis (resulting in the loss of two of the four associated with the increased action time is analyses still meet their acceptance criteria service water pumps) determined that there very low. In addition, safe shutdown with the -3 percent lift tolerance. Therefore, is adequate margin to accomplish plant capability has been demonstrated for service the proposed change can not cause a cooldown at a service water inlet temperature water inlet temperatures as high as 95°F. The significant reduction in a margin of safety. of 95°F. The recirculation phase of a LOCA addition of a surveillance requirement to The NRC staff has reviewed the [loss-of-coolant accident] was evaluated to monitor the average water temperature of the licensee’s analysis and, based on this verify that adequate flow would be available UHS at least once per hour if the average review, it appears that the three to the RHR [residual heat removal] heat water temperature of the UHS exceeds 89°F standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are exchangers. The most limiting assumptions is an additional requirement, limitation, or for the recirculation phase are offsite power satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff restriction not currently within the technical is available and one RHR heat exchanger specifications. Therefore, these changes do proposes to determine that the service water isolation valve fails to open. not involve a significant reduction in a amendment request involves no The injection phase of a LOCA was evaluated margin of safety. significant hazards consideration. to verify that adequate flow would be The NRC staff has reviewed the Local Public Document Room available to the CAR [containment air licensee’s analysis and, based on this location: Russell Library, 123 Broad recirculation] fan cooling coils. The most review, it appears that the three limiting assumption for the injection phase is Street, Middletown, CT 06457. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. a loss-of-offsite power. The results of these satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Cuoco, Esq., Senior Nuclear Counsel, evaluations determined that there is adequate proposes to determine that the Northeast Utilities Service Company, service water flow to accomplish plant cooldown with average water temperature of amendment request involves no P.O. Box 270, Hartford, CT 06141-0270. the UHS up to 95°F. CYAPCO [Connecticut significant hazards consideration. NRC Project Director: Phillip F. Yankee Atomic Power Company] also Local Public Document Room McKee proposes to include an additional location: Russell Library, 123 Broad Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power surveillance requirement to monitor the Street, Middletown, CT 06457 Company, Docket No. 50-213, Haddam average water temperature of the UHS at least Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. once per hour if the average water Neck Plant, Middlesex County, temperature of the UHS exceeds 89°F. This Cuoco, Esq., Senior Nuclear Counsel, Connecticut additional surveillance requirement ensures Northeast Utilities Service Company, Date of amendment request: April 16, increased operator awareness as the average P.O. Box 270, Hartford, CT 06141-0270 1996 water temperature of the UHS approaches the NRC Project Director: Phillip F. ° Description of amendment request: 90 F LCO limit. Based on the above, there is McKee The licensee is proposing to revise the no significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously evaluated. Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Technical Specifications to permit the 2. [The proposed change does not] create Company, Docket No. 50-213, Haddam Haddam Neck Plant to remain in Mode the possibility of a new or different kind of Neck Plant, Middlesex County, 1, 2, 3, or 4 with the average water accident from any accident previously Connecticut temperature of the ultimate heat sink evaluated. Date of amendment request: April 22, (UHS) greater than 90° additional action The proposed technical specification has been added which would require changes do not create the possibility of a new 1996 Description of amendment request: the plant to be placed in at least Hot or different kind of accident from those The proposed amendment will allow Standby within 6 hours and in Cold previously evaluated. The addition of an 8 the use of the performance-based Shutdown within the following 30 hour time period to monitor the average water temperature of the UHS increases from containment leakage testing hours upon identifying that the average 6 to 14 hours the amount of time that is requirements described in 10 CFR Part water temperature of the UHS is greater allowed before the plant must proceed to Hot 50, Appendix J, Option B. than 95°F. In addition, the licensee is Standby should the average water Basis for proposed no significant proposing to include a new surveillance ° temperature of the UHS increase above 90 F. hazards consideration determination: requirement for monitoring the average This extension of the time allowed for the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the circulating water inlet temperature to be plant to be in Hot Standby does not change licensee has provided its analysis of the within its limits when the average water the plant configuration. CYAPCO also issue of no significant hazards temperature of the UHS exceeds 89°F. proposes to include an additional Basis for proposed no significant surveillance requirement to monitor the consideration, which is presented hazards consideration determination: average water temperature of the UHS at least below: once per hour if the average water 1. Involve a significant increase in the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the temperature of the UHS exceeds 89°F. This probability or consequences of an accident licensee has provided its analysis of the additional surveillance requirement ensures previously analyzed. issue of no significant hazards increased operator awareness as the average The changes involved in this license consideration, which is presented water temperature of the UHS approaches the amendment request revise the testing criteria below: 90°F LCO limit. for the containment penetrations. The revised 1. [The proposed change does not] involve As such, the changes do not create the criteria will be based on the guidance in a significant increase in the probability or possibility of a new or different kind of Regulatory Guide 1.163, ‘‘Performance-Based consequences of an accident previously accident from those previously evaluated. Containment Leak-Test Program.’’ This evaluated. 3. [The proposed change does not] involve guidance allows for the use of relaxed testing The proposed addition to the Action a significant reduction in a margin of safety. frequencies for containment penetrations that Statement of LCO 3.7.12 of an 8 hour period The proposed technical specification have performed satisfactorily on a historical to monitor the average water temperature of changes do not involve a significant basis. The Containment Leakage Rate Testing the UHS does not involve an increase in the reduction in any margin of safety. The Program considers the type of service, the probability of an accident previously addition of an 8 hour time period to monitor design of the penetration, and the safety evaluated. The probability of an accident the average water temperature of the UHS impact of the penetration in determining the Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28611 testing interval of each penetration. The NRC Removal of the surveillance accuracy example, it has been shown that the Staff has reviewed the potential impact of requirement in Section 4.6.1.2.c will not proposed change is not an SHC. performance-based testing frequencies for create the possibility of a new or different The NRC staff has reviewed the containment penetrations during the kind of accident from those previously licensee’s analysis and, based on this development of the Option B regulation. The analyzed since a similar requirement is review, it appears that the three NRC Staff review is documented in NUREG- contained in ANSI/ANS-56.8-1994, standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 1493, ‘‘Performance-Based Containment ‘‘Containment System Leakage Testing Leakage-Test Program.’’ The review Requirements.’’ ANSI/ANS-56.8-1994 will be satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff concluded that reducing the frequency of used to develop the technical methods and proposes to determine that the Type A tests (Integrated Leakage Rate Tests) techniques for the Containment Leakage Rate amendment request involves no from three per 10 years to one per 10 years Test Program as stated in Regulatory Guide significant hazards consideration. leads to an imperceptible increase in risk. For 1.163. The technical methods and techniques Local Public Document Room Type B and C testing (Local Leakage Rate in ANSI/ANS-56.8-1994 have been location: Russell Library, 123 Broad Tests), the change in testing frequency determined to be acceptable to the NRC staff. Street, Middletown, CT 06457. should not have significant impact since this Changes to the Administrative Section Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. leakage contributes less than 0.1 percent of describe the containment testing program Cuoco, Esq., Senior Nuclear Counsel, the overall risk based on the existing only and cannot create a different accident regulations. The use of Option B will allow from any previously analyzed. Northeast Utilities Service Company, the extension of testing intervals with a 3. Involve a significant reduction in a P.O. Box 270, Hartford, CT 06141-0270. minimal impact on the radiological release margin of safety. NRC Project Director: Phillip F. rates since most penetration leakage is During the development of 10 CFR Part 50, McKee continually well below the specified limits. Appendix J, Option B, the NRC staff In the accident risk evaluation, the NRC Staff determined the reduction in safety associated Consumers Power Company, Docket noted that the accident risk is relatively with the implementation of the performance- No. 50-255, Palisades Plant, Van Buren insensitive to the containment leakage rate based testing program. The results of this County, Michigan because the accident risk is dominated by review are documented in NUREG-1493. The Date of amendment request: February accident sequences that result in failure of or review concluded that reducing the 6, 1996 bypass of the containment. The use of a frequency of Type A tests (Integrated Leakage performance-based testing program will Rate Tests) from three per 10 years to one per Description of amendment request: continue to provide assurance that the 10 years leads to an imperceptible increase The proposed amendment would delete accident analysis assumptions remain in risk. For Type B and C testing (Local the requirement to perform additional bounding. Therefore, the proposed change Leakage Rate Tests), the increase in testing operability testing of safety system train does not involve a significant increase in the frequency should not have significant impact components when a required probability or consequences of an accident since this leakage contributes less than 0.1 component in the redundant train previously analyzed. percent of the overall risk based on the becomes inoperable. Removal of the surveillance accuracy existing regulations. The use of Option B will Basis for proposed no significant requirement in Section 4.6.1.2.c will not allow the extension of testing intervals with hazards consideration determination: affect the probability of an accident a minimal impact on the radiological release previously analyzed since a similar rates since most penetration leakage is As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the requirement is contained in ANSI/ANS-56.8- continually well below the specified limits. licensee has provided its analysis of the 1994, ‘‘Containment System Leakage Testing In the accident risk evaluation, the NRC Staff issue of no significant hazards Requirements.’’ ANSI/ANS-56.8-1994 will be noted that the accident risk is relatively consideration, which is presented used to develop the technical methods and insensitive to the containment leakage rate below: techniques for the Containment Leakage Rate because the accident risk is dominated by 1. Do the proposed changes involve a Test Program as stated in Regulatory Guide accident sequences that result in failure of or significant increase in the probability or 1.163. The technical methods and techniques bypass of the containment. The use of a consequences of an accident previously in ANSI/ANS-56.8-1994 have been performance based testing program will evaluated? determined to be acceptable to the NRC Staff. continue to provide assurance that the The proposed changes remove the Changes to the Administrative Section accident analysis assumptions remain requirement for testing which is in addition describe the containment testing program bounding. Therefore, this change does not to the normal surveillance interval. The only and cannot increase the probability or involve a significant reduction in the margin affected equipment is subject to periodic consequences of an accident previously of safety. surveillance testing required by the analyzed. Removal of the surveillance accuracy Technical Specifications. Removing the 2. Create the possibility of a new or requirement in Section 4.6.1.2.c will not requirement for additional testing cannot different kind of accident from any involve a significant reduction in the margin alter any plant operating conditions, previously analyzed. of safety since a similar requirement is operating practices, equipment settings, or The proposed license amendment does not contained in ANSI/ANS-56.8-1994, equipment capabilities. Therefore, changing change the operation or equipment of the ‘‘Containment System Leakage Testing an AOT [allowable outage time] or a plant. The change in the test frequency is Requirements.’’ ANSI/ANS-56.8-1994 will be surveillance interval cannot increase the dependent on the establishment of a used to develop the technical methods and probability or consequences of an accident Containment Leakage Test Program. This test techniques for the Containment Leakage Rate previously evaluated. program will ensure the performance history Test Program as stated in Regulatory Guide 2. Do the proposed changes create the of each penetration is satisfactory prior to the 1.163. The technical methods and techniques possibility of a new or different kind of changing of any test frequency. Since the in ANSI/ANS-56.8-1994 have been accident from any previously evaluated? performance history of the penetration will determined to be acceptable to the NRC Staff. The proposed changes remove the be known, there is no possibility of the Changes to the Administrative Section requirement for testing which is in addition implementation of the program creating a describe the containment testing program to the normal surveillance interval. The new or different kind of accident than only and do not reduce the margin of safety. affected equipment is subject to periodic previously analyzed. Since there is no change Moreover, the Commission has provided surveillance testing required by the to the equipment or the operation of the guidance concerning the application of Technical Specifications. Removing the plant, there is no possibility of creating a new standards in 10 CFR 50.92 by providing requirement for additional testing cannot or different kind of accident than previously certain examples (51 FR 7751, March 6, 1986) alter any plant operating conditions, analyzed. Therefore, the proposed change of amendments that are considered not likely operating practices, equipment settings, or does not create the possibility of a new or to involve an SHC [significant hazards equipment capabilities. Therefore, changing different kind of accident from any consideration]. Although the proposed an AOT or a surveillance interval cannot previously analyzed. change is not enveloped by a specific create the possibility of a new or different 28612 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices kind of accident from any previously Generic Letter 94-01, NUREG-1366, and actuation are met. The proposed changes evaluated. NUREG-1431. The proposed improve the reliability of the diesel 3. Do the proposed changes involve a amendments would also incorporate generators. Implementation of the significant reduction in a margin of safety? technical and administrative changes. Maintenance Rule also ensures continued The proposed changes remove the Basis for proposed no significant reliability of the diesel generators. No margin requirement for testing which is in addition of safety is decreased as a result of these TS to the normal surveillance interval, in effect hazards consideration determination: changes. extending the surveillance interval. An As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the The NRC staff has reviewed the excessive surveillance interval extension licensee has provided its analysis of the licensee’s analysis and, based on this could reduce the margin of safety by issue of no significant hazards review, it appears that the three reducing assurance that required equipment consideration, which is presented standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are will function as designed; an overly below: satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff restrictive surveillance interval could also Criterion 1 reduce the margin of safety by imposing proposes to determine that the Operation of the facilities in accordance amendment request involves no unnecessary testing wear, equipment with the requested amendments will not manipulations, and system transients on the involve a significant increase in the significant hazards consideration. plant. probability or consequences of an accident Local Public Document Room The existing requirements to perform previously evaluated. Improvements to the location: Atkins Library, University of cross-train testing were based on the LCOs [limiting condition for operation] and North Carolina, Charlotte (UNCC operating experience available when they surveillance requirements for the emergency Station), North Carolina 28223 were added to the TS. Typically this was diesel generators do not affect their capability Attorney for licensee: Mr. Albert Carr, done during the initial plant licensing in to provide emergency power to plant vital Duke Power Company, 422 South 1971. The recently published Standard instruments and safety related equipment. In Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina Technical Specifications (NUREG 1432) do fact, these improvements make the diesel not include cross-train testing requirements 28242 generators more reliable since they NRC Project Director: Herbert N. for the Engineered Safety Features significantly reduce the amount of wear and components. It has been judged by the NRC stress due to excessive and unnecessary Berkow and by the industry, that cross-train testing testing. The proposed monthly testing of the Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. is unnecessary, and that testing at normal diesel generator continues to ensure that the 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit surveillance intervals is adequate to assure system is ready for service when needed. The equipment operability. This recent judgment fast starts and fast loadings continue to No. 1, Pope County, Arkansas is based on a much larger accumulation of ensure that the timing and loading Date of amendment request: April 29, operating experience than was available at requirements for engineered safety features 1996 the time Palisades was licensed. There are no actuation are met. The proposed changes do Description of amendment request: special features of the Palisades plant which not affect any of the design basis accident The proposed amendment relocates would invalidate these more recent analyses previously evaluated. Therefore, several cycle specific operating these proposed changes do not involve any judgments of optimal testing requirements. parameters from the technical Therefore, operation of the facility in increase in the probability or consequences accordance with the proposed changes will of any accident previously evaluated. The specifications to the Core Operating not involve a significant reduction in a proposed changes are fully consistent with Limits Report per Generic Letter 88-16. margin of safety. the recommendations and guidance The parameters being relocated by this The NRC staff has reviewed the contained in GL [Generic Letter] 93-05, GL change include the variable low reactor licensee’s analysis and, based on this 94-01, NUREG-1366, NUREG-1431, and are coolant system pressure trip (VLPT) and review, it appears that the three compatible with plant operating experience. the variable low reactor coolant system standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Criterion 2 pressure-temperature protective limits. Operation of the facilities in accordance satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Basis for proposed no significant with the requested amendments will not hazards consideration determination: proposes to determine that the create the possibility of a new or different amendment request involves no kind of accident from any accident As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the significant hazards consideration. previously evaluated. The proposed changes licensee has provided its analysis of the Local Public Document Room in fact improve the reliability of the diesel issue of no significant hazards location: Van Wylen Library, Hope generators by eliminating unnecessary wear consideration, which is presented College, Holland, Michigan 49423 and stress. Improved reliability decreases the below: Attorney for licensee: Judd L. Bacon, failure probability which also decreases the Criterion 1. Does Not Involve a Significant Esquire, Consumers Power Company, probability of an accident not previously Increase in the Probability or Consequences 212 West Michigan Avenue, Jackson, evaluated. None of the requested of an Accident Previously Evaluated. Michigan 49201 amendments increase the common mode The removal of the cycle-dependent NRC Project Director: Mark Reinhart failure probability thus would not increase variable low RCS pressure-temperature the chance of both EDG’s [emergency diesel protective limits and the VLPT setpoint from Duke Power Company, Docket Nos. 50- generators] for a particular nuclear unit being technical speciications and placing them into 369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear out of service simultaneously. The proposed the COLR has no impact on plant safety and Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg changes are fully consistent with the is considered to be administrative in nature. County, North Carolina recommendations and guidance contained in The proposed change does not affect the GL 93-05, GL 94-01, NUREG-1366, NUREG- safety analyses, physical design, or operation Date of amendment request: 1431, and are compatible with plant of the plant. Technical specifications will December 14, 1995, as supplemented by operating experience. continue to require operation within the core letter dated May 16, 1996. Criterion 3 protective and operational limits for each Description of amendment request: Operation of the facilities in accordance reload cycle as calculated by the approved The proposed amendments would with the requested amendments will not reload design methodologies. The change the Technical Specifications involve a significant reduction in a margin of appropriate actions required if limits are safety. The proposed monthly testing of the violated will remain in the technical (TS) to improve the TS Action diesel generators continues to ensure that the specifications. The reload report presents the Statements and Surveillance system is ready for service when needed. The results of cycle-specific evaluations of Requirements for diesel generators in fast starts and fast loadings continue to accident analyses and transients addressed in accordance with the recommendations ensure that the timing and loading the ANO-1 Safety Analysis Report. The cycle- and guidance in Generic Letter 93-05, requirements for engineered safety features specific 10CFR50.59 evaluation of the reload Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28613 report demonstrates that changes in fuel Entergy Operations, Inc., et al., Docket of the no significant hazards consideration cycle design and the corresponding COLR do No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear determination follows: not involve a significant increase in the Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County, I. The proposed change does not probability or consequences of an accident Mississippi significantly increase the probability or previously evaluated. consequences of an accident previously Therefore, this change does not involve a Date of amendment request: May 6, evaluated. significant increase in the probability or 1996 The proposed change documents changing consequences of any accident previously Description of amendment request: the legal name of the company. The proposed evaluated. change will not affect any other obligations. The amendment would reflect that the The company will still own all of the same Criterion 2. Does not Create the Possibility name of Mississippi Power & Light assets, serve the same customers, and all of a New or Different Kind of Accident from Company (MP&L) has been changed to existing obligations and commitments will any Previously Evaluated. Entergy Mississippi, Inc. The continue unaffected. The proposed change to relocate the amendment revises Operating License [The proposed change does not affect any variable low RCS pressure-temperature NPF-29 and Antitrust Conditions for the of the existing requirements or commitments protective limits and the VLPT setpoint from Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 on equipment or systems that are designed the technical specifications to the COLR is (GGNS) to (1) add the phrase ‘‘(now for the safe operation of the plant. It does not administrative in nature. No change to the affect the design or operation of the plant.] design configuration or method of operation renamed Entergy Mississippi, Inc.)’’ Therefore, the proposed change does not of the plant is made by this proposed change, after the name of Mississippi Power & significantly increase the probability or and therefore, no new transient initiator has Light Company (MP&L), (2) replace the consequences of an accident previously been created. Technical specifications will name of Mississippi Power & Light evaluated. continue to require operation within the Company (MP&L) by the name Entergy II. The proposed change does not create the required core protective and operating limits Mississippi, Inc., and (3) replace a possibility of a new or different kind of and appropriate actions will be taken if the footnote by the statement: ‘‘Amendment accident from any accident previously limits are exceeded. Because plant operation evaluated. —— resulted in a name change for The administrative changes to the will continue to be limited by the cycle- Mississippi Power & Light Company specific COLR limits that are established Operating License [and Antitrust Condition] (MP&L) to Entergy Mississippi, requirements [to change the name of using NRC-approved methodologies, these Inc.’’.The proposed amendment Mississippi Power & Light] do not involve relocations will have no impact on plant involves only a change in company any change in the design or operation of the safety. plant. The company will still own all of the Therefore, this change does not create the name. It does not involve any changes to the Technical Specifications for same assets, serve the same customers, and possibility of a new or different kind of all existing obligations and commitments accident from any previously evaluated. GGNS, or to any requirements or limiting conditions for operation on any will continue unaffected. Criterion 3. Does Not Involve a Significant [The proposed changes do not affect Reduction in the Margin of Safety. equipment or any systems in the plant. equipment or systems that could caused an Existing technical specification operability Basis for proposed no significant accident at the plant.] and surveillance requirements are not hazards consideration determination: Therefore, the proposed changes do not reduced by the proposed change to relocate As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the create the possibility of a new or different the variable low RCS pressure-temperature licensee has provided its analysis of the kind of accident from any accident protective limits and the VLPT setpoint to issue of no significant hazards previously evaluated. the COLR. The proposed changes are consideration, which is presented III. The proposed change does not involve administrative in nature and do not relate to below: a significant reduction in a margin of safety. or modify the safety margins defined in and The proposed change [in name] is Entergy Operations, Inc. proposes to maintained by the technical specifications. administrative in nature, as described above; change the current Grand Gulf Nuclear The cycle-specific COLR limits for future therefore, this change does not reduce the Station Facility Operating License and reload fuel cycles will continue to be level of safety imposed by any current Antitrust Conditions. The specific proposed developed based on NRC approved requirements. [The proposed changes do not change is to reflect that the name of one of methodologies. Each future reload undergoes affect any equipment or systems at the plant.] the companies owning Grand Gulf Nuclear The company will still own all of the same a 10CFR50.59 evaluation to assure that Station has legally changed from Mississippi operation of the plant within the cycle- assets, serve the same customers, and all Power & Light Company to Entergy existing obligations and commitments will specific limits will not involve a significant Mississippi, Inc. reduction in a margin of safety. continue unaffected. The Commission has provided standards Therefore, the proposed changes do not Therefore, this change does not involve a for determining whether a no significant significant reduction in the margin of safety. cause a significant reduction in the margin of hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the CFR 50.92(c). A proposed amendment to an The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this operating license involves no significant licensee’s analysis and, based on this hazards consideration if operation of the review, it appears that the three review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff significant increase in the probability or satisfied. herefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the consequences of an accident previously proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. new or different kind of accident from any significant hazards consideration. Local Public Document Room accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve Local Public Document Room location: Tomlinson Library, Arkansas a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Location: Judge George W. Armstrong Entergy Operations, Inc. has evaluated the Tech University, Russellville, AR 72801 Library, 220 S. Commerce Street, no significant hazards consideration in its Natchez, MS 39120 request for this license amendment and Attorney for licensee: Nicholas S. Attorney for licensee: Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire, Winston and Strawn, determined that no significant hazards consideration results from this change. In Reynolds, Esquire, Winston and Strawn, 1400 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC 1400 L Street, N.W., 12th Floor, 20005-3502 accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(a), Entergy Operations, Inc. is providing the analysis of Washington, DC 20005-3502 NRC Project Director: William D. the proposed amendment against the three NRC Project Director: William D. Beckner standards in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A description Beckner 28614 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

Entergy Operations, Inc., et al., Docket 2) The proposed change would not create Entergy Operations, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear the possibility of a new or different kind of No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County, accident from any accident previously Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County, Mississippi evaluated. Extending the test intervals has no Mississippi Date of amendment request: May 8, influence on, nor does it contribute in any Date of amendment request: May 9, 1996 way to, the possibility of a new or different 1996 Description of amendment request: kind of accident or malfunction from those Description of amendment request: The amendment request would replace previously analyzed. No change has been The amendment request would (1) the current frequency requirements in made to the design, function or method of increase the safety limit minimum performing leakage testing [or to the design Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.1.3.5, and function of these valves]. Leakage critical power ratio (MCPR) for two loop on the leakage rate testing for each acceptance criteria have not changed. No operation and single loop operation to containment purge valve with resilient new accident modes are created by extending 1.10 and 1.11, respectively, and (2) add seals, in the Technical Specifications for the testing intervals. No safety-related a General Electric topical report to the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 equipment or safety functions are altered as list of documents describing the (GGNS). The proposed changes would a result of this change. analytical methods used to determine place these purge valves on a [Therefore, the proposed changes do not the core operating limits. The proposed create the possibility of a new or different performance-based leakage testing kind of accident from any accident changes are to Section 2.1.1, Reactor frequency, instead of the current once previously evaluated.] Core Safety Limits, and Section 5.6.5, every 184 days and once within 92 days 3) The proposed change does not involve Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), after opening the valve.The proposed a significant reduction in a margin of safety respectively, of the Technical changes do not change the limiting The only margin of safety that has the Specifications (TSs). conditions for operation, the required potential of being impacted by the proposed The licensee also proposed changes to actions for inoperability, or the other changes involves the offsite dose the Bases of the TSs associated with the surveillance requirements on these consequences of postulated accidents which above proposed changes. are directly related to the containment Basis for proposed no significant primary containment isolation valves. leakage rate. The proposed change does not Basis for proposed no significant alter the method of performing the tests nor hazards consideration determination: hazards consideration determination: does it change the leakage acceptance As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the criteria. Sufficient data has been collected to licensee has provided its analysis of the licensee has provided its analysis of the demonstrate that the resilient seals do not issue of no significant hazards issue of no significant hazards degrade at an accelerated rate. consideration, which is presented consideration, which is presented [Also, the proposed change would test below: below: these valves in accordance with the Entergy Operations, Inc. proposes to In accordance with 10 CFR 50.92, Entergy Appendix J testing program at the plant. change the current Grand Gulf Nuclear Operations, Inc. has evaluated the proposed Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 defines Station [GGNS] Technical Specifications. The change to the Operating License of GGNS and primary containment leakage testing specific change is to modify the Minimum has determined that the operation of the requirements for water-cooled power reactors Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) safety limits facility in accordance with the proposed as GGNS and these requirements include reported in Technical Specification 2.1.1.2, amendment would not involve any frequency of testing for the primary the list of references in Technical significant hazards considerations. In containment isolation valves.] Specification 5.6.5, and associated Bases accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(a), Entergy Because of this demonstrated reliability, changes. The proposed change is necessary Operations, Inc. is providing the following this change will provide sufficient in order to switch reload fuel vendors. analysis of the proposed amendment against surveillance to determine an increase in the [General Electric GE11 fuel is being added to the three [following] standards of 10 CFR unfiltered leakage prior to the leakage the core in place of Siemens Power 50.92(c): exceeding that assumed in the accident Corporation (SPC) fuel.] 1) The proposed change does not analysis. The Commission has provided standards significantly increase the probability or Therefore, the proposed change does not for determining whether no significant consequences of an accident previously result in a significant reduction in a margin hazards considerations exists as stated in 10 evaluated. of safety. CFR 50.92 (c). A proposed amendment to an This change deletes the augmented testing Based on the above evaluation, Entergy operating license involves no significant requirement for these containment isolation Operation, Inc. has concluded that operation hazards if operation of the facility in valves and allows the surveillance intervals in accordance with the proposed amendment accordance with the proposed amendment to be set in accordance with the Appendix J involves no significant hazards would not: (1) involve a significant increase testing program. [Appendix J to 10 CFR Part considerations. in the probability or consequences of an 50 defines primary containment leakage The NRC staff has reviewed the accident previously evaluated; (2) create the testing requirements for water-cooled power licensee’s analysis and, based on this possibility of a new or different kind of reactors as GGNS and these requirements review, it appears that the three accident from any accident previously include frequency of testing for the primary evaluated; or (3) involve a significant standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are reduction in a margin of safety. containment isolation valves.] This change satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff does not affect the system function or design. Entergy Operations, Inc. has evaluated the The purge valves are not an initiator of any proposes to determine that the no significant hazards consideration in its previously analyzed accident. Leakage rates amendment request involves no request for this license amendment and do not affect the probability of the occurrence significant hazards consideration. determined that no significant hazards of any accident. Operating history has Local Public Document Room considerations result from this change. In demonstrated that these valves do not Location: Judge George W. Armstrong accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(a), Entergy degrade and cause leakage as previously Library, 220 S. Commerce Street, Operations, Inc. is providing the analysis of anticipated. Because these valves have been Natchez, MS 39120 the proposed amendment against the three demonstrated to be reliable, these valves can Attorney for licensee: Nicholas S. standards in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A description be expected to perform the containment of the no significant hazards consideration isolation function as assumed in the accident Reynolds, Esquire, Winston and Strawn, determination follows: analyses. 1400 L Street, N.W., 12th Floor, I. The proposed change does not Therefore, there is no significant increase Washington, DC 20005-3502 significantly increase the probability or in the consequences of any previously NRC Project Director: William D. consequences of an accident previously evaluated accident. Beckner evaluated. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28615

The Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) The MCPR safety limits have been licensee has provided its analysis of the safety limit is defined in the Bases to evaluated to ensure that during normal issue of no significant hazards Technical Specification 2.1.1 as that limit operation and during AOOs [abnormal consideration, which is presented which ‘‘ensures that during normal operation operating occurrences], at least 99.9% of the below: and during Anticipated Operational fuel rods in the core do not experience The proposed changes described herein are Occurrences (AOOs), at least 99.9% of the transition boiling. Therefore, the administrative changes necessary to correct fuel rods in the core do not experience implementation of the proposed changes in administrative errors. The proposed changes transition boiling.’’ The MCPR safety limit is the MCPR safety limit ensure there is no will have no affect on any design basis re-evaluated for each reload and, for GGNS reduction in the margin of safety. accidents nor will these changes affect any [Operating] Cycle 9, the analyses have As with the current SPC methodology, material condition of the plant. Therefore, concluded that a two-loop MCPR safety limit GGNS will implement only the NRC- the proposed changes will not involve a of 1.10 based on the application of the approved revisions to GE’s GESTAR significant increase in the probability or generic GE MCPR methodology is necessary methodology. This GE methodology is consequences of any accident previously to ensure that this acceptance criterion is similar to those SPC reports currently listed evaluated. satisfied. For single-loop operation, a MCPR in TS 5.6.5 and it will be applied in a similar, The proposed changes are purely safety limit of 1.11 based on the generic GE conservative fashion. One exception to administrative. There are no new system or MCPR methodology was determined to be GESTAR is that the mis-oriented and mis- design changes associated with this proposal. necessary. Core MCPR operating limits are located bundle events will continue to be Therefore, the proposed change will not developed to support the Technical analyzed as accidents subject to the create the possibility of a new or different Specification 3.2 requirements and ensure acceptance criteria in the current licensing kind of accident from any accident these safety limits are maintained in the basis. This analysis ensures that postulated previously evaluated. event of the worst-case transient. Since the dose releases will not exceed a small fraction The proposed change will have no impact MCPR safety limit will be maintained at all (10 percent) of 10CFR100 limits. On this on any protective boundary, safety limit, or times, operation under the proposed changes basis, the implementation of this GE margin to safety. The proposed change will ensure at least 99.9% of the fuel rods in methodology does not involve a significant corrects inconsistencies in the TS and is the core do not experience transition boiling. reduction in a margin of safety. purely administrative in nature. Therefore, Therefore, The Minimum Critical Power The NRC staff has reviewed the the proposed change will not involve a Ratio (MCPR) safety limit change does not licensee’s analysis and, based on this significant reduction in a margin of safety. affect the probability or consequences of an review, it appears that the three The NRC staff has reviewed the accident. licensee’s analysis and, based on this The implementation of GE’s GESTAR-II standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff review, it appears that the three approved methodology has no effect on the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are probability or consequences of any accidents proposes to determine that the previously evaluated. One exception to amendment request involves no satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff GESTAR is that the mis-oriented and mis- significant hazards consideration. proposes to determine that the located bundle events will continue to be Local Public Document Room amendment request involves no analyzed as accidents subject to the Location: Judge George W. Armstrong significant hazards consideration. acceptance criteria in the current licensing Library, 220 S. Commerce Street, Local Public Document Room basis. The design of the GE11 fuel bundles Natchez, MS 39120 Location: University of New Orleans is such that the bundles are not likely to be Library, Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, mis-oriented or mis-located and the normal Attorney for licensee: Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire, Winston and Strawn, New Orleans, LA 70122 administrative controls will be in effect for Attorney for licensee: N.S. Reynolds, 1400 L Street, N.W., 12th Floor, assuring proper orientation and location. Esq., Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street Therefore, the probability of a fuel loading Washington, DC 20005-3502 N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-3502 error is not increased. This analysis ensures NRC Project Director: William D. NRC Project Director: William D. that postulated dose releases will not exceed Beckner a small fraction (10 percent) of 10CFR100 Beckner limits. Entergy Operations Inc., Docket No. 50- GPU Nuclear Corporation, et al., Therefore, the consequences of accidents 382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek previously evaluated are unchanged. Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana II. The proposed change does not create the Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean possibility of a new or different kind of Date of amendment request: February County, New Jersey accident from any accident previously 6, 1996 Date of amendment request: May 7, evaluated. Description of amendment request: 1996 (TSCR 247) The GE11 fuel to be used in [Operating] The proposed change will amend the Description of amendment request: Cycle 9 is of a design compatible with fuel Allowable Values of parameters in Table The proposed change to the technical present in the core and used in the previous 3.3-4 of Waterford Steam Electric specifications would adopt the cycle. Therefore, the GE11 fuel will not Station, Unit 3, (Waterford 3) Technical create the possibility of a new or different provisions of the Standard Technical Specifications (TSs) to make it Specifications (STS), NUREG-1433, Rev. kind of accident. The proposed changes do consistent with the identical parameters not involve any new modes of operation, any 1, which clarify surveillance changes to setpoints, or any plant in Table 2.2-1 of TSs for Waterford 3. requirement applicability and allow a modifications. They introduce revised MCPR The proposed change will add Mode 4 maximum period of 24 hours to safety limits that have been proved to be to the surveillance requirements of complete a surveillance requirement acceptable for Cycle 9 operation. Compliance Table 4.3-2, Item 5.c (Safety Injection upon discovery that the surveillance has with the applicable criterion for incipient System Automatic Actuation Logic) that been missed. boiling transition continues to be ensured. was inadvertently removed. Finally, the Basis for proposed no significant The proposed MCPR safety limits do not proposed change removes a reference to hazards consideration determination: result in the creation of any new precursors TS 3.3.3.2 in Surveillance Requirements As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the to an accident. TS 4.10.2.2 and 4.10.4.2 since Incore Therefore, the proposed changes do not licensee has provided its analysis of the create the possibility of a new or different Detectors has been removed from the issue of no significant hazards type of accident from any accident TSs. consideration, which is presented previously evaluated. Basis for proposed no significant below: III. The proposed change does not involve hazards consideration determination: 1. Operation of the facility in accordance a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the with the proposed amendment would not 28616 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices involve a significant increase in the operation, respectively. These changes operating parameters, equipment operability probability of occurrence or consequence of would make the TMI-2 technical requirements, surveillance test methodology, an accident previously evaluated. The specifications consistent with the or acceptance criteria. proposed changes only affect administrative Standard Technical Specifications for 2. Create the possibility of a new or requirements regarding the applicability and different kind of accident since the change performance of surveillances. This change B&W Plants (NUREG-1430). The does not affect plant equipment, plant clarifies surveillance requirement revision to section 4.1.1.3 would allow configuration, or plant operating parameters. applicability and allows a maximum 24 hour extension of the time interval for 3. Involve a change in the margin of safety delay period for the performance of a surveillance of the containment airlock since the change does not affect any surveillance when it is discovered that the doors from quarterly to annually. The operational limits. surveillance has not been performed within proposed changes to the TMI-2 Based on the above analysis the licensee the required frequency, consistent with the technical specifications section 4.1.1.3 concluded that the proposed changes involve STS. There is minimal safety significance no significant safety hazards considerations would allow a decrease in worker as defined by 10 CFR 50.92. associated with a delay of 24 hours in exposure to radiation while maintaining completing the required surveillance, The NRC staff has reviewed the particularly due to the fact that the most an adequate level of environmental analysis of the licensee and, based on probable result of any particular surveillance protection at the facility. this review, it appears that the three performed is the successful verification of Basis for proposed no significant standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. conformance with the requirements. hazards consideration determination: Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 2. Operation of the facility in accordance As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the determine that the amendment request with the proposed amendment would not licensee has provided its analysis of the involves no significant hazards create the possibility of a new or different issue of no significant hazards consideration. kind of accident from any previously consideration which is presented below: evaluated. The proposed changes only affect Local Public Document Room 10 CFR 50.92 provides the criteria which Location: Government Publications administrative requirements regarding the the Commission uses to perform a no applicability of surveillance requirements significant hazards consideration. 10 CFR Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, and the performance of surveillances to allow 50.92 states that an amendment to a facility Walnut Street and Commonwealth a maximum 24 hour delay period when it is license involves no significant hazards if Avenue, Box 1601, Harrisburg, discovered that a surveillance has been operation of the facility in accordance with Pennsylvania 17105 missed. No changes to plant equipment or the proposed amendment would not: Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake, operation are affected. 1. Involve a significant increase in the Jr., Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & 3. Operation of the facility in accordance probability or consequences of an accident Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW, with the proposed amendment would not previously evaluated, or Washington, DC 20037 involve a significant reduction in the margin 2. Create the possibility of a new or NRC Project Director: Seymour H. of safety since the change contained in the different kind of accident from any accident proposed amendment does not change any previously evaluated, or Weiss existing safety margins. 3. Involve a significant reduction in a Houston Lighting & Power Company, The NRC staff has reviewed the margin of safety. City Public Service Board of San licensee’s analysis and, based on this The proposed changes to the technical Antonio, Central Power and Light specifications sections 4.02 and 4.04 are review, it appears that the three Company, City of Austin, Texas, Docket standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are administrative and do not involve any physical changes to the facility. No changes Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South Texas satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff are made to operating limits or parameters, Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda proposes to determine that the nor to any surveillance activities. The County, Texas amendment request involves no changes to section 4.1.1.3 extends the Date of amendment request: May 1, significant hazards consideration. interval between surveillance of the Local Public Document Room containment airlocks; it does not change the 1996 Description of amendment request: location: Ocean County Library, operability requirements, test methodology or The proposed amendments would Reference Department, 101 Washington acceptance criteria. Based on this, GPU change the Technical Specifications to Street, Toms River, NJ 08753 Nuclear has concluded that the proposed changes to sections 4.02 and 4.04 do not: implement 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake, 1. Involve a significant increase in the Option B, by referring to Regulatory Jr., Esquire. Shaw, Pittman, Potts & probability of occurrence or the Guide 1.163, ‘‘Performance-Based Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., consequences of an accident previously Containment Leakage-Test Program.’’ Washington, DC 20037. evaluated. The changes do not modify any Basis for proposed no significant NRC Project Director: John F. Stolz operating parameters or the release of hazards consideration determination: radioactive materials. The clarification of GPU Nuclear Corporation, Docket No. maximum time extensions for surveillance is As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 50-320, Three Mile Island Nuclear consistent with the NRC’s Standard licensee has provided its analysis of the Station, Unit No. 2 (TMI-2), Dauphin Technical Specifications for Babcock and issue of no significant hazards County, Pennsylvania Wilcox Plants (NUREG-1430). consideration, which is presented 2. Create the possibility of a new or below: Date of amendment request: February different kind of accident since these change [South Texas Project] STP has evaluated 16, 1995 are administrative and no plant configuration the proposed Technical Specification Description of amendment request: or operational changes are involved. Amendment and determined that it does not The proposed amendment would revise 3. Involve a change in the margin of safety. represent a significant hazards consideration. TMI-2 Operating License No. DPR-73 by These changes are administrative in nature, Based on the criteria for defining a significant modifying sections 4.02, 4.04, and compatible with standard technical hazards consideration established in 10 CFR 4.1.1.3 of the unit technical specifications, and do not affect any safety 50.92, operation of STP in accordance with specifications. The revisions to sections settings or operational limits. the proposed amendment will not: GPU Nuclear has also concluded that the 4.02 and 4.04 would add flexibility to 1) Involve a significant increase in the proposed changes to section 4.1.1.3 do not: probability or consequences of an accident the scheduling of surveillance activities 1. Involve a significant increase in the previously evaluated because of the and would allow for a 24 hour period probability of occurrence of or consequences following: to perform missed surveillances before of an accident previously evaluated. The 10 CFR [Part] 50, Appendix J has been declaration of a limiting condition for change to this section does not change amended to include provisions regarding Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28617 performance based leakage testing measures both the containment system Type A, Type B, and Type C test intervals requirements (Option B). Option B allows overall integrated leakage rate at containment based upon the performance of past leak rate plants with satisfactory Integrated Leak Rate pressure and system alignments assumed tests. The effect of extending containment Testing (ILRT) performance history to extend during a large break LOCA [loss-of-coolant leakage rate testing intervals has a the Type A testing interval from three tests accident], and demonstrates the capability of corresponding increase in the likelihood of in ten years to one test in ten years. For Type primary containment to withstand an containment leakage. The degree to which B and Type C tests, Option B allows internal pressure load, may be conducted at intervals can be extended is a direct function extended testing interval[s] based on the leak an interval based on the performance of the of the potential effect to existing safety rate test history of each component. To be overall containment system. The acceptable margins and the public health and safety that consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR leakage rates are specified in the plant’s can occur due to an increased likelihood of [Part] 50, Appendix J, Option B, STP Technical Specifications. For Type B and containment leakage. 10 CFR [Part] 50 proposes to include appropriate changes to Type C tests, intervals are proposed based on Appendix J, Option B allows longer intervals the Technical Specifications that incorporate the performance history of each component. between leakage tests based on performance the necessary revisions associated with 10 Acceptance criteria for each component is trends but does not increase the leakage CFR [Part] 50, Appendix J, Option B. based upon demonstration that the sum acceptance criteria. La [maximum allowable The proposed amendment represents the leakage rates at design basis pressure leakage rate] is still limited to 0.3 wt%/day. conversion of current Technical Specification conditions for applicable penetrations, is By referencing the Containment Leakage Rate requirements to maintain consistency with within the limit specified in the Technical Testing Program in LCO 3.6.1.2 ACTION, the those requirements specified by 10 CFR [Part] Specifications. point at which ACTION is required is 50, Appendix J, Option B. The proposed The proposed amendment represents the increased from .75 La to 1.0 La. This makes changes are consistent with the current safety conversion of current Technical Specification the specification consistent with the intent of analyses. Implementation of these changes requirements to maintain consistency with having margin between an AS-LEFT leakage will provide continued assurance that those requirements specified in 10 CFR [Part] of less than or equal to .75 La and specified parameters associated with 50, Appendix J, Option B. The proposed maintaining operability with less than or containment integrity will remain within changes are consistent with the current safety equal to 1.0 La. acceptance limits, and will not significantly analyses. Some minor relaxations in current Changing Appendix J test intervals from increase the probability or consequences of a Technical Specification requirements, those currently provided in the Technical previously evaluated accident. associated with containment integrity are Specification to those provided in 10 CFR Some proposed changes represent minor based on generic guidance provided in [Part] 50, Appendix J, Option B, slightly relaxations in current Technical Option B, NEI 94-01 and ANSI/ANS 56.8, increases the risk associated with Type A, Specification requirements, but are based on 1994. These changes do not involve revisions Type B, and Type C specified accident the requirements specified by Option B of 10 to the design of the station. Some of the sequences. Historical data suggests that CFR [Part] 50, Appendix J. Changes are changes may involve revision in the testing increasing the Type C test interval can consistent with the current safety analyses of components; however, these are in slightly increase the associated risk; however, and determined to represent sufficient accordance with the STP current safety this is compensated by the corresponding requirements for the assurance and reliability of equipment assumed to operate in the analyses and provide for appropriate testing risk reduction benefits associated with safety analyses, and provide continued or surveillance that are consistent with 10 reduction in component cycling, stress, and assurance that specified parameters CFR [Part] 50, Appendix J, Option B. The wear associated with increased test intervals. associated with containment integrity remain proposed changes will not introduce new When considering the total integrated risk within their acceptance limits. These changes failure mechanisms beyond those already which includes all analyzed accident will not significantly increase the probability considered in the current safety analyses. sequences, the risk associated with or consequences of a previously evaluated The proposed amendment has been increasing test intervals is negligible. A plant accident. reviewed for acceptability considering specific risk-based analysis of Appendix J The systems affecting containment similarity of system or component design performed for STP indicates the containment integrity related to this proposed amendment affecting containment integrity. No new penetration leakage dose rate contribution to request are not assumed in any safety modes of operation are introduced by the total dose rate in person-rem is insignificant. analyses to initiate any accident sequence. proposed changes. Surveillance requirements STP proposes to revise the Technical The probability of any accident previously are changed to reflect corresponding changes Specifications to be consistent with those evaluated is not increased by this proposed associated with Option B of 10 CFR [Part] 50, provisions specified in Option B of 10 CFR, amendment. The proposed changes to Appendix J and improvements in technique Appendix J. The proposed changes are Technical Specification LCOs or SRs or interval of leak rate testing performance. consistent with the STP current safety maintain an equivalent level of reliability The proposed changes maintain, at analyses. These proposed changes do not and availability for all affected systems. The minimum, the present level of operability of involve revisions to the design of the station. proposed amendment does not increase the any system that affects containment integrity. The proposed changes will maintain the consequences of any accident previously The proposed changes do not create the same level of reliability of equipment evaluated. possibility of a new or different kind of associated with containment integrity There is no change to the consequences of accident from any previously evaluated. assumed to operate in the safety analysis, and an accident previously evaluated because The associated systems that affect leak rate provide continued assurance that specified maintaining leakage within the analyzed integrity related to the proposed amendment, parameters affecting plant leak rate integrity limit assumed for any associated accident are not assumed in any safety analysis to will remain within acceptance limits. The analyses does not adversely affect either the initiate any accident sequence. The proposed proposed changes provide continued on-site or off-site dose consequences surveillance requirements for any affected assurance of leakage integrity of containment resulting from an accident. There is no systems are consistent with the current without adversely affecting the public health adverse impact on the probability of accident requirements specified within the Technical and safety and will not significantly reduce initiators. There is no significant increase in Specifications and are consistent with the existing safety margins. Plant specific risk- the probability of any previously analyzed requirements of Option B of 10 CFR [Part] 50, based analysis indicates sufficient technical accident. A plant specific risk-based analysis Appendix J. The proposed surveillance justification exists to further extend the of Appendix J performed for STP indicates requirements maintain an equivalent level of limits beyond those allowed by Option B. the containment penetration leakage dose reliability and availability of all affected The proposed amendment to the Technical rate contribution to the total dose rate in systems and therefore, does not increase the Specifications implements present person-rem is insignificant. consequences of any previously evaluated requirements, or the requirements in 2) Create the possibility of a new or accident. accordance with the guidelines set forth in different kind of accident from any accident 3) Involve a significant reduction in the Option B of 10 CFR [Part] 50, Appendix J. previously evaluated because: margin of safety because: NUREG-1493, ‘‘Performance-Based 10 CFR [Part] 50, Appendix J, Option B The provisions specified in Option B of 10 Containment Leak-Test Program,’’ served as specifies, in part, that a Type A test which CFR [Part] 50 Appendix J allow changes to the technical basis for Option B. STP 28618 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices performed a plant specific risk-based analysis (Chapter 6) Section and other affected elsewhere in the current Technical of containment penetration leakage dose Sections of the Prairie Island Technical Specifications. Other features are not fully utilizing the same methodology used in Specifications to generally conform with implemented but rather, the current NUREG-1493. The analysis indicates the NUREG-1431, Standard Technical Technical Specification level of commitment containment penetration leakage dose rate is maintained. In all these instances, the NRC contribution to the total dose rate in person- Specifications, Westinghouse Plants, has previously reviewed and approved the rem is insignificant. This plant specific Revision 1, dated April 7, 1995. proposed level of commitment through the analysis serves to validate the applicability of Basis for proposed no significant issuance of the current Prairie Island the proposed changes for STP. The proposed hazards consideration determination: Technical Specifications. changes have been approved by the NRC, are As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the In general, the proposed changes are applicable to STP, maintain necessary levels licensee has provided its analysis of the administrative in nature. The changes of system or component reliability affecting issue of no significant hazards propose to revise, delete or relocate containment integrity, and do not involve a consideration, which is presented Specifications within the Technical significant reduction in the margin of safety. below: Specifications or from the Technical The performance-based approach to 1. The proposed amendment will not Specifications to the Updated Safety Analysis leakage rate testing concludes the impact on involve a significant increase in the Report, plant procedures or the Operational public health and safety due to revised probability or consequences of an accident Quality Assurance Plan through which testing intervals is negligible. The proposed previously evaluated. adequate control is maintained. The amendment will not reduce availability of Operation of the Prairie Island plant in proposed changes do not alter the design, systems associated with containment accordance with the proposed changes does function, or operation of any plant integrity when required to mitigate accident not involve a significant increase in the components and therefore, no new accident conditions; therefore, the proposed changes probability or consequences of an accident scenarios are created. do not involve a significant reduction in the previously evaluated. None of the proposed Therefore, the possibility of a new or margin of safety. changes involve a physical modification to different kind of accident from any accident Guidance has been provided in ‘‘Final the plant, a new mode of operation or a previously evaluated would not be created Procedures and Standards on No Significant change to the Updated Safety Analysis [by] these amendments. Hazards Considerations,’’ Final Rule, 51 FR Report transient analyses. These proposed 3. The proposed amendment will not 7744, for the application of standards to amendments generally conform to the involve a significant reduction in the margin license change requests for determination of guidance of NUREG-1431, Revision 1, of safety. the existence of significant hazards Section 5.0 which was previously reviewed, The proposed changes do not involve a considerations. This document provides accepted and issued by the NRC. significant reduction in a margin of safety examples of amendments which are and are Some Section 5.0 Specifications in because the Current Technical Specifications not considered likely to involve significant NUREG-1431 were not incorporated in this requirements for safe operation of the Prairie hazards considerations. License Amendment Request. These Island plant are maintained or increased. The This proposed amendment does not Specifications were not proposed because proposed changes are administrative in involve a significant relaxation of the criteria they 1) specify requirements not currently in nature and do not involve a physical used to establish safety limits, a significant the Prairie Island Technical Specifications or modification to the plant, a new mode of relaxation of the bases for limiting safety otherwise committed to, 2) are addressed operation or a change to the Updated Safety system settings or a significant relaxation of elsewhere in the current Technical Analysis Report transient analyses. The the bases for LCOs. Therefore, based on the Specifications, or 3) the current Technical proposed changes do not alter the scope of guidance provided in the Federal Register Specifications level of commitment is equipment currently required to be operable and criteria established in 10 CFR 50.92(c), maintained. In all these instances, the NRC or subject to surveillance testing nor does the the proposed change does not constitute a has previously reviewed and approved the proposed change affect any instrument significant hazards consideration. proposed level of commitment through the setpoints or equipment safety functions. The NRC staff has reviewed the issuance of the current Prairie Island Therefore, a significant reduction in the licensee’s analysis and, based on this Technical specifications. margin of safety would not be involved with review, it appears that the standards of The proposed changes, in themselves, do these amendments. 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, not reduce the level of qualification or Based on the evaluation describe above, training such that personnel requirements the NRC staff proposes to determine that and pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50, Section would be decreased. 50.91, Northern States Power Company has the request for amendments involves no In total these changes do not involve a determined that operation [of] the Prairie significant hazards consideration. significant increase in the probability or Nuclear Generating Plant in accordance with Local Public Document Room consequences of an accident previously the proposed license amendment request location: Wharton County Junior evaluated. does not involve any significant hazards College, J. M. Hodges Learning Center, 2. The proposed amendment will not considerations as defined by Nuclear 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, TX create the possibility of a new or different Regulatory Commission regulations in 10 77488 kind of accident from any accident CFR Part 50, Section 50.92. Attorney for licensee: Jack R. previously analyzed. The NRC staff has reviewed the The proposed changes do not create the Newman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & licensee’s analysis and, based on this possibility of a new or different kind of review, it appears that the three Bockius, 1800 M Street, N.W., accident from any accident previously Washington, DC 20036-5869 evaluated because the proposed changes, in standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are NRC Project Director: William D. themselves, do not introduce a new mode of satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Beckner plant operation, surveillance requirement or proposes to determine that the involve a physical modification to the plant. amendment requests involve no Northern States Power Company, These proposed amendments generally significant hazards consideration. Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie conform to the guidance of NUREG-1431, Local Public Document Room Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Revision 1, Section 5.0 which was previously location: Minneapolis Public Library, Nos. 1 and 2, Goodhue County, reviewed, accepted and issued by the NRC. Technology and Science Department, Minnesota Some Section 5.0 Specifications in 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, NUREG-1431 were not incorporated in this Date of amendment requests: License Amendment Request. These Minnesota 55401 December 14, 1995 Specifications were not proposed because Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., Description of amendment requests: they 1) specify requirements not currently in Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge, The proposed amendments would the Prairie Island Technical Specifications or 2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC revise the Administrative Control otherwise committed to, or 2) are addressed 20037 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28619

NRC Project Director: Mark Reinhart DCPP operates. Further, the proposed change system failure modes. The NRC will (Acting Director) would not result in any physical alteration to review the modification in accordance any plant system, and there would not be a with 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2) in conjunction Pacific Gas and Electric Company, change in the method by which any safety with the review of the proposed TS Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo related system performs its function. amendment. Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. Therefore, the proposed change does not Basis for proposed no significant 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, create the possibility of a new or different hazards consideration determination: California kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Date of amendment requests: 3. The proposed change does not involve licensee has provided its analysis of the February 15, 1996 a significant reduction in a margin of safety. issue of no significant hazards Description of amendment requests: There is no safety analysis impact since the consideration, which is presented The proposed amendments would extension of the SI pump AOT interval will below: revise the combined Technical have no effect on any safety limit, protection 1. The proposed change does not involve Specifications (TS) for the Diablo system setpoint, or limiting condition of a significant increase in the probability or Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. operation. There is no hardware change that consequences of an accident previously 1 and 2 to revise Technical would impact existing safety analysis evaluated. acceptance criteria. Specification 3.5.2, ‘‘ECCS Subsystems - The addition of the MSFIS actuation logic ° Therefore, the proposed change does not and relays to the TS has no adverse impact Tavg Greater Than or Equal to 350 F,’’ involve a significant reduction in a margin of to change the allowed outage time for on the probability of occurrences or the safety. consequences of an accident. The proposed any one safety injection pump from 72 The NRC staff has reviewed the amendment does not change or alter the hours to 7 days. The specific TS change licensee’s analysis and, based on this design assumptions for the systems or proposes to add a new footnote that review, it appears that the three components used to mitigate the increases the allowed outage time (AOT) standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. consequences of an accident and the for one safety injection (SI) pump from Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to methodologies used in the accident analysis 72 hours to 7 days for performance of determine that the amendment requests remain unchanged. The operating limits will non-routine, emergent maintenance and involve no significant hazards not be changed. requires review by the Plant Staff No design basis accidents will be affected consideration. by this design change since the logic which Review Committee (PSRC), and requires Local Public Document Room currently exists will continue to be Plant Manager approval prior to location: California Polytechnic State performed. Thus, the radiological exceeding 72 hours. University, Robert E. Kennedy Library, consequences will not change. Basis for proposed no significant Government Documents and Maps The system response time is enveloped by hazards consideration determination: Department, San Luis Obispo, California the current 5 second valve stroke time. The As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 93407 MSFIS response time will be less than 500 licensee has provided its analysis of the Attorney for licensee: Christopher J. msec. issue of no significant hazards Warner, Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric A common mode software failure could consideration, which is presented exist if both separation groups have their Company, P.O. Box 7442, San PLCs [programmable logic controllers] (3 per below: Francisco, California 94120 train - six total) malfunction at the same time. 1. The proposed change does not involve NRC Project Director: William H. However, a diverse means of isolating the a significant increase in the probability or Bateman feedwater lines exists given the ability of the consequences of an accident previously Union Electric Company, Docket No. Main Feed Control Valves to close on a evaluated. Feedwater Isolation Signal. The MSIVs [main The proposed allowed outage time (AOT) 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, steam isolation valves] do not have a diverse extension does not change the operating Callaway County, Missouri means of isolating their respective steam practices of Diablo Canyon Power Plant lines if a common mode software failure (DCPP). Although the proposed change ]Date of application request: April 17, occurs. As a result, this modification increases the allowed time in which the 1996 provides a means to manually fast close the safety injection (SI) system may be out of Description of amendment request: valves at the MSFIS cabinets. The operators service for maintenance or testing, this The proposed amendment would will be alerted of the failure conditions of extended AOT will only be used in emergent change Technical Specification (TS) 3/ any PLC logic channel via MCB [main control circumstances. 4.3 to support a future modification to board] annunciators and indicators. This Increasing the AOT for the SI pumps does replace existing digital portions of the failure mode has a low probability of not involve physical alteration of any plant equipment and does not affect analysis main steam and feedwater isolation occurrence based upon the inherent quality assumptions regarding functioning of system (MSFIS) with digital processor of the design provided by the V&V required equipment designed to mitigate the equipment and would authorize [verification & validation] process. Therefore, consequences of accidents. Further, the revision of the FSAR to include a the accident consequences are not increased severity of postulated accidents and resulting description of the MSFIS modification. for this failure mode. The test panel in the MSFIS cabinets has radiological effluent releases will not be The MSFIS modification is a change to affected by the increased AOT. been laid out to provide the same functions the facility, as described in the safety as the existing test panel, except that PLC Finally, the probabilistic risk assessment analysis report, that involves an determined that the increase in the core status indication and coincidence logic test damage probability is not considered unreviewed safety question. The functions are provided. The Emergency significant. modification involves an unreviewed Override Panel, located below the Test Panel, Therefore, the proposed change does not safety questions because: (1) the MSFIS provides the operator with the ability to involve a significant increase in the design will use software which could bypass the FWIS [feedwater isolation signal] probability or consequences of an accident result in a common mode failure, (2) the signal and manually fast close each MSIV as previously evaluated. original NRC review of the MSFIS did required by the Emergency Operating Procedures. The MSIV manual FC [fast close] 2. The proposed change does not create the not evaluate 2 out of 3 coincidence possibility of a new or different kind of switch operation is necessary for a diverse accident from any accident previously circuitry, which could introduce new means of operation for software common evaluated. system failure modes, and (3) the MSFIS mode failures. The FWIS bypass switch will The proposed increase to the SI pump modification utilizes manual allow main feedwater flow to be re- AOTs does not change the method by which handswitches that could introduce new established to each Steam Generator. 28620 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

The replacement system is functionally the a safety limit or affect plant operations. This action statements and surveillance same as the current system since it performs change will not reduce the margin of safety requirements for the nitrogen supply the same logic, receives the same inputs, and assumed in the accident analysis nor reduce commensurate with its significance. The produces the same outputs. However, the any margin of safety as defined in the basis proposed action statements enhance the system is more reliable and possesses triple for any TS. availability of the automatic actuation of the redundant logic. Therefore, the probability of The system response time for any given PORVs by not requiring the block valves to malfunction will not be increased. valve will not exceed the required valve be closed when the backup nitrogen supplies The electrical load of the A-B PLC stroke time. Since the MSFIS does not are inoperable. The proposed surveillance equipment and existing 48 VDC [volts direct contain any analog channels, no channel trip requirements enhance the reliability of the current] actuation relays is less than that of accuracies are impacted. backup nitrogen supply to the PORVs by the existing equipment so the system will not The NRC staff has reviewed the verifying that there is sufficient nitrogen require any additional cooling over the licensee’s analysis and, based on this pressure in the accumulators for the PORVs existing equipment. Proper grounding is review, it appears that the three to perform their design function. The proposed Technical Specification changes do provided for the PLC 5 VDC and actuation standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. relay 48 VDC power supplies, which are not change any accident analyses, therefore, electrically isolated from each other. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to the probability of any accident and its 2. The proposed change does not create the determine that the amendment request resulting consequences are not increased. possibility of a new or different kind of involves no significant hazards 2. Create the possibility of a new or accident from any accident previously consideration. different kind of accident from any accident evaluated. Local Public Document Room previously evaluated. The addition of the MSFIS actuation logic location: Callaway County Public The proposed Technical Specification and relays to the TS will not create a new Library, 710 Court Street, Fulton, changes do not involve any physical type of accident or malfunction than any Missouri 65251 modification to the plant or result in a previously evaluated in the Safety Analysis Attorney for licensee: Gerald Charnoff, change in a method of operation. The backup Report. The safety functions of the system are nitrogen supply continues to be required for Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts & PORV operability. The proposed Technical not changed in any manner, nor is the Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, N.W., reliability of any structure, system or Specification changes provide operational component reduced. All design and Washington, D.C. 20037 flexibility and ensure the availability of the performance criteria continue to be met. NRC Project Director: William H. PORVs using the normal supply of Since the safety functions and reliability are Bateman instrument air while the backup nitrogen supply is being restored. This also prevents not adversely affected, the proposed change Virginia Electric and Power Company, does not create the possibility of a new or undesirable challenges to the pressurizer different kind of accident from any accident Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, North safety valves. The new surveillance previously evaluated. Anna Power Station, Units No. 1 and requirements verify that there is sufficient The operator’s ability to adequately No. 2, Louisa County, Virginia nitrogen pressure in the accumulators for the respond to an accident is not hindered by the PORVs to perform their design functions. Date of amendment request: October 3. Involve a significant reduction in a man-machine interface added as a result of 25, 1995 this modification since the operator interface margin of safety. Description of amendment request: The proposed Technical Specification is similar to the current system and the MCB The proposed changes would provide controls will not change. The operators will changes do not affect any safety limits or be alerted to system malfunctions through an allowed outage time of 14 days for limiting safety system settings. The annunciation. The current system has a the pressurizer power-operated relief availability of the PORVs will be maintained status output for each MSIV and FIV valve (PORV) nitrogen accumulators, as as required in Generic Letter 90-06. The [feedwater isolation valve] valve on the well as provide separate action proposed Technical Specifications will Engineered Safety Feature Status Panel, statements for the PORV depending on continue to ensure that the PORVs will be capable of performing their intended which will be maintained. In addition, an the reason for the PORV inoperability isolated plant annunciator interface will functions. during plant operation in power Modes The NRC staff has reviewed the provide a MSFIS Channel Failure plant 1, 2, or 3. annunciator window for both trains. Training licensee’s analysis and, based on this Basis for proposed no significant review, it appears that the three will be provided to the technicians, hazards consideration determination: engineers, and operators on the new features standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. of the system prior to installation. Therefore, As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to this modification does not increase the licensee has provided its analysis of the determine that the amendment request consequential effects due to the man- issue of no significant hazards involves no significant hazards machine interface. consideration, which is presented consideration. The system is compatible with the normal below. Local Public Document Room and accident environments and will be Specifically, operation of North Anna location: The Alderman Library, Special seismically qualified in accordance with the Power Station in accordance with the SNUPPS [standardized nuclear unit power proposed Technical Specifications changes Collections Department, University of plant system] seismic spectra profile. The will not: Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903- equipment will be qualified for 1. Involve a significant increase in the 2498 Electromagnetic Interference concerns in probability or consequences of an accident Attorney for licensee: Michael W. accordance with EPRI [Electric Power previously evaluated. Maupin, Esq., Hunton and Williams, Research Institute] document TR-102323- The PORVs are assumed to mitigate the Riverfront Plaza, East Tower, 951 E. EPRI Guideline and will meet the EPRI EMI consequences of a steam generator tube Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219 [electromagnetic interference] limiting rupture as described in the North Anna NRC Project Director: Eugene V. practices. UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Imbro The system has the same failure mode Report] as well as to limit the undesired upon loss of power as the current system and opening of the pressurizer safety valves for a Wisconsin Electric Power Company, behaves similarly upon power restoration. A primary overpressure event. The proposed Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point loss of power will not result in a MSFIS action statements ensure that the steam Beach Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. actuation. generator tube rupture accident analysis 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, 3. The proposed change does not involve requirements are met. The proposed Manitowoc County, Wisconsin a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Technical Specification changes require the The addition of the MSFIS actuation logic backup nitrogen supply be available for the Date of amendment request: April 24, and relays to the TS will not affect or change PORVs to be consideredoperable and add 1996 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28621

Description of amendment request: component, or operation. The proposed Fire Protection Evaluation Report (FPER). No The proposed amendments would changes do not alter the basic regulatory requirements are eliminated, modified, or de- revise Technical Specification (TS) requirements and do not affect any safety emphasized by this change. The proposed Section 15.7, ‘‘Radiological Effluent analyses. The proposed change is amendment ensures that any future changes administrative. The procedural details of the to the fire protection program will be subject Technical Specifications (RETS).’’ current RETS are relocated while the to an appropriate evaluation in accordance Portions of the RETS would be moved programmatic controls consistent with with NRC regulations to ensure that there are to licensee-controlled documents regulatory requirements, including controls no unreviewed safety questions. consistent with Nuclear Regulatory on revisions to the manuals receiving the Therefore, these proposed changes are Commission guidance on TS RETS procedural details, the Environmental administrative in nature. There are no improvements. Changes to other Manual (EM), Radiological Effluent Control proposed changes to the physical plant or the sections of the TSs are also proposed Program Manual (RECM), Offsite Dose processes which ensure the plant’s capability to mitigate fires and achieve safe shutdown. consistent with the removal of portions Calculation Manual (ODCM), and Process Control Program (PCP), remain in RETS. Therefore, there is no potential effect on the of the RETS. probability or consequences of previously Basis for proposed no significant Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of evaluated accidents. hazards consideration determination: safety. 2. Operation of this facility under the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed Technical Specifications change licensee has provided its analysis of the will not create the possibility of a new or licensee’s analysis and, based on this different kind of accident from any accident issue of no significant hazards review, it appears that the three consideration which is presented below: previously evaluated. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are New or different accidents can only be 1. Does the change involve a significant created by new or different accident initiators increase in the probability or consequences satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff or sequences. Because there are no proposed of an accident previously evaluated? proposes to determine that the changes to the physical plant or the processes The proposed amendment simplifies the amendment request involves no which ensure the plant’s fire protection RETS and implements the recommendations significant hazards consideration. capability, new or different kinds of accident of GL 89-01 and of GL 95-10. The proposed Local Public Document Room initiators will not be introduced by this change relocates the operational location: Joseph P. Mann Library, 1516 change. The proposed changes are requirements of RETS but keeps the Sixteenth Street, Two Rivers, Wisconsin administrative in nature. programmatic controls for these requirements 54241 3. Operation of this facility under the in the Technical Specifications. Therefore, Attorney for licensee: Gerald Charnoff, proposed Technical Specifications change the proposed changes are administrative in will not create a significant reduction in a nature and do not affect plant operations. Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., margin of safety. Hence, the proposed amendment does not The margins of safety for Point Beach are involve a significant increase in the Washington, DC 20037 based on the design and operation of the probability or consequences of an accident NRC Project Director: Gail H. Marcus reactor and containment and the safety previously evaluated because no safety- Wisconsin Electric Power Company, systems that provide their protection. related equipment, safety function, or plant Because there are no proposed changes to the operation will be altered as a result of this Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point physical plant or the processes which ensure proposed change. Also, the changes are Beach Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. the plant’s fire protection capability, there unrelated to the initiation and mitigation of 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, will be no effect on the reactor, reactor accidents and equipment malfunctions Manitowoc County, Wisconsin containment, or the safety systems which addressed in the Final Safety Analysis Date of amendment request: April 29, provide their protection. Therefore, the Report. proposed changes will not create a reduction 2. Does the proposed amendment create 1996 in a margin of safety. The proposed changes the possibility of a new or different kind of Description of amendment request: are administrative in nature. accident from any accident previously The proposed amendments would Additionally, the proposed revision to evaluated? revise Technical Specification (TS) Point Beach’s operating license will not As stated above, the proposed action is the Section 15.3.14, ‘‘Fire Protection allow Wisconsin Electric to make changes to relocation of the RETS procedural details to System,’’ and Section 15.4.15, ‘‘Fire the approved fire protection program without various manuals while retaining the prior approval of the Nuclear Regulatory administrative controls in RETS. The Protection System.’’ These specifications would be relocated to Commission should these proposed changes relocation is consistent with the intent of the adversely affect the ability to achieve and guidance of GL 89-01 and of GL 95-10. It is other licensee-controlled documents in maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire. administrative and has no impact on plant accordance with Nuclear Regulatory In accordance with NRC Generic Letter 86- operation or safety. No safety-related Commission generic guidance. 10, any proposed change to the approved fire equipment, safety function, or plant Additional administrative changes protection program requires the performance operation will be altered as a result of this consistent with the relocation are also of a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation and a fire proposed change. No changes to plant proposed. hazards analysis. Should these evaluations components or structures are introduced Basis for proposed no significant indicate that the ability to reach and which could create new accidents or hazards consideration determination: maintain safe shutdown has been adversely malfunctions not previously evaluated. affected, prior NRC review and approval will Therefore, the proposed changes will not As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the be obtained prior to effecting the changes. create the possibility of a new or different licensee has provided its analysis of the Thus, a significant reduction in a margin of kind of accident from any accident issue of no significant hazards safety cannot occur. previously evaluated because no new consideration which is presented below: The NRC staff has reviewed the accident scenario is created and no 1. Operation of this facility under the licensee’s analysis and, based on this previously evaluated accident scenario is proposed Technical Specifications change review, it appears that the three changed by the relocation of the procedural will not increase the probability or standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are details of RETS from one controlled consequences of an accident previously document to another. evaluated. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 3. Does the proposed amendment involve This change request proposes to remove proposes to determine that the a significant reduction in the margin of certain fire protection program requirements amendment request involves no safety? from the Point Beach Technical significant hazards consideration. The proposed change does not include a Specifications and incorporate them into the Local Public Document Room change to any plant structure, system, Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and the location: Joseph P. Mann Library, 1516 28622 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

Sixteenth Street, Two Rivers, Wisconsin testing protocol changes will affect system Notice Of Issuance Of Amendments To 54241 operation or performance, nor do they affect Facility Operating Licenses Attorney for licensee: Gerald Charnoff, the probability of any event initiators. These During the period since publication of Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and changes do not affect any Engineered Safety the last biweekly notice, the Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Features actuation setpoints or accident mitigation capabilities. Therefore, the Commission has issued the following Washington, DC 20037 proposed changes will not significantly amendments. The Commission has NRC Project Director: Gail H. Marcus increase the consequences of an accident or determined for each of these Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating malfunction of equipment important to safety amendments that the application Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf previously evaluated in the USAR [Updated complies with the standards and Safety Analysis Report]. Creek Generating Station, Coffey 2. The proposed change does not create the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act County, Kansas possibility of a new or different kind of of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Date of amendment request: May 16, accident from any accident previously Commission’s rules and regulations. 1996. This supersedes the October 24, evaluated. The Commission has made appropriate 1995, request published in the Federal The requested change to the CREVS findings as required by the Act and the Register on November 27, 1995 (60 FR heaters’ output rating and the changes to the Commission’s rules and regulations in charcoal sample testing protocol will not 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in 58409). affect the method of operation of the systems, Description of amendment request: the license amendment. and the new heater capacity will still exceed Notice of Consideration of Issuance of This license amendment request filter operational requirements and safety proposes to revise Surveillance margin by a significant amount. The Amendment to Facility Operating Requirement 4.7.6.e.4 to reflect a proposed changes only affect the heater size License, Proposed No Significant proposed design change to the output in the system and the testing criteria for the Hazards Consideration Determination, rating, from 15kW to 5kW, of the charcoal samples. No new or different and Opportunity for A Hearing in charcoal filter adsorber unit heater in accident scenarios, transient precursors, connection with these actions was the pressurization system portion of the failure mechanisms, or limiting single published in the Federal Register as control room emergency ventilation failures will be introduced as a result of these indicated. changes. Therefore, the possibility of a new system (CREVS). Surveillance Unless otherwise indicated, the or different kind of accident other than those Commission has determined that these Requirements 4.7.6.c.2, 4.7.6.d, and already evaluated will not be created by this 4.9.13.b and c, are also being revised to change. amendments satisfy the criteria for reflect a proposed change to the 3. The proposed change does not involve categorical exclusion in accordance acceptance criteria for the testing of a significant reduction in a margin of safety. with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant carbon samples from the CREVS The requested change to the CREVS to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental charcoal adsorbers and the auxiliary/ heaters’ output rating will reduce the heater impact statement or environmental fuel building emergency exhaust system output of the system, but the new heater assessment need be prepared for these charcoal adsorbers. Surveillance output will still exceed filter operational amendments. If the Commission has requirements and safety margin by a Requirement 4.7.7.a for the auxiliary prepared an environmental assessment significant amount. In addition, the reduction under the special circumstances building portion of the auxiliary/fuel in heat load output from the heater will building emergency exhaust system is increase the design margin between the provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has also affected by this proposed change. cooling capacity of the system air made a determination based on that However, since Surveillance conditioning units and the building heat assessment, it is so indicated. Requirement 4.7.7.a refers to load. The new charcoal adsorber sample For further details with respect to the Surveillance Requirements 4.9.13.b and laboratory testing protocol is more stringent action see (1) the applications for c, no changes to 4.7.7.a are required. than the current testing practice and more amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) Basis for proposed no significant accurately demonstrates the required the Commission’s related letter, Safety hazards consideration determination: performance of the adsorbers following a Evaluation and/or Environmental design basis LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident]. Assessment as indicated. All of these As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Therefore, these changes will not reduce the licensee has provided its analysis of the margin of safety of the HVAC [heating, items are available for public inspection issue of no significant hazards ventilation, and air conditioning] systems’ at the Commission’s Public Document consideration, which is presented operation. Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L below: The NRC staff has reviewed the Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the 1. The proposed change does not involve licensee’s analysis and, based on this local public document rooms for the a significant increase in the probability or review, it appears that the three particular facilities involved. consequences of an accident previously standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Duke Power Company, et al., Docket evaluated. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff The design function of the filter adsorber Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba unit heater in the pressurization system proposes to determine that the Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York portion of CREVS is to reduce the relative amendment request involves no County, South Carolina humidity of the air entering the charcoal significant hazards consideration. filter beds to 70% relative humidity. Local Public Document Room Date of application for amendments: Although the original design specified a locations: Emporia State University, January 12, 1996, as supplemented heater with a rating of 15 kW, review of the William Allen White Library, 1200 March 4, April 3 and April 10, 1996. design basis calculation for this system Commercial Street, Emporia, Kansas Brief description of amendments: The indicates that only about 3.13 kW is actually 66801 and Washburn University School amendments revise the Technical required (including applicable margins to of Law Library, Topeka, Kansas 66621 Specification so that the containment allow for voltage variations). The proposed Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., integrated leak rate Type A testing will change to the CREVS heaters— output rating from 15 kW to 5 kW will not affect the Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, now be performed consistent with the method of operation of the system, and the 2300 N Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. revised 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, new heater capacity will still exceed filter 20037 Option B, by referring to Regulatory operational requirements and safety margin. NRC Project Director: William H. Guide 1.163, ‘‘Performance-Based Neither the heater change nor the charcoal Bateman Containment Leak-Test Program.’’ No Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28623 changes to implement Option B for the Brief description of amendment: The Local Public Document Room Type B and Type C tests were requested amendment modified the steam location: Rochester Public Library, 115 by the licensee at this time. generator tube plugging criteria in South Avenue, Rochester, New York Date of issuance: May 13, 1996 Technical Specification 3/4.4.5, Steam 14610. Effective date: As of the date of Generators, and the associated Bases, to Rochester Gas and Electric issuance to be implemented within 30 allow the implementation of alternate Corporation, Docket No. 50-244, R. E. days steam generator tube plugging criteria Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne Amendment Nos.: 144 and 138 for the tube-to-tubesheet joints (known County, New York Facility Operating License Nos. NPF- in the industry as F*) for Unit 1. 35 and NPF-52: Amendments revised Date of issuance: May 14, Date of application for amendment: the Technical Specifications. 1996Effective date: May 14, 1996 February 9, 1996 Date of initial notice in Federal Amendment No.: 82 Brief description of amendment: This Register: January 21, 1996 (61 FR 3498); Facility Operating License No. NPF- amendment changes the setpoints for and April 10, 1996 (61 FR 15988) The 76: The amendment revised the the steam generator water level-high Commission’s related evaluation of the Technical Specifications. feedwater isolation function.Date of amendments is contained in a Safety Date of initial notice in Federal issuance: May 20, 1996 Evaluation dated May 13, 1996.No Register: February 28, 1996 (61 FR significant hazards consideration 7553) The additional information Effective date: May 20, 1996 comments received: No contained in the supplemental letter Amendment No.: 63 Local Public Document Room dated April 18, 1996, was clarifying in Facility Operating License No. DPR- location: York County Library, 138 East nature and thus, within the scope of the 18: Amendment revised the Technical Black Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina initial notice and did not affect the Specifications. 29730 staff’s proposed no significant hazards Date of initial notice in Federal consideration determination.The Florida Power and Light Company, Register: February 28, 1996 (61 FR Commission’s related evaluation of the Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 7558) The Commission’s related amendments is contained in a Safety Point Plant Units 3 and 4, Dade County, evaluation of the amendment is Evaluation dated May 14, 1996. No Florida contained in a Safety Evaluation dated significant hazards consideration May 20, 1996.No significant hazards Date of application for amendments: comments received: No consideration comments received: No March 5, 1996 Local Public Document Room Brief description of amendments: Local Public Document Room location: Wharton County Junior location: Rochester Public Library, 115 These amendments delete the College, J. M. Hodges Learning Center, requirement to perform a pressurizer South Avenue, Rochester, New York 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, TX 14610. heater surveillance test and change the 77488 requirement for containment visual Saxton Nuclear Experimental inspection to prevent sump clogging. Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (SNEC), Docket No. 50-146, These changes are in accordance with Corporation, Docket No. 50-244, R. E. Saxton Nuclear Reactor Facility (SNEF) selected line items from NRC Generic Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne Letter 93-05, ‘‘Line-Item Technical County, New York Date of application for amendment: Specification Improvements to Reduce Date of application for amendment: November 21, 1995, as supplemented on Surveillance Requirements for Testing February 9, 1996, as March 13, 1996. During Power Operation.’’ supplementedMarch 15, 1996, and April Brief description of amendment: The Date of issuance: May 13, 1996 22, 1996. amendment adds GPU Nuclear Effective date: May 13, 1996 Brief description of amendment: The Corporation as a licensee for the SNEF Amendment Nos. 184 and 178Facility amendment revised the Administrative along with SNEC and transfers all Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-31 and Controls Section 5.6.6 of the Ginna management-related responsibilities for DPR-41: Amendments revised the Technical Specifications to incorporate the SNEF from SNEC to GPU Nuclear Technical Specifications. a reference to the methodology for Corporation. Date of initial notice in Federal determining pressure/temperature and Date of issuance: May 10, 1996 Register: April 10, 1996 (61 FR15989) low-temperature overpressure Effective date: May 10, 1996 The Commission’s related evaluation of protection limits. Amendment No.: 13Amended Facility the amendments is contained in a Safety Date of issuance: May 23, 1996 License No. DPR-4: Amendment Evaluation dated May 13, 1996.No Effective date: May 23, 1996 changed the Technical Specifications. significant hazards consideration Amendment No.: 64 comments received: No Facility Operating License No. DPR- Date of initial notice in Federal Local Public Document Room 18: Amendment revised the Technical Register: January 31, 1996 (61 FR 3502). location: Florida International Specifications. The Commission also published a notice University, University Park, Miami, Date of initial notice in Federal of consideration of transfer of control of Florida 33199. Register: February 28, 1996 (61 FR license pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80 on 7557) The March 15, 1996, and April 22, March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11231). The Houston Lighting & Power Company, 1996, letters provided clarifying Commission’s related evaluation of the City Public Service Board of San information that did not change the amendment is contained in a Safety Antonio, Central Power and Light initial proposed no significant hazards Evaluation dated May 10, 1996.o Company, City of Austin, Texas, Docket consideration determination. The significant hazards consideration Nos. 50-498, South Texas Project, Unit Commission’s related evaluation of the comments received: No 1, Matagorda County, Texas amendment is contained in a Safety Local Public Document Room Date of amendment request: January Evaluation dated May 23, 1996.No Location: Saxton Community Library, 22, 1996, as supplemented by letter significant hazards consideration 911 Church Street, Saxton, dated April 18, 1996. comments received: No Pennsylvania 16678 28624 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

South Carolina Electric & Gas Date of initial notice in Federal Notice Of Issuance Of Amendments To Company, South Carolina Public Register: January 22, 1996 (61 FR 1637) Facility Operating Licenses And Final Service Authority, Docket No. 50-395, The January 5, 1996 and May 3, 1996 Determination Of No Significant Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit letters provided clarifying information Hazards Consideration And No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina that did not change the scope of the Opportunity For A Hearing (Exigent Date of application for amendment: December 19, 1995, application and Public Announcement Or Emergency December 8, 1995 initial proposed no significant hazards Circumstances) Brief description of amendment: The consideration determination. The During the period since publication of amendment revises the Technical Commission’s related evaluation of the the last biweekly notice, the Specifications (TS) to: 1) add a new amendments is contained in a Safety Commission has issued the following surveillance requirement to 4.1.2.2, 2) Evaluation dated May 21, 1996.No amendments. The Commission has delete 3.1.2.3 and 3.1.2.4, revise 3.4.9.3 significant hazards consideration determined for each of these to assure that only one charging pump comments received: No amendments that the application for the is capable of injecting water into the Local Public Document Room amendment complies with the primary coolant whenthe reactor is in a location: Houston-Love Memorial standards and requirements of the shutdown mode, 4) add a new Library, 212 W. Burdeshaw Street, Post Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended surveillance requirement to 4.4.9.3, 5) Office Box 1369, Dothan, Alabama (the Act), and the Commission’s rules revise the Emergency Core Cooling 36302 and regulations. The Commission has Water System pump testing acceptance made appropriate findings as required criteria, and 6) revise the BASES Southern Nuclear Operating Company, by the Act and the Commission’s rules supporting the above changes. Inc., Docket No. 50-364, Joseph M. and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, Date of issuance: May 10, 1996 Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Houston which are set forth in the license Effective date: 30 days after issuance County, Alabama amendment. Amendment No.: 134 Because of exigent or emergency Date of amendment request: April 23, Facility Operating License No. NPF- circumstances associated with the date 1996 12: Amendment revises the TS. the amendment was needed, there was Date of initial notice in Federal Brief description of amendment: The not time for the Commission to publish, Register: January 22, 1996 (61 FR 1635) amendment would allow steam for public comment before issuance, its The Commission’s related evaluation of generator tubes to remain in service usual 30-day Notice of Consideration of the amendment is contained in a Safety with bands of axial degradation in the Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Evaluation dated May 10, 1996.No tube sheet region, for the remainder of Significant Hazards Consideration significant hazards consideration Cycle 11, provided sufficient Determination, and Opportunity for a comments received: No undegraded tubing remains to satisfy Hearing. Local Public Document Room the L*-type criteria restrictions For exigent circumstances, the location: Fairfield County Library, 300 established by the licensee. Commission has either issued a Federal Washington Street, Winnsboro, SC Date of issuance: May 20, 1996 Register notice providing opportunity 29180 for public comment or has used local Effective date: May 20, 1996 media to provide notice to the public in Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Amendment No.: 110 the area surrounding a licensee’s facility Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Facility Operating License No. NPF-8. of the licensee’s application and of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units Commission’s proposed determination 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama. The amendment revised the Technical Specifications. Public comments of no significant hazards consideration. Date of amendments request: requested as to proposed no significant The Commission has provided a December 19, 1995, as supplemented by hazards consideration: Yes (61 FR reasonable opportunity for the public to letters dated January 5, 1996 and May 3, 19092). The notice provided an comment, using its best efforts to make 1996. opportunity to submit comments on the available to the public means of Brief description of amendments: The Commission’s proposed no significant communication for the public to amendments replace the requirements hazards consideration determination. respond quickly, and in the case of associated with the control room No comments have been received. The telephone comments, the comments emergency ventilation system contained notice also provided for an opportunity have been recorded or transcribed as in Technical Specification Section 3/ to request a hearing by May 30, 1996, appropriate and the licensee has been 4.7.7 with requirements related to the but indicated that if the Commission informed of the public comments. operation of the control room makes a final no significant hazards In circumstances where failure to act emergency filtration/pressurization consideration determination, any such in a timely way would have resulted, for system and the control room air hearing would take place after issuance example, in derating or shutdown of a conditioning system. In addition, a one- of the amendment. nuclear power plant or in prevention of time extension to the allowable outage either resumption of operation or of time for the control room recirculation The Commission’s related evaluation increase in power output up to the filtration system is included to facilitate of the amendment, finding of exigent plant’s licensed power level, the implementation of design modifications. circumstances, and final determination Commission may not have had an Date of issuance: May 21, 1996 of no significant hazards consideration opportunity to provide for public Effective date: As of the date of are contained in a Safety Evaluation comment on its no significant hazards issuance to be implemented within 30 dated May 20, 1996. consideration determination. In such days Local Public Document Room case, the license amendment has been Amendment Nos.: 119 and 111 location: Houston-Love Memorial issued without opportunity for Facility Operating License Nos. NPF- Library, 212 W. Burdeshaw Street, Post comment. If there has been some time 2 and NPF-8. Amendments revise the Office Box 1369, Dothan, Alabama for public comment but less than 30 Technical Specifications. 36302 days, the Commission may provide an Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28625 opportunity for public comment. If current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner comments have been requested, it is so available at the Commission’s Public must provide sufficient information to stated. In either event, the State has Document Room, the Gelman Building, show that a genuine dispute exists with been consulted by telephone whenever 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC and the applicant on a material issue of law possible. at the local public document room for or fact. Contentions shall be limited to Under its regulations, the Commission the particular facility involved. If a matters within the scope of the may issue and make an amendment request for a hearing or petition for amendment under consideration. The immediately effective, notwithstanding leave to intervene is filed by the above contention must be one which, if the pendency before it of a request for date, the Commission or an Atomic proven, would entitle the petitioner to a hearing from any person, in advance Safety and Licensing Board, designated relief. A petitioner who fails to file such of the holding and completion of any by the Commission or by the Chairman a supplement which satisfies these required hearing, where it has of the Atomic Safety and Licensing requirements with respect to at least one determined that no significant hazards Board Panel, will rule on the request contention will not be permitted to consideration is involved. and/or petition; and the Secretary or the participate as a party. The Commission has applied the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Those permitted to intervene become standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made Board will issue a notice of a hearing or parties to the proceeding, subject to any a final determination that the an appropriate order. As required by 10 limitations in the order granting leave to amendment involves no significant CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to hazards consideration. The basis for this intervene shall set forth with participate fully in the conduct of the determination is contained in the particularity the interest of the hearing, including the opportunity to documents related to this action. petitioner in the proceeding, and how present evidence and cross-examine Accordingly, the amendments have that interest may be affected by the witnesses. Since the Commission has been issued and made effective as results of the proceeding. The petition made a final determination that the indicated. should specifically explain the reasons amendment involves no significant Unless otherwise indicated, the why intervention should be permitted hazards consideration, if a hearing is Commission has determined that these with particular reference to the requested, it will not stay the amendments satisfy the criteria for following factors: (1) the nature of the effectiveness of the amendment. Any categorical exclusion in accordance petitioner’s right under the Act to be hearing held would take place while the with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant made a party to the proceeding; (2) the amendment is in effect. to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental nature and extent of the petitioner’s A request for a hearing or a petition impact statement or environmental property, financial, or other interest in for leave to intervene must be filed with assessment need be prepared for these the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. the proceeding; and (3) the possible amendments. If the Commission has Nuclear Regulatory Commission, effect of any order which may be prepared an environmental assessment Washington, DC 20555-001, Attention: entered in the proceeding on the under the special circumstances Docketing and Services Branch, or may petitioner’s interest. The petition should provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has be delivered to the Commission’s Public also identify the specific aspect(s) of the made a determination based on that Document Room, the Gelman Building, subject matter of the proceeding as to assessment, it is so indicated. 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by which petitioner wishes to intervene. For further details with respect to the the above date. Where petitions are filed Any person who has filed a petition for action see (1) the application for during the last 10 days of the notice leave to intervene or who has been amendment, (2) the amendment to period, it is requested that the petitioner Facility Operating License, and (3) the admitted as a party may amend the promptly so inform the Commission by Commission’s related letter, Safety petition without requesting leave of the a toll-free telephone call to Western Evaluation and/or Environmental Board up to 15 days prior to the first Union at 1-(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri Assessment, as indicated. All of these prehearing conference scheduled in the 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union items are available for public inspection proceeding, but such an amended operator should be given Datagram at the Commission’s Public Document petition must satisfy the specificity Identification Number N1023 and the Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L requirements described above. following message addressed to (Project Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the Not later than 15 days prior to the first Director): petitioner’s name and local public document room for the prehearing conference scheduled in the telephone number, date petition was particular facility involved. proceeding, a petitioner shall file a mailed, plant name, and publication The Commission is also offering an supplement to the petition to intervene date and page number of this Federal opportunity for a hearing with respect to which must include a list of the Register notice. A copy of the petition the issuance of the amendment. By July contentions which are sought to be should also be sent to the Office of the 5, 1996, the licensee may file a request litigated in the matter. Each contention General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear for a hearing with respect to issuance of must consist of a specific statement of Regulatory Commission, Washington, the amendment to the subject facility the issue of law or fact to be raised or DC 20555-001, and to the attorney for operating license and any person whose controverted. In addition, the petitioner the licensee. interest may be affected by this shall provide a brief explanation of the Nontimely filings of petitions for proceeding and who wishes to bases of the contention and a concise leave to intervene, amended petitions, participate as a party in the proceeding statement of the alleged facts or expert supplemental petitions and/or requests must file a written request for a hearing opinion which support the contention for a hearing will not be entertained and a petition for leave to intervene. and on which the petitioner intends to absent a determination by the Requests for a hearing and a petition for rely in proving the contention at the Commission, the presiding officer or the leave to intervene shall be filed in hearing. The petitioner must also Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that accordance with the Commission’s provide references to those specific the petition and/or request should be ‘‘Rules of Practice for Domestic sources and documents of which the granted based upon a balancing of the Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 CFR Part petitioner is aware and on which the factors specified in 10 CFR 2. Interested persons should consult a petitioner intends to rely to establish 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d). 28626 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., agreement on trade in softwood lumber, amended by 46 FR 58944 (November 22, Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, with effect form April 1, 1996. This 1991). and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear agreement is intended to provide a USTR further determined that action Generating Station, Units Nos. 1, 2, and satisfactory resolution to certain acts, was appropriate under section 301 of 3, Maricopa County, Arizona policies and practices of the the Trade Act to restore and maintain Date of application for amendments: Government of Canada affecting exports the status quo ante pending issuance of a preliminary CVD determination, and, May 15, 1996 to the United States of softwood lumber Brief description of amendments: The that were the subject of an investigation if warranted, to impose duties to offset amendment revised Surveillance initiated by the United States Trade any subsidies found in the investigation. Requirement (SR) 4.5.2.d.2 in Technical Representative (‘‘USTR’’) under section Commerce issued its preliminary CVD Specification 3/4 5.2 to state that the 302(b)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974 determination on March 12, 1992 and trisodium phosphate (TSP) contained in (the Trade Act) and that were found to its final affirmative CVD determination the storage baskets in containment is in be unreasonable and to burden or on May 28, 1992. Both the domestic industry and the form of anhydrous TSP, rather than restrict U.S. commerce pursuant to affected Canadian parties appealed dodecahydrate TSP, as currently section 304(a) on October 4, 1991. The Commerce’s final subsidy determination specified. USTR has determined that this to binational panels established Date of issuance: May 15, 1996 agreement will be subject to the Effective date: May 15, 1996 provisions of section 306 of the Trade pursuant to Chapter 19 of the U.S.- Amendment Nos.: Unit 1 - 107; Unit Act and that USTR will monitor Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA). 2 - 99; Unit 3 - 79 Canadian compliance with this Following completion of the panel Facility Operating License Nos. NPF- agreement pursuant to section 306 of the proceedings, and a decision by an 41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: The Trade Act and will take action under Extraordinary Challenge Committee amendment revised the Technical section 301(a) if Canada fails to comply (ECC) established pursuant to FTA Specifications.Public comments with it. Article 1904.13 affirming the results of requested as to proposed no significant DATES: The U.S.-Canada agreement on those proceedings, Commerce— hazards consideration: No.The trade in softwood lumber was signed on although it expressed disagreement with Commission’s related evaluation of the May 29, 1996. the panel’s findings—on August 16, 1994, revoked the CVD order on amendments, finding of emergency ADDRESSES: Office of the United States softwood lumber from Canada. 59 FR circumstances, and final determination Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, 42029 (Aug. 16, 1994). USTR of no significant hazards consideration NW, Washington, D.C. 20508. are contained in a Safety Evaluation subsequently terminated the action FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: taken under section 301. 59 FR 52846 dated May 15, 1996. Gordana Earp, Deputy Assistant United Local Public Document Room (October 19, 1994). States Trade Representative for In response to the decisions of the location: Phoenix Public Library, 1221 Industry, (202) 395–6160; or William N. Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona binational panel and the ECC, the Kane, Associate General Counsel, (202) domestic industry filed a complaint 85004 395–6800 (for legal issues). Attorney for licensee: Nancy C. Loftin, with the United States Court of Appeals SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Esq., Corporate Secretary and Counsel, for the District of Columbia Circuit on October 4, 1991, Canada unilaterally September 14, 1994, challenging Arizona Public Service Company, P.O. terminated a Memorandum of Box 53999, Mail Station 9068, Phoenix, Chapter 19 of the FTA. On December 15, Understanding (MOU) dated December 1994, in order to create a process that Arizona 85072-3999 30, 1986, between the United States and NRC Project Director: William H. could ultimately settle the dispute Canada under which, among other Bateman arising from the unilateral termination Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day things, Canada had imposed a 15 in 1991 of the MOU by Canada, and in of May 1996. percent export charge on certain conjunction with the domestic For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission softwood lumber products exported to industry’s withdrawal of its challenge to Steven A. Varga, the United States. The MOU had been Chapter 19 of the FTA, the United States Director, Division of Reactor Projects - I/II, entered into to settle a pending and Canada agreed to establish a Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding consultative process regarding trade in [Doc. 96–13878 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] examining subsidies and injury with softwood lumber. The process included respect to imports of Canadian softwood BILLING CODE 7590±01±9 the participation of the U.S. lumber. As of October 4, 1991, Canada Government, Canadian federal and ceased collecting export charges under provincial governments, and where that MOU to offset possible injurious OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES appropriate, industries and other subsidies. In response, on October 4, TRADE REPRESENTATIVE interested parties in both countries. 1991, (a) the U.S. Department of As a result, on May 29, 1996, the [Docket No. 301±87] Commerce announced that it would United States and Canada entered into self-initiate a CVD investigation on an agreement on trade in softwood Notice of Agreement; Monitoring and softwood lumber from Canada, and (b) lumber, with effect from April 1, 1996. Enforcement Pursuant to Sections 301 the USTR initiated an investigation During its five-year term, the agreement and 306: Canadian Exports of pursuant to section 302(b)(1)(A) of the will foster stable growth in the North Softwood Lumber Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2412(b)(1)(A)) and American softwood lumber market and AGENCY: Office of the United States pursuant to section 304(a) of the Trade ensure fair and competitive trade for Trade Representative. Act determined that Canada’s acts, U.S. firms and workers by addressing ACTION: Notice of monitoring and policies and practices regarding the the disruptive effects of unprecedented determination. exportation of softwood lumber to the high levels of Canadian imports United States were unreasonable and previously found by the U.S. SUMMARY: On May 29, 1996, the United burdened or restricted U.S. commerce. Department of Commerce to be States and Canada entered into an 56 FR 50738 (October 8, 1991) as subsidized. The agreement requires Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28627

Canada to assess fees on any softwood situation has not been cured, or (c) Service to submit memoranda of law on lumber shipped from its four leading Canada unilaterally suspends its any appropriate issue. If requested, such producing provinces in excess of 14.7 performance of, or terminates, the memoranda will be due 20 days from billion board feet in each of the next five agreement in a manner inconsistent the issuance of the request and the years. The agreement establishes with the agreement, the USTR pursuant Postal Service shall serve a copy of its procedures for export licensing and to section 306(b) of the Trade Act will memoranda on the petitioners. The information collection that will greatly consider that Canada is not satisfactorily Postal Service may incorporate by facilitate scrutiny of cross-border implementing the agreement. In reference in its briefs or motions, any lumber trade, and for expedited response, the USTR will take prompt arguments presented in memoranda it determinations of whether Canada is and effective action under section 301(a) previously filed in this docket. If carrying out its obligations under the of the Trade Act to remedy Canada’s necessary, the Commission also may ask agreement. Copies of the agreement are failure to comply with the agreement, petitioners or the Postal Service for available to the public in the USTR including, in the case where the more information. reading room. required export fees have not been The Commission orders: The agreement is intended to provide collected and action has not (a) The Postal Service shall file the a satisfactory resolution to the acts, subsequently been taken to collect the record in this appeal by June 4, 1996. policies and practices of Canada fees, the imposition of duties on (b) The Secretary of the Postal Rate regarding the exportation of softwood softwood lumber from Canada Commission shall publish this Notice lumber to the United States that were commensurate with Canada’s failure to and Order and Procedural Schedule in the subject of the investigation initiated collect the fees under the agreement and the Federal Register. under section 302(b)(1)(A) of the Trade sufficient to ensure compliance with the By the Commission. Act and found to be unreasonable and agreement and, as appropriate, other Margaret P. Crenshaw, to burden or restrict U.S. commerce action to enforce or ensure compliance Secretary. pursuant to section 304(a) on October 4, with the agreement. Appendix 1991. Section 306 of the Trade Act (19 Ira S. Shapiro, U.S.C. 2416) requires the USTR to May 20, 1996 monitor the implementation of each Ambassador, Senior Counselor and Negotiator. Filing of Appeal letter measure undertaken, or agreement that May 30, 1996 is entered into to provide a satisfactory [FR Doc. 96–13993 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Commission Notice and Order of Filing of resolution of a matter subject to a BILLING CODE 3190±01±M Appeal section 301 investigation. Section 306 June 14, 1996 further requires that, if the USTR Last day of filing of petitions to intervene POSTAL RATE COMMISSION [see 39 CFR § 3001.111(b)] considers that a country is not June 24, 1996 satisfactorily implementing a measure [Docket No. A96±15; Order No. 1113] Petitioner’s Participant Statement or Initial or agreement, the USTR shall determine Brief [see 39 CFR § 3001.115 (a) and (b)] what further action to take under Lewiston, Nebraska 68380 (Lois July 15, 1996 section 301(a). Tegtmeier, Petitioner); Notice and Postal Service’s Answering Brief [see 39 Adherence to the terms of the Order Accepting Appeal and CFR § 3001.115(c)] agreement is vital to the achievement of Establishing Procedural Schedule July 30, 1996 its objectives. USTR, the Department of Under 29 U.S.C. 404(b)(5) Petitioner’s Reply Brief should Petitioner Commerce, the U.S. Customs Service, choose to file one [see 39 CFR and other agencies as appropriate, will Issued May 30, 1996. § 3001.115(d)] carefully monitor and vigorously August 6, 1996 Docket Number: A96–15. Deadline for motions by any party enforce this agreement. To that end, Name of Affected Post Office: Lewiston, requesting oral argument. The Customs will provide USTR and Nebraska 68380. Commission will schedule oral argument Commerce the data that Customs Name(s) of Petitioner(s): Lois Tegtmeier. only when it is a necessary addition to collects on imports (including province Type of Determination: Consolidate. the written filings [see 39 CFR of origin and the type of permit) of Date of Filing of Appeal Papers: May 20, § 3001.116] softwood lumber from Canada. If data, 1996. September 17, 1996 including data provided by the domestic Categories of Issues Apparently Raised: Expiration of the Commission’s 120-day industry, reveal that export fees called 1. Effect on postal services [39 U.S.C. decisional schedule [see 39 U.S.C. for under the agreement are not being 404(b)(2)(C)]. § 404(b)(5)] collected, or if other information, 2. Effect on the community [39 U.S.C. [FR Doc. 96–14006 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] including information provided by the 404(b)(2)(A)]. BILLING CODE 7710±FW±P domestic industry, reveals that Canada After the Postal Service files the is in material non-compliance with any administrative record and the other of its obligations under the Commission reviews it, the Commission SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE agreement, USTR will invoke the may find that there are more legal issues COMMISSION dispute settlement provisions of the than those set forth above. Or, the agreement. I have determined that if: (a) Commission may find that the Postal Proposed Collection; Comment An audit under the agreement confirms Service’s determination disposes of one Request that fees have not been collected, and or more of those issues. that action has not been taken The Postal Reorganization Act Upon Written Request, Copies Available subsequently to collect the fees, (b) an requires that the Commission issue its From: Securities and Exchange Commission, arbitral panel finds that Canada is decision within 120 days from the date Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. otherwise not in conformity with the this appeal was filed (39 U.S.C. 404 agreement, such as by offsetting, (b)(5)). In the interest of expedition, in Extension reducing, or undercutting its obligations light of the 120-day decision schedule, Rule 19b–1—SEC File No. 270–312; OMB under the agreement, and that the the Commission may request the Postal Control No. 3235–0354. 28628 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

Notice is hereby given that pursuant techniques or other forms of information prospective change to the Commission to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 technology. Consideration will be given as required under Section 19(b) of the (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities to comments and suggestions submitted Act. and Exchange Commission in writing within 60 days of this The respondents to Rule 17a–22 (‘‘Commission’’) is publishing for public publication. generally are registered clearing comment the following summary of Direct your written comments to agencies.1 The frequency of filings made previously approved information Michael E. Bartell, Associate Executive by clearing agencies pursuant to Rule collection requirements. Director, Office of Information 17a–22 varies, but on average there are Rule 19b–1 prohibits investment Technology, Securities and Exchange approximately 200 filings per year per companies from distributing long-term Commission, 450 5th Street, NW., clearing agency. Because the filings capital gains more than once every Washington, DC 20549. consist of materials that have been twelve months unless certain conditions prepared for widespread distribution, Dated: May 29, 1996. are met. Rule 19b–1(c) permits unit the additional cost to the clearing investment trusts (‘‘Units’’) engaged Jonathan G. Katz, agencies associated with submitting exclusively in the business of investing Secretary. copies to the Commission is relatively in certain eligible fixed-income [FR Doc. 96–14016 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] small. The Commission staff estimates securities to distribute long-term capital BILLING CODE 8010±01±M that the cost of compliance with Rule gains more than once every twelve 17a–22 to all registered clearing months, provided that the capital gains agencies is approximately $3500. This distributions falls within one of the Proposed Collection; Comment represents one dollar per filing in categories in rule 19b–1(c)(1) and Request postage, or a total of $2800. The provided further that the capital gains Upon Written Request, Copies Available remaining $700 (or 20% of the total cost distribution is clearly described as such From: Securities and Exchange Commission, of compliance) is the estimated cost of in the report to the unitholder that must Office of Filings and Information Services, additional printing, envelopes, and accompany the distribution (the ‘‘notice Washington, DC 20549. other administrative expenses. requirement’’). Rule 17Ab2–1 and Form CA–1 require The time required to comply with the Extension clearing agencies to register with the notice requirement is estimated to be Rule 17a–22—SEC File No. 270–202; OMB Commission and to meet certain one hour or less for each additional Control No. 3235–0196. requirements with regard to, among distribution of long-term capital gains. Rule 17Ab2–1 and Form CA–1—SEC File No. other things, a clearing agency’s 270–203; OMB Control No. 3235–0195. Since there are approximately 14,175 Rule 17Ac3–1(a) and Form TA–W—SEC File organization, capacities, and rules. The UIT portfolios that may be eligible to No. 270–96; OMB Control No. 3235–0151. information is collected from the use the rule, the estimated total annual clearing agency upon the initial maximum reporting burden would be Notice is hereby given that pursuant application for registration on Form 14,175 hours. to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 CA–1. Thereafter, information is Rule 19b–1(e) also permits a (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities collected by amendment to the initial registered investment company to apply and Exchange Commission Form CA–1 when a material change in for permission to distribute long-term (‘‘Commission’’) is publishing the circumstances necessitates modification capital gains more than once a year following summaries of collections for of the information previously provided provided that the investment company public comment. to the Commission. did not foresee the circumstances that Rule 17a–22, which was adopted The Commission uses the information created the need for the distribution. pursuant to section 17A of the disclosed on Form CA–1 to (i) The time required to prepare an Securities Exchange Act of 1934 determine whether an applicant meets application under rule 19b–1(e) should (‘‘Act’’), requires all registered clearing the standards for registration set forth in be approximately four hours. The agencies to file with the Commission Section 17A of the Act, (ii) enforce Commission, however, has not received three copies of all materials they issue compliance with the Act’s registration an application under rule 19b–1(e) in or make generally available to their requirement, and (iii) provide the last five years. Therefore, it participants or other entities with whom information about specific registered estimates no additional annual they have a significant relationship. The clearing agencies for compliance and paperwork burden under this provision. filings with the Commission must be investigatory purposes. Without Rule The estimates of burden hours are made within ten days after the materials 17Ab2–1, the Commission could not made solely for the purposes of the are issued, and when the Commission is perform these duties as statutorily Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not not the appropriate regulatory agency, required. derived from a comprehensive or even the clearing agency must file one copy There are currently thirteen registered a representative survey or study. of the material with its appropriate clearing agencies and one clearing Written comments are requested on: regulatory agency. The Commission is agency that has been granted an (a) Whether the collections of responsible for overseeing clearing exemption from registration. The information are necessary for the proper agencies and uses the information filed Commission staff estimates that each performance of the functions of the pursuant to Rule 17a–22 to determine initial Form CA–1 requires Commission, including whether the whether a clearing agency is approximately 130 hours to complete information has practical utility; (b) the implementing procedural or policy and submit for approval. Hours required accuracy of the Commission’s estimate changes. The information filed aides the for amendments to Form CA–1 that of the burdens of the collection of Commission in determining whether must be submitted to the Commission in information; (c) ways to enhance the such changes are consistent with the connection with material changes to the quality, utility, and clarity of the purposes of Section 17A of the Act. information collected; and (d) ways to Also, the Commission uses the 1 Respondents include temporarily registered minimize the burden of the collection of information to determine whether a clearing agencies. Respondents also may include clearing agencies granted exemptions from the information on respondents, including clearing agency has changed its rules registration requirements of Section 17A, through the use of automated collection without reporting the actual or conditioned upon compliance with Rule 17a–22. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28629 initial Form CA–1 can vary, depending Form TA–W, including clerical time. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: upon the nature and extent of the Thus, the total burden of fifteen hours David A Sirignano, Committee Staff amendment. Since the Commission only of preparation for all transfer agents Director, at 202–942–2870; Securities receives an average of one submission seeking deregistration in any one year is and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth per year, the aggregate annual burden negligible. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549. associated with compliance with Rule The Commission estimates a cost of Dated: May 30, 1996. 17Ab2–1 and Form CA–1 is 130 hours. approximately $30 for each half hour Jonathan G. Katz, Based upon the staff’s experience, the required to complete a Form TA–W. average cost to clearing agencies of Therefore, based upon a total of fifteen Secretary. preparing and filing the initial Form hours, transfer agents spend [FR Doc. 96–14014 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] CA–1 is estimated to be $15,000. approximately $900 each year to BILLING CODE 8010±01±M Subsection (c)(3)(C) of Section 17A of complete thirty Form TA–Ws. the Act authorizes transfer agents Written comments are invited on: (a) registered with an appropriate Whether the proposed collection of [Release No. 34±37250; International Series regulatory agency (‘‘ARA’’) to withdraw information is necessary for the proper Release No. 986; File No. SR±CBOE±96± from registration by filing with the ARA performance of the functions of the 23] a written notice of withdrawal and by agency, including whether the agreeing to such terms and conditions as information shall have practical utility; Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order the ARA deems necessary or (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate Approving Proposed Rule Change by appropriate in the public interest, for of the burden of the proposed collection Chicago Board Options Exchange, the protection of investors, or in of information; (c) ways to enhance the Incorporated and Notice of Filing and furtherance of the purposes of Section quality, utility, and clarity of the Order Granting Accelerated Approval 17A. information to be collected; and (d) to Amendment No. 1 to Proposed Rule In order to implement Section ways to minimize the burden of the Change Relating to Permits to Trade 17A(c)(3)(C) of the Act the Commission, collection of information on Options on the Indice de Precios y on September 1, 1977, promulgated respondents, including through the use Cotizaciones Rule 17Ac3–1(a) and accompanying of automated collection techniques or May 29, 1996. Form TA–W. Rule 17Ac3–1(a) provides other forms of information technology. that notice of withdrawal from Consideration will be given to I. Introduction registration as a transfer agent with the comments and suggestions submitted in Commission shall be filed on Form TA– writing within 60 days of this On April 15, 1996, the Chicago Board W. Form TA–W requires the publication. Options Exchange, Incorporated withdrawing transfer agent to provide Direct your written comments to (‘‘CBOE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) submitted a the Commission with certain Michael E. Bartell, Associate Executive proposed rule change to the Securities information, including: (1) The Director, Office of Information and Exchange Commission locations where transfer agent activities Technology, Securities and Exchange (‘‘Commission’’) pursuant to section are or were performed; (2) the reasons Commission, 450 5th Street NW., 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act for ceasing the performance of such Washington, DC 20549. of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 activities; (3) disclosure of unsatisfied thereunder.2 On April 23, 1996, CBOE judgments or liens; and (4) information Dated: May 23, 1996. filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed regarding successor transfer agents. Jonathan G. Katz, rule change (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’) 3 The Commission uses the information Secretary. deleting certain proposed definitions, disclosed on Form TA–W to determine [FR Doc. 96–14017 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] making certain non-substantive stylistic whether the registered transfer agent BILLING CODE 8010±01±M and clarifying changes to the proposed applying for withdrawal from rule change and notifying the registration as a transfer agent should be Commission that the CBOE membership allowed to deregister and, if so, whether [Release Nos. 33±7299; 34±37253; File No. 265±20] approved the issuance of the IPC the Commission should attach to the Permits (as defined herein).4 The granting of the application any terms or Advisory Committee on the Capital proposed rule change would adopt new conditions necessary or appropriate in Formation and Regulatory Processes Exchange Rule 3.26 authorizing the the public interest, for the protection of issuance of 33 permits (‘‘IPC investors, or in furtherance of the AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Permits’’)—one to each firm that was a purposes of Section 17A of the Act. Commission. member of the Bolsa Mexicana de Without Rule 17Ac3–1(a) and Form TA– ACTION: Change in meeting time. Valores (‘‘Bolsa’’) as of January 1, 1996 W, transfer agents registered with the (‘‘Bolsa members’’ or ‘‘IPC Permit Commission would not have a means SUMMARY: This is to give notice that the Holders’’)—and setting forth the rights for voluntary deregistration when time for the meeting of the Securities necessary or appropriate to do so. and Exchange Commission Advisory 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) (1988). Respondents file approximately thirty Committee on the Capital Formation 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4 (1993). Form TA–Ws with the Commission and Regulatory Processes scheduled for 3 See Letter from Timothy Thompson, Senior annually. The filing of a Form TA–W June 10, 1996 in room 1C30 at the Counsel, CBOE to Michael Walinskas, Branch Chief, occurs only once, when a transfer agent Commission’s main offices, 450 Fifth Division of Market Regulation, SEC (April 23, 1996) is seeking deregistration. In view of the Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., (available in Commission’s Public Reference Room) ready availability of the information previously scheduled for 1:30 p.m. (61 and attached Certificate. requested by Form TA–W, its short and FR 26940 (5/29/96)), has been changed 4 Section 2.1 of the CBOE’s Constitution requires simple presentation, and the to 12:30 p.m. The meeting will be open an affirmative vote of the majority of the members present in person or represented by proxy at a Commission’s experience with the to the public, and the public is invited special membership meeting to approve the Form, we estimate that approximately to submit written comments to the issuance of the IPC Permits. In Amendment No. 1, one-half hour is required to complete Committee. CBOE reported that 78% of the total votes were cast in favor of issuing the IPC Permits. 28630 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices and obligations appurtenant to the IPC liability rules—Rule 6.7, Rule 7.11, and that liquidity may be enhanced in IPC Permits.5 Rule 24.12—to the same extent as Options by the grant of the IPC Permits The proposed rule change was regular members. to Bolsa members. At the same time, the noticed for comment in Securities IPC Permit Exercisers would not have CBOE’s proposal only gives limited Exchange Act Release No. 37117 (April certain rights of membership and would access for Bolsa members to trade IPC 16, 1996), 61 FR 17743 (April 22, 1996). be subject to certain limitations that do Options on its trading floor on the same No comments were received on the not apply to regular Exchange members. terms and regulatory conditions for proposed rule change. IPC Permit Exercisers would not be membership as applies to any other deemed to be members of CBOE for 10 II. Description of the Proposal applicant for membership. purposes of the General Corporation Accordingly, the proposal is consistent A. Introduction Law of Delaware, CBOE’s Certificate of with the requirements in Section 6(b)(5) CBOE has entered into a license Incorporation, or CBOE’s Constitution. of the Act that rules of an exchange be agreement with Bolsa (‘‘License Thus, IPC Permit Exercisers will have designed to promote just and equitable Agreement’’) pursuant to which Bolsa no property interest in CBOE, no voting principles of trade, facilitate has licensed CBOE to trade index rights, and will not be eligible as transactions in securities, remove options on the Indice de Precios y members for election to CBOE’s Board impediments to a free and open market Cotizaciones (‘‘IPC Options’’).6 In of Directors (although they will be and in general, to protect investors and consideration of the grant of this eligible for membership on the the public interest as well as the license, CBOE has agreed, among other committees established pursuant to requirements of Section 6(b)(2) of the things, to issue the IPC Permits to the CBOE Rule 2.1). IPC Permit Exerciser Act.11 For the reasons discussed in more Bolsa members. As discussed below, would also not be permitted to enter detail below, the Commission also IPC Permits give Bolsa members limited into transactions or to enter orders for believes that the portion of the filing rights with respect to the trading of IPC any CBOE product other IPC Options permitting IPC Permit Holders (those 8 Options on the CBOE. while on the floor of CBOE. who do not exercise the permit) to be An IPC Permit Holder which does not charged CBOE member firm proprietary B. Rights of Permit Holders and Permit directly or indirectly become an IPC transaction fees for their proprietary Exercisers Permit Exercisers would not have the trades in IPC Options is consistent with The IPC Permits, which will be non- rights or obligations of CBOE Section 6(b)(4) of the Act which requires leasable and non-transferable, may be membership. Accordingly, such IPC the equitable allocation of reasonable used in one of two alternative ways. Permit Holders, in contrast to IPC dues and fees among members and First, an IPC Permit Holder who wants Permit Exercisers, as described above, person using its facilities. direct access to the CBOE trading floor have no right of access to the CBOE First, the Commission believes that floor to enter into transactions or enter in respect of IPC Options could apply, the proposed rules concerning IPC orders for IPC Options. However, CBOE either on its own or on behalf of a Permit Exercisers that allow direct has agreed, as part of the consideration subsidiary, to become an IPC Permit access to the CBOE trading floor for the given by it in order to obtain the license Exerciser. If the IPC Permit Holder is limited purpose of trading, or entering of IPC from Bolsa, that if an IPC Permit qualified for membership on CBOE and transactions in, IPC Options, ensure that Holder traded IPC Options for its own its application is approved in only those IPC Permit Exercisers that 7 account through a CBOE member accordance with CBOE rules, it will meet the Exchange’s requirements for (including an IPC Permit Exerciser), that become an IPC Permit Exerciser and membership on the Exchange and the IPC Permit Holder would be charged will have specified rights and privileges requirements of the Act, and that transaction fees for those trades at the of CBOE membership under CBOE rules actually have been approved by the with respect to IPC Options—including same rates as the transaction fees for CBOE member firm proprietary trades. CBOE for membership, will have access the right to have a nominee appointed to CBOE IPC Options on the trading as a market maker or floor broker with III. Commission Findings and floor. respect to such options. The IPC Permit Conclusions The rules further ensure that IPC Exerciser will have all of the obligations Permit Exercisers and their associated of CBOE members, including the The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with persons are obligated to comply with all obligation to comply with CBOE rules CBOE rules and the federal securities and federal securities laws, and will be the requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to laws just as any other CBOE member subject to CBOE’s enforcement a national securities exchange, and, in and its associated persons. This jurisdiction. For example, nominees of particular, the requirements of Sections includes, among other things, the an IPC Permit Exerciser would be 6(b)(2), 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) thereunder.9 obligation to comply with CBOE rules required to complete CBOE member Specifically, the Commission believes concerning conducting a public firm orientation and would be required customer business, taking required to comply with the requirements set 8 The Exchange will issue IPC Permit Exercisers forth in Chapter IX of CBOE rules in with badges of a distinctive color so that the limited 10 These requirements include, among other order to conduct a public customer authority of these traders will be evident on the things, that a member be a U.S. registered broker- business. IPC Permit Exercisers would floor to other market participants and Floor dealer. Officials. The Exchange expects, therefore, that also be subject to CBOE’s limitation of 11 Section 6(b)(2) of the Act requires the rules of these market participants and Floor Officials will be a national securities exchange to permit any able to ensure that IPC Permit Exercisers do not 5 The Commission separately approved the listing engage in activity prohibited by Exchange rules. In registered broker or dealer to become a member of and trading of IPC Options by the Exchange. See addition, the Exchange intends to issue distinctive that exchange (subject to limitations on the Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37189 (May 9, acronyms to IPC Permit Exercisers to facilitate aggregate number of registered brokers or dealers 1996), International Series Release No. 977, 61 FR surveillance of illegal activity through a review of who may become members of that exchange) unless 24982 (May 17, 1996) (approving SR–CBOE–96–09). trade reports. Telephone conversation between it is subject to a statutory disqualification, does not 6 See id. Timothy Thompson, Senior Counsel, CBOE and meet standards of financial responsibility or 7 Such applications will be subject to the same Ethan Corey, Special Counsel, Division of Market operational capacity or has engaged and is approval procedures as applicable under the Regulation, SEC (May 28, 1996). reasonably likely to continue to engage in acts or 9 CBOE’s rules to applications for membership. 15 U.S.C. §§ 78f(b) (2), (4), (5). practices inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28631 examinations, maintaining and filing all allocation of fees among persons using Third, the preferential rate is designed required records under CBOE rules and CBOE facilities. to enhance liquidity to ensure sufficient being subject to the Exchange’s The Commission has not previously trading volume in IPC Options. Fourth, disciplinary and arbitration jurisdiction. approved another proposed rule change the reduced fees do not give any Bolsa Thus IPC Permit Exercisers and their presenting precisely the same issues as member an unfair advantage in seeking transactions will be subject to complete those presented by this proposal. to obtain the business of customers, as oversight and surveillance by the CBOE However, the Commission did approve the reduced fees are limited to Bolsa as well as subject fully to CBOE’s a New York Stock Exchange (‘‘NYSE’’) members’ proprietary transactions in enforcement jurisdiction. proposal to permit members of other IPC Options. Fifth, the IPC Permits are Despite these obligations, IPC Permit securities or commodities exchanges to not transferable and cannot be sold or Exercisers are not entitled to full apply to the NYSE for one-year free leased to give preferential access to 15 membership rights and will not be options trading rights. Unlike CBOE’s other persons. Based on these factors, permitted to effect transactions on the proposed rule change, the NYSE did not the Commission believes that it is not floor of the CBOE in any product other propose to charge transaction fees at unreasonable for the CBOE to grant IPC than IPC Options. To ensure compliance member rates to persons who did not Permit Holders a reduced proprietary with this limitation, the CBOE has apply for options trading rights. transaction rate and that such a developed special distinctive color The Commission viewed the NYSE provision does not permit unfair badges. The Exchange intends to issue proposal as a form of operational discrimination or an inequitable allocation of fees in violation of the Act. distinctive acronyms to IPC Permit subsidization that is difficult, if not In summary, and based on the above, Exercisers to facilitate surveillance of impossible, to avoid when developing a market for a new financial product.16 the Commission finds that the proposed illegal activity through a review of trade rule change is consistent with Section reports.12 The Commission believes that CBOE’s efforts similarly are properly viewed as 6(b) of the Act in general and furthers Based on the above, the Commission a form of operational subsidization. In the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the believes that the rules governing IPC addition, the Commission notes that Act by helping to create a viable trading Permit Exercisers have been carefully Bolsa specifically required the market for its new options product by drafted to allow limited access that preferential fees established by this granting preferential access and reduced should aid liquidity in IPC index proposed rule change as consideration fees for IPC Option trading to a group options while ensuring compliance with for granting CBOE a license to list and of persons (i.e., the Bolsa members) who CBOE rules and the federal securities trade options on the IPC Index. are likely to provide increased liquidity laws consistent with Sections 6(b)(2) The proposed rule change also is for the market in IPC Options. and 6(b)(5) of the Act. similar to the NYSE proposal in that The Commission finds good cause for The Commission also has carefully both were designed chiefly to ease approving Amendment No. 1 to the reviewed for consistency with the Act access to facilities to encourage the proposed rule change prior to the the other portion of the CBOE proposal development of an active and liquid thirtieth day after the date of that would set fees on proprietary trading market.17 The Commission publication of notice of filing thereof in transactions in IPC Options effected by found that the NYSE proposal, by easing the Federal Register. As noted above, IPC Permit Holders through CBOE access, furthered the purposes of Amendment No. 1 deletes certain members at the same rate as transaction § 6(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, and, by proposed definitions, makes certain fees for CBOE member firm proprietary helping to create a viable trading market non-substantive stylistic and clarifying trades. In order to approve the for its new options product, furthered changes to the proposed rule change preferential fees for IPC Permit Holders, the purposes of § 6(b)(5) of the Exchange and notifies the Commission that CBOE the Commission must determine, among Act.18 has received the requisite member other things, that the proposed fee is not The Commission notes that the approval for the proposal. None of these designed to permit unfair instant proposed rule change differs amendments affect the substance of the discrimination between customers, from the NYSE proposal in that it proposed rule change. Accordingly, the issuers, brokers or dealers and that it provides preferential treatment to Commission believes the amendment provides for the equitable allocation of parties who do not choose to access the raises no new or unique regulatory fees and charges among members, CBOE trading floor. However, the issues. Therefore, the Commission issuers and other persons using its Commission believes that this believes it is consistent with sections facilities.13 distinction is not sufficient to negate the 6(b)(5) and 19(b)(2) of the Act to approve Amendment No. 1 to the The Commission notes that the Act benefits to be obtained from a more liquid trading market for IPC Options. CBOE’s proposal on an accelerated ‘‘prohibits ‘unfair discrimination,’ not basis. ‘discrimination’ simpliciter . . .’’14 The Moreover, the IPC Permits have been Commission believes, for the reasons issued under very limited and special IV. Solicitation of Comments stated below, that the preferential rates circumstances. First, Bolsa required the Interested persons are invited to to be offered to IPC Permit Holders preferential fees established by this submit written data, views and executing proprietary transactions in proposed rule change as consideration arguments concerning Amendment No. IPC Options through CBOE members do for permitting CBOE to list and trade 1 to the Exchange’s proposal. Persons not constitute unfair discrimination in IPC Options. Second, the preferential making written submissions should file violation of the Act or an inequitable rates are limited to Bolsa members and six copies thereof with the Secretary, solely to trading in an index option Securities and Exchange Commission, based on stocks traded on the Bolsa. 12 Telephone conversation between Timothy 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC Thompson, Senior Counsel, CBOE and Ethan Corey, 20549. Copies of the submission, all Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, 15 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 20202 SEC (May 28, 1996). (Sept. 20, 1983), 48 FR 43752 (Sept. 26, 1983). subsequent amendments, all written 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b) (4)–(5). 16 Id. at 43753. statements with respect to the proposed 14 Timpinaro v. S.E.C., 2F.3d 453, 456 (D.C. Cir. 17 See id. rule change that are filed with the 1993). 18 Id. Commission, and all written 28632 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices communications relating to the Percent Notice of Applications for Certificates proposed rule change between the of Public Convenience and Necessity Commission and any person, other than Homeowners Without Credit and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed those that may be withheld from the Available Elsewhere ...... 3.875 Under Subpart Q During the Week public in accordance with the Businesses With Credit Available Ending May 24, 1996 provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be Elsewhere ...... 8.000 available for inspection and copying at Businesses and Non-Profit Orga- The following Applications for nizations Without Credit Avail- Certificates of Public Convenience and the Commission’s Public Reference able Elsewhere ...... 4.000 Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Others (Including Non-Profit Or- Permits were filed under Subpart Q of Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such ganizations) With Credit Avail- filing will also be available for able Elsewhere ...... 7.125 the Department of Transportation’s inspection and copying at the principal For Economic Injury: Businesses Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR office of the CBOE. All submissions and Small Agricultural Coopera- 302.1701 et. seq.). The due date for should refer to File No. SR–CBOE–96– tives Without Credit Available Answers, Conforming Applications, or 23 and should be submitted by June 26, Elsewhere ...... 4.000 Motions to modify Scope are set forth 1996. below for each application. Following It is therefore ordered, pursuant to The numbers assigned to this disaster the Answer period DOT may process the Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that SR– for physical damage are 285506 for application by expedited procedures. NASD–96–23, as amended is, approved. Ohio, 285606 for Indiana, 285706 for Such procedures may consist of the For the Commission, by the Division of Kentucky, and 285806 for Michigan. For adoption of a show-cause order, a Market Regulation pursuant to delegated economic injury the numbers are tentative order, or in appropriate cases authority.19 890500 for Ohio, 890600 for Indiana, a final order without further Jonathan G. Katz, 890700 for Kentucky, and 890800 for proceedings. Secretary. Michigan. Docket Number: OST–96–1389. Date filed: May 21, 1996. [FR Doc. 96–14015 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Due Date for Answers, Conforming BILLING CODE 8010±01±M Program Nos. 59002 and 59008). Applications, or Motion to Modify Dated: May 28, 1996. Scope: June 18, 1996. Philip Lader, Description: Application of United SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Administrator. Air Lines, Inc., pursuant to 49 U.S.C. [Declaration of Disaster Loan Area #2855] [FR Doc. 96–14060 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Section 41101 and Subpart Q of the BILLING CODE 8025±01±P Regulations, for renewal of authority to Ohio (And Contiguous Counties in serve Spain on segment 6 of its Indiana, Kentucky, and Michigan); amended Certificate of Public Declaration of Disaster Loan Area Convenience and Necessity for Route DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 603. Hamilton, Paulding, Scioto, and Docket Number: OST–96–1391. Williams Counties and the contiguous Aviation Proceedings; Agreements Date filed: May 22, 1996. counties of Adams, Butler, Clermont, Filed During the Week Ending June 24, Due Date for Answers, Conforming Defiance, Fulton, Henry, Jackson, 1996 Applications, or Motion to Modify Lawrence, Pike, Putnam, Van Wert, and Scope: June 19, 1996. Warren in the State of Ohio; the The following Agreements were filed Description: Application of Haiti contiguous counties of Allen, De Kalb, with the Department of Transportation Trans Air, S.A., pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Dearborn, Franklin, and Steuben in the under the provisions of 49 U.S.C 412 Section 41305 and Subpart Q of the State of Indiana; Boone, Campbell, and 414. Answers may be filed within Regulations, for renewal of the Foreign Greenup, Kenton, and Lewis in the State 21 days of date of filing. Air Carrier Permit that it presently holds of Kentucky; and Hillsdale County in Docket Number: OST–96–1398. to serve between a point or points in the State of Michigan constitute a Date filed: May 23, 1996. Haiti and the terminal points Miami and disaster area as a result of damages Parties: Members of the International Fort Lauderdale, Florida; New York, caused by severe thunderstorms and New York; and San Juan, Puerto Rico. flash flooding on May 15–17, 1996. Air Transport Association. Docket Number: OST–96–1393. Applications for loans for physical Subject: TC31 Reso/P 1118 dated May Date filed: May 23, 1996. damage may be filed until the close of 21, 1996, South Pacific Expedited Reso Due Date for Answers, Conforming business on July 29, 1996 and for 002s, (Editorial Changes), Intended Applications, or Motion to Modify economic injury until the close of effective date: expedited July 1, 1996. Scope: June 20, 1996. business on February 28, 1997 at the Docket Number: OST–96–1399. Description: Application of American address listed below: U.S. Small Date filed: May 23, 1996. Airlines, Inc., pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Business Administration, Disaster Area Section 41108 and Subpart Q of the 2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association Regulations, applies for renewal of its 300, Atlanta, GA 30308 or other locally certificate of public convenience and announced locations. Subject: TC3 Telex Mail Vote 802, necessity for Route 517, authorizing The interest rates are: Korea-South Asian subcontinent foreign air transportation of persons, amendments, r-1-070d r-2-074n r-3- property, and mail between Dallas/Ft. Percent 085h, Intended effective date; June 1, Worth, Texas and Tokyo, Japan. 1996. For Physical Damage: Docket Number: OST–96–1394. Paulette V. Twine, Homeowners With Credit Avail- Date filed: May 23, 1996. able Elsewhere ...... 7.625 Chief, Documentary Services Division. Due Date for Answers, Conforming [FR Doc. 96–14003 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Applications, or Motion to Modify 19 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12) (1993). BILLING CODE 4910±62±P Scope: June 20, 1996. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28633

Description: Application of American Michael H. Borfitz, Manager, Engine and group recommendations must be Airlines, Inc., pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Propeller Standards Staff, Engine and reviewed and approved by ARAC. If Section 41108 and Subpart Q of the Propeller Directorate, ANE–110, FAA, ARAC accepts the working group’s Regulations, for renewal of segment 4 of Aircraft Certification Service, 12 New recommendations, it forwards them to its certificate of public convenience and England Executive Park, Burlington, MA the FAA as ARAC recommendations. necessity for Route 602, authorizing 01803, telephone (617) 238–7110. Working Group Activity foreign air transportation of persons, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: property, and mail between the The Propulsion Harmonization coterminal points Dallas/Ft. Worth, Background Working Group is expected to comply Texas and Miami, Florida; the The FAA has established an Aviation with the procedures adopted by ARAC. intermediate points the Azores and Rulemaking Advisory Committee to As part of the procedures, the working Lisbon, Portugal; and the coterminal provide advice and recommendations to group is expected to: points Madrid, Barcelona, Malaga and the FAA Administrator, through the 1. Recommend a work plan for Palma de Mallorca, Spain. Associate Administrator for Regulation completion of the task, including the rationale supporting such a plan, for Docket Number: OST–96–1395. and Certification, on the full range of consideration at the meeting of ARAC to Date filed: May 23, 1996. the FAA’s rulemaking activities with consider Transport Airplane and Engine Due Date for Answers, Conforming respect to aviation-related issues. This Issues held following publication of this Applications, or Motion to Modify includes obtaining advice and notice. Scope: June 20, 1996. recommendations on the FAA’s commitment to harmonize its Federal 2. Give a detailed conceptual Description: Application of American presentation of the proposed Airlines, Inc., pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Aviation Regulations (FAR) and practices with its trading partners in recommendations, prior to proceeding 41108, 14 CFR Part 377, and Subpart Q with the work stated in item 3 below. of the Regulations, for renewal of Europe and Canada. One area ARAC deals with is 3. For each task, draft appropriate segment 2 of its certificate of public regulatory documents with supporting convenience and necessity for Route Transport Airplane and Engine issues. These issues involve the airworthiness economic and other required analyses, 656, authorizing foreign air and/or any other related guidance transportation of persons, property, and standards for transport category airplanes in 14 CFR parts 25, 33, and 35 material or collateral documents the mail between Miami, Florida and working group determines to be Toronto, Ontario, Canada. and parallel provisions in 14 CFR parts 121 and 135. appropriate; or, if new or revised Docket Number: OST–96–1400. requirements or compliance methods Date filed: May 24, 1996. The Task are not recommended, a draft report Due Date for Answers, Conforming This notice is to inform the public stating the rationale for not making such Applications, or Motion to Modify that the FAA has asked ARAC to recommendations. Scope: June 21, 1996. provide advice and recommendation on 4. Provide a status report at each Description: Application of Maverick the following harmonization task: meeting of ARAC held to consider Airways Corporation, pursuant to 49 Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Approval Transport Airplane and Engine Issues. U.S.C. Section 41102 and Subpart Q of Procedures: (1) Examine the adequacy of Participation in the Working Group the Regulations requests authority to existing APU approval procedures; (2) engage in scheduled air transportation Resolve technical differences in The Propulsion Harmonization of persons, property, and mail: Between approval procedures between Joint Working Group is composed of experts a State, territory, or possession of the Aviation Regulation APU and Technical having an interest in the assigned task. United States and a place in the District Standard Order C–77, and review the A working group member need not be of Columbia or another State, territory adequacy of requirements in the light of a representative of a member of the full or possession of the United States. possible APU usages, e.g., ETOPS; (3) committee. Paulette V. Twine, Coordinate these tasks, as appropriate, An individual who has expertise in Chief, Documentary Services Division. with other relevant bodies, e.g., the the subject matter and wishes to become [FR Doc. 96–14004 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Powerplant Installation Harmonization a member of the working group should write to the person listed under the BILLING CODE 4910±62±P Working Group; (4) Technical agreement should be reached within 24 caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION months following publication of the CONTACT expressing that desire, Federal Aviation Administration notice of task in the Federal Register. describing his or her interest in the The FAA also has asked that ARAC tasks, and stating the expertise he or she Aviation Rulemaking Advisory determine if rulemaking action (e.g., would bring to the working group. The Committee; Transport Airplane and NPRM, supplemental NPRM, final rule, request will be reviewed by the assistant Engine IssuesÐNew Task withdrawal) should be taken, or chair, the assistant executive director, advisory material should be issued. If and the working group chair, and the AGENCY: Federal Aviation so, ARAC has been asked to prepare the individual will be advised whether or Administration (FAA), DOT. necessary documents, including not the request can be accommodated. ACTION: Notice of new task assignment economic analysis, to justify and carry The Secretary of Transportation has for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory out its recommendation(s). determined that the formation and use Committee (ARAC). of ARAC are necessary and in the public ARAC Acceptance of Task(s) interest in connection with the SUMMARY: Notice is given of a new task ARAC has accepted the task(s) and performance of duties imposed on the assigned to and accepted by the has chosen to assign it to the existing FAA by law. Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Propulsion Harmonization Working Meetings of ARAC will be open to the Committee (ARAC). This notice informs Group. The working group will serve as public, except as authorized by section the public of the activities of ARAC. staff to ARAC to assist ARAC in the 10(d) of the Federal Advisory FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: analysis of the assigned task. Working Committee Act. Meetings of the 28634 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

Propulsion Harmonization Working comment on the application (#96–02–C– Maritime Administration Group will not be open to the public, 00–TEX) to impose and use PFC OMB No. 2133±0525 except to the extent that individuals revenue at Telluride Regional Airport, with an interest and expertise are under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 40117 Public Comments on Extension of selected to participate. No public and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Information Collection announcement of working group Regulations (14 CFR part 158). ACTION: Agency response and request for meetings will be made. On May 29, 1996, the FAA further comments. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 30, determined that the application to 1996 impose and use the revenue from a PFC SUMMARY: In accordance with the Chris Christie, submitted by the Telluride Regional Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. Executive Director, Aviation Rulemaking Airport Authority, Telluride, Colorado, L. 104–13, as implemented by Advisory Committee. was substantially complete within the regulations at 5 CFR part 1320), this [FR Doc. 96–14042 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] requirements of § 158.25 of part 158. notice reviews comments in response to BILLING CODE 4910±13±M The FAA will approve or disapprove the an earlier notice of the Maritime application, in whole or in part, no later Administration’s (MARAD) intention to than August 28, 1996. request the Office of Management and Notice of Intent To Rule on Application The following is a brief overview of Budget (OMB) for extension of approval (#96±02±C±00±TEX) To Impose and the application. of a currently approved information Use the Revenue From a Passenger collection. Comments to OMB are Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00. Facility Charge (PFC) at Telluride invited on this request. Regional Airport, Submitted by the Proposed charge effective date: DATES: Comments should be submitted Telluride Regional Airport Authority, November 1, 1996. on or before July 5, 1996. Comments Telluride, CO Proposed charge expiration date: should be submitted to OMB as AGENCY: Federal Aviation August 31, 2011. indicated below: Administration (FAA), DOT. Total requested for use approval: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on $1,300,000,00. James E. Caponiti, Associate Administrator for National Security, application. Brief description of proposed project: Maritime Administration, MAR–630, Acquire existing 16,852 sq. ft. terminal SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rules Room 7300, 400 Seventh Street, SW., building and expand; Construct portion and invites public comment on the Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202– of Taxiway ‘‘A’’; Acquire Index ‘‘A’’ application to impose and use PFC 366–2323 or fax 202–493–2180. Copies aircraft rescue and fire fighting (ARFF) revenue at Telluride Regional Airport of this collection can also be obtained vehicle; Acquire snow removal under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 40117 from that office. and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation equipment; Install taxiway guidance Regulations (14 CFR 158). signs; Reconstruct and expand general SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: aviation and commercial service apron; DATES: Comments must be received on Background or before July 5, 1996. Reconstruct and widen Taxiway ‘‘A3’’; Develop plans and specifications for Currently, Title VI of the Merchant ADDRESSES: Comments on this terminal building and associated Marine Act, 1936, as amended (Act), 46 application may be mailed or delivered utilities. App. U.S.C. 1171 et seq., authorizes the in triplicate to the FAA at the following Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) Class or classes of air carriers which address: Alan Wiechmann, Manager; to provide operating-differential subsidy the public agency has requested not be Denver Airports District Office, DEN– (ODS) to U.S.-flag ship operators for the required to collect PFC’s: None. ADO; Federal Aviation Administration; operation of their vessels in essential 5440 Roslyn Street, Suite 300; Denver, Any person may inspect the services in the foreign commerce of the CO 80216–6026. application in person at the FAA office United States. Eligibility for the ODS In addition, one copy of any comment listed above under FOR FURTHER program is limited to citizens of the submitted to the FAA must be mailed or INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA United States, as defined in Section 2 of delivered to Mr. Richard W. Nuttall, Regional Airports Office located at: the Shipping Act, 1916, as amended, 46 Airport Manager, at the following Federal Aviation Administration, App. U.S.C. 802, and MARAD address: Telluride Regional Airport, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports regulations at 46 CFR part 355. Section 1500 Last Dollar Road, P.O. Box 1807, Division, ANM–600, 1601 Lind Avenue 801 of the Act requires extensive Telluride, CO 81435. SW., Suite 540, Renton, WA 98055– recordkeeping for ODS contractors and Air Carriers and foreign air carriers 4056. related parties pursuant to MARAD may submit copies of written comments In addition, any person may, upon regulations. In promulgating such previously provided to Telluride request, inspect the application, notice regulations, MARAD created Form MA– Regional Airport, under § 158.23 of part and other documents germane to the 172, which contains requests for 158. application in person at the Telluride specific information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regional Airport. The Maritime Security Program Mr. Christopher Schaffer, (303) 286– (MSP), contained in legislation 5525; Denver Airports District Office, Issued in Renton, Washington on May 29, currently pending in the Congress, H.R. DEN–ADO; Federal Aviation 1996. 1350, the Maritime Security Act of 1995, Administration; 5440 Roslyn Street, David A. Field, will replace the current ODS program Suite 300; Denver, CO 80216–6026. The Manager, Planning, Programming and and provides financial assistance for application may be reviewed in person Capacity Branch, Northwest Mountain U.S.-flag operators and vessels that meet at this same location. Region. certain qualifications. It will require the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA [FR Doc. 96–14043 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Secretary of Transportation to encourage proposes to rule and invites public BILLING CODE 4910±13±M the establishment of a fleet of active, Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28635 militarily useful, privately owned Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer address the proposed changes contained vessels to meet the national defense and for, Department of Transportation, in that Notice in their comment. The other security requirements, while also Maritime Administration. revised Form MA–172 has been reduced maintaining a presence in international by 50 percent in an effort to lessen the Discussion of Comments and Summary commercial shipping. Participation in burden on respondents. In response to of Requirements in the Final the MSP will not be limited to Section the 18 pages of financial requirement of Application and Rule 2 U.S. citizens. MARAD’s regulations mentioned above, On March 7, 1996, MARAD published This section includes a discussion of it was determined in the subsequent in the Federal Register a Notice and the significant issues raised by public meeting that this was a Request for Comments to MARAD on its comment and how they were addressed. misunderstanding between the agency request for extension of OMB approval One comment letter from a research and and the commentor. The section on of the information collection relating to educational organization was received financial data submission states ‘‘For applications to participate in the MSP on the proposed application. The applicants which have not completed a pursuant to H.R. 1350 (OMB Control No. organization supported the proposed Form MA–172 in conjunction with 2133–0525), with a 60-day public application, while disagreeing with other MARAD assistance programs, comment period (61 FR 9223). certain components of the financial complete that form as described at 46 requirements section. On May 21, 1996, CFR part 232.’’ MARAD’s intention is to Description of Collection a meeting was held between the give the respondents a format or guide Title of Collection: Applications and commentor and MARAD during which to use (such as the one contained in its Amendments for Participation under some of the comments were clarified. regulations at 46 CFR part 232), and not new Section 651 of Title VI, Subtitle B, to actually suggest adherence to the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as Summary of Comments letter of part 232. The reference to part amended, and amendments thereto. 1. Need for Financial Data and 232 has been removed and the section Type of Request: Extension of Expected Benefit has been reworded to read: ‘‘Applicant currently approved information must submit an audited financial Comment. The commentor stated that collection. statement or have a Form MA–172 there was no practical need or policy OMB Control Number: 2133–0525. already on file with MARAD.’’ Form Number: No form number is basis for MARAD to require the With respect to the selection criteria assigned to the application. extensive financial data required by the contained in new section 652 of the Act, Expiration Date of Approval: May 31, Form MA–172. The commentor noted added by section 2 of H.R. 1350, 1996. that the MA–172 contained 29 financial MARAD believes it is within its Summary of Collection of schedules and statements in addition to administrative purview, and in the Information: The information collected the 18 single spaced pages of financial public interest, to consider the financial includes an initial application for requirements contained in MARAD’s viability of a company prior to choosing participation in the program as well as regulations at 46 CFR part 232. The it for participation in the program. amendments of maritime security commentor noted that the Notice program operating agreements. required information as it related to 2. Authority To Collect Data Need and Use of the Information: applications under the proposed statute Comment. The commentor stated that When enacted, H.R. 1350 will amend and that the Notice stated that MARAD MARAD failed to identify that it did not Title VI of the Act and will require will analyze the information according have the authority to collect the MARAD to accept applications for to prescribed priorities to select vessels information as section 801 of the Act is enrollment in a Maritime Security Fleet for participation in the program. The specifically exempted under new no later than 30 days after the date of commentor believed that new Section section 652(c) of the Act and therefore enactment. Receipt of an application 651(b) of the Act, ‘‘Vessel Eligibility,’’ would not apply. will indicate intent on the part of the has a number of clear objective Response. Section 801 of the applicant to enter its vessel(s) in the standards regarding vessel eligibility for Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as MSP. MARAD will analyze the the program, none of which require the amended, applies to contracts executed information according to prescribed type of information requested by by the Secretary of Transportation under priorities and select vessels for MARAD in Form MA–172. Title VI or VII of the Act and therefore participation in the program. Over the Response. MARAD is not requiring does not pertain specifically to life of an agreement amendments may the submission of Form MA–172. In the application for such contracts. The be necessary to include additional alternative, an applicant may submit an pending legislation does not address vessels and for changes to existing audited financial statement. The information collection prior to the grant vessels or status of the applicant. proposed submission of Form MA–172 of MSP contracts. In the absence of Description of Respondents and (separate approval under OMB Control specific direction from the Congress, it Frequency of Collection: It is estimated No. 2133–0005) is intended to (1) apply is appropriate for MARAD to exercise its that 10 carriers would submit one-time only to the applicant, not to any parent discretion as to what information is initial applications to participate in the company, affiliate or subsidiary; and (2) necessary to process MSP applications, program and it is estimated that five simplify the process as most anticipated provided that it is not inconsistent with amendments would be required over a applicants have a current Form MA–172 the express provisions of the legislation ten year period (average 0.5 per year) of on file with MARAD. The financial or with its legislative history. Since the an MSP operating agreement. reporting burden would therefore be proposed legislation is silent on the Annual Responses: 10 one-time significantly reduced for a vast majority collection of information prior to the applications, 0.5 amendments. of the applicants. award of an MSP contract, MARAD, Annual Burden: 60 hours for one-time In connection with the Notice for acting under general rulemaking applications, 1 hour for amendments. Application to participate in the MSP, authority for the Act derived from Comments: Send all comments MARAD published a Notice and section 204(b) of the Act, 46 App. U.S.C. regarding this information collection to Request for Comments on changes to the 1114, can collect appropriate the Office of Information and Regulatory Form MA–172. The commentor did not information. MARAD believes it is good 28636 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices administrative practice to require, at a 6. Certification of Citizenship Mr. Baines can be reached by fax at minimum, the information requested as Comment. The commentor stated that (313) 741–7816. a condition for payment of financial the application required the applicant to For the Working Group on Light assistance. be a citizen of the United States within Vehicle Safety Standards: Mr. Stephen R. Kratzke, Chief, Planning and Review 3. Subsidiaries and Affiliates the meaning of Section 2, Shipping Act, 1916, as amended, and that requirement Division, Office of Vehicle Safety Comment. The commentor stated Standards, National Highway Traffic MARAD lacked authority to obtain was wrong. Response. The requirement to certify Safety Administration, 400 Seventh information concerning all contractors’ Section 2 citizenship as part of the Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. parent companies, affiliates, and application was an error and has been Kratzke can be reached by telephone at subsidiaries together with an indication corrected by adding a provision for (202) 366–5203 or by fax at (202) 366– of the business transacted by each. 4329. Response. In the meeting held applicants who are not applying as Section 2 citizens which reads: ‘‘* ** For the Working Group on Heavy between MARAD and the commentor, Vehicle Safety Standards and the the issue was clarified and it was agreed or is eligible to document a vessel under 46 U.S.C. 121 * * *’’. Working Group on Parts and that the request for information should Equipment: Mr. Clive Van Orden, Chief, be applicable only to parent companies, Dated: May 30, 1996. Equipment and Imports Division, Office affiliates, and subsidiaries that are By order of the Maritime Administrator. of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National involved in the maritime industry for Joel C. Richard, Highway Traffic Safety Administration, non-section 2 citizen applicants. Section Secretary, Maritime Administration. 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, 2 citizen applicants will be required to [FR Doc. 96–14092 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] DC 20590. Mr. Van Orden can be provide information on affiliated BILLING CODE 4910±81±M reached by telephone at (202) 366–5311 relationships necessary to document or by fax at (202) 366–1024. status as a section 2 citizen. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The North 4. Citizenship National Highway Traffic Safety American Free Trade Agreement Administration Comment. The commentor stated that, (NAFTA) is a trilateral trade agreement with respect to the extensive disclosure [Docket No. 94±86; Notice 2] among the Governments of Canada, required with respect to stock Mexico, and the United States. Article ownership, shareholders, voting trusts Establishment of Working Groups to 913 of NAFTA establishes a Committee and agreements whereby control of an Assist NAFTA Automotive Standards on Standards-Related Measures, applicant is in any way held or Council comprising representatives of each of the three parties. Paragraph 5 of Article exercised by any person not the holder AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 913 requires the Committee on of legal title to such shares, it found the Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. request to be too intrusive. The Standards-Related Measures to establish ACTION: Notice of intent to establish commentor suggested that MARAD on four subcommittees, one of which is the working groups to assist NAFTA Automotive Standards Council. The an ad hoc basis continue its practice of Automotive Standards Council. requiring citizenship affidavits from purpose of the Automotive Standards Council is ‘‘to the extent practicable, to some applicants. SUMMARY: The Automotive Standards facilitate the attainment of compatibility Response. MARAD conceptually Council, a subcommittee under the among, and review the implementation agrees with the commentor’s suggestion Committee on Standards Related of, national standards-related measures and will require the submission of such Measures established by the North of the [three Nations] that apply to extensive information only from those American Free Trade Agreement, has automotive goods, and to address other applicants requesting to apply as decided to establish working groups to related matters.’’ See NAFTA Annex citizens of the United States. Other assist it in facilitating the attainment of 913.5.a–3. The NAFTA includes non- applicants need only prove lesser levels compatibility among, and review the road engines as well. Thus, the term of citizenship. implementation of, national standards- ‘‘automotive,’’ as used in this notice, related measures of Canada, Mexico, 5. Current or Anticipated Agreements includes non-road engines. and the United States that apply to Annex 913.5.a.–3.3 gives the Comment. The commentor stated that automotive goods. This notice identifies Automotive Standards Council the requested information regarding the United States government co-chairs authority to establish consultation current agreements with other carriers for each of the four working groups the procedures and appropriate operational was already available and, with respect United States will establish. This notice mechanisms. At the initial meeting of to anticipated agreements, that request also solicits interested persons from the Automotive Standards Council in was intrusive and unnecessary for the outside the government to serve on the Ottawa, the representatives of the three administration of the MSP. four working groups. Response. During the meeting governments agreed to solicit input from between MARAD and the commentor, DATES: Requests for membership must interested parties in their respective the issue was clarified and it was agreed be received not later than July 5, 1996. countries to identify incompatibilities that current information on operations ADDRESSES: Requests for membership that have created, or could create, and agreements was needed to assist the should be submitted to the government needless barriers to trade. Pursuant to agency in identifying potential sealift co-chair for the appropriate working this agreement, NHTSA published a capacity available for use in accordance group indicated below. notice asking the public for comments with an Emergency Preparedness FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For about regulatory incompatibilities and Program. As a result, the section on the Working Group on Emissions/ barriers to trade on December 23, 1994 agreements would read: ‘‘Describe any Engines/Fuels: Mr. Thomas M. Baines, (59 FR 66402). current agreements and or relationships Senior Technical Advisor, U.S. At the second meeting in Mexico City, with other carriers.’’ All reference to Environmental Protection Agency, 2565 each of the three Nations reported on anticipated agreements will be deleted. Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. the inputs from their respective Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28637 countries. The Automotive Standards Issued on May 30, 1996. 3. Each working group shall report Council concluded that it should seek Francis J. Turpin, annually on its activities to the Council. Such help from outside the governments to Director, Office of International reports shall briefly indicate the activities in complete the task of eliminating Harmonization. which the working group has been engaged needless barriers to trade caused by for the preceding year and the activities the Appendix—Terms of Reference for working group plans for the upcoming year, incompatibilities in automotive-related Working Groups Under The NAFTA standards and regulations among the any priorities on which the working group Automotive Standards Council has agreed, and provide a status report on the three countries. These outside parties Objectives current projects of the working group. may be in the best position to judge the 4. Each working group may develop its extent to which an incompatibility The Automotive Standards Council (‘‘the own internal rules and priorities consistent constitutes a barrier to trade. In Council’’) has agreed under Annex 913.5.a– with the objectives set forth in these Terms 3.3 of the North American Free Trade addition, many parties outside the of Reference. governments had asked that the Council Agreement to establish working groups of interested persons to pursue the following 5. Working groups may hold trilateral try to involve the public to a greater objectives: meetings with the working groups in the extent in the Council’s activities. • Facilitate the attainment of compatibility other Parties if deemed necessary. At the third meeting in Washington, among, and review the implementation of, d. Working Group Presentations to the D.C. on April 30–May 1, 1996, the national standards-related measures of the Council Parties that apply to automotive goods; and Council agreed to establish working 1. The Council will give the working • Suggest recommendations the Council groups to assist it. Based on the public could make that would facilitate the groups as much notice as possible of comments identifying what are believed attainment of such compatibility. upcoming Council meetings to allow the to be incompatibilities and experience working groups to request some time on the in regulating motor vehicles, the Structure of Working Groups agenda to make presentations to the full Council will form working groups to a. Subject Areas To Be Addressed by Council. address four different areas. These Working Groups 2. Before any working group asks to make would be: 1. The Council will initially address four a presentation to the full Council, it must areas by means of working groups in the coordinate the presentation with the • Emissions/Engines/Fuels Parties. These four areas are: appropriate working groups in the other • Light Vehicle Safety Standards i. Emissions/Engines/Fuels Parties. For the purposes of this document, ‘‘coordinate’’ means the working group must • ii. Light Vehicle Safety Standards Heavy Vehicle Safety Standards, and iii. Heavy Vehicle Safety Standards and inform the appropriate working groups in • Parts and Equipment (both original iv. Parts and Equipment (both Original other Parties of the planned presentation and equipment and replacement) Equipment and Replacement) discuss the presentation with those other 2. The Council may specify additional working groups. For instance, if the Canadian The Council also agreed on Terms of areas to be addressed by working groups, as working group addressing Light Vehicle Reference to provide an outline for how needed. Safety Standards wants to make a presentation to the Council, it must first the working groups will function. The b. General Structure of Working Groups complete text of the Terms of Reference inform the working groups addressing Light 1. Each Party will establish one or more follows this notice as an appendix. Vehicle Safety Standards in Mexico and the working groups to address these four areas. United States of the presentation and discuss The United States has decided to 2. Each working group will be co-chaired it with those working groups. Working establish four working groups, one in by a representative of the government and a groups will, to the maximum extent possible, person not employed by the government. The each of these areas. The United States make a single presentation that represents the government co-chair will serve as a liaison has also identified the following views of the appropriate working groups in between the Council and the working group. government co-chairs for each of the 3. Members of the working groups not all Parties, including a statement of any four working groups: employed by the government will not be differing views. This requirement does not mean that the working groups in the other • Mr. Thomas M. Baines (Emissions/ compensated by the government for their work on the working groups. Parties must agree to the presentation before Engines/Fuels) 4. Each Party may use whatever procedures the Council will hear it. Instead, it means • Mr. Stephen R. Kratzke (Light Vehicle it deems appropriate to decide the that the working groups in the other Parties Safety Standards) membership of its working groups. must be fully informed of the details of the presentation and the intention to present it • Mr. Clive Van Orden (Heavy Vehicles c. General Responsibilities of Working Groups to the full Council. Safety Standards and Parts and 3. The Council encourages working groups Equipment). 1. The working groups will have the to make joint presentations when possible. primary responsibility for identifying Nongovernment representatives of the The United States is now soliciting incompatibilities among the national presenting working group or groups would be interested parties from outside the standards-related measures of the Parties that apply to automotive goods, providing an permitted to present the suggestions to a government to participate in the four meeting of the full Council. working groups. Interested parties assessment of the extent to which such incompatibilities represent a barrier to trade, 4. As soon as possible after the Council should write or fax the government co- and for offering suggestions to the Council completes its internal consideration of the chair for the working group(s) they about ways to remove those presentation, the Council will inform the would like to participate in by July 5, incompatibilities. presenters of the Council’s decision on the 1996. The government co-chair will 2. Each working group will be responsible working group recommendations to the then contact all respondents to for informing other working groups, Council. including the counterpart working groups in announce the time and place for an Amendments organizational meeting for each working the other Parties and other working groups group. At the initial meeting, each established by the same Party, of its planned These terms of reference may be amended and current activities. The Council will be working group will decide upon the at any time with the unanimous consent of responsible for ensuring that information it all Parties. internal procedures it wants to follow receives from any working group is passed on and select a co-chair from outside the to all other working groups through the [FR Doc. 96–14063 Filed 5–31–96; 12:25 pm] government. government co-chairs. BILLING CODE 4910±59±P 28638 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development a cost of common equity capital of Surface Transportation Board 1 Corporation 13.4%, a cost of preferred equity capital of 3.2%, and a 26.0% debt, 72.8% [STB Finance Docket No. 32968] Advisory Board; Notice of Meeting common equity, 1.2% preferred equity Luxapalila Valley Railroad, Inc.Ð Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the capital structure mix. The cost of capital Acquisition and Operation finding made in this proceeding will be Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public ExemptionÐRail Lines of Norfolk used in a variety of Board proceedings. Law 92–463; 5 U.S.C. App. I) notice is Southern Railway Co. and Columbus hereby given of a meeting of the EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective and Greenville Railway Co. June 6, 1996. Advisory Board of the Saint Lawrence Luxapalila Valley Railroad, Inc. Seaway Development Corporation, to be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leonard J. Blistein, (202) 927–6171. (LVR), a noncarrier, filed a verified held at 2:00 p.m., June 20, 1996, at the notice of exemption under 49 CFR Corporation’s Washington, D.C. office, (TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 927–5721.) 1150.31 to acquire and to operate 400 7th Street, S.W., Suite 5424, approximately 34.2 miles of connecting, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The cost Washington, D.C. 20590. The agenda for separately owned main rail lines in of capital finding in this decision shall this meeting will be as follows: Opening Mississippi and Alabama. The lines to be used to evaluate the adequacy of Remarks; Consideration of Minutes of be acquired are currently owned by railroad revenues for 1995 under the Past Meeting; Review of Programs; Norfolk Southern Railway Company standards and procedures promulgated Business; and Closing Remarks. (NS) and Columbus and Greenville in Standards for Railroad Revenue Attendance at meeting is open to the Railway Company (C&G).2 The trackage Adequacy, 3 I.C.C.2d 261 (1986). This interested public but limited to the lies between NS milepost 884.9 at Belk, finding may also be used in other Board space available. With the approval of AL, and NS milepost 919.1 at proceedings involving, for example, the the Administrator, members of the Columbus, MS. NS currently owns and prescription of maximum reasonable public may present oral statements at operates the 24.5-mile Alabama portion, rate levels and proposed abandonments the meeting. Persons wishing further lying between NS milepost 884.9 at Belk of rail lines. Additional information is information should contact not later and NS milepost 909.4 at the contained in the Board’s decision. To than June 17, 1996, Marc C. Owen, Mississippi-Alabama state line. The 9.7- obtain a copy of the full decision, write Advisory Board Liaison, Saint Lawrence mile Mississippi portion, lying between to, call, or pick up in person from: DC Seaway Corporation, 400 Seventh NS milepost 909.4 and NS milepost NEWS & DATA, INC., Room 2229, 1201 Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590; 919.1 at Columbus, is owned by C&G Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 202–366–0091. but has been operated by NS since 1926 DC 20423. Telephone: (202) 289–4357/ Any member of the public may under a lease that expired in 1995. present a written statement to the 4359. (Assistance for the hearing The transaction was intended to be Advisory Board at any time. impaired is available through TDD consummated shortly after May 30, services (202) 927–5721.) Issued at Washington, D.C. on May 29, 1996. 1996. Environmental and Energy If the verified notice contains false or Marc C. Owen, Considerations misleading information, the exemption Advisory Board Liaison. This action will not significantly is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the [FR Doc. 96–14012 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] affect either the quality of the human proceeding to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed BILLING CODE 4910±61±M environment or the conservation of energy resources. at any time. The filing of a petition to reopen will not automatically stay the Surface Transportation Board 1 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis transaction. An original and 10 copies of all [STB Ex Parte No. 523 (Sub-No. 1)] Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we conclude that our action in this pleadings, referring to STB Finance Railroad Cost of CapitalÐ1995 proceeding will not have a significant Docket No. 32968, must be filed with economic impact on a substantial AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. number of small entities. The purpose 1 The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. ACTION: Notice of decision. 104–88, 109 Stat. 803, which was enacted on and effect of this action are to update December 29, 1995, and took effect on January 1, the annual railroad industry cost of SUMMARY: On June 5, 1996, the Board 1996, abolished the Interstate Commerce capital finding by the Board. No new Commission and transferred certain functions to the served a decision to update its estimate reporting or other regulatory Surface Transportation Board (Board). This notice of the railroad industry’s cost of capital relates to functions that are subject to Board requirements are imposed, directly or for 1995. The composite cost of capital jurisdiction pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10901. indirectly, on small entities. 2 rate for 1995 is found to be 11.7%, LVR and C&G are owned by CAGY Industries, Authority: 49 U.S.C. 10704(a). Inc., a noncarrier that controls several class III rail based on a current cost of debt of 7.4%, carriers. Because CAGY Industries owns other Decided: May 22, 1996. carriers, it would require the prior approval of this 1 The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Board under 49 U.S.C. 11323(a)(5) and 11324(d), or 104–88, 109 Stat. 803 (ICCTA), which was enacted Chairman Simmons, and Commissioner exemption therefrom under 49 U.S.C. 10502, to on December 29, 1995, and took effect on January Owen. continue in control of these other carriers when 1, 1996, abolished the Interstate Commerce Vernon A. Williams, LVR becomes a carrier by its acquisition of the line Commission (ICC) and transferred certain functions in question. In STB Finance Docket No. 32968 (Sub- and proceedings to the Surface Transportation Secretary. No. 1), CAGY Industries has filed a petition for Board (Board). Section 204(b)(1) of ICCTA provides, [FR Doc. 96–14088 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] exemption to permit such continuance in control. in general, that proceedings pending before the ICC Because LVR will connect with another carrier on the effective date of that legislation shall be BILLING CODE 4915±00±P controlled by CAGY Industries (C&G), CAGY decided under the law in effect prior to January 1, Industries cannot invoke the class exemption at 49 1996, insofar as they involve functions retained by CFR 1180.2(d)(2) for continuance-in-control ICCTA. This decision relates to a proceeding that transactions. Prior to closure of this transaction and was pending with the ICC prior to January 1, 1996, pending approval of the exemption sought in the and to functions that are subject to Board (Sub-No. 1) proceeding, LVR’s stock will be place jurisdiction pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10704. into an independent voting trust. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28639 the Surface Transportation Board, Office FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: refineries approved as foreign trade of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, Beryl Gordon, (202) 927–7513. (TDD for subzones, in implementation of § 9002 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW., the hearing impaired: (202) 927–5721.) of the Technical and Miscellaneous Washington, DC 20423. In addition, a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Revenue Act of 1988, codified as 19 copy of each pleading must be served on Additional information is contained in U.S.C. 81c(d). These regulations, issued Patricia E. Kolesar, Esq., Slover & the Board’s decision. To purchase a as a new subpart H to part 146 Loftus, 1224 Seventeenth Street, NW., copy of the full decision, write to, call, (§§ 146.91–146.96), essentially establish Washington, DC. 20036. or pick up in person from: DC News & procedures to account for the various Decided: May 29, 1996. Data, Inc., Room 2229, 1201 products refined in a subzone as well as By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, the feedstocks that are used therein in Director, Office of Proceedings. DC 20423. Telephone: (202) 289–4357/ such refining operations, with duty Vernon A. Williams, 4359. (Assistance for the hearing assessment being determined accordingly. Secretary. impaired is available through TDD services (202) 927–5721.) Specifically in this connection, [FR Doc. 96–14086 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] § 146.93(a) requires that all final Decided: May 21, 1996. BILLING CODE 4915±00±P product refined in, and either removed By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice from or consumed within, a petroleum Chairman Simmons, and Commissioner [Finance Docket No. 32691] 1 Owen. refinery subzone, be attributed to feedstock admitted into the subzone in Vernon A. Williams, North Charleston Terminal CompanyÐ the current or prior manufacturing Lease ExemptionÐSouth Carolina Secretary. period. Division of Public Railways, Cosgrove [FR Doc. 96–14087 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] One method of attribution permits a Yard, North Charleston, SC BILLING CODE 4915±00±P quantity of product to be attributed as having been refined from a given AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. quantity of feedstock to the extent that ACTION: Notice of exemption. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY the quantity of such product was producible (could have been produced) SUMMARY: The Board, under 49 U.S.C. Customs Service 10505, exempts from the prior approval from the stated quantity of feedstock. 19 requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11343–45 the [T.D. 96±47] CFR 146.95(a) (1) and (2). This method, lease by North Charleston Terminal known as producibility, calls for the Company of South Carolina Division of Petroleum Refineries in Foreign Trade establishment of objective production Public Railways’ Cosgrove Yard, Subzones standards to govern its application. consisting of approximately 9.3 miles of Such standards, called industry AGENCY: Customs Service, Department standards of potential production on a yard track and other railroad facilities, of the Treasury. in North Charleston, Charleston County, practical operating basis, have already ACTION: General notice; modification of SC, subject to standard labor protective been established, adopted and T.D. 66–16. conditions. published in T.D. 66–16. 19 CFR 146.95(a)(2). In this regard, T.D. 66–16 DATES: This exemption will be effective SUMMARY: This document publishes an lists several categories of products as July 5, 1996. Petitions to stay must be attribution schedule approved in well as a number of different feedstocks, filed by June 20, 1996, and petitions to accordance with the foreign trade zone together with the noted industry reopen must be filed by July 1, 1996. regulations for use by the Valero standards expressed in percentages. ADDRESSES: Send pleadings referring to Refining Company, operating as Foreign Section 146.95(a)(3)(i) deals with the Finance Docket No. 32691 to: (1) Trade Subzone No. 122j, in Corpus attribution of product to feedstock not Surface Transportation Board, Office of Christi, Texas, covering three feedstocks listed in T.D. 66–16, and requires in this the Secretary, Case Control Branch, not otherwise covered by a published situation that the operator submit a 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW., schedule, for the purpose of calculating proposed attribution schedule, Washington, DC 20423, and (2) the amount of selected feedstock which supported by a technical memorandum, Petitioner’s representative: Robert J. would be required to produce a given to the appropriate port director. The Cooney, Norfolk Southern Corporation, category of product in the subzone, with port director must refer the request to Three Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA inventory accounting for feedstock and the Director, Office of Regulatory Audit, 23510–2191. product, as well as duty assessment for who is responsible for reviewing and any such product removed from or verifying the refiner’s records and 1 The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. consumed within the subzone, being approving or denying the request, 104–88, 109 Stat. 803 (the ICCTA), which was determined accordingly. enacted on December 29, 1995, and took effect on following due coordination with the January 1, 1996, abolished the Interstate Commerce FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director, Office of Laboratories and Commission (ICC) and transferred certain functions Louis Hryniw, Office of Regulatory Scientific Services. and proceedings to the Surface Transportation Audit, (202) 927–0677. Board (Board). Section 204(b)(1) of the ICCTA In the present case, Valero Refining provides, in general, that proceedings pending SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Company, operating as Foreign Trade before the ICC on the effective date of that Subzone No. 122j, in Corpus Christi, legislation shall be decided under the law in effect BACKGROUND Texas, has submitted such a request, prior to January 1, 1996, insofar as they involve functions retained by the ICCTA. This notice relates By a final rule document published in which has since been evaluated by to a proceeding that was pending with the ICC prior the Federal Register as T.D. 95–35 (60 Customs as described, and approved, to January 1, 1996, and to functions that are subject FR 20628) on April 27, 1995, Customs concerning the establishment of a to Board jurisdiction pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10902 amended its foreign trade zone verified attribution schedule for and 49 U.S.C. 11323–25. Therefore, this notice applies the law in effect prior to the ICCTA, and regulations (19 CFR part 146) to add heretofore unlisted residual cracking citations are to the former sections of the statute, special procedures and requirements feedstocks of classes I, II, and III, unless otherwise indicated. governing the operation of petroleum respectively. Section 146.95(a)(3)(i) 28640 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices requires that such a modification of T.D. the attribution schedule hereinafter both feedstock and product in the 66–16 be published. published in calculating the amount of subzone, and duty assessment for any Consequently, this document informs selected feedstock which would be product removed from or consumed the public that, pursuant to the approval required to produce a quantity of a within the subzone, being determined granted to it under § 146.95(a)(3)(i), the given petroleum product, with accordingly. refinery subzone in question may use inventory recordkeeping and control for

INDUSTRY STANDARDS OF POTENTIAL PRODUCTION ON A PRACTICAL OPERATING BASIS APPROVED FOR VALERO REFINING COMPANY

Residual Residual Residual Cracking Cracking Cracking Product Feedstock Feedstock Feedstock Class I, Class II, Class III, percent percent percent

Motor gasoline ...... 86 77 86 Aviation gasoline. Special naphthas ...... 11 16 9 Jet fuels. Kerosene and range oil ...... 4 4 Distillate oils ...... 4 24 3 Residual oils ...... 100 100 100 Lubricating oils. Paraffin wax. Petroleum coke ...... 8 6 7 Asphalt. Road oil. Still gas ...... 10 10 10 Liquified refinery gas ...... 12 20 23 Petroleum synthetic rubbers. Petrochemical plastics and resins. All other petrochemical products ...... 3 4 1

George J. Weise, Commissioner of Customs. Approved: May 8, 1996. John P. Simpson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. [FR Doc 96–14126 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4820±02±P federal register June 5,1996 Wednesday Contingency PlanGuidance;Notice The NationalResponseTeam'sIntegrated Administration Occupational SafetyandHealth Department ofLabor Minerals ManagementService Department oftheInterior Administration Research andSpecialPrograms Coast Guard Transportation Department of Agency Environmental Protection Part II 28641 28642 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Presidential Review concluded that, AGENCY William Finan, U.S. Environmental while achieving its statutory goals to Protection Agency, Mail Code 5101, 401 protect public safety and the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, environment, the current system is at (202) 260–0030 (E-Mail complex, confusing, and costly. It Coast Guard [email protected]— identified several key problem areas and please include ‘‘one plan’’ in the subject recommended a second phase to Research and Special Programs line). In addition, the EPCRA/RCRA/ address these issues. One of the issues Administration Superfund Hotline can answer general identified by the Presidential Review is DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR questions about the guidance. the multiple and overlapping federal For further information and guidance requirements for facility emergency Minerals Management Service on complying with specific regulations, response plans. contact: for EPA’s Oil Pollution NRT Policy Statement DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Prevention Regulation: Bobbie Lively- Diebold, U.S. Environmental Protection This one-plan guidance is intended to Occupational Safety and Health Agency, Mail Code 5203G, 401 M Street, be used by facilities to prepare Administration SW., Washington, DC 20460, at (703) emergency response plans for 356–8774 (E-Mail responding to releases of oil and non- [FRL±5512±8] [email protected]), or the radiological hazardous substances. The SPCC Information Line at (202) 260– intent of NRT is to provide a mechanism The National Response Team's 2342); for the U.S. Coast Guard’s for consolidating multiple plans that Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance Facility Response Plan Regulation: facilities may have prepared to comply AGENCY: Environmental Protection LCDR Mark Hamilton, U.S. Coast Guard, with various regulations into one Agency (EPA), U.S. Coast Guard Commandant (G–MOR), 2100 2nd functional emergency response plan or (USCG), Minerals Management Service Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593, at integrated contingency plan (ICP). A (MMS), Research and Special Programs 202–267–1983 (E-Mail M.Hamilton/G- number of statutes and regulations, Administration (RSPA), Occupational [email protected]); for DOT/ administered by several federal Safety and Health Administration RSPA’s Pipeline Response Plan agencies, include requirements for (OSHA). Regulation: Jim Taylor, U.S. Department emergency response planning. A particular facility may be subject to one ACTION: Notice. of Transportation, Room 2335, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 at or more of the following federal SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental (202) 366–8860 (E-Mail regulations: Protection Agency, as the chair of the [email protected]); for • EPA’s Oil Pollution Prevention National Response Team (NRT), is pertinent OSHA regulations, contact Regulation (SPCC and Facility Response announcing the availability of the NRT’s either your Regional or Area OSHA Plan Requirements)—40 CFR part Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance office; for DOI/MMS’ Facility Response 112.7(d) and 112.20–.21; • (‘‘one plan’’). This guidance is intended Plan Regulation: Larry Ake, U.S. MMS’s Facility Response Plan Department of the Interior—Minerals Regulation—30 CFR part 254; to be used by facilities to prepare • emergency response plans. The intent of Management Service, MS 4700, 381 RSPA’s Pipeline Response Plan Regulation—49 CFR part 194; the NRT is to provide a mechanism for Elden Street, Herndon, VA 22070–4817 • consolidating multiple plans that at (703) 787–1567 (E-Mail Larryl USCG’s Facility Response Plan facilities may have prepared to comply [email protected]); for EPA’s Risk Regulation—33 CFR part 154, Subpart F; • EPA’s Risk Management Programs with various regulations into one Management Program Regulation: Regulation—40 CFR part 68; functional emergency response plan or William Finan (see above); and for • OSHA’s Emergency Action Plan integrated contingency plan (ICP). This RCRA’s Contingency Planning Regulation—29 CFR 1910.38(a); Requirements, contact the EPCRA/ notice contains the suggested ICP • OSHA’s Process Safety Standard— RCRA/Superfund Hotline (see above). outline as well as guidance on how to 29 CFR 1910.119; develop an ICP and demonstrate The NRT welcomes comments on • OSHA’s HAZWOPER Regulation— compliance with various regulatory specific implementation issues related 29 CFR 1910.120; and requirements. The policies set out in to this guidance. Please provide us with • EPA’s Resource Conservation and this notice are intended solely as information about the successful use of Recovery Act Contingency Planning guidance. this guidance, about problems with Requirements—40 CFR part 264, ADDRESSES: Additional copies of this using this guidance, as well as Subpart D, 40 CFR part 265, Subpart D, one-plan guidance can be obtained by suggestions for improving the guidance. and 40 CFR 279.52. writing to the following address: Send comments to William Finan (see In addition, facilities may also be William Finan, U.S. Environmental above) or to any of the other people subject to state emergency response Protection Agency, Mail Code 5101, 401 listed in the previous paragraph. planning requirements that this M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: guidance does not specifically address. Copies of the ICP Guidance are also Facilities are encouraged to coordinate available by calling the EPCRA/RCRA/ Presidential Review Findings development of their ICP with relevant Superfund Hotline at (800) 424–9346 (in Section 112(r)(10) of the Clean Air Act state and local agencies to ensure the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, required the President to conduct a compliance with any additional (703) 412–9810). In addition, this review of federal release prevention, regulatory requirements. guidance is available electronically at mitigation, and response authorities. Individual agencies’ planning the home page of EPA’s Chemical The Presidential Review was delegated requirements and plan review Emergency Preparedness and to EPA, in coordination with agencies procedures are not changed by the Prevention Office (http://www.epa.gov/ and departments that are members of advent of the ICP format option. This swercepp/). the National Response Team (NRT). The one-plan guidance has been developed Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28643 to assist facilities in demonstrating to read and comply with all of the specific regulatory requirements to compliance with the existing federal federal regulations that apply to them. ensure that facility plans are consistent emergency response planning Furthermore, facilities submitting an with external planning efforts. Industry requirements referenced above. ICP (in whatever format) for agency or use of this guidance along with active Although it does not relieve facilities department review will need to provide participation on local and Area from their current obligations, it has a cross-reference to existing regulatory Committees will improve the level of been designed specifically to help meet requirements so that plan reviewers can emergency preparedness and is those obligations. Adherence to this verify compliance with these therefore highly encouraged. guidance is not required in order to requirements. The guidance contains a In some areas, it may be possible to comply with federal regulatory series of matrices designed to assist go beyond simple coordination of plans requirements. Facilities are free to owners and operators in consolidating and actually integrate certain continue maintaining multiple plans to various plans and documenting information from facility plans with demonstrate federal regulatory compliance with federal regulatory corresponding areas of external plans. compliance; however, the NRT believes requirements. (See Attachments 2 and The adoption of a single, common ICP that an integrated plan prepared in 3.) The matrices can be used as the basis outline such as the one proposed in this accordance with this guidance is a for developing a cross-reference to guidance would facilitate a move preferable alternative. various regulatory requirements. toward integration of facility plans with The NRT realizes that many existing This guidance also provides a useful local, state, and federal plans. regulations pertaining to contingency contingency planning template for The projected results described above planning require review by a specific owners and operators of facilities not will ultimately serve the mutual goal of agency to determine compliance with subject to the federal regulations cited the response community to more applicable requirements. It is not the previously. efficiently and effectively protect public intent of the NRT to modify existing Integrated Contingency Plan health, worker safety, the environment, agency review procedures or to Philosophy and property. supersede the requirements of a regulation. The ICP will minimize duplication in Scope This one-plan guidance was the preparation and use of emergency This one-plan guidance is provided developed through a cooperative effort response plans at the same facility and among numerous NRT agencies, state will improve economic efficiency for for any facility subject to federal and local officials, and industry and both the regulated and regulating contingency planning regulations and is community representatives. The NRT communities. Facility expenditures for also recommended for use by other and the agencies responsible for the preparation, maintenance, facilities to improve emergency reviewing and approving federal submission, and update of a single plan preparedness through planning. In this response plans to which the ICP option should be much lower than for multiple context, the term ‘‘facility’’ is meant to applies agree that integrated response plans. have a wide connotation and may plans prepared in the format provided The use of a single emergency include, but is not limited to, any in this guidance will be acceptable and response plan per facility will eliminate mobile or fixed onshore or offshore be the federally preferred method of confusion for facility first responders building, structure, installation, response planning. The NRT realizes who often must decide which of their equipment, pipe, or pipeline. that alternate formats for integrating plans is applicable to a particular Facility hazards need to be addressed multiple plans already exist and that emergency. The guidance is designed to in a comprehensive and coordinated others likely will be developed. Certain yield a highly functional document for manner. Accordingly, this guidance is facilities may find those formats more use in varied emergency situations broadly constructed to allow for desirable than the one proposed here. while providing a mechanism for facilities to address a wide range of risks The NRT believes that a single complying with multiple agency in a manner tailored to the specific functional plan is preferable to multiple requirements. Use of a single integrated needs of the facility. This includes both plans regardless of the specific format plan should also improve coordination physical and chemical hazards chosen. While they are acceptable, other between facility response personnel and associated with events such as chemical formats may not allow the same ease of local, state, and federal emergency releases, oil spills, fires, explosions, and coordination with external plans. In any response personnel. natural disasters. case, whatever format a facility chooses, The adoption of a standard plan Organizational Concepts no individual NRT agency will require format should facilitate integration of an integrated response planning format plans within a facility, in the event that The ICP format provided in this one- differing from the ICP format described large facilities may need to prepare plan guidance (See Attachment 1) is here. The NRT anticipates that future separate plans for distinct operating organized into three main sections: an development of all federal regulations units. The ICP concept should also introductory section, a core plan, and a addressing emergency response allow coordination of facility plans with series of supporting annexes. It is planning will incorporate use of the ICP plans that are maintained by local important to note that the elements guidance. Also, developers of state and emergency planning committees contained in these sections are not new local requirements will be encouraged (LEPCs),1 Area Committees,2 co- concepts, but accepted emergency to be consistent with this document. operatives, and mutual aid response activities that are currently The ICP guidance does not change organizations. In some cases, there are addressed in various forms in existing existing regulatory requirements; rather, contingency planning regulations. The it provides a format for organizing and 1 LEPC plans are developed by LEPCs in goal of the NRT is not to create new presenting material currently required coordination with facility emergency response planning requirements, but to provide a by the regulations. Individual coordinators under section 303 of the Emergency mechanism to consolidate existing Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. regulations are often more detailed than 2 Area Contingency Plans are developed by Area concepts into a single functional plan the ICP guidance. To ensure full Committees pursuant to section 4202(a)(6) of the structure. This approach would provide compliance, facilities should continue Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). a consistent basis for addressing 28644 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices emergency response concerns as it gains as manageable as practicable, it is not follow. For a small facility with a widespread use among facilities. necessary for a plan holder to provide limited number of hazard scenarios, the The introduction section of the plan its field responders with all the core plan may contain most if not all of format is designed to provide facility compliance documentation (e.g., the information necessary to carry out response personnel, outside responders, Annexes 4 through 8) that it submits to the response thus obviating the need for and regulatory officials with basic regulatory agencies. Similarly, it may more detailed annexes. The checklists, information about the plan and the not be necessary for a plan holder to depending on their size and complexity, entity it covers. It calls for a statement submit all annexes to every regulatory can be in either the core or the support of purpose and scope, a table of agency for review. section. contents, information on the current Basic headings are consistent across The core plan should reflect a revision date of the plan, general facility the core plan and annexes to facilitate hierarchy of emergency response levels. information, and the key contact(s) for ease of use during an emergency. These A system of response levels is plan development and maintenance. headings provide a comprehensive list commonly used in emergency planning This section should present the of elements to be addressed in the core for classifying emergencies according to information in a brief factual manner. plan and response annexes and may not seriousness and assigning an The structure of the sample core plan be relevant to all facilities. Planners appropriate standard response or series and annexes in this guidance is based should address those regulatory of response actions to each level. Both on the structure of the National elements that are applicable to their complex and simple industrial facilities Interagency Incident Management particular facilities. Planners at facilities use a system of response levels for System (NIIMS) Incident Command with multiple hazards will need to rapidly assessing the seriousness of an System (ICS). NIIMS ICS is a nationally address most, if not all, elements emergency and developing an recognized system currently in use by included in this guidance. Planners at appropriate response. This process numerous federal, state, and local facilities with fewer hazards may not allows response personnel to match the organizations (e.g., some Area need to address certain elements. If emergency and its potential impacts Committees under OPA). NIIMS ICS is planners choose to strictly adopt the ICP with appropriate resources and a type of response management system outline contained in this guidance but personnel. The concept of response that has been used successfully in a are not required by regulation to address levels should be considered in variety of emergency situations, all elements of the outline, they may developing checklists or flowcharts including releases of oil or hazardous simply indicate ‘‘not applicable’’ for designed to serve as the basis for the substances. NIIMS ICS provides a those items where no information is core plan. Note that for those facilities commonly understood framework that provided. A more detailed discussion of subject to planning requirements under allows for effective interaction among the core plan and supporting annexes OPA, response levels in the core plan response personnel. Organizing the ICP follows. may not necessarily correspond to along the lines of the NIIMS ICS will discharge planning amounts (e.g., Core Plan allow the plan to dovetail with average most probable discharge, established response management The core plan is intended to reflect maximum most probable discharge, and practices, thus facilitating its ease of use the essential steps necessary to initiate, worst case discharge). during an emergency. conduct, and terminate an emergency Facility owners and operators should The core plan is intended to contain response action: recognition, determine appropriate response levels essential response guidance and notification, and initial response, based on 1) the need to initiate time- procedures. Annexes would contain including assessment, mobilization, and urgent response actions to minimize or more detailed supporting information implementation. This section of the prevent unacceptable consequences to on specific response management plan should be concise and easy to the health and safety of workers, the functions. The core plan should contain follow. A rule of thumb is that the core public, or the environment; and 2) the frequent references to the response plan should fit in the glovebox of a need to communicate critical critical annexes to direct response response vehicle. The core plan need information concerning the emergency personnel to parts of the ICP that not detail all procedures necessary to offsite authorities. The consideration contain more detailed information on under these phases of a response but and development of response levels the appropriate course of action for should provide information that is time should, to the extent practicable, be responders to take during various stages critical in the earliest stages of a consistent with similar efforts that may of a response. Facility planners need to response and a framework to guide have been taken by the LEPC, local Area find the right balance between the responders through key steps necessary Committee, or mutual aid organization. amount of information contained in the to mount an effective response. The Response levels, which are used in core plan versus the response critical response action section should be communications with offsite authorities, annexes (Annexes 1 through 3). convenient to use and understandable at should be fully coordinated and use Information required to support the appropriate skill level. consistent terminology. response actions at facilities with The NRT recommends the use of multiple hazards will likely be checklists or flowcharts wherever Annexes contained in the annexes. Planners at possible to capture these steps in a The annexes are designed to provide facilities with fewer hazards may choose concise easy-to-understand manner. The key supporting information for to include most if not all information in core plan should be constructed to conducting an emergency response the core plan. Other annexes (e.g., contain references to appropriate under the core plan as well as document Annexes 4 through 8) are dedicated to sections of the supporting annexes for compliance with regulatory providing information that is non- more detailed guidance on specific requirements not addressed elsewhere critical at the time of a response (e.g., procedures. The NRT anticipates that in the ICP. Annexes are not meant to cross-references to demonstrate for a large, complex facility with duplicate information that is already regulatory compliance and background multiple hazards the annexes will contained in the core plan, but to planning information). Consistent with contain a significant amount of augment core plan information. The the goal of keeping the size of the ICP information on specific procedures to annexes should relate to the basic Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28645 headings of the core plan. To with external plans, such as LEPC plans requirements of specific regulations accomplish this, the annexes should and Area Contingency Plans (ACPs). when determining what materials to contain sections on facility information, Linkages will also help ensure that the provide an agency for review as it may notification, and a detailed description annexes do not become too not be necessary to submit all parts of of response procedures under the cumbersome. The use of references to an ICP to a particular agency. response management system (i.e, information contained in external plans As discussed previously, this command, operations, planning, does not relieve facilities from guidance contains a series of matrices logistics, and finance). The annexes regulatory requirements to address designed to assist owners and operators should also address issues related to certain elements in a facility-specific in the plan consolidation process and in post accident investigation, incident manner and to have information readily the process of ensuring and history, written follow-up reports, accessible to responders. When documenting compliance with training and exercises, plan critique and determining what information may be regulatory requirements. The matrix in modification process, prevention, and linked by reference and what needs to Attachment 2 to this guidance displays regulatory compliance, as appropriate. be contained in the ICP, response areas of current regulations that align The ICP format contained in this planners should carefully consider the with the suggested elements contained guidance is based on the NIIMS ICS. If time critical nature of the information. in this guidance document. When facility owners or operators choose to If instructions or procedures will be addressing each element of the ICP follow fundamental principles of the needed immediately during an incident outline, plan drafters can refer to this NIIMS ICS, then they may adopt NIIMS response, they should be presented for matrix to identify specific regulatory ICS by reference rather than having to ready access in the ICP. The following requirements related to that element. describe the system in detail in the plan. information would not normally be The matrices in Attachment 3 to this The owner or operator should identify well-suited for reference to documents guidance display regulatory where NIIMS ICS documentation is kept external to the ICP: core plan elements, requirements as contained in each of the at the facility and how it will be facility and locality information (to regulations listed in the NRT policy accessed if needed by the facility or allow for quick reference by responders statement above (which are applicable requested by the reviewing agency. on the layout of the facility and the to many facilities) along with an Regardless of the response management surrounding environment and indication of where in the suggested ICP system used, the plan should include an mitigating actions for the specific outline these requirements should be organization chart, specific job hazard(s) present), notification addressed. If a facility chooses to follow 3 descriptions, a description of procedures, details of response the ICP outline, these matrices can be information flow ensuring liaison with management personnel’s duties, and included as Annex 8 to a facility’s ICP the on-scene coordinator (OSC), and a procedures for establishing the response to provide the necessary cross-reference description of how the selected management system. Although linkages for plan reviewers to document response management system integrates compliance with various regulatory 4 provide the opportunity to utilize with a Unified Command. If a system information developed by other requirements. To the extent that a plan other than NIIMS ICS is used, the plan organizations, facilities should note that deviates from the suggested ICP outline, should also identify how it differs from many LEPC plans and ACPs may not plan drafters will have to alter the NIIMS or provide a detailed description currently possess sufficient detail to be matrices to ensure that the location of of the system used. of use in facility plans or the ICP. This regulatory requirements within the ICP The NRT anticipates that the use of information may need to be developed is clearly identified for plan reviewers. linkages (i.e., references to other plans) by the facility until detailed applicable when developing annexes will serve Integrated Contingency Plan Elements information from broader plans is several purposes. Linkages will facilitate Presented below is a list of elements integration with other emergency plans available. In all cases, referenced materials must to be addressed in the ICP and a brief within a facility (until such plans can be explanation, displayed in italicized text, fully incorporated into the ICP) and be readily available to anticipated plan users. Copies of documents that have of the nature of the information to be contained in that section of the ICP. 3 OPA 90 planning requirements for marine been incorporated by reference need not transfer facilities (33 CFR 154.1035) require job be submitted unless it is required by Attachment 1 presents the complete descriptions for each spill management team regulation. The appropriate sections of outline of the ICP without the member regardless of the response management referenced documents that are unique to explanatory text. As discussed system employed by the facility. previously, the elements are organized 4 Under NIIMS ICS, the command module has the facility, those that are not nationally traditionally been represented by a single incident recognized, those that are required by into three main sections: plan commander (supported by a command staff) who regulation, and those that could not introduction, core plan, and response directs efforts of and receives input from the four annexes. supporting functional areas (planning, logistics, reasonably be expected to be in the operations, and finance). More recently, a Unified possession of the reviewing agency, Section I—Plan Introduction Elements Command System as described in the National Oil should be provided when the plan is and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency submitted for review and/or approval. 1. Purpose and Scope of Plan Coverage Plan (NCP) found at 40 CFR part 300 has been used for larger spill responses where the command Discretion should be used when This section should provide a brief module is comprised of representatives from the submitting documents containing overview of facility operations and federal government (i.e., federal on-scene proprietary data. It is, however, describe in general the physical area, coordinator), state government (state on-scene necessary to identify in the ICP the and nature of hazards or events to coordinator), and the responsible party working in a cooperative manner. Unified Command allows all specific section of the document being which the plan is applicable. This brief parties who have jurisdictional or functional incorporated by reference, where the description will help plan users quickly responsibility for the incident to jointly develop a document is kept, and how it will be assess the relevancy of the plan to a common set of incident objectives and strategies. accessed if needed by the facility or particular type of emergency in a given Such coordination should be guided by procedures found in the NCP (see figure 1a at 40 CFR requested by the reviewing agency. In location. This section should also 300.105(e)(1)) and the applicable Area Contingency addition, facility owners or operators include a list of which regulation(s) are Plan. are reminded to take note of submission being addressed in the ICP. 28646 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

2. Table of Contents including an identification of priorities for response, facilities should This section should clearly identify incident type, hazards involved, perform a hazard assessment using the structure of the plan and include a magnitude of the problem, and resources such as Material Safety Data list of annexes. This will facilitate rapid resources threatened Sheets (MSDSs) or the Chemical Hazard use of the plan during an emergency. d. Procedures for establishment of Response Information System (CHRIS) objectives and priorities for manual. Hazardous Materials 3. Current Revision Date response to the specific incident, Emergency Planning Guide (NRT–1), This section should indicate the date including: developed by the NRT to assist that the plan was last revised to provide (1) Immediate goals/tactical planning community personnel with emergency plan users with information on the (e.g., protection of workers and response planning, provides guidance currency of the plan. More detailed public as priorities) on developing hazard analyses. If a information on plan update history (i.e., (2) Mitigating actions (e.g., discharge/ facility elects to provide detailed hazard a record of amendments) may be release control, containment, and analysis information in a response maintained in Annex 6 (Response recovery, as appropriate) annex, then a reference to that annex Critique and Plan Review and (3) Identification of resources required should be provided in this part of the Modification Process). for response core plan. e. Procedures for implementation of Mitigating actions must be tailored to 4. General Facility Identification tactical plan the type of hazard present. For example, Information f. Procedures for mobilization of containment might be applicable to an a. Facility name resources oil spill (i.e., use of booming strategies) b. Owner/operator/agent (include This section should provide for but would not be relevant to a gas physical and mailing address and activation of the response system release. The plan holder is encouraged phone number) following discovery of the incident. It to develop checklists, flowcharts, and c. Physical address of the facility should include an established 24-hour brief descriptions of actions to be taken (include county/parish/borough, contact point (i.e., that person and to control different types of incidents. latitude/longitude, and directions) alternate who is called to set the Relevant questions to ask in developing d. Mailing address of the facility such materials include: response in motion) and instructions for • (correspondence contact) that person on who to call and what What type of emergency is e. Other identifying information (e.g., ID occurring? critical information to pass. Plan • numbers, SIC Code, oil storage start- drafters should also consider the need What areas/resources have been or up date) will be affected? for bilingual notification. It is important • f. Key contact(s) for plan development Do we need an exclusion zone? to note that different incident types • Is the source under control? and maintenance require that different parties be notified. • g. Phone number(s) for key contact(s) What type of response resources Appropriate federal, State, and local are needed? h. Facility phone number notification requirements should be i. Facility fax number reflected in this section of the ICP. 3. Sustained Actions This section should contain a brief Detailed notification lists may be This section should address the profile of the facility and its key included here or in Annex 2, depending transition of a response from the initial personnel to facilitate rapid upon the variety of notification schemes emergency stage to the sustained action identification of key administrative that a facility may need to implement. stage where more prolonged mitigation information. For example, the release of an extremely and recovery actions progress under a Section II - Core Plan Elements hazardous substance will require more response management structure. The extensive notifications (i.e., to State NRT recognizes that most incidents are 1. Discovery Emergency Response Commissions able to be handled by a few individuals This section should address the initial (SERCs) and LEPCs) than a discharge of without implementing an extensive action the person(s) discovering an oil. Even though no impacts or response management system. This incident will take to assess the problem awareness are anticipated outside the section of the core plan should be brief at hand and access the response system. site, immediate external notifications and rely heavily on references to Recognition, basic assessment, source are required for releases of CERCLA and specific annexes to the ICP. control (as appropriate), and initial EPCRA substances. Again, the use of 4. Termination and Follow-Up Actions notification of proper personnel should forms, such as flowcharts, checklists, be addressed in a manner that can be call-down lists, is recommended. This section should briefly address easily understood by everybody in the This section should instruct personnel the development of a mechanism to facility. The use of checklists or in the implementation of a response ensure that the person in charge of flowcharts is highly recommended. management system for coordinating mitigating the incident can, in the response effort. More detailed coordination with the federal or state 2. Initial Response information on specific components and OSC as necessary, terminate the a. Procedures for internal and external functions of the response management response. In the case of spills, certain notifications (i.e., contact, system (e.g., detailed hazard regulations may become effective once organization name, and phone assessment, resource protection the ‘‘emergency’’ is declared over. The number of facility emergency strategies) may be provided in annexes section should describe how the orderly response coordinator, facility to the ICP. demobilization of response resources response team personnel, federal, This part of the plan should then will occur. In addition, follow-up state, and local officials) provide information on problem actions associated with termination of a b. Establishment of a response assessment, establishment of objectives response (e.g., accident investigation, management system and priorities, implementation of a response critique, plan review, written c. Procedures for preliminary tactical plan, and mobilization of follow-up reports) should also be assessment of the situation, resources. In establishing objectives and outlined in this section. Plan drafters Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28647 may reference appropriate annexes to rapid response. Notification lists (2) Information (i.e., internal and the ICP in this section of the core plan. provided in the core plan need not be external communications). duplicated here but need to be This section of Annex 3 should Section III—Annexes referenced. address how the facility will Annex 1. Facility and Locality disseminate information internally (i.e., Annex 3. Response Management System Information to facility/response employees) and a. Facility maps This annex should contain a general externally (i.e., to the public). For b. Facility drawings description of the facility’s response example, this section might address how c. Facility description/layout, including management system as well as contain the facility would interact with local identification of facility hazards specific information necessary to guide officials to assist with public evacuation and vulnerable resources and or support the actions of each response and other needs. Items to consider in populations on and off the facility management function (i.e., command, developing this section include press which may be impacted by an operations, planning, logistics, and release statement forms, plans for incident finance) during a response. coordination with the news media, This annex should provide detailed a. General community relations plan, needs of information to responders on the layout special populations, and plans for If facility owners or operators choose of the facility and the surrounding families of employees. to follow the fundamental principles of environment. The use of maps and (3) Safety. NIIMS ICS (see discussion of annexes drawings to allow for quick reference is This section of Annex 3 should above), then they may adopt NIIMS ICS preferable to detailed written include a process for ensuring the safety by reference rather than having to descriptions. These should contain of responders. Facilities should describe the response management information critical to the response such reference responsibilities of the safety system in detail in the plan. In this as the location of discharge sources, officer, federal/state requirements (e.g., section of Annex 3, planners should emergency shut-off valves and response HAZWOPER), and safety provisions of briefly address either 1) basic areas equipment, and nearby environmentally the ACP. Procedures for protecting where their response management and economically sensitive resources facility personnel should be addressed system is at variance with NIIMS ICS or and human populations (e.g., nursing (i.e., evacuation signals and routes, 2) how the facility’s organization fits homes, hospitals, schools). The ACP sheltering in place). into the NIIMS ICS structure. This may and LEPC plan may provide specific (4) Liaison—Staff Mobilization. be accomplished through a simple information on sensitive environments This section of Annex 3 should organizational diagram. and populations in the area. EPA address the process by which the If facility owners or operators choose Regional Offices, Coast Guard Marine internal and external emergency not to adopt the fundamental principles Safety Offices, and LEPCs can provide response teams will interact. Given that of NIIMS ICS, this section should information on the status of efforts to parallel mobilization may be occurring describe in detail the structure of the identify such resources. Plan holders by various response groups, the process facility response management system. may need to provide additional detail of integration (i.e., unified command) Regardless of the response management on sensitive areas near the facility. In should be addressed. This includes a system used, this section of the annex addition, this annex should contain process for communicating with local should include the following other facility information that is critical emergency management especially information: to response and should complement but where safety of the general public is • Organizational chart; concerned. not duplicate information contained in • part 4 of the plan introduction section Specific job description for each position; 5 c. Operations containing administrative information • on the facility. A detailed description of (1) Operational response objectives information flow; and (2) Discharge or release control Annex 2. Notification • Description of the formation of a (3) Assessment/monitoring a. Internal notifications unified command within the response (4) Containment b. Community notifications management system. (5) Recovery (6) Decontamination c. Federal and state agency notifications b. Command This annex should detail the process (7) Non-responder medical needs, of making people aware of an incident (1) List facility Incident Commander including information on (i.e., who to call, when the call must be and Qualified Individual (if applicable) ambulances and hospitals made, and what information/data to by name and/or title and provide (8) Salvage plans provide on the incident). The incident information on their authorities and This section of Annex 3 should commander is responsible for ensuring duties. contain a discussion of specific that notifications are carried out in a This section of Annex 3 should operational procedures to respond to an timely manner but is not necessarily describe the command aspects of the incident. It is important to note that responsible for making the notifications. response management system that will response operations are driven by the ACPs, Regional Contingency Plans be used (i.e., reference NIIMS ICS or type of incident. That is, a response to (RCPs), and LEPC plans should be detail the facility’s response an oil spill will differ markedly from a consulted and referenced as a source of management system). The location(s) of response to a release of a toxic gas to information on the roles and predesignated command posts should the air. Plan drafters should tailor responsibilities of external parties that also be identified. response procedures to the particular are to be contacted. This information is hazards in place at the facility. A important to help company responders 5 OPA 90 planning requirements for marine facility with limited hazards may have transfer facilities (33 CFR 154.1035) require job understand how external response descriptions for each spill management team relatively few procedures. A larger more officials fit into the picture. Call-down member regardless of the response management complex facility with numerous hazards lists must be readily accessible to ensure system employed by the facility. is likely to have a series of procedures 28648 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices designed to address the nuances response organization working for the included. Information on previously associated with each type of incident. federal OSC. A key area to address is established agreements (e.g., contracts) interaction with facility response with organizations supplying personnel d. Planning personnel in protection of natural and equipment (e.g., oil spill removal (1) Hazard assessment, including resources. organizations) also should be included. facility hazards identification, Natural resource trustees are also This section should also address vulnerability analysis, prioritization of responsible to act on behalf of the methods to account for resources potential risks. public to present a claim for and recover expended and to process claims This section of Annex 3 should damages to natural resources injured by resulting from the incident. present a detailed assessment of all an oil spill or hazardous substance Annex 4. Incident Documentation potential hazards present at the facility, release. The process followed by the an analysis of vulnerable receptors (e.g., natural resource trustees, natural a. Post accident investigation human populations, both workers and resource damage assessment (NRDA), b. Incident history the general public, environmentally generally involves some data collection This annex should describe the sensitive areas, and other facility- during emergency response. NRDA company’s procedures for conducting a specific concerns) and a discussion of regulations provide that the process follow-up investigation of the cause of which risks deserve primary may be carried out in cooperation with the accident, including coordination consideration during an incident. NRT– the responsible party. Thus, the facility with federal, State, and local officials. 1 contains guidance on conducting a may wish to plan for how that This annex should also contain an hazard analysis. Also, ACPs and LEPC cooperation will occur, including accounting of incidents that have plans may provide information on designation of personnel to work with occurred at the facility, including environmentally sensitive and trustees in NRDA. information on cause, amount released, economically important areas, human (4) Waste management. resources impacted, injuries, response populations, and protection priorities. This section should address actions, etc. This annex should also Plan drafters should address the full include information that may be range of risks present at the facility. By procedures for the disposal of contaminated materials in accordance required to prove that the facility met its covering actions necessary to respond to legal notification requirements with a range of incident types, plan holders with federal, state, and local requirements. respect to a given incident, such as a can be prepared for small, operational signed record of initial notifications and discharges and large catastrophic e. Logistics (1) Medical needs of responders certified copies of written follow-up releases. One approach that is required (2) Site security reports submitted after a response. by certain regulations, such as the Clean (3) Communications (internal and Air Act (CAA) and OPA is to develop Annex 5. Training and Exercises/Drills external resources) planning scenarios for certain types and (4) Transportation (air, land, water) This annex should contain a sizes of releases (i.e., worst case (5) Personnel support (e.g., meals, description of the training and exercise discharge). Facilities may address such housing, equipment) program conducted at the facility as planning scenarios and associated (6) Equipment maintenance and well as evidence (i.e., logs) that required calculations in this section of Annex 3 support training and exercises have been or as part of a separate annex conducted on a regular basis. Facilities This section of the Annex 3 should depending on the size and complexity of may follow appropriate training or address how the facility will provide for the facility. exercise guidelines (e.g., National the operational needs of response (2) Protection Preparedness for Response Exercise operations in each of the areas listed This section of Annex 3 should Program Guidelines) as allowed under above. For example, the discussion of present a discussion of strategies for the various regulatory requirements. protecting the vulnerable receptors personnel support should address issues identified through the hazard analysis. such as: volunteer training; Annex 6. Response Critique and Plan Primary consideration should be given management; overnight Review and Modification Process to minimizing those risks identified as a accommodations; meals; operational/ This annex should describe high priority. Activities to be considered administrative spaces; and emergency procedures for modifying the plan based in developing this section include: procedures. The NRT recognizes that on periodic plan review or lessons population protection; protective certain logistical considerations may not learned through an exercise or a booming; dispersant use, in-situ be applicable to small facilities with response to an actual incident. burning, bioremediation; water intake limited hazards. Procedures to critique an actual or protection; wildlife recovery/ f. Finance/procurement/administration simulated response should be a part of rehabilitation; natural remediation; (1) Resource list this discussion. A list of plan vapor suppression; and monitoring, (2) Personnel management amendments (i.e., history of updates) sampling, and modeling. ACPs and (3) Response equipment should also be contained in this annex. LEPC plans may contain much of this (4) Support equipment Plan modification should be viewed as information. (5) Contracting a part of a facility’s continuous (3) Coordination with natural resource (6) Claims procedures improvement process. trustees. (7) Cost documentation This section should address This section of Annex 3 should Annex 7. Prevention coordination with government natural address the acquisition of resources Some federal regulations that resource trustees. In their role as (i.e., personnel and equipment) for the primarily address prevention of managers of and experts in natural response and monitoring of incident- accidents include elements that relate to resources, trustees assist the federal related costs. Lists of available contingency planning (e.g., EPA’s RMP OSC in developing or selecting removal equipment in the local and regional and SPCC regulations and OSHA’s actions to protect these resources. In area and how to procure such Process Safety Standard). This annex is this role, they serve as part of the equipment as necessary should be designed to allow facilities to include Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28649 prevention-based requirements (e.g., d. Mailing address of the facility (1) List facility Incident Commander and maintenance, testing, in-house (correspondence contact) Qualified Individual (if applicable) by inspections, release detection, site e. Other identifying information (e.g., ID name and/or title and provide security, containment, fail safe numbers, SIC Code, oil storage start-up information on their authorities and date) duties engineering) that are required in f. Key contact(s) for plan development and contingency planning regulations or (2) Information (i.e., internal and external maintenance communications) that have the potential to impact g. Phone number for key contact(s) (3) Safety response activities covered in a h. Facility phone number (4) Liaison—Staff mobilization contingency plan. The modular nature i. Facility fax number c. Operations of the suggested plan outline provides Section II—Core Plan Elements (1) Operational response objectives planners with necessary flexibility to 1. Discovery (2) Discharge or release control include prevention requirements in the 2. Initial Response (3) Assessment/monitoring ICP. This annex may not need to be a. Procedures for internal and external (4) Containment submitted to regulatory agencies for notifications (i.e., contact, organization (5) Recovery review. name, and phone number of facility (6) Decontamination emergency response coordinator, facility (7) Non-responder medical needs including Annex 8. Regulatory Compliance and response team personnel, federal, state, Cross-Reference Matrices information on ambulances and and local officials) hospitals This annex should include b. Establishment of a response management (8) Salvage plans system information necessary for plan d. Planning c. Procedures for preliminary assessment of reviewers to determine compliance with (1) Hazard assessment, including facility the situation, including an identification specific regulatory requirements. To the of incident type, hazards involved, hazards identification, vulnerability extent that plan drafters did not include magnitude of the problem, and resources analysis, prioritization of potential risks regulatory required elements in the threatened (2) Protection balance of the ICP, they should be d. Procedures for establishment of (3) Coordination with natural resource addressed in this annex. This annex objectives and priorities for response to trustees should also include signatory pages to the specific incident, including: (4) Waste management convey management approval and (1) Immediate goals/tactical planning (e.g., e. Logistics certifications required by the protection of workers and public as (1) Medical needs of responders priorities) regulations, such as certification of (2) Site security (2) Mitigating actions (e.g., discharge/ (3) Communications (internal and external adequate response resources and/or release control, containment, and resources) statements of regulatory applicability as recovery, as appropriate) (4) Transportation (air, land, water) required by regulations under OPA (3) Identification of resources required for (5) Personnel support (e.g., meals, housing, authority. Finally, this annex should response equipment) e. Procedures for implementation of contain cross-references that indicate (6) Equipment maintenance and support tactical plan where specific regulatory requirements f. Finance/procurement/administration are addressed in the ICP for each f. Procedure for mobilization of resources 3. Sustained Actions (1) Resource list regulation covered under the plan. As 4. Termination and Follow-Up Actions (2) Personnel management discussed previously, Attachment 3 (3) Response equipment contains a series of matrices designed to Section III-Annexes (4) Support equipment fulfill this need in those instances where Annex 1. Facility and Locality Information (5) Contracting plan drafters adhere to the outline a. Facility maps (6) Claims procedures contained in this guidance. b. Facility drawings (7) Cost documentation c. Facility description/layout, including Annex 4. Incident Documentation Attachment 1—ICP Outline identification of facility hazards and a. Post accident investigation Section I—Plan Introduction Elements vulnerable resources and populations on b. Incident history and off the facility which may be impacted 1. Purpose and Scope of Plan Coverage Annex 5. Training and Exercises/Drills 2. Table of Contents by an incident 3. Current Revision Date Annex 2. Notification Annex 6. Response Critique and Plan Review 4. General Facility Identification Information a. Internal notifications and Modification Process a. Facility name b. Community notifications Annex 7. Prevention b. Owner/operator/agent (include physical c. Federal and state agency notifications and mailing address and phone number) Annex 3. Response Management System Annex 8. Regulatory Compliance and Cross- c. Physical address of the facility (include Reference Matrices county/parish/borough, latitude/ a. General longitude, and directions) b. Command BILLING CODE 6560±50±P 28650 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28651 28652 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28653 28654 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28655 28656 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

BILLING CODE 6560±50±C Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28657

ATTACHMENT 3: REGULATORY CROSS-COMPARISON MATRICES

ICP Citation(s)

RCRA (40 CFR Part 264 Subpart D 1, 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart D 2, 40 CFR Part 279.52(b) 3)

264.52 Content of contingency plan: (a) Emergency response actions.4 (b) Amendments to SPCC plan. (c) Coordination with State and local response parties 5 ...... II.2.b;III.3.a. (d) Emergency coordinator(s) ...... II.2.a; III.2. (e) Detailed description of emergency equipment on-site ...... II.2.d.(3); II.2.e; II.2.f; III.3.f.(1); III.3.f.(3); III.3.f.(4). (f) Evacuation plan if applicable ...... III.3.b.(3). 264.53 Copies of contingency plan. 264.54 Amendment of contingency plan ...... III.6. 264.55 Emergency coordinator ...... II.2.a; III.3.b.(1). 264.56 Emergency procedures: (a) Notification ...... II.2.a; III.2; III.3.b.(2). (b) Emergency identification/characterization ...... II.2.c; III.3.c.(3). (c) Health/environmental assessment ...... II.2.c; III.3.c.(3). (d) Reporting ...... II.2.a; III.2; III.3.c.(3). (e) Containment ...... III.3.c.(2); III.3.c.(4). (f) Monitoring ...... III.3.b.(3); III.3.c.(3). (g) Treatment, storage, or disposal of wastes ...... III.3.d.(4). (h) Cleanup procedures:. (1) Disposal ...... III.3.d.(4). (2) Decontamination ...... III.3.c.(6). (i) Follow-up procedures ...... II.4. (j) Follow-up report ...... III.4.a. 265.52 Content of contingency plan: (a) Emergency response actions.6 (b) Amendments to SPCC plan. (c) Coordination with State and local response parties 7 ...... II.2.b; III.3.a. (d) Emergency coordinator(s) ...... II.2.a; III.2. (e) Detailed description of emergency equipment on-site ...... II.2.d.(3); II.2.e; II.2.f; III.3.f.(1); III.3.f.(3); III.3.f.(4). (f) Evacuation plan if applicable ...... III.3.b.(3). 265.53 Copies of contingency plan. 265.54 Amendment of contingency plan ...... III.6. 265.55 Emergency coordinator ...... II.2.a; III.3.b.(1). 265.56 Emergency procedures: (a) Notification ...... II.2.a; III.2; III.3.b.(2). (b) Emergency identification/characterization ...... II.2.c; III.3.c.(3). (c) Health/environmental assessment ...... II.2.c; III.3.c.(3). (d) Reporting ...... II.2.a; III.2; III.3.c.(3). (e) Containment ...... III.3.c.(2); III.3.c.(4). (f) Monitoring ...... III.3.b.(3); III.3.c.(3). (g) Treatment, storage, or disposal of wastes ...... III.3.d.(4). (h) Cleanup procedures: (1) Disposal ...... III.3.d.(4). (2) Decontamination ...... III.3.c.(6). (i) Follow-up procedures ...... II.4. (j) Follow-up report ...... III.4.a. 279.52(b)(2) Content of contingency plan: (i) Emergency response actions 8 (ii) Amendments to SPCC plan. (iii) Coordination with State and local response parties 9 ...... II.2.b; III.3.a. (iv) Emergency coordinator(s) ...... II.2.a; III.2. (v) Detailed description of emergency equipment on-site ...... II.2.d.(3); II.2.e; II.2.f; III.3.f.(1); III.3.f.(3); III.3.f(4). (vi) Evacuation plan if applicable ...... III.3.b.(3). (3) Copies of contingency plan. (4) Amendment of contingency plan ...... III.6. (5) Emergency coordinator ...... II.2.a; III.3.b.(1). (6) Emergency procedures: (i) Notification ...... II.2.a; III.2; III.3.b.(2). (ii) Emergency identification/characterization ...... II.2.c; III.3.c.(3). (iii) Health/environmental assessment ...... II.2.c; III.3.c.(3). (iv) Reporting ...... II.2.a; III.2; III.3.c.(3). (v) Containment ...... III.3.c.(2); III.3.c.(4). (vi) Monitoring ...... III.3.b.(3); III.3.c.(3). (vii) Treatment, storage, or disposal of wastes ...... III.3.d.(4). (viii) Cleanup procedures: (A) Disposal ...... III.3.d.(4). (B) Decontamination ...... III.3.c.(6). 28658 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

ATTACHMENT 3: REGULATORY CROSS-COMPARISON MATRICESÐContinued

ICP Citation(s)

(ix) Follow-up report ...... III.4.a.

EPA's Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation (40 CFR 112)

112.7(d)(1) Strong spill contingency plan and written commitment of manpower, equipment, and materials.10,11 112.20(g) General response planning requirements ...... III.3.d.(3); III.6. 112.20(h) Response plan elements ...... I.2; III.8. (1) Emergency response action plan (Appendix F1.1): (i) Identity and telephone number of qualified individual (F1.2.5) ...... III.3.b.(1). (ii) Identity of individuals/organizations to contact if there is a discharge (F1.3.1) ...... III.2. (iii) Description of information to pass to response personnel in event of a reportable II.2.a. spill (F1.3). (iv) Description of facility's response equipment and its location (F1.3.2) ...... II.2.d.(3); III.3.e.(3); III.3.e.(6); III.3.f.(1); III.3.f.(3). (v) Description of response personnel capabilities (F1.3.4) ...... II.2.b; III.3; III.3.e.(5); III.3.f.(2); (vi) Plans for evacuation of the facility and a reference to community evacuation plans III.3.b.(3); III.3.e.(5) (F1.3.5). (vii) Description of immediate measures to secure the source (F1.7.1) ...... II.2.d.(2); III.3.c.(2); III.3.c.(4). (viii) Diagram of the facility (F1.9) ...... III.1.a±b. (2) Facility information (F1.2, F2.0) ...... I.4.b±d; III.1. (3) Information about emergency responses: (i) Identity of private personnel and equipment to remove to the maximum extent prac- III.3.c.(2); III.3.c.(4)±(5); III.3.e.(5). ticable a WCD or other discharges (F1.3.2, F1.3.4). (ii) Evidence of contracts or other approved means for ensuring personnel and equip- III.3.e.(5); III.3.f.(5) ment availability. (iii) Identity and telephone of individuals/organizations to be contacted in event of a II.2.a; III.2.b±d; III.3.b.(2). discharge (F1.3.1). (iv) Description of information to pass to response personnel in event of a reportable II.2.a. spill (F1.3.1). (v) Description of response personnel capabilities (F1.3.4) ...... II.2.b; III.3; III.3.e.(5); III.3.f.(2). (vi) Description of a facility's response equipment, location of the equipment, and II.2.d.(3); III.3.e.(3); III.3.e.(6); III.3.f.(1); equipment testing (F1.3.2, F1.3.3). III.3.f.(3). (vii) Plans for evacuation of the facility and a reference to community evacuation plans III.3.b.(3); III.3.e.(5). as appropriate (F1.3.5). (viii) Diagram of evacuation routes (F1.9)...... III.3.b.(3). (ix) Duties of the qualified individual (F1.3.6) ...... II.2.c; II.2.d.(1); I.2.e; III.2.b±c; III.3.c.(3); III.3.d.(1); III.3.f. (4) Hazard evaluation (F1.4) ...... II.2.c; III.3.d.(1); III.4.b. (5) Response planning levels (F1.5, F1.5.1, F1.5.2) ...... II.3.d.(1). (6) Discharge detection systems (F1.6, F1.6.1, F1.6.2) ...... II.1. (7) Plan implementation (F1.7) ...... II.2.d±f; II.3; II.4. (i) Response actions to be carried out (F1.7.1.1) ...... II.2; III.3.d.(2). (ii) Description of response equipment to be used for each scenario (F1.7.1.1) ...... III.3.d.(1). (iii) Plans to dispose of contaminated cleanup materials (F1.7.2) ...... III.3.c.(5)±(6) (iv) Measures to provide adequate containment and drainage of spilled oil (F1.7.3) ...... III.3.c.(2); III.3.c.(4); III.3.d.(2); III.3.d.(4). (8) Self-inspection, drills/exercises, and response training (F1.8.1±F1.8.3.2) ...... III.3.e.(6); III.5. (9) Diagrams (F1.9) ...... III.1.b. (10) Security systems (F1.10) ...... III.3.e.(2). (11) Response plan cover sheet (F2.0). 112.21 Facility response training and drills/exercises (F1.8.2, F1.8.3) ...... III.5. Appendix F Facility-Specific Response Plan: 12 I.2. 1.0 Model Facility-Specific Response Plan. 1.1 Emergency Response Action Plan. 1.2 Facility Information ...... I.3; I.4.a; I.4.b±c; I.4.h; II.2.a; III.1. 1.3 Emergency Response Information: 1.3.1 Notification ...... II.2.a; III.2.a±c. 1.3.2 Response Equipment List ...... II.2.d.(3); III.3.e.(3); III.3.f.(1); III.3.f.(3)±(4). 1.3.3 Response Equipment Testing/Deployment ...... III.3.e.(6). 1.3.4 Personnel ...... II.2.b; III.3; III.3.f.(2). 1.3.5 Evacuation Plans ...... III.3.b.(3); III.3.e.(5). 1.3.6 Qualified Individual's Duties ...... II.2. 1.4 Hazard Evaluation ...... II.2.c. 1.4.1 Hazard Identification ...... III.1.c; III.3.d.(1). 1.4.2 Vulnerability Analysis ...... II.2.c; III.3.d.(1). 1.4.3 Analysis of the Potential for an Oil Spill ...... III.3.d.(1). 1.4.4 Facility Reportable Oil Spill History ...... III.4.b. 1.5 Discharge Scenarios: 1.5.1 Small and Medium Discharges ...... III.3.d.(1). 1.5.2 Worst Case Discharge ...... III.3.d.(1). 1.6 Discharge Detection Systems: 1.6.1 Discharge Detection By Personnel ...... II.1. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28659

ATTACHMENT 3: REGULATORY CROSS-COMPARISON MATRICESÐContinued

ICP Citation(s)

1.6.2 Automated Discharge Detection ...... II.1. 1.7 Plan Implementation ...... II.2. 1.7.1 Response Resources for Small, Medium, and Worst Case Spills ...... II.2.d.(3); II.2.f; III.3.c.(3); III.3.d.(2); III.3.f.(1); III.3.f.(3)±(4). 1.7.2 Disposal Plans ...... III.3.c.(5)±(6); III.3.d.(4). 1.7.3 Containment and Drainage Planning ...... II.2.d; III.3.c.(4); III.3.d.(2). 1.8 Self-Inspection, Drills/Exercises, and Response Training: 1.8.1 Facility Self-Inspection ...... III.3.e.(6). 1.8.2 Facility Drills/Exercises ...... III.5. 1.8.3 Response Training ...... III.5. 1.9 Diagrams ...... I.4; III.1.a±c. 1.10 Security ...... III.3.e.(2). 2.0 Response Plan Cover Sheet ...... I.4.b; I.4.c; I.4.h; III.1.

USCG FRP (33 CFR part 154)

154.1026 Qualified individual and alternate qualified individual ...... lI.2.a; III.3.b.(1). 154.1028 Availability of response resources by contract or other approved means ...... III.3.f or III.8; III.3.f.(5). 154.1029 Worst case discharge ...... III.3.d.(1). 154.1030 General response plan contents:. (a) The plan must be written in English. (b) Organization of the plan 13 ...... I.2. (c) Required contents. (d) Sections submitted to COTP. (e) Cross-references ...... III.8. (f) Consistency with NCP and ACPs ...... III.3.d.(3). 154.1035 Significant and substantial harm facilities: (a) Introduction and plan content ...... III.1. (1) Facility's name, physical and mailing address, county, telephone, and fax ...... I.4.a; I.4.c±d; I.4.h±i (2) Description of a facility's location in a manner that could aid in locating the facility I.4.c. (3) Name, address, and procedures for contacting the owner/operator on 24-hour I.4.b; II.2.a basis. (4) Table of contents ...... I.2. (5) Cross index, if appropriate ...... III.8. (6) Record of change(s) to record information on plan updates ...... I.3; III.6. (b) Emergency Response Action Plan: (1) Notification procedures: (i) Prioritized list identifying person(s), including name, telephone number, and II.2.a; III.2.a±c. role in plan, to be notified in event of threat or actual discharge. (ii) Information to be provided in initial and follow-up notifications to federal, state, III.3.b; III.2.a±c. and local agencies. (2) Facility's spill mitigation procedures 14 ...... II.2.d.(2); III.3.c.(2). (i) Volume(s) of persistent and non-persistent oil groups. (ii) Prioritized procedures/task delegation to mitigate or prevent a potential or ac- II.2. tual discharge or emergencies involving certain equipment/scenarios. (iii) List of equipment and responsibilities of facility personnel to mitigate an aver- II.2.e±f; III.3.f.(3); III.3.c.(1)±(5). age most probable discharge. (3) Facility response activities 15 ...... II.2.c; II.2.e±f; II.3; II.4; III.3.c.(3). (i) Description of facility personnel's responsibilities to initiate/supervise response II.1; II.2. until arrival of qualified individual. (ii) Qualified individual's responsibilities/authority ...... II.2. (iii) Facility or corporate organizational structure used to manage response actions II.2.b; II.3; III.3.a; III.3.b.(2)±(4); III.3.c; III.3.d.(1); III.3.e±f. (iv) Oil spill response organization(s)/spill management team available by contract II.2.d.(3); III.3.c.(4)±(5); III.3.e.(6); III.3.f.(1)±(2); or other approved means. III.3.f.(5). (v) For mobile facilities that operate in more than one COTP, the oil spill response II.2.d.(3). organization(s)/spill management team in the applicable geographic-specific ap- pendix. (4) Fish and wildlife sensitive environments ...... III.1.c; III.3.d.(1)±(2). (i) Areas of economic importance and environmental sensitivity as identified in the II.2.c. ACP that are potentially impacted by a WCD. (ii) List areas and provide maps/charts and describe response actions. (iii) Equipment and personnel necessary to protect identified areas ...... II.2.e±f; III.3.f.(3); III.3.c.(1)±(5). (5) Disposal plan ...... III.3.d.(4). (c) Training and exercises ...... III.5. (d) Plan review and update procedures ...... III.6. (e) Appendices ...... I.4.c; III.1.b. (1) Facility specific information ...... III.1. (2) List of contacts ...... II.2.a; III.2.a±c; III.3.b.(1). (3) Equipment lists and records ...... III.3.e.(3); III.3.e.(6); III.3.f.(1); III.3.f.(3)±(5). (4) Communications plan ...... III.3.b.(2). (5) Site-specific safety and health plan ...... III.3.b.(3); III.3.c.(7); III.3.e. (1). 28660 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

ATTACHMENT 3: REGULATORY CROSS-COMPARISON MATRICESÐContinued

ICP Citation(s)

(6) List of acronyms and definitions. (7) A geographic-specific appendix. 154.1040 Specific requirements for substantial harm facilities. 154.1041 Specific response information to be maintained on mobile MTR facilities. 154.1045 Groups I±IV petroleum oils. 154.1047 Group V petroleum oils. 154.1050 Training ...... III.5. 154.1055 Drills ...... III.5. 154.1057 Inspection and maintenance of response resources ...... III.3.e.(6). 154.1060 Submission and approval procedures. 154.1065 Plan revision and amendment procedures ...... III.6. 154.1070 Deficiencies. 154.1075 Appeal Process. Appendix CÐGuidelines for determining and evaluating required response resources for facility III.3.f.(3). response plans. Appendix DÐTraining elements for oil spill response plans ...... III.5.

DOT/RSPA FRP (49 CFR Part 194)

194.101 Operators required to submit plans. 194.103 Significant and substantial harm: operator's statement ...... III.8. 194.105 Worst case discharge ...... III.3.d.(1). 194.107 General response plan requirements: (a) Resource planning requirements ...... III.3.d. (b) Language requirements. (c) Consistency with NCP and ACP(s) ...... III.3.d.(3); III.8. (d) Each response plan must include: (1) Core Plan Contents: (i) An information summary as required in 194.113 ...... I.4; III.1. 194.113(a) Core plan information summary: (1) Name and address of operator ...... I.4.b; I.4.d. (2) Description of each response zone ...... I.4.c. (b) Response zone appendix information summary: (1) Core plan information summary I.4; III.1. (2) Name∧O∧S∧A∧A∧O Submission and approval procedures ...... III.6. 194.121 Response plan review and update procedures ...... III.6. ∧Apendix∧S∧A∧Aecommended guidelines for the preparation of response plans ...... I.2. Section 1ÐInformation summary ...... I.4.b±c; II.2.a; II.2.f; III.8. Section 2ÐNotification procedures ...... II.2.a; III.2; III.3.b.(2); III.3.e.(3). Section 3ÐSpill detection and on-scene spill mitigation procedures ...... II.1; II.2.e±f; III.3.c.(2). Section 4ÐResponse activities ...... II.2.b; III.3.b.(1). Section 5ÐList of contacts ...... II.2.a. Section 6ÐTraining procedures ...... III.5. Section 7ÐDrill procedures ...... III.5. Section 8ÐResponse plan review and update procedures ...... III.6. Section 9ÐResponse zone appendices ...... II.2.b; II.3; III.1.a±c; III.3.

OSHA Emergency Action Plans (29 CFR 1910.38(a)) and Process Safety (29 CFR 1910.119)

1910.38(a) Emergency action plan: (1) Scope and applicability ...... III.3.c.(1); III.3.d. (2) Elements: (i) Emergency escape procedures and emergency escape route assignments ...... II.2; II.2.c; III.3.b.(3); III.3.c. (ii) Procedures to be followed by employees who remain to operate critical plant oper- II.2; II.2.c; II.2.e; III.3.c. ations before they evacuate. (iii) Procedures to account for all employees after emergency evacuation has been II.2.a; III.3.b.(2); III.3.b.(3); III.3.c; III.4. completed. (iv) Rescue and medical duties for those employees who are to perform them ...... III.3.b.(3); III.3.c; III.3.c.(7); III.3.e.(1). (v) The preferred means of reporting fires and other emergencies ...... II.2.a; III.3.b. (vi) Names or regular job titles of persons or departments who can be contacted for I.4.f; II.2.a; III.3.b.(2); III.3.b.(4). further information or explanation of duties under the plan. (3) Alarm system 16 ...... II.2.a; III.3.c.(3); III.3.e.(3). (4) Evacuation ...... II.2.d; III.3.b.(3); III.3.c.(3); III.3.d; III.3.d.(1). (5) Training ...... III.3.e.(5); III.5. 1910.119 Process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals: (e)(3)(ii) Investigation of previous incidents ...... III.4; III.4.b. (e)(3)(iii) Process hazard analysis requirements ...... III.3.e.(3). (g)(1)(i) Employee training in process/operating procedures ...... III.5. (j)(4) Inspection/testing of process equipment ...... III.3.e.(6). (j)(5) Equipment repair ...... III.3.e.(6). (l) Management of change(s) ...... III.5. (m) Incident investigation ...... III.4.a. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28661

ATTACHMENT 3: REGULATORY CROSS-COMPARISON MATRICESÐContinued

ICP Citation(s)

(n) Emergency planning and response ...... I.1; II.1; II.2; II.2.d; III.2; III.2.a; III.2.b. (o)(1) Certification of compliance ...... III.6. 1910.165 Employee alarm systems: (b) General requirements ...... III.3.e.(3). (b)(1) Purpose of alarm system ...... III.2; III.2.a. (b)(4) Preferred means of reporting emergencies ...... III.2. (d) Maintenance and testing ...... III.3.e.(6). 1910.272 Grain handling facilities: (d) Development/implementation of emergency action plan ...... I.1; III.2.

OSHA HAZWOPER (29 CFR 1910.120)

1910.120(k) Decontamination ...... III.3.c.(6). 1910.120(l) Emergency response program ...... I.1. (1) Emergency response plan: (i) An emergency response plan shall be developed and implemented by all employers within the scope of this section to handle anticipated emergencies prior to the com- mencement of hazardous waste operations. (ii) Employers who will evacuate their employees from the workplace when an emer- gency occurs, and who do not permit any of their employees to assist in handling the emergency, are exempt from the requirements of this paragraph if they provide an emergency action plan complying with section 1910.38(a) of this part. (2) Elements of an emergency response plan: (i) Pre-emergency planning and coordination with outside parties ...... I.4.f; II.2.b; II.2.c; III.2.b; III.2.c; III.3.b.(4); III.3.d. (ii) Personnel roles, lines of authority, and communication ...... I.4.f; II.2.b; III.2.a; III.2.c; III.3.b.(4); III.3.e.(4). (iii) Emergency recognition and prevention ...... II.1; III.7. (iv) Safe distances and places of refuge ...... III.3.b.(3); III.3.d.(2). (v) Site security and control ...... III.3.d.(2); III.3.e.(2). (vi) Evacuation routes and procedures ...... II.2.d; III.3.b.(3) (vii) Decontamination procedures ...... III.3.c.(6). (viii) Emergency medical treatment and response procedures ...... II.2.d; III.3.c.(7); III.3.e.(1). (ix) Emergency alerting and response procedures ...... II.2; II.2.a; II.2.f; II.4; III.2; III.2.a; III.2.b; III.2.c; III.3.d. (x) Critique of response and follow-up ...... II.3; III.4; III.4.a; III.6. (xi) PPE and emergency equipment ...... III.3.e.(6); III.3.f.(3); III.3.d.(2); III.3.e.(6); III.3.f.(3). (3) Procedures for handling emergency incidents: (i) Additional elements of emergency response plans: (A) Site topography, layout, and prevailing weather conditions ...... III.1.c. (B) Procedures for reporting incidents to local, state, and federal government II.2.a; III.2. agencies. (ii) The emergency response plan shall be a separate section of the Site Safety and Health Plan. (iii) The emergency response plan shall be compatible with the disaster, fire, and/or III.3.e. emergency response plans of local, state, and federal agencies. (iv) The emergency response plan shall be rehearsed regularly as part of the overall III.5. training program for site operations. (v) The site emergency response plan shall be reviewed periodically and, as nec- essary, be amended to keep it current with new or changing site conditions or infor- mation. (vi) An employee alarm system shall be installed in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.165 to notify employees of an emergency situation; to stop work activities if necessary; to lower background noise in order to speed communications; and to begin emer- gency procedures. (vii) Based upon the information available at time of the emergency, the employer II.2.c; II.2.d. shall evaluate the incident and the site response capabilities and proceed with the appropriate steps to implement the site emergency response plan. 1910.120(p)(8) Emergency response program: I.1 (i) Emergency response plan. (ii) Elements of an emergency response plan: (A) Pre-emergency planning and coordination with outside parties ...... I.4.f; II.2.b; II.2.b; III.2.b; III.2.c; III.3.b.(4); III.3.d. (B) Personnel roles, lines of authority, and communication ...... I.4.f; II.2.b; III.2.c; III.2.c; III.3.b.(4); III.3.e.(4). (C) Emergency recognition and prevention ...... II.1; III.7 (D) Safe distances and places of refuge ...... III.3.b.(3); III.3.d.(2) (E) Site security and control ...... III.3.d.(2); III.3.e.(2) (F) Evacuation routes and procedures ...... II.2.d; III.3.b.(3). (G) Decontamination procedures ...... III.3.c.(6). (H) Emergency medical treatment and response procedures ...... II.2.d; III.3.c.(7); III.3.e.(1). (I) Emergency alerting and response procedures ...... II.2; II.2.a; II.2.f; II.4; III.2; III.2.a; III.2.b; III.2.c; III.3.d. 28662 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

ATTACHMENT 3: REGULATORY CROSS-COMPARISON MATRICESÐContinued

ICP Citation(s)

(J) Critique of response and follow-up ...... II.3; III.4; III.4.a; III.6. (K) PPE and emergency equipment ...... III.3.e.(6); III.3.f.(3); III.3.d.(2); III.3.e.(6); III.3.f.(3). (iii) Training ...... III.5. (iv) Procedures for handling emergency incidents: (A) Additional elements of emergency response plans: (1) Site topography, layout, and prevailing weather conditions ...... III.1.c; III.3.d.(1). (2) Procedures for reporting incidents to local, state, and federal government II.2.a; III.2. agencies. (B) The emergency response plan shall be compatible and integrated with the disas- III.3.e. ter, fire and/or emergency response plans of local, state, and federal agencies. (C) The emergency response plan shall be rehearsed regularly as part of the overall training program for site operations. (D) The site emergency response plan shall be reviewed periodically and, as nec- essary, be amended to keep it current with new or changing site conditions or infor- mation. (E) An employee alarm system shall be installed in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.165. (F) Based upon the information available at the time of the emergency, the employer II.2.d; II.2.e; III.3.d.(1). shall evaluate the incident and the site response capabilities and proceed with the appropriate steps to implement the site emergency response plan 1910.120(q) Emergency response to hazardous substance releases: (1) Emergency response plan ...... III.3.1. (2) Elements of an emergency response plan: (i) Pre-emergency planning and coordination with outside parties ...... I.4.f; II.2.b; II.2.c; III.2.b; III.2.c; III.3.b.(4); III.3.d. (ii) Personnel roles, lines of authority, training, and communication ...... I.4.f; II.2.b; III.2.b; III.2.c; III.3.b.(4); III.3.e.(4). (iii) Emergency recognition and prevention ...... II.1; III.7. (iv) Safe distances and places of refuge ...... III.3.b.(3); III.3.d.(2). (v) Site security and control ...... III.3.d.(2); III.3.e.(2). (vi) Evacuation routes and procedures ...... II.2.d; III.3.b.(3). (vii) Decontamination procedures ...... III.3.c.(6). (viii) Emergency medical treatment and response procedures ...... II.2.d; III.3.c.(7); III.3.e.(1). (ix) Emergency alerting and response procedures ...... II.2; II.2.a; II.2.f; II.4; III.2; III.2.a; III.2.b; III.2.c; III.3.d. (x) Critique of response and follow-up ...... II.3; III.4; III.4.a; III.6. (xi) PPE and emergency equipment ...... III.3.e.(6); III.3.f.(3); III.3.d.(2); III.3.e.(6); III.3.f.(3). (xii) Emergency response plan coordination and integration ...... III.3.e; III.8. (3) Procedures for handling emergency response: (i) The senior emergency response official responding to an emergency shall become II.2.b; III.3; III.3.a; III.3.b; III.3.b.(1); III.3.b.(2); the individual in charge of a site-specific Incident Command System (ICS). III.3.e.(3). (ii) The individual in charge of the ICS shall identify, to the extent possible, all hazard- II.2.c; II.2.d; III.3.c.(3). ous substances or conditions present and shall address as appropriate site analysis, use of engineering controls, maximum exposure limits, hazardous substance han- dling procedures, and use of any new technologies. (iii) Implementation of appropriate emergency operations and use of PPE ...... II.2.c; II.2.d; II.2.e; III.3.c; III.3.c.(1); III.3.d.(1); III.3.d.(2). (iv) Employees engaged in emergency response and exposed to hazardous sub- II.2.d. stances presenting an inhalation hazard or potential inhalation hazard shall wear positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus while engaged in emergency response. (v) The individual in charge of the ICS shall limit the number of emergency response III.3.c; III.3.e.(5). personnel at the emergency site, in those areas of potential or actual exposure to incident or site hazards, to those who are actively performing emergency operations. (vi) Backup personnel shall stand by with equipment ready to provide assistance or II.2.d; III.3.e.(5). rescue. (vii) The individual in charge of the ICS shall designate a safety official, who is knowl- II.2.d; III.3.b.(3). edgeable in the operations being implemented at the emergency response site. (viii) When activities are judged by the safety official to be an IDLH condition and/or to III.3.b.(3). involve an imminent danger condition, the safety official shall have authority to alter, suspend, or terminate those activities. (ix) After emergency operations have terminated, the individual in charge of the ICS III.3.c.(6). shall implement appropriate decontamination procedures. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28663

ATTACHMENT 3: REGULATORY CROSS-COMPARISON MATRICESÐContinued

ICP Citation(s)

(x) When deemed necessary for meeting the tasks at hand, approved self-contained compressed air breathing apparatus may be used with approved cylinders from other approved self-contained compressed air breathing apparatus provided that such cylinders are of the same capacity and pressure rating. (4) Skilled support personnel. (5) Specialist employees. (6) Training III.5. (7) Trainers. (8) Refresher training. (9) Medical surveillance and consultation. (10) Chemical protective clothing. (11) Post-emergency response operations.

EPA's Risk Management Program (40 CFR Part 68)

68.20±36 Offsite consequence analysis ...... III.3.d.(1). 68.42 Five-year accident history ...... III.4.b. 68.50 Hazard review ...... III.3.d.(1). 68.60 Incident investigation ...... III.4.a 68.67 Process hazards analysis ...... III.3.d.(1) 68.81 Incident investigation ...... III.4.a 68.95(a) Elements of an emergency response program: (1) Elements of an emergency response plan: (i) Procedures for informing the public and emergency response agencies about acci- II.2.a; III.2. dental releases. (ii) Documentation of proper first-aid and emergency medical treatment necessary to III.3.c.(7); III.3.e.(1). treat accidental human exposures. (iii) Procedures and measures for emergency response after an accidental release of II.1; II.2; II.3; II.4; III.3.a±c. a regulated substance. (2) Procedures for the use of emergency response equipment and for its inspection, test- III.3.e.(6). ing, and maintenance. (3) Training for all employees in relevant procedures ...... III.5. (4) Procedures to review and update the emergency response plan ...... III.6. 68.95(b) Compliance with other federal contingency plan regulations. 68.95(c) Coordination with the community emergency response plan. Notes to Attachment 3 1 Facilities should be aware that most states have been authorized by EPA to implement RCRA contingency planning requirements in place of the federal requirements listed. Thus, in many cases state requirements may not track this matrix. Facilities must coordinate with their respective states to ensure an ICP complies with state RCRA requirements. 2 Facilities should be aware that most states have been authorized by EPA to implement RCRA contingency planning requirements in place of the federal requirements listed. Thus, in many cases state requirements may not track this matrix. Facilities must coordinate with their respective states to ensure an ICP complies with state RCRA requirements. 3 Facilities should be aware that most states have been authorized by EPA to implement RCRA contingency planning requirements in place of the federal requirements listed. Thus, in many cases state requirements may not track this matrix. Facilities must coordinate with their respective states to ensure an ICP complies with state RCRA requirements. 4 Section 264.56 is incorporated by reference at § 264.52(a). 5 Incorporates by reference § 264.37. 6 Section 265.56 is incorporated by reference at § 265.52(a). 7 Incorporates by reference § 265.37. 8 Section 279.52(b)(6) is incorporated by reference at § 279.52(b)(2)(i). 9 Incorporates by reference § 279.52(a)(6). 10 Non-response planning parts of this regulation (e.g., prevention provisions) require a specified format. 11 If a facility is required to develop a strong oil spill contingency plan under this section, the requirement can be met through the ICP. 12 The appendix further describes the required elements in 120.20(h). It contains regulatory requirements as well as recommendations. 13 Specific plan requirements for sections listed under 154.1030(b) are contained in 154.1035(a)±(g). 14 Note: Sections 154.1045 and 154.1047 contain requirements specific to facilities that handle, store, or transport Group I±IV oils and Group V oils, respectively. 15 Ibid. 16 28664 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

Dated: April 18, 1996. Elliott P. Laws, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dated: April 22, 1996. Rear Admiral James C. Card, Chief, Marine Safety and Environmental Protection Directorate, U.S. Coast Guard. Dated: April 18, 1996. Richard B. Felder, Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Dated: April 18, 1996. John B. Moran, Director of Policy, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor. Dated: April 18, 1996. Thomas Gernhofer, Associate Director, Offshore Minerals Management, Minerals Management Service, Department of the Interior. [FR Doc. 96–13712 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560±50±P federal register June 5,1996 Wednesday Rule Rail; MiscellaneousAmendments;Final Transportation ofHazardousMaterialsby 49 CFRPart171,etal. Administration Research andSpecialPrograms Transportation Department of Part III 28665 28666 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION organizations, and rail carriers. Because Special Provision B74 requires Commenters were uniformly supportive all tank cars to meet the requirements of Research and Special Programs of RSPA’s and FRA’s efforts to respond B79, referencing Special Provision B79 Administration to petitions for rulemaking and to is unnecessary. For the entry for reduce regulatory burdens by Calcium carbide, Special Provision B59 49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 174, 178, simplifying or updating existing is added for both Packing Group I and and 179 regulations. Several commenters II entries. This special provision will [Docket No. HM±216; Amdt Nos. 171±144, suggested other amendments to the authorize the continued use of Class 172±148, 173±252, 174±83, 178±115, 179±52] HMR as part of this initiative. These AAR 207 tank cars for the transportation suggestions are incorporated into this of calcium carbide after October 1, 1996. RIN 2137±AC66 final rule where possible, but many are Sections 172.101 (The Hazardous beyond the scope of the rule and should Transportation of Hazardous Materials Materials Table) and 172.330 by Rail; Miscellaneous Amendments be proposed in a future rulemaking action to ensure adequate opportunity In the Hazardous Materials Table, AGENCY: Research and Special Programs for public notice and comment. RSPA proposed to revise 29 entries by Administration (RSPA), DOT. This rule is consistent with the goals removing Special Provision B12 ACTION: Final rule. of President Clinton’s Regulatory assigned to those entries in Column (7). Reinvention Initiative. The President This special provision requires the SUMMARY: This final rule amends the directed Federal agencies to review all marking of tank cars with the proper Department’s Hazardous Materials agency regulations and eliminate or shipping name or common name of the Regulations (HMR) to incorporate a revise those that are outdated or in need material. As part of the proposal to number of changes to rail requirements of reform. A notice issued April 4, 1995 provide relief from this marking based on rulemaking petitions from by RSPA requested comments on requirement, RSPA proposed to industry and RSPA initiatives. This regulatory reform (Docket HM–222; 60 consolidate marking requirements action is necessary to update the FR 17049) and announced a currently contained in § 172.102 special regulations and to respond to petitions comprehensive review of the HMR to provisions and in Parts 173 and 179 into for rulemaking. The intended effect of identify provisions that are candidates § 172.330 and limit its applicability to these regulatory changes is to improve for elimination, revision, clarification, certain materials which pose very high safety and reduce costs to offerors and or relaxation. Certain changes in this risks in transportation. RSPA proposed transporters of hazardous materials. document reflect the results of this in the NPRM that the requirement to DATES: Effective date: The effective date review. mark the proper shipping name or of these amendments is October 1, 1996. common name of a hazardous material II. Summary of Regulatory Changes by Compliance date: Voluntary on a tank car be limited to: Division 2.1 Section compliance with the regulations, as and 2.3 materials; Division 2.2 materials amended herein, is authorized June 30, Listed below is a section-by-section in Class DOT 107 tank cars; anhydrous 1996. summary of changes and, where ammonia; ammonia solutions with more Incorporation by reference: The applicable, the assigned petition than 50% ammonia; bromine and incorporation by reference of certain number. bromine solutions; hydrogen cyanide; chloroprene; and refrigerant or publications listed in these amendments Part 171 has been approved by the Director of the dispersant gases, as defined in Federal Register as of October 1, 1996. Section 171.7 § 173.115. A majority of commenters supported this proposal, but several FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Various American Society for Testing Beth suggested that other commodities and Materials (ASTM) standards are Romo, telephone (202) 366–8553, Office should be considered for inclusion in updated to reflect the most current of Hazardous Materials Standards, the proposed list of commodities version. Other ASTM standards that no Research and Special Programs requiring marking. Two emergency Administration, Washington DC, 20590– longer would be referenced in revised response organizations, the 0001, or James H. Rader, telephone (202) § 179.12 are removed. In the NPRM, International Association of Fire 366–0510, Office of Safety Assurance RSPA did not propose any changes to Fighters (IAFF) and the International and Compliance, Federal Railroad ASTM A 285 and proposed an update Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), Administration, Washington DC, 20590– to ASTM A 515; however, because these strongly opposed elimination of the 0001. standards are no longer applicable, they marking requirement. The IAFF claimed are removed in this final rule. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: that fewer cars would have information Part 172 providing instant confirmation of the I. Background contents, thereby delaying rescue On December 19, 1995, RSPA issued Section 172.101; The Hazardous actions while shipping papers are a notice of proposed rulemaking Materials Table researched. The IAFC agreed, stating (NPRM) under Docket HM–216 [60 FR Several entries in the Hazardous that the inability to promptly identify 65492]. The NPRM proposed Materials Table are revised as proposed. contents of a car involved in an incident miscellaneous changes to rail For the entry ‘‘Dimethylhydrazine, or accident would increase the hazard to requirements contained in the HMR, unsymmetrical’’, assigned Special fire and emergency service responders. based on petitions for rulemaking Provisions B74 and B79, Special Very little cost or effort is involved to submitted in accordance with 49 CFR Provision B79 is removed. Special stencil the product or proper shipping 106.31 or agency initiative. Provision B74 requires the use of a tank name on the car, the IAFC added. One RSPA received 22 comments in car conforming to a Class 105S, 106, chemical manufacturer questioned the response to the proposed rule. 110, 112J, or 114J. Special Provision B79 safety rationale of removing this Comments were submitted by chemical requires each tank car to have a tank requirement and stated that use of a manufacturing companies, trade head puncture system if the tank was proper shipping name is preferable for associations, emergency response constructed prior to April 1, 1989. loaders/unloaders, repair and cleaning Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28667 facility personnel, and emergency pressure and the safety valve start-to- preamble discussion under §§ 172.101 responders, rather than depending only discharge settings. and 172.330. on the four-digit identification number. RSPA is removing a requirement in Section 172.510 Based on views expressed by emergency Special Provision B57 that the shipping response organizations and after careful name CHLOROPRENE must be marked Paragraph (a) is revised to require the consideration of all comments on this on a tank car. This marking requirement placement of each placard on a white issue, RSPA and FRA have decided to is included in the revision of square background on each class DOT retain the requirement for marking tank § 172.330(a)(1). Based on a comment, 113 tank car used to transport a Division cars with the proper shipping name for RSPA is revising Special Provision B57 2.1 (flammable gas) material. This all commodities currently assigned B12, to specify a safety vent with a minimum change will enhance compliance with but to move these requirements to diameter of 305 mm (12 inches) with a switching requirements for rail cars by § 172.330. Accordingly, this rule rupture disc pressure of not more than communicating to railroad switching provides a list of these commodities in 45 psi. RSPA also is revising the first crews, through a white square § 172.330(a)(1). RSPA and FRA believe sentence of Special Provision B78 to background, that a class DOT 113 tank that a future revision of this list may be specify the test pressure and to clarify car transporting a Division 2.1 material warranted because certain high hazard which rail cars are authorized. may not be cut off while in motion. (See § 174.83(b).) Commenters generally materials currently are not subject to As pointed out by a commenter, RSPA supported this proposed change; this marking requirement, while other proposed the addition of a new class hazardous materials posing less risk however, one rail carrier opposed it, DOT 120A, but overlooked the need to claiming that such placards require appear on the list. Interested readers are add corresponding special provisions. invited to submit suggestions as to what special attention and imposing the Therefore, authorizations for use of requirement on class DOT 113 tank cars proper shipping names should be Class DOT 120A tank car tanks are removed, retained or added to the list. containing flammable gas would dilute added to Special Provisions B71, B74, the meaning of the square white Section 172.102 B76, and B78. background and be more confusing than Special Provisions B4 and B10 are Section 172.203 helpful. RSPA does not agree and revised as proposed to remove a believes a white square background will prohibition on the use of Association of Currently, rail carrier shipping paper more effectively communicate to rail American Railroads (AAR) 206 tank requirements are contained in both Parts crews the presence of flammable gases, cars. In the § 172.101 Hazardous 172 and 174. In this final rule, RSPA is such as liquid hydrogen. Materials Table (HMT), each commodity moving the shipping paper Several commenters pointed out an assigned this special provision must be requirements in Part 174 to Part 172. unintended change in wording which in a packaging authorized in § 173.243, Commenters supported the would broaden the requirement for a which does not allow an AAR 206 tank consolidation of shipping paper placard with a square white background car. Special Provision B5 is revised as requirements in Part 172. Paragraph to all Hazard Zone A materials, proposed to authorize use of tank cars, (e)(2) is revised as proposed to replace including those in a class or division constructed from other than aluminum references with a specific requirement other than Division 2.3 or Division 6.1. plate, for ammonium nitrate fertilizer. to precede the basic shipping RSPA is revising the proposed wording Special Provision B12 is removed, as description with the wording to limit the requirement for a placard on discussed above. ‘‘RESIDUE, LAST CONTAINED.’’ a square white background to Hazard Changes to Special Provisions B42, Paragraph (g)(1) also is revised to adopt Zone A materials in Divisions 2.3 and B65, B71, B72, B74, and B76 are a requirement to identify a rail car, 6.1. However, after reviewing these adopted as proposed. These provisions freight container, transport vehicle, or comments, RSPA believes this are revised to clarify that any class tank portable tank that contains a hazardous requirement should be broadened to car with a higher test pressure than material by reporting mark and number. apply to all Hazard Zone A materials authorized also may be used. Special Several commenters requested that (with corresponding changes in Provisions B42, B65, and B76 also are RSPA clarify in the final rule that § 174.83) and may propose such a revised to authorize the optional annotating a reporting mark and number change in a future rulemaking action. marking of the tank to a lower pressure on a shipping paper applies only to specification. All but one commenter those shipments which are assigned Sections 172.510 and 172.526 addressing this issue supported the reporting marks. RSPA agrees and is The NPRM proposed the removal of proposed change. Commenters agreed limiting this requirement to those rail provisions for the specifications for and that the proposed option allows cars, transport vehicles, freight use of RESIDUE placards. The majority flexibility for safety valve settings for containers and portable tanks displaying of commenters to this issue supported certain classes of pressure cars and a reporting mark. RSPA’s and FRA’s proposal to eliminate allows the originally designed tank these requirements. These commenters Section 172.205 pressure to also remain marked on the cited standardization among all car. One commenter believed that This section is revised as proposed. transportation modes, enhanced confusion would arise if there is an RSPA received unanimous support for regulatory understanding and option to mark the tank with either the its proposal to revise paragraph (f) for compliance, and harmonization with tank test pressure rating or a lower consistency with Environmental NAFTA and international regulations. pressure rating, required to coincide Protection Agency (EPA) hazardous One chemical manufacturer noted that with the pressure relief device start-to- waste manifest requirements for its emergency response personnel were discharge pressure. RSPA and FRA do transportation by rail contained in 40 not aware of any incident where the not believe that either the current CFR 263.20(f). RESIDUE placard has made a difference requirement or the new option will in the outcome of the incident. This Section 172.330 cause confusion. The option adopted in commenter maintained that eliminating this final rule simply removes the Paragraph (a)(1) is revised to clarify this placard would result in mandatory link between marked test marking requirements for tank cars. See considerable savings to the company. 28668 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Several other commenters, including the personnel that more needs to be known revise requirements for heat-resistant Chemical Manufacturers Association, about the contents of bulk packages of gaskets. Commenters expressed concern believed that the determination of what hazardous materials before entering a as to the difficulty of obtaining suitable constitutes ‘‘residue’’ is arbitrary and potential danger zone. By obtaining a heat-resistant materials because of the stated that some residue tank cars could copy of the shipping papers or freight scarcity of materials (other than have a significant amount of product car movement documents, emergency asbestos) that are capable of remaining in the tank. One rail carrier response personnel will gain basic withstanding temperatures of 230°C that indicated that a common deficiency is information on the hazards present and are also compatible with the lading. the failure of an offeror to completely the shipper’s emergency response Besides temperature and compatibility, reverse all placards applied to a tank telephone number, resulting in better the selection of a proper gasket must car. Thus, loaded tank cars will often informed decisions about any include consideration of many factors, have a RESIDUE placard as one of the precautions or evacuation measures such as the mating of the gasket to its four placards displayed, or conversely, needed to secure the incident site. One seating surfaces, fluid media, operating residue tank cars will still have the chemical manufacturer expressed pressure, flange design, bolting data, original loaded placard in one of the concern that the removal of the residue and size. RSPA and FRA agree with holders. placard will mandate the use of those comments that, because of Only four commenters—the IAFC, permanent pressure-sensitive placards numerous factors involved, criteria for two chemical manufacturers and a to general service rail tank cars and, the selection of a suitable gasket government safety inspector—opposed where the commodities change material is too technically complex for removing the requirement for the use of frequently, increase the possibility of resolution at this time. Therefore, this a RESIDUE placard. The IAFC believed misidentification of the commodity final rule does not define a minimum the information is crucial to fire and being transported. Nothing in the temperature for heat-resistant gaskets, emergency responders because it proposed rule would require the use of but identifies criteria which a shipper communicates whether a tank car is full pressure-sensitive placards. Shippers must consider in selecting a proper or just has residue left in the tank. The and carriers may continue to use ‘‘tag gasket. In addition, in analyzing IAFC claimed the 22,000 occasions cited board’’ placards placed within placard comments to this section, RSPA and in the NPRM were due to poor holders. Based on consideration of all FRA discovered that when this compliance and inadequate comments received, RSPA is removing provision was moved from § 179.102– enforcement. The commenter further all provisions applying to the 3(a)(3) to § 173.314 under changes stated that eliminating the RESIDUE specifications for and use of RESIDUE adopted in Docket HM–181, certain placard may significantly increase the placards. words were inadvertently removed. hazard or risk to fire or emergency Part 173 RSPA is restoring this wording to refer response personnel. Not knowing the to ‘‘gaskets for manway cover plates.’’ amount of product in a car will force Section 173.24b In the paragraph (c) table, several responders to treat all tank cars as if Commenters uniformly supported this entries are amended to add an they were full, which may result in proposal to add a mid-range authorization for use of a Class DOT unnecessary and potentially expensive temperature for calculating outage and 120A tank car tank. actions. filling limits for certain thermally RSPA also is authorizing Class DOT RSPA and FRA disagree with the protected and jacketed tank cars. This 112J and 112T specification tank cars opinion expressed by IAFC that the proposal was based on a petition for for the transportation of dimethyl ether, 22,000 occasions cited in the NPRM rulemaking submitted by the Propane as proposed. Currently, only the use of were due both to poor compliance and Gas Association of Canada [P–1251] in a DOT 105A300W tank car is inadequate enforcement since they were cooperation with Transport Canada. authorized. This is based on an discovered as a result of FRA’s Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule exemption issued to Aeropres enforcement efforts. As noted by one included provisions for anhydrous Corporation (DOT–E 11000) and a commenter, RSPA and FRA are aware of ammonia currently contained in Note 2 petition for rulemaking [P–1253]. many ‘‘residue’’ tank cars which have following the § 173.314(c) table. In this RSPA also is revising Note 2 in remaining product that may contain as final rule, RSPA is adopting a mid-range paragraph (c) of the table. This note is much as 1,000 gallons or more of temperature calculation for anhydrous assigned to the entry ‘‘Ammonia, hazardous material. Moreover, FRA has ammonia by revising Note 2 of the anhydrous or ammonia solutions >50 discovered that some shipments of § 173.314(c) table. percent ammonia’’ and the revision will liquefied compressed gases in pressure allow shippers to calculate outage and tank cars that are unloaded through Section 173.29 filling limits for tank cars based on equalization of pressure retain as much Paragraph (f) is removed, consistent corresponding changes adopted in as one-third of the original load. In a with the removal of § 172.510(c). fire, a partially-filled tank car can § 173.24b. In addition, RSPA is removing rupture as violently as a full tank car, Sections 173.240 through 173.244 paragraph (i), which currently provides thereby presenting a similar hazard to RSPA is adding an authorization for emergency responders. In fact, a alternate settings for safety relief valves the use of Class 120A tank car tanks in on tank car tanks used for certain partially-filled tank car exposed to fire each of these sections. in some circumstances may rupture in commodities, because pressure relief less time than a full tank car, because a Section 173.314 device requirements are being partially-filled tank car has less thermal Paragraph (b)(5), which contains consolidated in § 179.15. mass. Clearly, a residue placard may provisions for marking the proper Part 174 lead to a false sense of security. Further, shipping name of certain Class 2 RSPA and FRA believe that the primary materials on tank cars, is removed Section 174.3 purpose of placards is to convey the because these provisions also appear in This section prohibits a shipment of presence of a hazardous material, a § 172.330. Paragraph (b)(6) is a hazardous material not prepared in ‘‘trigger’’ to emergency response redesignated (b)(5) and amended to accordance with Parts 171, 172, and 173 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28669 from being offered for transportation or receiving shipping papers. The ‘‘go/no go’’ decision. Removing this transported by rail. The section is commenter believed that documentation requirement also makes requirements revised as proposed to be consistent shows the offer and acceptance for railroad transportation consistent with language contained in Parts 175, affiliation between shipper and carrier with other modes. Accordingly, this 176 and 177 for unacceptable hazardous and proves that a shipper offered final rule removes requirements for the materials shipments. hazardous material for transportation placard notation and endorsement. prior to acceptance by a carrier. RSPA Other shipping paper requirements in Section 174.8 through 174.10 agrees that the wording in this section this section, including those for tank Inspection requirements currently should be revised to clarify that a carrier cars containing the residue of a contained in §§ 174.8, 174.9 and 174.10 may not accept or transport a hazardous hazardous material, are removed or are consolidated into § 174.9 to clarify a material by rail unless the carrier moved to Part 172. railroad’s inspection duties at points of receives a properly prepared shipping Section 174.26 origination, interchange points and document from the shipper. other locations where rail cars must be Numerous commenters urged RSPA to Amendments to this section are inspected. Sections 174.8 and 174.10 are address electronic transmission of a adopted as proposed. Paragraph (a) is removed. Section 174.9 requires a shipper certification. Commenters removed because, if a carrier complies railroad to inspect each rail car for claimed that adopting a provision in with paragraph (b), the carrier also is compliance with the HMR and other § 172.204 to recognize electronic data complying with paragraph (a). conditions that may make the car unsafe interchange (EDI) or other electronic Paragraphs (b) and (c) are redesignated for transportation. transmission of shipping paper paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively. The final rule further clarifies that a certifications could eliminate the need Newly designated paragraph (b) is railroad employee may perform for an existing exemption, DOT–E–7616. revised to reference shipping paper inspections at ‘‘ground level.’’ One RSPA and FRA agree with commenters requirements of Part 172 and specify use commenter, a chemical manufacturer, that this issue should be addressed, but of other forms of car movement opposed this proposed change because believe that adopting new certification documents. inspections would be limited to leaks provisions for electronic transmissions Sections 174.47 and 174.48 detectable at ground level. Another is beyond the scope of this final rule. As proposed, the provisions in these commenter representing a chemical Section 174.25 manufacturing company recognized the sections are consolidated into revised practicality of ground level inspections, RSPA is removing the ‘‘placard § 174.50 to prescribe requirements for and believed that shippers and carriers notation’’ requirement since it is forwarding shipments in violation of the must work together to ensure proper outdated for emergency response HMR and damaged or leaking packages. communication. RSPA also is removing securement and compliance with hazard Section 174.49 communication standards. A the requirement for a ‘‘placard commenter supporting this revision endorsement’’ placed on a waybill near This section is removed as proposed noted that requirements for above the reporting mark of each rail car, because open-flame lanterns are no ground inspections raise substantial freight container, transport vehicle, or longer used. portable tank that contains a hazardous safety concerns, are extremely Section 174.50 burdensome, and significantly impair material when transported by rail. This section is revised by efficiency. RSPA and FRA believe that Commenters supporting these proposals consolidating requirements of §§ 174.47, ground level inspections provide an cited improved hazard communication 174.48, and 174.50 and by removing all adequate level of safety and this requirements and technological obsolete provisions. As proposed, provision is adopted with an editorial advancements as reasons to eliminate packages other than tank cars would revision to clarify provisions for train these outdated provisions. The only have to be repaired, reconditioned, or crew inspection. commenter to oppose these proposals, IAFF, claimed that a placard notation overpacked prior to subsequent Section 174.11 ‘‘allows the company officer to instantly movement. Tank cars would have to be Section 174.11 is removed as make an initial diagnosis regarding a repaired or be moved under conditions proposed because it merely references ‘go/no go’ decision for imminent approved by FRA’s Associate § 171.12a for transportation of Canadian rescue’’ and ‘‘* * * offers a point of Administrator for Safety. shipments or packagings by rail car quick confirmation of the basic hazard.’’ RSPA and FRA have recently learned within the U.S. IAFF further noted that ‘‘* ** that at least one business entity has removing the placard endorsement interpreted existing § 174.47(b) to Section 174.18 cripples the ability of the incident permit the ongoing movement of Section 174.18 concerning the commander to make quick and correct noncomplying tank cars once their ‘‘in- handling of astray packages of decisions when life safety is at stake.’’ violation’’ status was reported. Neither hazardous materials is obsolete; RSPA and FRA disagree with IAFF. FRA nor RSPA agree with this therefore this section is removed as Hazard communication requirements in interpretation. Both agencies believe proposed. the HMR (e.g., proper shipping name, that the HMR have, even before these hazard class, identification number, amendments, clearly prohibited such Section 174.24 packing group and emergency response movement. FRA has consistently taken Shipping paper requirements for rail information) are the principal tools that enforcement action against the carriers in Part 174 are moved to Part emergency response personnel should movement of tank cars that are in 172. Revised § 174.24 cross-references use to assess the emergency. Because violation of the HMR. The amendment shipping paper requirements in Part the current placard notation is repetitive removes any doubt that the old language 172. One commenter expressed concern of other hazard communication might have created on the part of one that the proposed wording of this requirements and generally restates the shipper, and provides a method for section would allow origin carriers to hazard class of the material, it is relief where repairs cannot be made accept hazardous materials without first considered unnecessary for making a without further movement. For instance, 28670 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations a tank car found en route with missing the need to seek DOT approval for the vacuum otherwise created from placards or markings is typically lading restraint systems that permit condensing vapors. This requirement ‘‘repaired’’ by corrective action on the ‘‘limited movement.’’ RSPA and FRA applies whether or not the coils were spot. In more serious situations, it may believe it is not the slight movement of actually used to heat the commodity not be possible to conduct an on-site hazardous materials packages that from the tank. repair, such as repair of a tank car with creates a safety hazard, but their Comments on this issue were split its thermal protection system torn or unsecured movement. between supporters and those who abraded so that it no longer meets a All three commenters believed the opposed removal of the requirements. specification. A tank car in this proposed requirement that lading ‘‘be Several commenters thought that if condition may only be moved under the secured’’ was too vague; two favored a steam were used, drainage of the authority of an exemption. return to the term ‘‘blocked and braced’’ condensate would inhibit corrosion. Commenters generally believed the and the other suggested requiring RSPA and FRA believe it unlikely that proposed changes will promote safety, ‘‘lading restraint systems.’’ While RSPA keeping the inlet and outlet pipe caps simplify the process, and enable the and FRA do not agree that the proposal off will actually inhibit corrosion of the shipper or carrier to take quicker action. was too vague, RSPA is replacing the coils because heater coils become bent Several commenters recommended that word ‘‘secured’’ in proposed § 174.55(a) and often water remains trapped in pipe the proposed section be modified to with language requiring that a package valleys. Further, because interior heater authorize use of a telephone, fax, or containing a hazardous material must be coils may exceed 700 feet in length electronic mail for notification and FRA loaded in the transport vehicle or freight there is inadequate air flow within the approval, with written confirmation to container so that it cannot fall and must coils to dry them completely. In FRA’s be provided within a specified number be safeguarded in such a manner that experience, the single most common of days. RSPA and FRA agree with this other freight cannot fall onto or slide failure of interior heater coils is not recommendation and are revising the into it. This is a performance standard corrosion or collapse but failure of coil section accordingly. which acknowledges that all packages anchors. When the anchor fails, the The Iowa Department of in a vehicle or container may move to coils move, creating stresses. Fatigue Transportation asked RSPA to expand a limited degree during transportation cracks may occur in these high stress the proposed provision which would without adversely affecting their areas and create the potential for a allow a leaking tank car to be switched structural and containment integrity. hazardous material release, RSPA has, to ‘‘a location distant from habitation The performance standard adopted in within the last two years, issued 29 and highways’’ to include ‘‘streams’’ this final rule provides rail shippers and exemptions allowing the transportation and ‘‘pipelines within the railroad rights carriers maximum flexibility in meeting of tank cars containing the residue of a of way.’’ The Iowa DOT cited a National regulatory requirements and is hazardous material with the heater coil Transportation Safety Board report on consistent with requirements for other pipe caps on the heater coil pipes. activities within railroad rights of way modes of transportation. At times, After considering the comments that may disturb pipelines. This damage-free transportation can be received, RSPA and FRA conclude that commenter expressed concern that achieved by loading packages so tightly coil failures are usually the result of corrosives or other chemicals could within a vehicle or freight container that poor maintenance or operational pose either an immediate risk or a long- each package is protected by those practices, both of which should be term effect on pipelines that would not around it and the total load does not reviewed by the industry. This final rule be readily apparent, with corresponding exceed the design strength of the walls makes optional the current requirement potential effects on water quality and or doors. For such loads, no additional that the inlet and outlet pipe the environment. RSPA and FRA agree equipment or material is necessary. connections must remain open. in principle with the commenter, and With other load configurations, material Section 174.85 this final rule is broadened, not just to in addition to the packages is necessary include streams or pipelines within to create a tight load. Corresponding changes in §§ 172.510 railroad rights of way, but to authorize In response to concerns expressed by and 172.526 remove provisions for a limited movement of a leaking tank car commenters, this final rule explicitly RESIDUE placard. Two commenters to reduce or eliminate any immediate mandates blocking and bracing (i.e., a noted that proposed paragraph (c) risk to human health or the lading restraint system), when the referenced ‘‘rail car’’ rather than ‘‘tank environment. required protection cannot be achieved car’’, which would expand current through use of other freight. provisions. RSPA agrees and is revising Section 174.55 paragraph (c) to reference a tank car Proposed changes to this section were Section 174.67 containing a residue of a hazardous intended to clarify and streamline The shipping community uses interior material. requirements for loading and securing heater coils to improve the ability of a Part 178 packages of hazardous materials. Of the solid or viscous product to flow and 22 comments submitted in response to thereby reduce tank car unloading Section 178.337–2 the NPRM, only three commenters times. The interior coils consist of a Two ASTM references are updated in suggested changes to the proposed series of longitudinally arranged and paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii). revision of this section. One commenter manifolded welded pipe so that one to noted that lading securement four inlet and outlet pipe connections Part 179 requirements should apply to both allow circulation of a heating medium, The following sections are revised by ‘‘transport vehicles’’ (as stated in the usually steam or hot oil, throughout the updating certain ASTM specifications NPRM) and ‘‘freight containers’’ (as entire system. The current regulations and deleting others that are no longer provided in the current regulations). require that, after a tank equipped with used, based on a petition [P–1023] from RSPA agrees, and the final rule reflects interior heater coils is unloaded, the AAR: §§ 179.100–7, 179.100–10, this change. inlet and outlet pipe connections must 179.100–20, 179.102–1, 179.102–2, The NPRM contained a proposal to be left open for drainage and to prevent 179.200–7, 179.200–24, 179.201–5, and streamline requirements by eliminating the potential collapse of the coils from 179.300–7. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28671

Sections 179.12 through 179.12–7 dimensions of the rupture disc holder that a rupture disc may appear normal Sections 179.12–1 through 179.12–7 may take longer than one year and thus on the top side, but be severely damaged are removed and § 179.12 is revised by would not be commercially available. or corroded on the bottom side. For incorporating provisions from The commenters claimed that if this these reasons, RSPA recently amended §§ 179.12–1 and 179.12–5. The design requirement were adopted and made the regulations under Docket HM–201 to and materials of construction for effective within one year, the current require a careful inspection of the interior heater coils require AAR inventory of rupture discs would rupture disc. See § 173.31(d)(1)(vi), become worthless. approval. This final rule removes the effective July 1, 1996 (60 FR 49048, RSPA and FRA believe the need to DOT specification requirements and 49073). increase the burst pressure of a rupture In addition, the following editorial allows AAR greater flexibility in disc installed in a nonreclosing pressure approving heater system designs. changes are made to provisions relief device is warranted because of the proposed in the NPRM: paragraph (b)(4) Section 179.15 number of premature rupture disc is revised by removing the word failures in transportation which have This section is added to consolidate ‘‘valve’’; paragraph (e)(2) is revised by resulted in railroad employee injuries. pressure relief device requirements replacing the word ‘‘fail’’ with ‘‘burst’’ Of the 5,406 reported hazardous currently contained in §§ 173.314, and by adding the wording ‘‘at not materials releases by rail from 1990 179.100–15, 179.200–18, 179.201–7 and greater than’’ before ‘‘95’’; a new through 1994, RSPA received reports of 179.220–19 and adopt provisions to: (1) paragraph (e)(3) is added to base the 1,716 rupture disc failures (an average increase the start-to-discharge pressure vapor tight pressure and the start-to- of 343 each year). RSPA also received of pressure relief devices for certain low discharge tolerance on the discharge 418 reports of railroad employee pressure tanks while allowing the setting of the reclosing pressure relief injuries as a result of a release of continued use of existing cars; (2) allow device; in paragraph (f), paragraph hazardous materials (all sources of ‘‘(b)(4)’’ is added after paragraph ‘‘(a)’’; for a reduced orifice in the upstream release for an average of 84 each year). nozzle of a pressure relief device to and paragraph (g) is revised to require Because rupture disc failures account each pressure relief device to accommodate pressure surges; (3) for nearly 32 percent of the total number communicate with the vapor space increase the rupture disc burst pressure of releases by rail during this study above the lading as near as practicable for cars so equipped; (4) standardize the period, RSPA and FRA believe that on the longitudinal centerline and start-to-discharge pressure setting for all there will be a considerable decrease in center of the tank. commodities and tank car the number of premature rupture disc specifications; and (5) align the start-to- failures as a result of increasing the Sections 179.100–15, 179.200–18, discharge pressure for tank cars with a burst pressure of the rupture disc. 179.201–7, and 179.220–19 setting prescribed by the ASME code for This final rule adopts a rupture disc pressure vessels. burst pressure of 33 percent of the tank These sections contain provisions for Most commenters endorsed RSPA’s burst pressure because such pressures safety relief devices. Because proposed addition of this section, with can reduce premature failures in the requirements for safety relief devices are minor editorial clarifications, stating transportation system. Rupture discs are consolidated in § 179.15, RSPA is that this was a worthwhile change in the required to be manufactured with a removing these sections from the HMR. regulations that would enhance overall tolerance of +0 to ¥15 percent of the Sections 179.101–1 and 179.201–1 safety and benefit a number of shippers burst pressure marked on the rupture and carriers. CMA stated that proposed disc. (See A5.02 of the AAR Tank Car Individual specification requirements provisions in this new section would Manual.) In addition, in response to for pressure tank cars and non-pressure allow shippers to establish pressure concerns expressed by commenters, tank cars are revised. These revisions relief device settings that are more RSPA is extending the proposed one- correct many typographical errors and directly related to the product year transition period in paragraph (f) to remove several special references that requirements, rather than arbitrarily October 1, 1998. This extension will are no longer applicable. RSPA also is relating the settings to the tank test minimize cost impacts in implementing adding a new class ‘‘DOT 120A’’ pressure. new designs and will facilitate specification tank car and a new ‘‘DOT The AAR and the Railway Progress depletion of existing inventory of 111A60W6’’ specification tank car in Institute (RPI) suggested that RSPA rupture discs. the table based on two petitions for include the ‘‘mid-range’’ temperature One commenter suggested that RSPA rulemaking [P–1044 and P–1119] from proposed in § 173.24b for the incorporate a requirement for a ‘‘means AAR. One commenter correctly noted calculation of outage and filling limits of inspection of the disc without that if the DOT 120A tank car is into pressure relief device setting releasing clamping pressure on the adopted, RSPA should assign packaging requirements. RSPA proposed a mid- disc,’’ similar to A4.07(d) in the AAR authorizations in Part 173 and range temperature of 43°C (110°F) for Specifications for Tank Cars. Many § 172.102. The commenter also certain thermally protected and jacketed safety vent devices in use today have requested that this car be authorized in tank cars. RSPA and FRA agree, and a such features, including hinged covers § 173.314 for ‘‘Division 2.2 not mid-range temperature requirement is and screw plugs, for the inspection of a specifically identified in this table’’. added in paragraph (b)(1). rupture disc. While these devices are RSPA agrees and is adding Several commenters suggested that designed to meet the requirements of authorizations for a DOT120A tank car RSPA adopt a range for the burst the AAR specifications, RSPA and FRA to appropriate sections. RSPA is pressure, as opposed to a set burst believe that in order to fully inspect a removing certain entries from the table pressure (e.g., from 20 to 33 percent of rupture disc, the disc must be removed since these provisions are currently the tank burst pressure for DOT from the safety vent device. It is found in the text proceeding the table 111A60W tank cars). Other commenters important that a careful inspection (both (see for example §§ 179.200–11, suggested an extension of the proposed top and bottom of the disc) be 179.200–14, and 179.200- 16). An one-year period because development of conducted for corrosion and damage editorial revision is made to a reference rupture discs that are designed to the because it has been FRA’s experience in the § 179.201–1 table for DOT 28672 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

111A100W4, based on a commenter’s fittings, tubes, castings, projections, and (4) The written notification, suggestion. closures. recording, and reporting of the unintentional release in transportation Section 179.102–4 Sections 179.220–7 and 179.300–7 of hazardous material; or Paragraph (d), which specifies at least References to ASTM A 515 and ASTM (5) The design, manufacturing, one pressure relief valve on a tank car A 285 are removed from the table fabrication, marking, maintenance, tank used to transport vinyl fluoride, following paragraph (b) in § 179.220–7 reconditioning, repairing, or testing of a inhibited, is removed, consistent with and the table following paragraph (a) in package or container which is the consolidation of safety relief device § 179.300–7, because these represented, marked, certified, or sold provisions in § 179.15. In addition, specifications no longer are authorized as qualified for use in the transportation paragraphs (b) and (c) are redesignated for new construction. of hazardous material. This final rule preempts State, local, paragraphs (a) and (b), paragraphs (e) Section 179.221–1 through (k) are redesignated paragraphs or Indian tribe requirements concerning (c) through (i), and reserved paragraph RSPA is revising the class DOT 115A these subjects unless the non-Federal (l) is removed. specification table as noted in the requirements are ‘‘substantively the discussion of §§ 179.101–1 and same’’ (see 49 CFR 107.202(d)) as the Section 179.103–5 179.201–1. Federal requirements. Federal law (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(2)) Paragraph (b)(2) is revised as Sections 179.222, 179.222–1, and provides that if DOT issues a regulation proposed to adopt requirements for the 179.500–17 attachment of unloading connections for concerning any of the covered subjects, bottom outlets on pressure tank cars. These sections are removed because after November 16, 1990, DOT must This revision reflects existing identical provisions are contained determine and publish in the Federal requirements for bottom outlets on non- elsewhere in the HMR. Register the effective date of Federal pressure tank cars. III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices preemption. The effective date may not be earlier than the 90th day following Section 179.200–7 A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT the date of issuance of the final rule and In addition to the revision of the Regulatory Policies and Procedures not later than two years after the date of paragraph (b) table discussed This final rule is not considered a issuance. RSPA has determined that the previously, certain ASTM specifications significant regulatory action under effective date of Federal preemption for are revised to remove references to section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 these requirements will be October 1, outdated publications. The entry for and therefore, was not reviewed by the 1996. Thus, RSPA lacks discretion in ASTM B 209–70, Alloy 6061 is Office of Management and Budget. The this area, and preparation of a removed, as are footnotes 4 and 5 rule is not considered a significant rule federalism assessment is not warranted. associated with that entry. Footnote 2 under the Regulatory Policies and C. Regulatory Flexibility Act following the paragraph (d) table is Procedures of the Department of revised to reference Practice A of ASTM Transportation [44 FR 11034]. This final rule responds to petitions A 262–85, which is a definitive, rapid The economic impact of this rule is for rulemaking and agency review. It is method of identifying, by simple expected to result in only minimal costs intended to provide clarification of the etching, those specimens free of to certain persons subject to the HMR regulations and relax certain susceptibility to intergranular attack. and may result in modest cost savings requirements. Therefore, I certify that to a small number of persons subject to this final rule will not have a significant Section 179.200–14 the HMR and to the agency. Because of economic impact on a substantial The first sentence of paragraph (a) and the minimal economic impact of this number of small entities. the first sentence of paragraph (b) are rule, preparation of a regulatory impact D. Paperwork Reduction Act revised to recognize the new outage and analysis or a regulatory evaluation is not filling limits for tank cars adopted in warranted. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act Docket HM–181. of 1995, no person is required to B. Executive Order 12612 respond to a collection of information Section 179.200–16 This final rule has been analyzed in unless it displays a valid OMB control RSPA is revising the first sentence in accordance with the principles and number. Information collection paragraph (d) to require an outage scale criteria contained in Executive Order requirements in 49 CFR parts 172 and visible through the manway opening 12612 (‘‘Federalism’’). Federal law 174 pertaining to shipping papers are when using a gauging device. RSPA is expressly preempts State, local, and currently approved under OMB control adopting a commenter’s suggested Indian tribe requirements applicable to number 2137–0051. A requirement to alternative wording because it clarifies the transportation of hazardous material annotate a reporting mark and number this provision. that cover certain subjects and are not on shipping documents for certain rail substantively the same as Federal shipments reflects a current rail carrier Section 179.200–24 requirements. 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1). operating requirement and Based on a commenter’s suggestion to These subjects are: insignificantly increases the amount of indicate the grade of material for the (1) The designation, description, and burden imposed by this collection. entry ‘‘Material’’, the reference to classification of hazardous material; Some provisions adopted in this final ‘‘ASTM A 285C’’ is revised to read (2) The packing, repacking, handling, rule, such as elimination of ‘‘ASTM A 516–GR 70’’. labeling, marking, and placarding of requirements for placing placard hazardous material; endorsements and placard notations on Section 179.201–4 (3) The preparation, execution, and shipping documents, will result in a This section is adopted as proposed to use of shipping documents pertaining to minor reduction in the amount of refer to Footnote 2 of § 179.200–7(d) hazardous material, and requirements burden imposed by this collection. rather than the AAR Specifications to respecting the number, content, and RSPA believes that these changes in specify material requirements for placement of such documents; burden are not sufficient to warrant Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28673 revision of the currently approved 49 CFR Part 172 safety, Reporting and recordkeeping information collection. Hazardous materials transportation, requirements. E. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) Hazardous waste, Labels, Markings, In consideration of the foregoing, 49 Packaging and containers, Reporting CFR Chapter I is amended as follows: A regulation identifier number (RIN) and recordkeeping requirements. is assigned to each regulatory action 49 CFR Part 173 PART 171ÐGENERAL INFORMATION, listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal REGULATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS Regulations. The Regulatory Information Hazardous materials transportation, Service Center publishes the Unified Packaging and containers, Radioactive 1. The authority citation for Part 171 materials, Reporting and recordkeeping Agenda in April and October of each continues to read as follows: requirements, Uranium. year. The RIN number contained in the Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5127; 49 CFR heading of this document can be used 49 CFR Part 174 1.53. to cross-reference this action with the Hazardous materials transportation, Unified Agenda. Radioactive materials, Railroad safety. 2. In the § 171.7(a)(3) Table, under the entry American Society for Testing and List of Subjects 49 CFR Part 178 Materials, 9 entries are removed and 9 49 CFR Part 171 Hazardous materials transportation, new entries are added in alphabetical Incorporation by reference, Motor order, to read as follows: Exports, Hazardous materials vehicles safety, Packaging and transportation, Hazardous waste, containers, Reporting and recordkeeping § 171.7 Reference material. Imports, Incorporation by reference, requirements. (a) Matter incorporated by reference Reporting and recordkeeping 49 CFR Part 179 *** requirements. Hazardous materials transportation, (3) Table of material incorporated by Incorporation by reference, Railroad reference. ***

Source and name of material 49 CFR reference

******* American Society for Testing and Materials

******* [Remove] ASTM A 20±81 Standard Specification for General Requirements for Steel Plates for Pressure Vessels, Revision C 178.337; 179.102±17

******* ASTM A 240±82 Standard Specification for Heat-Resisting Chromium and Chromium-Nickel Stainless Steel Plate, 178.57; 178.358; 179.100; Sheet and Strip for Fusion-Welded Unfired Pressure Vessels, Revision A. 179.200; 179.201; 179.220; 179.400.

******* ASTM A 262±68 Recommended Practices for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Stainless Steels .... 179.100; 179.200.

******* ASTM A 302±78 Pressure Vessel Plates, Alloy Steel, Manganese-Molybdenum and Manganese-Molybdenum 179.100; 179.200; 179.220. Nickel.

******* ASTM A 370±77 Standard Methods and Definition for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products ...... 179.102±4 and 179.102±17

******* ASTM A 516±79b Standard Specification for Pressure Vessel Plates, Carbon Steel, for Moderate and Lower-Tem- 178.337; 179.100; 179.102; perature Service. 179.200 179.220 ASTM A 537±80 Standard Specification for Pressure Vessel Plates, Heat-Treated, Carbon-Manganese-Silicon 179.100; 179.102. Steel.

******* ASTM B 162±69 Nickel Plate, Sheet, and Strip ...... 179.200. ASTM B 209±69 Aluminum Alloy Sheet and Plate ...... 179.100; 179.200; 179.220

******* [Add] ASTM A 20/A 20M±93a Standard Specification for General Requirements for Steel Plates for Pressure Vessels ..... 178.337±2; 179.102±4; 179.102±17.

******* ASTM A 240/A 240M±94b Standard Specification for Heat-Resisting Chromium and Chromium-Nickel Stainless 178.57; 178.358±5; Steel Plate, Sheet and Strip for Pressure Vessels. 179.100±7; 179.100±10; 179.102±1; 179.102±4; 179.102±17; 179.200±7; 179.201±5; 179.220±7; 179.400±5. 28674 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Source and name of material 49 CFR reference

******* ASTM A 262±93a Standard Practices for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless 179.100±7; 179.200±7; Steels. 179.201±4.

******* ASTM A 302/A 302M±93 Standard Specification for Pressure Vessel Plates, Alloy Steel, Manganese-Molybdenum 179.100±7; 179.200±7; and Manganese-Molybdenum Nickel. 179.220±7.

******* ASTM A 370±94 Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products ...... 179.102±1; 179.102±4; 179.102±17.

******* ASTM A 516/A 516M±90 Standard Specification for Pressure Vessel Plates, Carbon Steel, for Moderate and 178.337±2; 179.100±7; Lower- Temperature Service. 179.100±20; 179.102±1; 179.102±2; 179.102±4; 179.102±17; 179.200±7; 179.220±7. ASTM A 537/A 537M±91 Standard Specification for Pressure Vessel Plates, Heat-Treated, Carbon-Manganese-Sil- 179.100±7; 179.102±4; icon Steel. 179.102±17.

******* ASTM B 162±93a Standard Specification for Nickel Plate, Sheet, and Strip ...... 179.200±7. ASTM B 209±93 Standard Specification for Aluminum and Aluminum-Alloy Sheet and Plate ...... 179.100±7; 179.200±7; 179.220±7.

*******

* * * * * c. Under Association of American § 172.101 [Amended] Railroads, for the entry ‘‘AAR Manual of § 171.7 [Amended] 5. In § 172.101, in the Hazardous Standards and Recommended Practices, Materials Table, the following changes 3. In addition, § 171.7, in the Section C—Part III, Specifications for are made: paragraph (a)(3) table, the following Tank Cars, Specification M–1002, a. For the following entries, in changes are made: September 1992’’ in Column (2), a Column (7), Special Provision ‘‘B12,’’ is a. Under American Society for Testing reference ‘‘179.15;’’ is added in removed: and Materials, the following entries are numerical order. Acrolein, inhibited; removed: ASTM A 53–69a, ASTM A Bromine or Bromine solutions; PART 172ÐHAZARDOUS MATERIALS 178–70, ASTM A 192–69, ASTM A 269– Bromine chloride; TABLE, SPECIAL PROVISIONS, 69, ASTM A 285–78, ASTM A 312–70a, Dinitrogen tetroxide, liquefied; HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ASTM A 515–69, ASTM B 161–70, Formic acid; COMMUNICATIONS, EMERGENCY ASTM B 210–70, ASTM B 221–76, Hydrocyanic acid, aqueous solutions or RESPONSE INFORMATION, AND ASTM B 241–76. Hydrogen cyanide, aqueous solutions TRAINING REQUIREMENTS b. Under Association of American with not more than 20 percent hydrogen cyanide; Railroads, for the entry ‘‘AAR Manual of 4. The authority citation for Part 172 Standards and Recommended Practices, Hydrocyanic acid, aqueous solutions continues to read as follows: Section I, Specially Equipped Freight with less than 5 percent hydrogen Car and Intermodal Equipment, 1988’’ Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5127; 49 CFR cyanide; in Column (2), a reference ‘‘174.55;’’ is 1.53. Hydrofluoric acid, solution, with more added as the first reference. than 60 percent strength; Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28675

Hydrofluoric acid, solution, with not B42 Tank cars must have a test pressure of CONTAINED * * *’’ before the basic more than 60 percent strength; 34.47 Bar (500 psig) or greater and conform description. Hydrogen cyanide, stabilized with less to Class 105J. Each tank car must have a safety relief device having a start-to- * * * * * than 3 percent water; (g) Transportation by rail. (1) A Hydrogen fluoride, anhydrous; discharge pressure of 10.34 Bar (150 psig). The tank car specification may be marked shipping paper prepared by a rail carrier Hydrogen peroxide and peroxyacetic to indicate a test pressure of 13.79 Bar (200 for a rail car, freight container, transport acid mixtures, stabilized with acids, psig). vehicle or portable tank that contains water and not more than 5 percent * * * * * hazardous materials must include the peroxyacetic acid; B57 Class 115A tank car tanks used to reporting mark and number when Hydrogen peroxide, aqueous solutions transport chloroprene must be equipped displayed on the rail car, freight with more than 40 percent but not with a safety vent of a diameter not less container, transport vehicle or portable more than 60 percent hydrogen than 305 mm (12 inches) with a maximum tank. peroxide (stabilized as necessary); rupture disc pressure of 45 psi. (2) The shipping paper for each DOT– Hydrogen peroxide, aqueous solutions * * * * * 113 tank car containing a Division 2.1 with not less than 20 percent but not B65 Tank cars must have a test pressure of material or its residue must contain an more than 40 percent hydrogen 34.47 Bar (500 psig) or greater and conform appropriate notation, such as ‘‘DOT peroxide (stabilized as necessary); to Class 105J. Each tank car must have a 113’’, and the statement ‘‘Do not hump Hydrogen peroxide, stabilized or safety relief device having a start-to- or cut off car while in motion.’’ Hydrogen peroxide aqueous solutions, discharge pressure of 15.51 Bar (225 psig). (3) When shipments of elevated stabilized with more than 60 percent The tank car specification may be marked to indicate a test pressure of 20.68 Bar (300 temperature materials are transported hydrogen peroxide; psig). Motor fuel anti-knock mixtures; under the exception permitted in Nitric acid other than red fuming, with * * * * * § 173.247(h)(3) of this subchapter, the more than 70 percent nitric acid; B71 Tank cars must have a test pressure of shipping paper must contain an 20.68 Bar (300 psig) or greater and conform Nitric acid other than red fuming, with appropriate notation, such as to Class 105, 112, 114 or 120. ‘‘Maximum operating speed 15 mph.’’. not more than 70 percent nitric acid; B72 Tank cars must have a test pressure of Nitric oxide; 34.47 Bar (500 psig) or greater and conform * * * * * Nitric oxide and dinitrogen tetroxide to Class 105J, 106, or 110. 9. In § 172.205, paragraph (f) is mixtures or Nitric oxide and nitrogen B74 Tank cars must have a test pressure of revised to read as follows: dioxide mixtures; 20.68 Bar (300 psig) or greater and conform § 172.205 Hazardous waste manifest. Perchloryl fluoride; to Class 105S, 106, 110, 112J, 114J or 120S. Phosphorus, amorphous; B76 Tank cars must have a test pressure of * * * * * Phosphorus, white dry or Phosphorus, 20.68 Bar (300 psig) or greater and conform (f) Transportation by rail. white, under water or Phosphorus, to Class 105S, 112J, 114J or 120S. Each Notwithstanding the requirements of tank car must have a safety relief device white, in solution or Phosphorus, paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, having a start-to-discharge pressure of the following requirements apply: yellow dry or Phosphorus, yellow, 10.34 Bar (150 psig). The tank car under water or Phosphorus, yellow, in specification may be marked to indicate a (1) When accepting hazardous waste solution; test pressure of 13.79 Bar (200 psig). from a non-rail transporter, the initial Phosphorous white, molten; * * * * * rail transporter must: Potassium nitrate and sodium nitrite B78 Tank cars must have a test pressure of (i) Sign and date the manifest mixtures; 4.14 Bar (60 psig) or greater and conform acknowledging acceptance of the Sulfur trioxide, inhibited; and to Class 103, 104, 105, 109, 111, 112, 114 hazardous waste; Sulfur trioxide, uninhibited. or 120. * * * (ii) Return a signed copy of the b. For the entry ‘‘Calcium carbide’’, * * * * * manifest to the non-rail transporter; for Packing Groups I and II, in Column (iii) Forward at least three copies of § 172.102 [Amended] (7), Special Provision ‘‘B59,’’ is added the manifest to: immediately following ‘‘B55,’’ each 7. In addition, in § 172.102, in (A) The next non-rail transporter, if place it appears. paragraph (c)(3), the following changes any; c. For the entries ‘‘Carbon dioxide, are made: (B) The designated facility, if the solid or Dry ice’’ and ‘‘Potassium a. For Special Provision B4, the shipment is delivered to that facility by permanganate’’, in Column (7), Special wording ‘‘AAR 206 tank car tanks and’’ rail; or is removed. Provision ‘‘B12’’ is removed. (C) The last rail transporter designated b. For Special Provision B5, the d. For the entry ‘‘Dimethylhydrazine, to handle the waste in the United States; wording ‘‘DOT 103 ALW, 111A60 ALW unsymmetrical’’, in Column (7), Special and Provision ‘‘B79,’’ is removed. tank car tanks and’’ is removed. c. For Special Provision B10, the (iv) Retain one copy of the manifest 6. In § 172.102, in paragraph (c)(3), and rail shipping paper in accordance Special Provisions B12 and B79 are wording ‘‘AAR 206 tank car tanks,’’ is removed. with 40 CFR 263.22. removed and Special Provisions B42, (2) Rail transporters must ensure that B57, B65, B71, B72, B74, B76 and the 8. In § 172.203, paragraphs (e)(2) and (g) are revised to read as follows: a shipping paper containing all the first sentence of B78 are revised to read information required on the manifest as follows: § 172.203 Additional description (excluding the EPA identification § 172.102 Special provisions. requirements. numbers, generator certification and * * * * * * * * * * signatures) and, for exports, an EPA (c) * * * (e) * * * Acknowledgment of Consent (3) * * * (2) The description on the shipping accompanies the hazardous waste at all paper for a tank car containing the times. Intermediate rail transporters are Code/Special Provisions residue of a hazardous material must not required to sign either the manifest * * * * * include the phrase, ‘‘RESIDUE: LAST or shipping paper. 28676 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

(3) When delivering hazardous waste Hydrogen peroxide, stabilized tank, tank car (including dome to the designated facility, a rail Hydrogen peroxide and peroxyacetic acid capacity), multi-unit tank car tank, or transporter must: mixtures any compartment thereof, at the (i) Obtain the date of delivery and Nitric acid (other than red fuming) following reference temperatures— Phosphorus, amorphous ° ° handwritten signature of the owner or Phosphorus, white dry or Phosphorus, white, (i) 46 C (115 F) for a noninsulated operator of the designated facility on the tank; under water or Phosphorus white, in ° ° manifest or the shipping paper (if the solution, or Phosphorus, yellow dry or (ii) 43 C (110 F) for a tank car having manifest has not been received by the Phosphorus, yellow, under water or a thermal protection system, facility); and Phosphorus, yellow, in solution incorporating a metal jacket that (ii) Retain a copy of the manifest or Phosphorus white, molten provides an overall thermal signed shipping paper in accordance Potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate conductance at 15.5 °C (60 °F) of no with 40 CFR 263.22. mixtures more than 10.22 kilojoules per hour per Potassium permanganate square meter per degree Celsius (0.5 Btu (4) When delivering hazardous waste Sulfur trioxide, inhibited to a non-rail transporter, a rail Sulfur trioxide, uninhibited per hour/per square foot/ per degree F) transporter must: temperature differential; or * * * * * (i) Obtain the date of delivery and the (iii) 41 °C (105 °F) for an insulated 11. In § 172.510, paragraph (a) is tank. handwritten signature of the next non- revised, paragraphs (b) and (c) are rail transporter on the manifest; and removed, and paragraphs (d) and (e) are * * * * * (ii) Retain a copy of the manifest in redesignated as paragraphs (b) and (c), § 173.29 [Amended] accordance with 40 CFR 263.22. respectively, to read as follows: (5) Before accepting hazardous waste 15. In § 173.29, paragraph (f) is from a rail transporter, a non-rail § 172.510 Special placarding provisions: removed and reserved. Rail. transporter must sign and date the § 173.240 [Amended] manifest and provide a copy to the rail (a) White square background. The 16. In § 173.240, in paragraph (a), the transporter. following must have the specified wording ‘‘or 115 tank car tanks;’’ is placards placed on a white square * * * * * revised to read ‘‘115, or 120 tank car background, as described in § 172.527: 10. In § 172.330, paragraph (a)(1) is tanks;’’. revised to read as follows: (1) Division 1.1 and 1.2 (explosive) materials which require EXPLOSIVES § 173.241 [Amended] § 172.330 Tank cars and multi-unit tank car 1.1 or EXPLOSIVES 1.2 placards affixed tanks. 17. In § 173.241, in paragraph (a), the to the rail car; wording ‘‘or 115 tank car tanks;’’ is (a) * * * (2) Materials classed in Division 2.3 revised to read ‘‘115, or 120 tank car (1) In a tank car unless the following Hazard Zone A or 6.1 Packing Group I tanks;’’. conditions are met: Hazard Zone A which require POISON (i) The tank car must be marked on GAS or POISON placards affixed to the § 173.242 [Amended] each side and each end as required by rail car, including tank cars containing 18. In § 173.242, in paragraph (a), the § 172.302 with the identification only a residue of the material; and wording ‘‘or 115 tank car tanks;’’ is number specified for the material in the (3) Class DOT 113 tank cars used to revised to read ‘‘115, or 120 tank car § 172.101 Table; and transport a Division 2.1 (flammable gas) tanks;’’. (ii) A tank car containing any of the material, including tank cars containing following materials must be marked on only a residue of the material. § 173.243 [Amended] each side with the key words (including * * * * * 19. In § 173.243, in paragraph (a), the words such as ‘‘stabilized’’, ‘‘inhibited’’, wording ‘‘or 115 fusion-welded tank car ‘‘compressed’’, or ‘‘liquefied’’) of the § 172.526 [Removed and Reserved] tanks;’’ is revised to read ‘‘115, or 120 proper shipping name specified for the 12. Section 172.526 is removed and fusion-welded tank car tanks;’’. material in the § 172.101 Table, or with reserved. a common name authorized for the § 173.244 [Amended] material in this subchapter (e.g., PART 173ÐSHIPPERSÐGENERAL 20. In § 173.244, in paragraph (a), the ‘‘Refrigerant Gas’’): REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS wording ‘‘or 114 fusion-welded tank car AND PACKAGINGS tanks;’’ is revised to read ‘‘114, or 120 Acrolein, inhibited fusion-welded tank car tanks;’’. Ammonia, anhydrous, liquefied 13. The authority citation for Part 173 21. In § 173.314, as amended at 60 FR Ammonia solutions (more than 50% continues to read as follows: ammonia) 49074, effective July 1, 1996, paragraph Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5102–5127; 49 CFR Bromine or Bromine solutions (b)(5) is removed, paragraph (b)(6) is 1.53. Bromine chloride redesignated as paragraph (b)(5) and Chloroprene, inhibited 14. In § 173.24b, paragraph (a)(3) is revised, Note 2 following the paragraph Dispersant gas or Refrigerant gas (as defined removed and paragraph (a)(1) is revised (c) table is revised, and paragraph (i) is in § 173.115 of this subchapter) to read as follows: removed and reserved, to read as Division 2.1 materials follows: Division 2.2 materials (in Class DOT 107 tank § 173.24b Additional general requirements cars only) for bulk packagings. § 173.314 Compressed gases in tank cars Division 2.3 materials (a) Outage and filling limits. (1) and multi-unit tank cars. Formic acid Except as otherwise provided in this * * * * * Hydrocyanic acid, aqueous solutions subchapter, liquids and liquefied gases (b) * * * Hydrofluoric acid, solution Hydrogen cyanide, stabilized (less than 3% must be so loaded that the outage is at (5) Each tank car used for the water) least five percent for materials transportation of anhydrous ammonia or Hydrogen fluoride, anhydrous poisonous by inhalation, or at least one any material that meets the criteria of Hydrogen peroxide, aqueous solutions percent for all other materials, of the Division 2.1 or 2.3 must have gaskets for (greater than 20% hydrogen peroxide) total capacity of a cargo tank, portable manway cover plates and for mounting Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28677 of fittings designed (for temperature, shipment of hazardous material that is § 174.49 [Removed] application, media, pressure, and size) not in conformance with the 34. Section 174.49 is removed. to create a positive seal so that, under requirements of this subchapter. 35. Section 174.50 is revised to read conditions normally incident to as follows: transportation, there will not be an § 174.8 [Removed] identifiable release of the material to the 25. Section 174.8 is removed. § 174.50 Nonconforming or leaking packages. environment. The use of sealants to 26. Section 174.9 is revised to read as install gaskets is prohibited. follows: Leaking packages other than tank cars (c) * * * may not be forwarded until repaired, § 174.9 Inspection and acceptance. reconditioned, or overpacked in Notes: At each location where a hazardous accordance with § 173.3 of this * * * * * material is accepted for transportation subchapter. Except as otherwise 2. The liquefied gas must be so loaded so or placed in a train, the carrier shall provided in this section, a tank car that that the outage is at least two percent of the inspect each rail car containing the no longer conforms to this subchapter total capacity of the tank at the reference hazardous material, at ground level, for may not be forwarded unless repaired or temperature of 46 °C (115 °F) for a noninsulated tank; 43 °C (110 °F) for a tank required markings, labels, placards, approved for movement by the having a thermal protection system securement of closures and leakage. Associate Administrator for Safety, incorporating a metal jacket that provides an This inspection may be performed in Federal Railroad Administration. overall thermal conductance at 15.5 °C (60 conjunction with inspections required Notification and approval must be °F) of no more than 10.22 kilojoules per hour under parts 215 and 232 of this title. furnished in writing, or through per square meter per degree Celsius (0.5 Btu telephonic or electronic means with per hour/per square foot/per degree F) § 174.10 [Removed] subsequent written confirmation ° ° temperature differential; or 41 C (105 F) for 27. Section 174.10 is removed. provided within two weeks. For the an insulated tank. § 174.11 [Removed] applicable address and telephone * * * * * number, see part 107, subpart B, 28. Section 174.11 is removed. § 173.314 [Amended] Appendix A, of this chapter. A leaking tank car containing a hazardous material 22. In addition, in § 173.314, as § 174.18 [Removed] 29. Section 174.18 is removed. may be moved without repair or amended at 60 FR 49074, effective July approval only so far as necessary to 30. Section 174.24 is revised to read 1, 1996, the following changes are made: reduce or eliminate an immediate threat as follows: a. In the paragraph (c) table, in of harm to human health or the Column 3, the wording ‘‘, 120A’’ is § 174.24 Shipping papers. environment when it is determined its added in numerical order for the movement would provide greater safety following entries: A carrier may not accept or transport a hazardous material by rail unless the than allowing the car to remain in place. Ammonia, anhydrous, or ammonia carrier receives a shipping paper on In the case of a liquid leak, measures solutions > 50 percent ammonia which the hazardous material is must be taken to prevent the spread of Ammonia solutions with > 35 percent properly described in the manner the liquid. ammonia, but ≤ 50 percent ammonia prescribed in part 172 of this 36. Section 174.55 is revised to read by mass subchapter. An originating carrier must as follows: Division 2.1 materials not specifically retain a copy of the shipping paper that provided in this table § 174.55 General requirements. Division 2.2 materials not specifically bears the shipper’s certification as (a) Each package containing a identified in this table required by § 172.204 of this subchapter. hazardous material being transported by Division 2.3 Zone B materials not This section does not apply to a material rail in a freight container or transport specifically identified in this table that is excepted from shipping paper vehicle must be loaded so that it cannot Division 2.3 Zone C materials not requirements as specified in § 172.200 fall or slide and must be safeguarded in specifically identified in this table of this subchapter. such a manner that other freight cannot Division 2.3 Zone D materials not § 174.25 [Removed] fall onto or slide into it under specifically identified in this table 31. Section 174.25 is removed. conditions normally incident to Ethylamine 32. In § 174.26, paragraph (a) is transportation. When this protection b. In the paragraph (c) table, in removed, paragraphs (b) and (c) are cannot be provided by using other Column 3, for the entry ‘‘Dimethyl redesignated as paragraphs (a) and (b), freight, it must be provided by blocking ether’’, the class designations ‘‘, 112, respectively, and newly redesignated and bracing. For examples of blocking 114, 120’’ are added in appropriate paragraph (b) is revised to read as and bracing in freight containers and numerical order. follows: transport vehicles, see Bureau of Explosives Pamphlet Nos. 6 and 6C. PART 174ÐCARRIAGE BY RAIL § 174.26 Notice to train crews of placarded (b) Each package containing a cars. hazardous material bearing package 23. The authority citation for Part 174 * * * * * orientation markings prescribed in continues to read as follows: (b) A member of the train crew of a § 172.312 of this subchapter must be Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5127; 49 CFR train transporting a hazardous material loaded within a transport vehicle or 1.53. must have a copy of a document for the freight container to remain in the correct 24. Section 174.3 is revised to read as hazardous material being transported position indicated by those markings follows: showing the information required by during transportation. part 172 of this subchapter. (c) The doors of a freight container or § 174.3 Unacceptable hazardous materials transport vehicle may not be used to shipments. §§ 174.47 and 174.48 [Removed] secure a load that includes a package No person may accept for 33. Sections 174.47 and 174.48 are containing a hazardous material unless transportation or transport by rail any removed. the doors meet the design strength 28678 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations requirements of Specification M–930 § 179.15 Pressure relief devices. relief device must conform to Appendix (for freight containers) and M–931 (for Except for DOT Class 106, 107, 110, A of the Association of American trailers) in the AAR’s Manual of and 113 tank cars, tanks must have a Railroads Specifications for Tank Cars. Standards and Recommended Practices pressure relief system that conforms to (d) Flow capacity tests. The and the load is also within the limits of the following requirements: manufacturer of any reclosing or the design strength requirements for the (a) Performance standard. Each tank nonreclosing pressure relief device must doors. must have a pressure relief system design and test the device in accordance having sufficient flow capacity to with Appendix A of the Association of § 174.67 [Amended] prevent pressure build-up in the tank to American Railroads Specifications for 37–38. In § 174.67, in paragraph (k), no more than the flow rating pressure of Tank Cars. the wording ‘‘, except that heater coil the pressure relief device in fire (e) Combination pressure relief inlet and outlet pipes must be left open conditions as defined in Appendix A of systems. A nonreclosing pressure relief for drainage’’ is removed. the Association of American Railroads device may be used in series with a 39. Section 174.85 is amended by Specifications for Tank Cars. nonreclosing pressure relief valve. The revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: (b) Settings for pressure relief valves. pressure relief valve must be located (1) Except as provided in paragraph outboard of the nonreclosing pressure § 174.85 Position in train of placarded relief device. cars, transport vehicles, freight containers, (b)(2) of this section, a reclosing and bulk packagings. pressure relief valve must have a (1) When a breaking pin device is minimum start-to-discharge pressure used in combination with a reclosing * * * * * equal to the sum of the static head and pressure relief valve, the breaking pin (c) A tank car containing the residue must be designed to fail at the start-to- of a hazardous material must be gas padding pressure and the lading vapor pressure at the following discharge pressure specified in separated from a locomotive or paragraph (b) of this section, and the occupied caboose by at least one non- reference temperatures: (i) 46 °C (115 °F) for noninsulated reclosing pressure relief valve must be placarded rail car. tanks; designed to discharge at not greater than * * * * * (ii) 43 °C (110 °F) for tanks having a 95 percent of the start-to-discharge thermal protection system incorporating pressure. PART 178ÐSPECIFICATIONS FOR a metal jacket that provides an overall (2) When a rupture disc is used in PACKAGINGS thermal conductance at 15.5 °C (60 °F) combination with a reclosing pressure 40. The authority citation for part 178 of no more than 10.22 kilojoules per relief valve, the rupture disc must be continues to read as follows: hour per square meter per degree designed to burst at the start-to- Celsius (0.5 Btu per hour/per square discharge pressure specified in Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5127; 49 CFR paragraph (b) of this section, and the 1.53. foot/per degree F) temperature differential; and reclosing pressure relief valve must be § 178.337±2 [Amended] (iii) 41 °C (105 °F) for insulated tanks. designed to discharge at not greater than 41. In § 178.337–2, the following (2)(i) The start-to-discharge pressure 95 percent of the start-to-discharge changes are made: may not be lower than 5.17 Bar (75 psig) pressure. A device must be installed to a. In paragraph (b)(2)(i), the wording or exceed 33 percent of the minimum detect any accumulation of pressure ‘‘A–516–72’’ is revised to read ‘‘A 516’’. tank burst pressure. between the rupture disc and the b. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii) the wording (ii) Tanks built prior to October 1, reclosing pressure relief valve. The ‘‘A–20–72a’’ is revised to read ‘‘A 20’’. 1997 having a minimum tank burst detection device must be a needle valve, pressure of 34.47 Bar (500 psig) or less trycock, or tell-tale indicator. The PART 179ÐSPECIFICATIONS FOR may be equipped with a reclosing detection device must be closed during TANK CARS pressure relief valve having a start-to- transportation. discharge pressure of not less than 14.5 (3) The vapor tight pressure and the 42. The authority citation for Part 179 percent of the minimum tank burst start-to-discharge tolerance is based on continues to read as follows: pressure but no more than 33 percent of the discharge setting of the reclosing Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5127; 49 CFR the minimum tank burst pressure. pressure relief device. 1.53. (3) The vapor tight pressure of a (f) Nonreclosing pressure relief device. 43. Section 179.12 is revised to read reclosing pressure relief valve must be In addition to paragraphs (a), (b)(4), (c), as follows: at least 80 percent of the start-to- and (d) of this section, a nonreclosing discharge pressure. pressure relief device must conform to § 179.12 Interior heater systems. (4) The flow rating pressure must be the following requirements: (a) Interior heater systems shall be of 110 percent of the start-to-discharge (1) After October 1, 1998, a approved design and materials. If a tank pressure for tanks having a minimum nonreclosing pressure relief device must is divided into compartments, a separate tank burst pressure greater than 34.47 incorporate a rupture disc designed to system shall be provided for each Bar (500 psig) and from 110 percent to burst at 33 percent of the tank burst compartment. 130 percent for tanks having a minimum pressure. (b) Each interior heater system shall tank burst pressure less than or equal to (2) The approach channel and the be hydrostatically tested at not less than 34.47 Bar (500 psig). discharge channel may not reduce the 13.79 bar (200 psi) and shall hold the (5) The tolerance for a reclosing required minimum flow capacity of the pressure for 10 minutes without leakage pressure relief valve is ±3 psi for valves pressure relief device. or evidence of distress. with a start-to-discharge pressure of 6.89 (3) The nonreclosing pressure relief Bar (100 psig) or less and ±3 percent for device must be designed to prevent §§ 179.12±1 through 179.12±7 [Removed] valves with a start-to-discharge pressure interchange with other fittings installed 44. Sections 179.12–1 through greater than 6.89 Bar (100 psig). on the tank car, must have a structure 179.12–7 are removed. (c) Flow capacity of pressure relief that encloses and clamps the rupture 45. Section 179.15 is added to read as systems. The total flow capacity of each disc in position (preventing any follows: reclosing and nonreclosing pressure distortion or damage to the rupture disc Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28679 when properly applied), and must have Mini- c. In the table in paragraph (c)(1), the a cover, with suitable means of mum wording ‘‘A240–70’’ is revised to read preventing misplacement, designed to Mini- elon- ‘‘A 240’’ each place it appears. mum gation in direct any discharge of the lading tensile 2 inches d. In paragraph (c)(2)(i), the wording downward. ‘‘A262–68’’ is revised to read ‘‘A 262’’, Specifications strength (per- (4) The nonreclosing pressure relief (p.s.i.) cent) the word ‘‘Recommended’’ is revised to welded welded read ‘‘Standard’’, and the word device must be closed with a rupture condi- condi- disc that is compatible with the lading tion1 tion ‘‘Austenitic’’ is added immediately and manufactured in accordance with (longitu- before ‘‘Stainless Steel’’. dinal) Appendix A of the AAR Specifications § 179.100±10 [Amended] for Tank Cars. The tolerance for a AAR TC128, Gr. B ...... 81,000 20 48. In § 179.100–10, in paragraph (c), rupture disc is +0 to ¥15 percent of the ASTM A 302, Gr. B ...... 80,000 19 the wording ‘‘ASTM A240–70’’ is burst pressure marked on the disc. ASTM A 516 ...... 70,000 20 revised to read ‘‘ASTM A 240’’. (g) Location of relief devices. Each ASTM A 537, Class 1 ... 70,000 23 § 179.100±15 [Removed] pressure relief device must 1 Maximum stresses to be used in calcula- communicate with the vapor space tions. 49. Section 179.100–15 is removed above the lading as near as practicable and reserved. on the longitudinal center line and * * * * * § 179.100±20 [Amended] center of the tank. § 179.100±7 [Amended] 50. In § 179.100–20, in the paragraph (h) Marking of pressure relief devices. 47. In addition, in § 179.100–7, the Each pressure relief device and rupture (a) table, for the entry ‘‘Material’’, in the following changes are made: second column, the wording ‘‘ASTM disc must be permanently marked in a. In the table in paragraph (b), the accordance with the Appendix A of the A515–70’’ is revised to read ‘‘ASTM A last entry ‘‘ASTM B 209–70, Alloy 516’’. Association of American Railroads 60614’’ is removed and, in the first Specifications for Tank Cars. 51. Section 179.101–1 is revised to column, the wording ‘‘209–70’’ is read as follows: 46. In § 179.100–7, the table in revised to read ‘‘209’’ each place it paragraph (a) is revised to read as appears. § 179.101±1 Individual specification follows: b. In the footnotes to the paragraph (b) requirements. table, Footnotes 4 and 5 are removed In addition to § 179.100, the § 179.100±7 Materials. and Footnote 6 is redesignated as individual specification requirements (a) * * * Footnote 4. are as follows:

Bursting Minimum Test Manway DOT specification Insulation pressure plate pressure cover Bottom outlet Bottom wash- Reference thickness out (179.***) (psi) (inches) (psi) thickness

105A100ALW ...... Yes ...... 500 5/8 100 2 2 1/2 No ...... No. 105A200ALW ...... Yes ...... 500 5/8 200 2 2 1/2 No ...... No. 105A300ALW ...... Yes ...... 750 5/8 300 2 2 5/8 No ...... No. 105A100W ...... Yes ...... 500 3 9/16 100 2 1/4 No ...... No. 105A200W ...... Yes ...... 500 3 9/16 200 2 1/4 No ...... No. 105A300W ...... Yes ...... 750 1 11/16 300 7 2 1/4 No ...... No. 105A400W ...... Yes ...... 1,000 1 11/16 400 7 2 1/4 No ...... No. 105A500W ...... Yes ...... 1,250 1 11/16 500 2 1/4 No ...... No ...... 102±1, 102±2. 105A600W ...... Yes ...... 1,500 1 11/16 600 2 1/4 No ...... No ...... 102±4, 102±17. 109A100ALW ...... Optional ...... 500 5/8 100 2 2 1/2 No ...... Optional. 109A200ALW ...... Optional ...... 500 5/8 200 2 2 1/2 No ...... Optional. 109A300ALW ...... Optional ...... 750 5/8 300 2 2 5/8 No ...... Optional. 109A300W ...... Optional ...... 500 1 11/16 300 2 1/4 No ...... Optional. 112A200W ...... Optional 4 ..... 500 3 5 9/16 200 2 1/4 No ...... No. 112A340W ...... Optional 4 ..... 850 1 11/16 340 2 1/4 No ...... No. 112A400W ...... Optional 4 ..... 1,000 1 11/16 400 2 1/4 No ...... No. 112A500W ...... Optional 4 ..... 1,250 1 11/16 500 2 1/4 No ...... No. 114A340W ...... Optional 4 ..... 850 1 11/16 340 6 Optional ...... Optional ...... 103. 114A400W ...... Optional 4 ..... 1,000 1 11/16 400 6 Optional ...... Optional ...... 103. 120A200ALW ...... Yes ...... 500 5/8 200 2 2 1/2 Optional ...... Optional ...... 103. 120A100W ...... Yes ...... 500 3 9/16 100 2 1/4 Optional ...... Optional ...... 103. 120A200W ...... Yes ...... 500 3 9/16 200 2 1/4 Optional ...... Optional ...... 103. 120A300W ...... Yes ...... 750 1 11/16 300 2 1/4 Optional ...... Optional ...... 103. 120A400W ...... Yes ...... 1,000 1 11/16 400 2 1/4 Optional ...... Optional ...... 103. 120A500W ...... Yes ...... 1,250 1 11/16 500 2 1/4 Optional ...... Optional ...... 103. 1 When steel of 65,000 to 81,000 p.s.i. minimum tensile strength is used, the thickness of plates shall be not less than 5/8 inch, and when steel of 81,000 p.s.i. minimum tensile strength is used, the minimum thickness of plate shall be not less than 9/16 inch. 2 When approved material other than aluminum alloys are used, the thickness shall be not less than 2 1/4 inches. 3 When steel of 65,000 p.s.i. minimum tensile strength is used, minimum thickness of plates shall be not less than 1/2 inch. 4 Tank cars not equipped with a thermal protection or an insulation system used for the transportation of a Class 2 (compressed gas) material must have at least the upper two-thirds of the exterior of the tank, including manway nozzle and all appurtenances in contact with this area, fin- ished with a reflective coat of white paint. 5 For inside diameter of 87 inches or less, the thickness of plates shall be not less than 1/2 inch. 6 See AAR specifications for tank cars, Appendix E, E4.01 and § 179.103±2. 7 When the use of nickel is required by the lading, the thickness shall not be less than two inches. 28680 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

§ 179.102±1 [Amended] with a threaded closure may be and must exhibit corrosion rates not 52. In § 179.102–1, in paragraph (a)(1), substituted for the 1-inch pipe plug (see exceeding the following:’’ is revised to the following changes are made: Fig E17.6). If the threaded cap closure read ‘‘Practice A of ASTM Specification a. In the first sentence, the wording does not have a pipe plug or integral A 262 titled, ’Standard Practices for ‘‘A516–79b’’ is revised to read ‘‘A 516’’. auxiliary test valve, a minimum 1-inch Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular b. At the end of the third sentence, the NPT pipe plug shall be installed in the Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels.’ If wording ‘‘A370–77’’ is revised to read outlet nozzle above the closure (see Fig. the specimen does not pass Practice A, ‘‘A 370’’. E17.7). Practice B or C must be used and the c. In the last sentence, the wording (iv) A two-piece quick-coupling corrosion rates may not exceed the ‘‘A240–79’’ is revised to read ‘‘A 240’’. device using a clamped dust cap must following:’’. include an in-line auxiliary valve, either e. In the table in paragraph (e), in the § 179.102±2 [Amended] integral with the quick-coupling device first column, the wording ‘‘162–692’’ is 53. In § 179.102–2, in paragraph (a)(1), or located between the primary bottom revised to read ‘‘1622’’. the wording ‘‘A516–70a’’ is revised to outlet valve and the quick-coupling f. In the table in paragraph (f), in the read ‘‘A 516’’ and the wording ‘‘TC– device. The quick-coupling device first column, the wording ‘‘302–69a’’ is 128–70’’ is revised to read ‘‘TC–128’’. closure dust cap or outlet nozzle shall revised to read ‘‘302’’. be fitted with a minimum 1-inch NPT 58. In § 179.200–14, the first sentence § 179.102±4 [Amended] closure (see Fig. E17.8 and E17.9). of paragraph (a) and the first sentence of 54. In § 179.102–4, the following * * * * * changes are made: paragraph (b) are revised to read as 56. Section 179.200–7 is amended by follows: a. Paragraph (d) is removed. revising the table in paragraph (b) to b. Paragraphs (b) and (c) are read as follows: § 179.200±14 Expansion capacity. redesignated as paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively. § 179.200±7 Materials. (a) Tanks shall have expansion capacity as prescribed in this c. Paragraphs (e) through (k) are * * * * * redesignated as paragraphs (c) through (b) * * * subchapter. * * * (i), respectively. (b) For tank cars having an expansion d. Paragraph (l) is removed. Mini- dome, the expansion capacity is the mum 55. In § 179.103–5, in paragraph (a)(3), Mini- total capacity of the tank and dome elon- combined. * * * the word ‘‘valve’’ is removed, and mum gation in paragraph (b)(2) is revised to read as tensile 2 inches * * * * * strength (per- follows: Specifications (p.s.i.) 59. In § 179.200–16, the first sentence cent) in paragraph (d) is revised to read as § 179.103±5 Bottom outlets. welded weld condi- follows: 1 metal * * * * * tion (longitu- (b) * * * dinal) § 179.200±16 Gauging devices, top loading (2) To provide for the attachment of and unloading devices, venting and air inlet unloading connections, the discharge AAR TC 128, Gr. B ...... 81,000 19 devices. end of the bottom outlet nozzle or ASTM A 516, Gr. 70 ..... 70,000 20 * * * * * reducer, the valve body of the exterior 1 Maximum stresses to be used in calcula- (d) When using a visual gauging valve, or some fixed attachment thereto, tions. device on a car with a hinged manway shall be provided with one of the * * * * * cover, an outage scale visible through following arrangements or an approved the manway opening shall be modification thereof. (See appendix E. § 179.200±7 [Amended] provided. * * * Fig. E17 of the AAR Specifications for 57. In addition, in § 179.200–7, the * * * * * Tank Cars for illustrations of some of following changes are made: the possible arrangements.) a. In the table in paragraph (c), the last § 179.200±18 [Removed] (i) A bolted flange closure entry ‘‘ASTM B 209–70, Alloy 6061 4’’ is 60. Section 179.200–18 is removed. arrangement including a minimum 1- removed, and in the first column, for inch NPT pipe plug (see Fig. E17.1) or each entry, the wording ‘‘209–70’’ is § 179.200±24 [Amended] including an auxiliary valve with a revised to read ‘‘209’’. 61. In § 179.200–24, in the paragraph threaded closure. b. In the paragraph (c) table, Footnotes (a) table, for the entry ‘‘Material’’ , in the (ii) A threaded cap closure 4 and 5 are removed and Footnote 6 is second column, the wording ‘‘ASTM arrangement including a minimum 1- redesignated as Footnote 4. A285 C’’ is revised to read ‘‘ASTM A inch NPT pipe plug (see Fig. E17.2) or c. In the table in paragraph (d), in the 516–GR 70’’. including an auxiliary valve with a first column, for each entry, the wording 62. Section 179.201–1 is revised to threaded closure. ‘‘240–70’’ is revised to read ‘‘240’’. read as follows: (iii) A quick-coupling device using a d. In Footnote 2 in the paragraph (d) threaded plug closure of at least 1-inch table, the wording ‘‘the following § 179.201±1 Individual specification NPT or having a threaded cap closure procedures in ASTM Specification A requirements. with a minimum 1-inch NPT pipe plug 262–68 titled, ’Recommended Practices In addition to § 179.200, the (see Fig. E17.3 through E17.5). A for Detecting Susceptibility to individual specification requirements minimum 1-inch auxiliary test valve Intergranular Attack in Stainless Steels,’ are as follows:

Bursting Minimum Test DOT Specifica- Insulation pressure plate pressure Bottom Bottom washout References tion 1 thickness outlet (179.201 - ***) (psi) (inches) (psi)

103A±ALW ...... Optional ...... 240 1¤2 60 No ...... Optional. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28681

Bursting Minimum Test DOT Specifica- Insulation pressure plate pressure Bottom Bottom washout References tion 1 thickness outlet (179.201 - ***) (psi) (inches) (psi)

103AW ...... Optional ...... 240 179.201±2 60 No ...... Optional. 103ALW ...... Optional ...... 240 1¤2 60 Optional ...... Optional ...... 6(a). 103ANW ...... Optional ...... 240 179.201±2 60 No ...... Optional ...... 6(d). 103BW ...... Optional ...... 240 179.201±2 60 No ...... No ...... 6(b), 3. 103CW ...... Optional ...... 240 179.201±2 60 No ...... No ...... 6(c), 4,5. 103DW ...... Optional ...... 240 179.201±2 60 Optional ...... Optional ...... 6(a), 6(c), 4, 5. 103EW ...... Optional ...... 240 179.201±2 60 No ...... Optional ...... 6(c), 4, 5. 103W ...... Optional ...... 240 179.201±2 60 Optional ...... Optional ...... 6(a). 104W ...... Yes ...... 240 179.201±2 60 Optional ...... Optional ...... 6(a). 111A60ALW1 ...... Optional ...... 240 1¤2 60 Optional ...... Optional ...... 6(a). 111A60ALW2 ...... Optional ...... 240 1¤2 60 No ...... Optional. 111A60W1 ...... Optional ...... 240 7¤16 60 Optional ...... Optional ...... 6(a). 111A60W2 ...... Optional ...... 240 7¤16 60 No ...... Optional. 111A60W5 ...... Optional ...... 240 7¤16 60 No ...... No ...... 3, 6(b). 111A60W6 ...... Optional ...... 240 7¤16 60 Optional ...... Optional ...... 4, 5, 6(a), 6(c). 111A60W7 ...... Optional ...... 240 7¤16 60 No ...... No ...... 4, 5, 6(a). 111A100ALW1 ..... Optional ...... 500 5¤8 100 Optional ...... Optional ...... 6(a). 111A100ALW2 ..... Optional ...... 500 5¤8 100 No ...... Optional. 111A100W1 ...... Optional ...... 500 7¤16 100 Optional ...... Optional ...... 6(a). 111A100W2 ...... Optional ...... 500 7¤16 100 No ...... Optional. 111A100W3 ...... Yes ...... 500 7¤16 100 Optional ...... Optional ...... 6(a). 111A100W4 ...... Yes (see 500 7¤16 100 No ...... No ...... 6(a), 8, 10. 179.201±11). 111A100W5 ...... Optional ...... 500 7¤16 100 No ...... No ...... 3. 111A100W6 ...... Optional ...... 500 7¤16 100 Optional ...... Optional ...... 4, 5, 6(a) and 6(c). 111A100W7 ...... Optional ...... 500 7¤16 100 No ...... No ...... 4, 5, 6(c). 1 Tanks marked ``ALW'' are constructed from aluminum alloy plate; ``AN'' nickel plate; ``CW,'' ``DW,'' ``EW,'' ``W6,'' and ``W7'' high alloy steel or manganese-molybdenum steel plate; and those marked ``BW'' or ``W5'' must have an interior lining that conforms to § 179.201±3.

§ 179.201±4 [Amended] Mini- b. In the table in paragraph (d), the mum wording ‘‘ASTM 240–70’’ is revised to 63. In § 179.201–4, at the end of the Mini- elon- paragraph, the wording ‘‘AAR mum read ‘‘ASTM 240’’ each place it appears. tensile gation in Specifications for Tank Cars, appendix strength 2 inches c. In the table in paragraph (e), the Specifications (per- wording ‘‘ASTM A 302–70a’’ is revised M, M3.03(b) and M4.05(d)’’ is revised to (p.s.i.) cent) read ‘‘ASTM Specification A 262’’. welded to read ‘‘ASTM A 302’’. condi- weld 1 metal § 179.201±5 [Amended] tion (longitu- § 179.220±19 [Removed] dinal) 64. In § 179.201–5, in paragraphs (a) 68. Section 179.220–19 is removed. and (b), the wording ‘‘ASTM A240–70’’ AAR TC 128, Gr. B ...... 81,000 19 69. Section 179.221–1 is revised to is revised to read ‘‘ASTM Specification ASTM A 516, Gr. 70 ..... 70,000 20 read as follows: A 240’’ each place it appears. 1 Maximum stresses to be used in calcula- tions. § 179.221±1 Individual specification § 179.201±7 [Removed] requirements. * * * * * 65. Section 179.201–7 is removed. In addition to § 179.220, the 66. In § 179.220–7, the table in § 179.220±7 [Amended] individual specification requirements paragraph (b) is revised to read as 67. In addition, in § 179.220–7, the are as follows: follows: following changes are made: a. In the table in paragraph (c), the last § 179.220±7 Materials. entry ‘‘ASTM B 209–70, Alloy 6061 4’’ is * * * * * removed, and the wording ‘‘ASTM B 209–70’’ is revised to read ‘‘ASTM B (b) * * * 209’’ each place it appears.

Minimum Bursting plate thick- Test pres- Reference DOT specification 1 Insulation pressure Bottom outlet Bottom washout (179.221± ness sure (psi) *** (psi) (inches) )

115A60ALW ...... Yes ...... 240 3¤16 60 Optional. Optional ...... 115A60W1 ...... Yes ...... 240 1¤8 60 Optional ...... Optional ...... 1 115A60W6 ...... Yes ...... 240 1¤8 60 Optional ...... Optional ...... 1 1 Tanks converted to DOT±111A series from existing forge-welded specification, DOT±105A 300, 490, or 500 tanks, by modification using con- version details complying with DOT±111A specification requirements, shall be stenciled by substituting the letter ``F'' for the letter ``W'' in the specification designation. 28682 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

§ 179.222 [Removed] 70. Section 179.222 is removed. § 179.222±1 [Removed] 71. Section 179.222–1 is removed. § 179.300±7 [Amended] 72. In § 179.300–7, the following changes are made: a. In the table at the end of paragraph (a), the entries for ‘‘ASTM A 285–69’’ and ‘‘ASTM A 515–69’’ are removed. b. Paragraph (b) is removed and reserved. § 179.500±17 [Amended] 73. In § 179.500–17, paragraph (a)(7) is removed. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 17, 1996, under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1. Rose A. McMurray, Acting Deputy Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration. [FR Doc. 96–12954 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910±60±P federal register June 5,1996 Wednesday Airplanes; FinalRule Operation ofSubsonicTransport Standards forApprovalHighAltitude 14 CFRPart25 Federal AviationAdministration Transportation Department of Part IV 28683 28684 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109, Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION As noted in Notice 89–31, the higher during a decompression, which must be operational altitudes made feasible by shown to result in a maximum cabin Federal Aviation Administration the advent of turbojet transport altitude of no more than 40,000 feet. airplanes introduced certain risks with Accordingly, the changes adopted in 14 CFR Part 25 respect to crew and passenger breathing this amendment have been developed to [Docket No. 26070, Amendment No. 25±87] that were not experienced with earlier provide adequate standards for safe propeller-driven airplanes. Accordingly, operation of such airplanes up to 51,000 RIN 2120±AB18 certification standards were developed feet. Should an applicant seek approval Standards for Approval for High in the early 1950s to permit safe to operate a transport category airplane Altitude Operation of Subsonic operation of early turbojet transport above that altitude, additional standards Transport Airplanes airplanes up to certain maximum may be needed for safe operation. If so, operating altitudes—typically 41,000 or appropriate special conditions would be AGENCY: Federal Aviation 42,000 feet. Subsequent to the type adoptive to require compliance with Administration (FAA), DOT. certification of the early turbojet those standards. ACTION: Final rule. transport airplanes, applicants The changes in this amendment requested approval to operate certain involve ventilation, cabin cooling, SUMMARY: This amendment to the later airplanes at higher altitudes. These pressurization and pressure vessel Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) were in most cases small ‘‘executive’’ integrity, and oxygen equipment. The specifies airplane and equipment transport airplanes, and the requested following paragraphs describe the airworthiness standards for subsonic altitudes ranged up to 51,000 feet. changes, and the reasons for the transport airplanes to be operated up to The operation of these airplanes at changes, in the regulations incorporated an altitude of 51,000 feet. This action is altitudes above 40,000 feet usually with the adoption of this amendment. prompted by an increase in the number involved a number of novel or unusual The comments received in response to of applications received to raise the design features that were not addressed Notice 89–31, the disposition of the maximum certificated operating altitude by the airworthiness requirements in the comments, and, when applicable, the for transport category airplanes, and is current regulations. In order to ensure a effect of the comments on the changes, intended to ensure an acceptable level level of safety equivalent to that are discussed immediately following of safety for airplanes operated at high established by part 25 of the FAR, this section. altitudes. §§ 21.16 and 21.101 of part 21 require EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 1996. that additional standards be developed 1. Ventilation (Airflow and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: in the form of special conditions and Contamination) that compliance with the special Robert C. McCracken, Flight Test and Prior to this amendment, § 25.831(a) Systems Branch, ANM–111, Transport conditions be demonstrated. The regulatory changes adopted by required each passenger and crew Airplane Directorate, Aircraft this amendment codify and consolidate compartment to be ventilated and each Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue the different high-altitude criteria that crew compartment to have enough fresh Southwest, Renton, Washington 98055– have been made applicable by special air to enable crewmembers to perform 4056; telephone (206) 227–2118. conditions to previously certificated their duties without undue discomfort SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: subsonic transport airplanes. In or fatigue. For the crew compartment, a minimum of 10 cubic feet of fresh air Background addition, the changes acknowledge a human physiological limit of 34,000 feet per minute per crewmember was This amendment is based on Notice of (see Glossary), the level above which required. Section 25.1309 (specifically Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) No. 89– persons not using supplementary §§ 25.1309(b)(2) and 25.1309(d)(3)) 31, which was published in the Federal oxygen are in serious peril. To assure requires that the effects on occupants of Register on November 22, 1989 (54 FR compatibility or equivalency with other any failures of required systems be 48538). The notice proposed to upgrade provisions of part 25, which were analyzed, but § 25.1309 is a general rule airplane and equipment airworthiness amended after many of the special and does not specifically address standards for subsonic transport conditions discussed herein were minimum airflow requirements. airplanes to be operated up to an implemented, these changes are written The executive transport special altitude of 51,000 feet, and it was based so that terminology relating to the conditions that have been applied in the on special conditions that have been probability of certain failures is past supplemented § 25.831(a) by used for type certification for many consistent with those other provisions. specifying that the minimum fresh years. Generally, the intent of those provisions airflow of 10 cubic feet per minute (cfm) Current policy for FAA rulemaking is to recognize that the degree of hazard per crewmember was to be provided to projects is to endeavor to achieve of any given failure is inversely related each occupant during normal operation. harmonization with the Joint to the probability of occurrence of that The special conditions also required Airworthiness Authorities (JAA) and failure. Failures that are considered to that each occupant be furnished with other airworthiness authorities through be catastrophic must be shown to be enough uncontaminated air to provide the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory extremely improbable, and hazardous reasonable comfort during normal Committee (ARAC) and its failures must be shown to be improbable operating conditions and also after any harmonization working groups. (see Glossary). Examples of these terms probable failure of any system that Although this rulemaking project has are found in §§ 25.671, 25.672, and would adversely affect the cabin not been the subject of a harmonization 25.1309. ventilation air. This rule amends working group activity, because it was It must be noted that widespread § 25.831 to include the additional initiated prior to the time harmonization operation of transport category airplanes airflow requirements contained in became a high priority with the FAA at altitudes greater than 51,000 feet is previous special conditions, stipulating and JAA, comments received from the not currently envisioned. A major factor that the ventilation system must be JAA members were addressed in this in an approval for operation up to designed to provide 10 cfm (converted amendment. 51,000 feet is an emergency descent to pounds of air) for each occupant. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109, Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28685

Some airplanes now incorporate 3. Pressurization and Pressure Vessel are not shown to be extremely ventilation systems in which fresh air is Integrity improbable: (1) the flightcrew will augmented with conditioned and Section 25.365(d), increases the remain alert and be able to fly the recirculated air. Section 25.831(a) as fuselage pressure relief valve safety airplane; (2) the cabin occupants will be amended permits a ventilation system factor of 1.33 by 25 percent to 1.67, protected from the effects of hypoxia; that uses a mixture of the minimum codifying the standard that was and (3) in the event that some occupants amount of fresh air and any desired originally contained in the SST special do not receive supplemental oxygen, quantity of recirculated air that is conditions. This increased structural they nevertheless will be protected shown to be uncontaminated by odors, safety factor was also included in the against permanent physiological damage. particulates, or gases. In this regard, the executive transport special conditions to Section 25.841(a)(1) as amended is minimum amount of fresh air is reduce the likelihood of structural specified by weight rather than by equivalent to the existing § 25.841(a) failure and to limit the size of the with the exception of editorial changes volume in order to provide a parameter opening if a failure occurs. It is included independent of altitude. Ten cubic feet and elimination of the words in this amendment for this reason. ‘‘reasonably’’ and ‘‘or malfunctions.’’ of standard air at a typical cabin altitude The FAA had considered proposing The ‘‘probable’’ failure criteria are the of 8,000 feet and typical cabin both pressurization standards similar to temperature of 75°F. weighs same as those contained in § 25.1309. those previously required by the special The term ‘‘failure conditions’’ has been approximately 0.55 pounds. This rule conditions for executive transport and amends § 25.831 to include the added to this section to clarify that separate standards similar to those failure combinations that lead to a additional airflow requirements as required for large transport airplanes. noted above. This standard is equivalent probable depressurization event must The separate standards were thought to also be considered. to the present requirement for be necessary because of the inherent crewmembers. Section 25.841(a)(2) as amended differences in pressurized volume of the limits exposure of the airplane 2. Cabin Cooling two types of transports, and the belief occupants, after decompression, to a that a larger airplane may decompress cabin altitude no greater than 40,000 During the Supersonic Transport more slowly than a smaller airplane. feet. This requirement is unchanged (SST) review in the 1960s, it was noted Upon further review, this approach was from that previously established in part that certain pressurization system deemed impractical because certain 25 for certification of transport category failures, whether considered by larger transport airplanes have airplanes using diluter demand themselves or in combination with the decompression characteristics more (flightcrew) and continuous flow use of hot ram air for emergency analogous to smaller transport airplanes (passenger) oxygen equipment (see pressurization, could lead to cabin and vice versa. Therefore, this Glossary). temperatures exceeding human amendment applies the same standard Section 25.841(a)(2) as amended is a tolerance. The FAA therefore concluded to all transport airplanes. combination of the later executive that any failure or combination of It should be noted that the special transport high altitude special failures that could lead to temperature conditions required consideration of conditions and § 25.1309, i.e., the exposures that would cause undue specific failures, which are addressed degree of the hazard must be inversely discomfort must be shown to be later in this discussion. Subsequent to related to the probability of the failure improbable (see Glossary). Minor the issuance of the special conditions, condition. The amended § 25.841(a)(2) corrective actions (e.g., selection of reliability, probability, and damage was developed from the alternate equipment or procedures) tolerance concepts addressing other recommendations of CAMI and is based would be allowed if necessary for failures and methods of analysis were on the concept of ‘‘Time of Safe probable failures. The FAA also incorporated into part 25. This Unconsciousness’’ documented by concluded that any failure or amendment allows the use of these James G. Gaume (see Reference 1). The combination of failures that could lead additional methods of analysis and use of continuous-flow oxygen masks by to intolerable temperature exposures failure considerations. passengers following rapid must be extremely improbable. Major The earlier executive transport special decompression to cabin altitudes above corrective actions (e.g., emergency conditions required a pressure demand 34,000 feet may fail to provide descent, configuration changes) would mask (see Glossary). Later special protection from hypoxia, as noted in the be allowed for an improbable failure conditions included, pursuant to the discussion under Paragraph 4. condition. Temperature limits were recommendations of the FAA Civil ‘‘OXYGEN EQUIPMENT,’’ below. incorporated into the special conditions Aeromedical Institute (CAMI), a Additionally, some passengers might be imposed on executive transport requirement for a pressure demand exposed to high cabin altitudes airplanes when approved for high mask with a mask-mounted regulator following decompression without the altitude operation. The SST and (see Glossary). The requirement for the use of oxygen. A few passengers may executive transport special conditions use of the same type of equipment is lose consciousness at 34,000 feet cabin contained two graphs which explained adopted by this amendment. altitude, and more may lose the requirements for the probable and The objective of the amended consciousness at greater altitudes even improbable cases. In formulating this § 25.841(a) (pressurization) when with the use of continuous-flow oxygen amendment, the FAA has determined applied in conjunction with amended equipment. Exposure to cabin altitudes that the public interest is served by § 25.1447(c) (oxygen equipment) is to in excess of 25,000 feet for more than 2 adopting the time-temperature limits provide airworthiness standards that minutes without supplemental oxygen associated with improbable failure allow subsonic airplanes to operate at may cause permanent physiological conditions, and they are adopted as a their maximum achievable altitudes. (brain) damage. Therefore, in order to new § 25.831(g). This amendment does This is the highest altitude for which an demonstrate compliance with this rule, not allow the time of exposure at any applicant chooses to demonstrate that, approved emergency descent given temperature to exceed the values after decompression caused by a single procedures and a cabin altitude analysis given in the associated graph. failure or combination of failures that must be prepared to ensure that these 28686 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109, Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations altitude limits are not exceeded decompression are generally considered delay is imposed between the cabin following a decompression failure that to include a loss of a typical skin panel altitude warning and the beginning of is not shown to be extremely bound by a crack stopper pattern, a door action for descent. The critical failure improbable. seal, window, or windshield, unless the case (probable system failure) must be Section 25.841(a)(3) as amended design is such that loss of the demonstrated by system failure tests at describes the failure conditions that windshield is shown to be extremely the maximum airplanes altitude. For must be considered in evaluating cabin improbable when operating at the improbable failure, the cabin altitude decompression. Possible modes of higher altitudes. Structural failures in can be established by analysis, and failure to be evaluated include executive transport airplanes leading to verified, if necessary, by tests at a much malfunctions and damage from external decompression, discussed in the various lower altitude, with the results sources such as tire burst, wheel failure, special conditions, included the extrapolated to the higher altitude. uncontained engine failure, engine fan, following: compressor or turbine multi-blade 1. Any single failure in the 4. Oxygen Equipment failure, and loss of antennas. Sections pressurization system combined with Both diluter demand and pressure 25.1309 and 25.571, and associated the occurrence of a leak produced by the demand oxygen equipment have proven advisory material, provide guidance in complete loss of a door seal element, or satisfactory for cabin pressure altitudes determining the sources of failure. a fuselage leak through an opening of 40,000 feet or less when the person System failures (both latent and active), having an area 2.0 times the area which using the oxygen equipment is exposed combinations of system failures, system produces the maximum permissible gradually to increased altitudes. failures combined with pressure vessel fuselage leak rate approved for normal However, the FAA was concerned that leaks, system failures causing engine operation in accordance with rapid decompression to cabin pressure shutdown, uncontained engine failures § 25.841(a). altitudes that exceed 34,000 feet could causing structural and system damage, 2. The maximum pressure vessel temporarily negate the protective and structural failures without system opening resulting from an initially qualities of such equipment, unless the failures must all be evaluated. Typical detectable crack propagating for a mask and oxygen are being used prior systems include engine bleed air period encompassing four normal to the decompression, leading to systems, air conditioning systems, inspection intervals. Mid-panel cracks moderate to severe decreases in power sources, outflow valves and and cracks through skin-stringer and flightcrew performance. To prevent control systems. Failures which expose skin-frame combinations must be such performance decrements, Notice the occupants to cabin altitudes in evaluated. 89–31 proposed that the use of 100 excess of either 25,000 feet for more 3. Pressure vessel openings resulting percent oxygen be required by this than 2 minutes or 40,000 feet for any from tire burst, uncontained engine amendment for flightcrews operating at amount of time must be shown to be failure, loss of antennas, or stall warning airplane altitudes which may expose extremely improbable. vanes, or any probable equipment them to cabin altitudes exceeding The executive transport airplane failure. The effects of such damage 34,000 feet following a pressurization special conditions required evaluation while operating under maximum cabin failure. As discussed below, in response of uncontained engine failure (including pressure differential must be evaluated. to public comment, this requirement has fan, compressor and turbine blades, and Subsequent to the initial development been removed pending further study by rotor disc) and complete loss of thrust and issuance of high altitude special the FAA. from all engines. The FAA policy has conditions, § 25.571 was amended by Prior to this amendment, been to presume that these failures will Amendments 25–45 (1978) and 25–52 § 25,1447(c)(3) required that each occur and permit the use of analytical (1980) to require damage-tolerance and washroom be equipped with two oxygen methods to assess the damage. Multiple fatigue evaluation of airplane primary outlets and two units of dispensing engine failures have occurred because of structure. Section 25.571 requires equipment. The term washroom has secondary effects from uncontained showing that a catastrophic failure due been replaced in other sections of part engine failure and from operational to fatigue, corrosion, or accidental 25. This reference is deleted for errors. Multiple fan blade, rotor, and damage will not occur throughout the consistency, and the existing provisions other uncontained engine failures have operational life of the airplane (§ 25.571 of § 25,1447(c)(3) are incorporated into occurred during cruise conditions and (a)). The effects that are required to be a revised § 25.1447(c)(1). The amended have caused cabin decompression. The considered under § 25.571 are not regulation does not specify demand service history of airplane limited to depressurization. Compliance equipment under § 25.1447(c)(2), decompressions resulting from with § 25.571 requires the development because § 25.1447(c)(3)(i) as amended uncontained engine failure has been of inspection intervals and procedures allows the option of using either diluter acceptable. Flight levels for most for the detection of crack lengths demand or pressure demand equipment transport airplanes have been at an associated with the decompression of for airplanes to be operated above an altitude where oxygen equipment is critical vent areas. Any event that would altitude of 25,000 feet, and capable of providing adequate expose the occupants to cabin pressure § 25,1447(c)(3)(ii) as amended requires protection. Uncontained engine failure altitudes in excess of the limits pressure demand equipment for is most likely to occur during takeoff established under this amendment must airplanes where decompression may and climb; however, approximately 20 be shown to be extremely improbable. expose the flightcrew to cabin altitudes percent of the known bursts have In demonstrating compliance with in excess of 34,000 feet. occurred in cruise mode, not including proposed § 25.841, the crew would those caused by bird strikes. The presumably perform an emergency Discussion of Comments possibility of an uncontained engine descent in accordance with an approval Comments were received from foreign failure in cruise mode cannot be emergency procedure. The time and domestic airplane manufacturers, ignored, and the damage resulting in required for the crew to recognize a foreign government agencies, various depressurization must be assessed. decompression emergency and don their trade organizations representing Structural failures in large transport oxygen masks has been established by employee groups, and individuals. The airplanes which would result in tests to be 17 seconds. This 17-second majority of the commenters support the Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109, Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28687 proposals but many suggest changes. same degree. The current § 25.603(c) acceptable minimum airflow. The Many commenters recommend editorial, already requires that the effects of commenter provides no data to support organizational, and clarifying comments temperature be accounted for in the recommendation. The rule is issued which would result in clearer language. determining material properties. Section with the change noted above. Several commenters recommend 25.365 is, therefore, amended as The same commenter notes that the removing the proposed change to proposed. notice does not contain clear § 25.365(d) that would require a safety Two commenters note that the requirements for airflow following factor of 1.67 times the structural design probability terminology regarding failures. The commenter further notes pressure differential loads proposed §§ 25.831 (c), (d), and (g) is that the JAA provides guidance in ACJ corresponding to the maximum relief not consistent with that found in 25.831(e) regarding this matter. The valve setting for airplanes to be regulatory and advisory material FAA has not determined that a need approved for operation above 45,000 associated with § 25.1309. The FAA exists to define the ventilation feet. One commenter notes that the concurs with these comments. The requirements following failures. The pressure vessel structural design is terminology in the amendment is ventilation rates following various based on fatigue loads and their effect changed to address failure conditions failures conditions were not addressed on crack propagation. Another rather than failures or failure either in previously issued special commenter expresses the opinion that, combinations as proposed. conditions or Notice 89–31. In addition, One commenter recommends as the justification for the margin the commenter did not provide any data allowing the fresh air requirements in support of his proposal other than increase is concerned with damage proposed to be required under that it exists in advisory material in tolerance rather than static strength, the § 25.831(a) to remain a crewmember other airworthiness standards. FAA should attack the problem through requirement only. The FAA does not One commenter states that 0.6 pounds damage tolerance requirements rather concur with this recommendation. It has of fresh air per occupant is impractical than static strength. This commenter been determined that this level of and unjustified for commuter airplanes also states that the damage tolerance airflow is required for several reasons. because available engines do not requirements, even at altitudes below Members of the flightcrew performing provide sufficient bleed flow to meet the 40,000 feet, lead to stress levels their functions in the passenger cabin new requirement. The FAA does not sufficiently low so that the 1.67 are not sedentary and must perform concur that this proposal is impractical requirement is ‘‘likely to be complied their duties without undue discomfort or unjustified. This rule will not apply with.’’ A third commenter recommends or fatigue. In addition, fresh airflow has to existing airplanes. When new changing the wording to remove the been determined to be necessary to airplanes are designed and certificated, 1.67 factor, substituting a requirement provide adequate smoke clearance in propulsion systems are available that that thermal effects on structural the event of smoke accumulation due to can provide adequate bleed air to meet components and materials must be a system failure or fire. However, it is these requirements. The FAA has accounted for. The FAA does not concur clear that the additional airflow is not determined that health and safety that the higher factor is not necessary required at all times and under all considerations justify the new for airplanes operating at altitudes operating conditions. Therefore, the requirements for airplanes operating at above 45,000 feet. A rapid wording in the final rule has been all altitudes. decompression at altitudes above 45,000 changed to state that the ventilation Further, the commenter states that the feet could be catastrophic to the system must be designed to provide the changes proposed for §§ 25.831 (c) and passengers. Therefore, this event must fresh airflow. This also addresses (d) will require an increase in reliability be extremely improbable; i.e., it is not concerns regarding the low fresh airflow requirements that is not justifiable for expected to occur during the lifetime of capability that occurs during descent at airplanes certificated for altitudes below an entire fleet of airplanes. Service low power levels. 40,000 feet. This commenter believes history, however, shows that Two commenters note that the fresh that the existing wording, ‘‘reasonably decompressions at higher altitudes are air requirement should be 0.55 pounds probable,’’ is not equivalent to the not extremely remote events even for of fresh air per minute per occupant proposed wording, ‘‘not extremely airplanes assessed to the damage rather than the 0.6 pounds proposed in improbable.’’ The FAA concurs with the tolerance criteria. Loss of cabin pressure the notice. The FAA ‘‘rounded off’’ the commenter, and has determined that at lower altitudes has not been value for mass flow from 0.55 to 0.6 these changes are not needed. Therefore, catastrophic to the passengers from pounds of fresh air per second when because these were the only proposed environmental effects due to the higher proposing the rule. Recognizing that this changes to §§ 25.831 (c) and (d), the ambient pressures and relatively short constitutes an increase in the level of final rule has been revised to remove the time for emergency descent. Although safety not originally intended by the changes to these sections. application of damage tolerance FAA, and noting that the added fresh air Two commenters recommend either techniques will reduce the incidence of must be supplied at some specific cost, removing or defining the word pressure vessel failures in service, there the final rule is changed to require that ‘‘uncontaminated’’ as used in the is no reason to expect that current the airplane ventilation system be proposed § 25.831(a), noting that the methodology will preclude all future designed to provide 0.55 pounds of term is too vague, and might well be failures. To address these concerns, the fresh air per minute per occupant. impossible to meet in, for instance, the FAA has determined that requiring the Another commenter recommends that case where the airplane is operating in higher safety factor of 1.67 will reduce the FAA use 0.5 pounds per minute per an environment which itself contains the probability of structural failures occupant rather than 0.6, noting that the contaminants, as might be the case near which could result in depressurization. Civil Aviation Authorities (CAA) and some airports in congested areas, the The static factor of 1.67 is not other airworthiness authorities use 0.5 FAA does not concur with the appropriate to account for thermal pounds per minute. The FAA has comment. Descriptive wording is often effects because not all parts are determined that the 10 cubic feet per used when the desire is to present subjected to the same temperature and minute, converted to 0.55 pounds per objective design standards. The intent in also materials may not be affected to the minute as noted above, provides an this case is to ensure that the system 28688 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109, Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations designer will consider the need to mask is that, if either the 100 percent or hazard is not regarded as sufficient to provide an environment conducive to the full positive pressure (sometimes warrant retroactive application of these crew and passenger comfort. The FAA called ‘‘test’’) setting is selected, requirements to existing designs, these has prepared and plans to release protection from smoke within the improvements in design standards are advisory material to provide more cockpit would be provided. While the appropriate and cost effective for future detailed guidance for use in finding degree of protection is not identified, designs. While this change was compliance with this rule. selection of either of these settings does proposed primarily to codify existing One commenter recommends eliminate the ambient air which is special conditions for high altitude removing both the proposed and the inspired with diluter demand masks, operation, it is also appropriate for existing §§ 25.831 (c) and (d), stating thus reducing the risk of smoke or airplanes certificated for operation at that the sections are ambiguous and that fumes being inhaled by the wearer. lower maximum altitudes. A third the requirement that the systems Three parties offer comments on the commenter recommends changing the perform their intended functions under proposed new § 25.831(g). One proposed rule to clarify that the all foreseeable (normal and failure) commenter recommends continuing the amended rule is directed at airplanes conditions is addressed in § 25.1309. time/temperature curve proposed for which utilize high temperature air to The FAA does not concur. As noted this section beyond 90 minutes, and maintain pressurization following above, descriptive terminology is used recommends referring to the curve in failure conditions. While the FAA to present design standards when the FAA SST ‘‘white book,’’ concurs that the requirement, which specific requirements would be too TENTATIVE AIRWORTHINESS originated in existing special inflexible and restrictive. Further, STANDARDS FOR SUPERSONIC conditions, was directed primarily at § 25.1309 is not intended to be the sole TRANSPORTS. Copies of the such airplanes, the amended rule is regulation for use in determining appropriate pages from that document intended to apply to any failure acceptability of system design when have been added to the docket for this condition that can result in excessively failure conditions exist. The FAA has rulemaking action. The FAA infers that high temperatures. For the above found that individual rules are desirable the commenter believes the curve reasons, § 25.831(g) is added as when addressing specific functions, should be extended to 200 plus minutes proposed. such as those governing ventilation because that is the extent of the graph One commenter recommends leaving requirements, in order to ensure in the white book. The FAA does not the phrase ‘‘Pressurized cabins and adequate consideration of the specific concur with this comment. The curve in compartments to be occupied * * *’’ in issues identified. the white book actually ends at 90 § 25.841(a) rather than changing it to One commenter suggest changing the minutes for a temperature of 90 degrees ‘‘Pressurized cabins and any other wording of the proposed § 25.831(d) Fahrenheit (90 °F), although the actual occupied compartments * * *’’ as from ‘‘If the accumulation of hazardous graph grid extends to over 200 minutes. proposed. The commenter notes that quantities of smoke * * *,’’ noting that The FAA, in responding to comments this change is not addressed in the in-service experience has shown that on previously issued special conditions preamble to the proposal, and expresses accumulation of smoke is reasonably for high altitude operations, modified concern that the change in wording likely. The FAA concurs that the the SST time/temperature curve by might result in a change in accumulation of smoke in cockpits has increasing the allowable maximum interpretation. The FAA does not occurred on numerous occasions, and is temperature from 90 degrees to 100 concur with this comment. This change not an extremely improbable event. degrees Fahrenheit to accommodate in wording does not change the meaning However, future designs may embody aircraft while operating in high ambient of the Section, and, in the opinion of the features that render smoke temperature conditions. It was noted FAA, is clearer. accumulation extremely improbable. that it would be difficult to meet the One commenter recommends adding Should a manufacturer be able to show temperature maximums while operating a section to the proposed § 25.841(a)(3) such reliability, smoke evacuation on the ground with outside to note that ‘‘Turbine engine should not be required to be temperatures above 100 degrees. The installations failures must be assessed demonstrated. end point on the proposed curve according to the specific requirements Two commenters note that protection indicates that the exposure time to a of § 25.903(d) * * *’’ The FAA does not from smoke in the cockpit cannot be temperature of 100 degrees Fahrenheit concur with this recommendation. It is ensured, even while wearing and using (100 °F) shall not exceed 90 minutes. not clear how adding this detail would the crewmember oxygen equipment The FAA has determined that the limits clarify the requirements for assessing stipulated in the proposed established by this curve are appropriate the damage resulting from an contained § 25.1447(c)(3), unless an ‘‘emergency for improbable failure conditions. In engine failure. Further clarification is pressure (1 to 3 inches of water) is addition, there were no other comments considered to be appropriate for provided to ensure positive mask addressing the proposed time/ advisory material, and the FAA pressure and flow into goggles.’’ The temperature limits. Considering the addresses uncontained engine failure in FAA recognized that a positive pressure above, the curve in the final rule is the advisory circular which was differential between the inside of the retained as proposed. proposed concurrent with Notice 89–31. mask and ambient is desirable. Many A second commenter states that this One commenter states that the existing regulators have a ‘‘test’’ or amendment is not justified for airplanes proposed § 25.841(a)(1) calls for ‘‘an ‘‘emergency’’ position to provide the operating below 40,000 feet. The FAA unjustified reliability increase relating pressure differential noted above. infers that the commenter is to the pressurization system.’’ The FAA However, the FAA does not concur that recommending removing this proposal. infers that the commenter is requesting this approach needs to be required by The FAA does not concur that this that the rule continue to address only regulation, and has not proposed such a change is unjustified. Excessive those failures which are ‘‘reasonably change. For the purposes of this temperatures in the crew and passenger probable.’’ The FAA does not concur. rulemaking, the preamble of Notice 89– compartments can present a hazard to As noted earlier, reasonably probable 31 merely notes that one of the continued safe flight and landing for has been interpreted by the FAA to advantages of the pressure demand any airplane. Therefore, although this include both the probable and Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109, Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28689 improbable categories. For this reason, One commenter recommends revising occupants to be exposed to cabin the new wording does not constitute an § 25.841(a)(1) to show that ‘‘In case of altitudes greater than 25,000 feet or increase in the required reliability. dispatch with equipment inoperative 10,000 feet (if (iii) were adopted) when The same commenter states that the per an approved Minimum Equipment minimum flight altitudes make literal proposed § 25.841(a)(2) will be in List (MEL), only reasonably probable compliance with these sections conflict with the proposed failures or reasonably probable failure impractical. The commenter is § 25.841(a)(1). The FAA does not agree. malfunctions need be considered,’’ concerned that literal compliance with Section 25.841(a)(1) addresses when addressing the 15,000 feet § 25.841(b) would result in prohibition acceptable cabin pressure altitudes maximum cabin altitude requirement of of flight over the Himalayas or Andes, following probable failure conditions, this section. The commenter notes that or in certain areas where minimum while § 25.841(a)(2) addresses cabin dispatch under an approved MEL with altitudes are stipulated. The FAA does altitudes following failure conditions one of two air conditioning packs not share this concern. The proposed not shown to be extremely improbable, inoperative has been a safe practice. The rule requires design features to prevent i.e., probable and improbable failure FAA does not concur with this the exposure of occupants to the high conditions. recommendation. The certification rules cabin altitudes in the presence of failure One commeter expresses the concern in part 25 do not address MEL dispatch. conditions. The ability to operate in that the adoption of the proposed In the case of dispatch with one pack areas where operational constraints § 25.841(a)(2)(i), which limits exposure inoperative, the practice followed in dictate minimum flight altitudes is a to cabin pressure altitudes exceeding recent certification projects has been to function of operating rules and 25,000 feet to a maximum of 2 minutes limit the operating altitude of an appropriate flight planning in terms of for failure conditions not shown to be airplane dispatching under these supplemental oxygen, etc. The extremely improbable, will result in conditions to that which has been certification rules do not address these ‘‘severe restrictions on flight routes as demonstrated in that configuration considerations. well as maximum certification altitude.’’ considering the effect of potential The same commenter recommends The commeter states that the proposed failures. The FAA intends that this changing § 25.841(a)(3) to more §§ 25.841(a)(2) and (a)(3) are proposed practice be continued under this rule. precisely define the manner in which to address concerns regarding One commenter suggests adding a various causes of a decompression are ‘‘extremely rapid decompressions which new § 25.841(a)(2)(iii) reading treated, and suggests subparagraphs may occur with small volume, high ‘‘Compliance with paragraph (i) is not treating uncontained engine failure, altitude (to 51,000 feet) executive required for cabin altitude versus time fuselage structural failure, discrete transport airplanes,’’ and recommends profiles where exposure above ten source failure, and system failure that the FAA remove these sections thousand feet does not exceed 10 separately. The FAA does not agree that from the final rule. The FAA does not minutes.’’ The commenter notes that these details are appropriate for concur. While it is true that one of the operating rules (§ 121.333(a)) assume inclusion in the certification rule. The reasons for formulating this rule change that the airplane descends from the FAA plans to provide guidance material was to codify the certification maximum altitude to 10,000 feet in ten regarding the manner in which the requirements previously issued as minutes, and that permanent ill effects various failure cases may be addressed. special conditions for small volume from hypoxia under present operating One commenter supports the transport category airplanes requesting rules have been rare. Further, recent rulemaking but states that ‘‘Existing approval for high altitude operation, the special conditions for the Beech Model crew and passenger emergency oxygen FAA has reviewed the service history of 400A and British Aerospace Model BAe systems in civil aircraft do not have rapid depressurizations on all transport Model 125–1000A airplane contains sufficient pressure breathing capability category airplanes including those with cabin altitude versus time curves which to protect the individual for the required large pressurized volumes. Such events, support the ‘‘ten minutes above 10,000 length of time for controlled descent to while rare, do occur in service. The feet’’ criteria. The FAA does not concur below 33,000 feet where, I believe, effects of exposure to altitudes above with the commenter’s suggestion. The existing oxygen systems may function 25,000 feet for more than 2 minutes, or cabin altitude limitations stipulated in adequately for life support.’’ The FAA to an altitude above 40,000 feet for any the special conditions were interim infers from this comment that the period of time, are discussed in the standards applicable to those airplanes commenter desires that this proposal preamble of the notice. If an applicant only. Physiological data from CAMI contain new requirements for oxygen can show that failure conditions leading have resulted in the FAA establishing systems. The FAA does not agree with to excellence of these cabin altitudes are the requirements for cabin altitudes as this commenter concerning equipment extremely improbable, there is no they are stated in the proposal. used by the flightcrew. The FAA has impact on operating altitude. As to Adopting the commenter’s proposal determined that the oxygen dispensing having a significant effect on operating could result in an applicant being equipment required by this rule will altitudes, this requirement does not allowed to demonstrate compliance provide adequate protection when the affect airplanes already certificated, so while showing exposures to cabin exposure envelopes are observed. The there would be no ‘‘more extensive altitudes up to 40,000 feet for extended FAA shares the commenter’s concern requirements on the current commercial periods while still meeting the with respect to the passenger oxygen fleet.’’ This commenter also standards, which would be equipment. While the passenger recommends changing ‘‘any probable unacceptable. The FAA has determined equipment is certificated to operate to a failure or failure combinations’’ to ‘‘any that preventing the occupants from pressure altitude of 40,000 feet, the probable failure or probable failure being exposed to cabin altitudes greater physiological effects of decompression combination.’’ As noted earlier, the FAA than 25,000 feet for more than 2 minutes on the passengers may prevent the is changing the wording for both or 40,000 feet for any duration will equipment from being effective in all §§ 25.831 and 25.841 to ‘‘failure provide an acceptable level of safety at cases. The alternatives would be to conditions,’’ which covers failures and an acceptable cost. require the passengers to breathe 100 combinations of failures, and more This commenter also suggests adding percent oxygen at the altitudes of closely parallels § 25.1309 terminology. a new § 25.841(a)(2)(iv) to allow the concern or to prohibit operation at the 28690 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109, Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations higher altitudes. Breathing 100 percent (pressure demand mask with a diluter rulemaking is to identify a minimum oxygen by all passengers is considered demand pressure breathing regulator) equipment standard that is known to to be an unacceptable solution from an type with a mask-mounted regulator is provide this protection, and that operational standpoint, and the required for airplanes operated at equipment is called out in the amended exposure envelopes adopted for this altitudes where decompressions that are sections. rule have been selected to mitigate the not extremely improbable may expose Another commenter suggests limitations of the passenger oxygen the flightcrew to cabin pressure amending § 25.1443 by addition of a system. It is considered that developing altitudes above 34,000 feet. curve of ‘‘cabin pressure altitude versus new oxygen equipment standards to be One commenter recommends that the minimum required oxygen mass flow’’ included with this rule is unwarranted. pressure breathing requirements of for cabin altitudes from 0 to 51,000 feet The FAA has determined that operation §§ 25.1447(c)(3)(i) and (ii) be detailed in which would replace the generic mass at the altitudes addressed in this rule the form of mask pressure versus cabin flow requirement which appears in can be accomplished with an acceptable altitude curves. The commenter suggests § 25.1441. The FAA does not concur level of safety, and this rule has that the current pressure breathing with this comment. A revision to established cost effective means of equipment specified under Technical § 25.1443 as suggested by the attaining that goal. Standard Order TSO–C89 may not be commenter would not increase the level One commenter suggests that the acceptable for cabin altitudes up to of safety. Existing rules related to requirement in § 25.1447(c)(1) for 45,000 feet. The commenter provides no oxygen mass flow provide an adequate automatic presentation of oxygen rationale in support of his level of safety. If such material were to dispensing units if certification for recommendation. The FAA does not be added, this level of detail would be operation above 30,000 feet is requested concur. The type of data recommended more appropriate in a Technical refer to 31,000 feet, as 30,000 feet by the commenter is appropriate to TSO Standard Order or the advisory material (FL300) is not an authorized cruising requirements, and the revision to those that has been proposed to accompany altitude. The FAA agrees that this is not documents is beyond the scope of this this rulemaking action. a cruising altitude. However, the FAA notice. Further, one of the purposes of One commenter recommends deleting does not concur that it is inappropriate this rulemaking is to provide protection § 25.1447(c)(3)(ii) both as it now exists to stipulate a requirement for operation by preventing exposure of the occupants and as proposed. The existing section is above 30,000 feet. Further, this to cabin altitudes above 40,000 feet. deleted for the reasons noted in the requirement is unchanged from the Masks and regulators are currently in preamble to Notice 89–31. The existing rule. use that meet the requirements in the commenter believes that the section as A second commenter recommends curves submitted by the commenter for proposed, which stipulates the use of ‘‘a amending § 25.1447(c)(1) by removing conditions up to that altitude. pressure demand (pressure demand the requirement for supplemental One commenter notes that a pressure mask with a diluter demand pressure oxygen for passengers if the cabin demand mask with a mask-mounted breathing regulator) type with a mask- altitude limits in Notice 89–31 are regulator may have different oxygen mounted regulator,’’ is unduly adopted. The commenter states that it is delivery percentage requirements under restrictive by requiring a mask-mounted not realistic to expect all passengers to TSO–C89 depending on the altitude for regulator, and dictates a design solution. utilize the oxygen system, and infers which it is certificated. The commenter Additionally, the commenter states that that if the limits proposed are adopted, suggests that the rule clarify the mask §§ 25.1441(d) and 25.1443(b) and the risk to healthy passengers is and regulator requirements by Technical Standard Order TSO–C89 minimal. The FAA does not concur with stipulating the altitude to which the address oxygen equipment, thereby this comment. If the FAA were to follow mask and regulator are approved under obviating the need for the proposed the commenter’s logic, i.e., not to the TSO. The FAA does not concur with section. Another commenter require passenger oxygen systems, the this suggestion. By specifying the type recommends that the FAA define the exposure envelope would limit the of oxygen equipment for the crew, and required oxygen equipment (diluter cabin altitude to 15,000 feet. Historical the manner of its use, the FAA has demand and pressure demand masks) in events and decompression tests indicate determined that the flightcrew will terms of performance rather than by that supplemental oxygen is needed retain the ability to safely operate the stipulating a specific equipment type. even when the cabin pressure altitudes airplane during a decompression. The FAA does not concur with these required by this rule are observed. One commenter suggests withdrawing comments. The specific descriptions for Further, this requirement is unchanged the proposed § 25.1447(c)(3)(ii) because the oxygen equipment that is proposed from the existing rule. No other the equipment standards defined in in these amendments has been comments were received on the TSO–C89 ‘‘provide the necessary determined by the FAA to be necessary proposed §§ 25.1447 (c)(1) and (c)(2) oxygen up to 40,000 feet, and are to provide protection for the flightcrew and they are adopted as proposed. considered safe.’’ The FAA does not in cases where the cabin altitude will One commenter states that concur. There is no requirement that the exceed the specified levels. Neither of § 25.1447(c)(3) requires pressure equipment used in transport category the FAR sections nor the TSO data demand masks for operation above airplanes be approved under a TSO. As provide adequate assurance of that 25,000 feet but the justification in the discussed in the notice, operation at protection. The FAA believes that this preamble of the notice states that diluter altitudes which can, in the event of a detailed stipulation is necessary to demand masks are acceptable up to rapid decompression, result in ensure the protection and to provide 34,000 feet. The FAA does not agree incapacitation or a physiological hazard standardization in interpretation of the with this comment. Section to the occupants requires oxygen new requirements. However, the FAA 25.1447(c)(3)(i) requires a diluter equipment to meet the specific intends to allow sufficient latitude for demand or pressure demand (pressure environments that may be encountered. system designers to develop safer and/ demand mask with a diluter demand It is recognized that equipment with or less expensive approaches to specific pressure breathing regulator) type mask TSO authorization is available that will requirements. For this reason, for airplanes to be operated above provide the required protection at a § 25.1447(c)(3)(ii) is changed to allow 25,000 feet. The pressure demand reasonable cost. The intent of this other means of protection for flight Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109, Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28691 crewmembers if the proposed breathing 100 percent oxygen will dry seat with additional units located at equipment affords the same protection. out the lungs, can lead to narcosis, and specific locations in the passenger One commenter states that existing states that the long term effects are not cabin. The FAA anticipates that panel-mounted diluter-demand clearly understood. Another commenter industry will continue to provide this regulators have proven satisfactory. This recommends deleting the proposal to protection in the same manner as it has party suggests that the pressure-demand require the wearing of masks and revert done in existing airplanes, with no mask with a mask-mounted regulator be to the requirements in the operating change in the rule or in FAA policy mandatory for newly certificated rules. Another commenter states that regarding showing compliance. airplanes only. The FAA agrees that large volume transports decompress Two commenters point out that the panel mounted regulators have proven slowly giving crews more time to don nomenclature used in the glossary of the satisfactory, but the FAA has oxygen masks, and current large notice misidentified the type of determined that in a high altitude rapid transports are certificated to 45,000 feet passenger oxygen equipment used in decompression, the protection afforded without requiring the flightcrew to be airplanes with altitudes above 35,000 by a mask mounted regulator is superior using oxygen. The FAA infers that the feet. One commenter recommends to that found in panel mounted commenter believes that this proposal changing the definition in the Glossary regulators. As noted in the preamble of should not apply to ‘‘large’’ transport for ‘‘Continuous Flow Oxygen Systems’’ the notice, the time delay in providing airplanes. The FAA does not concur to note that the type of equipment used 100 percent oxygen to the flight with this viewpoint. The physical size is a mask with a ‘‘reservoir’’ bag rather crewmember, which results from the air of the airplane is not germane; the than a ‘‘rebreather’’ bag. The FAA in the hoses of the oxygen equipment, important parameter is the post- concurs with these comments, and the can significantly negate the hypoxic decompression cabin altitude and its glossary is changed to reflect the protection of such equipment. Further, effect on occupants. One commenter terminology used in current descriptive this amendment constitutes a revision to notes that the requirement for literature. part 25, and is not applicable to the prebreathing 100 percent oxygen would One commenter notes that, while existing fleet. It is, however, the FAA’s necessitate additional oxygen supplies special conditions have been issued position that every effort be made to at added cost. Finally, one commenter covering various airplanes requesting provide a level of safety equal to the questions whether breathing 100 approval for high altitude operations, latest certification standards for existing percent rather than 40 percent oxygen this proposal impacts all airplanes airplanes that are updated by amended provides better protection in terms of seeking certification under part 25 of the or supplemental type certification. The blood oxygen saturation level. This FAR, including those with maximum FAA’s policy regarding establishment of commenter provides data showing that flight altitudes less than 41,000 feet. These proposals constitute increased the type certification basis for derivative prebreathing 30 to 40 percent oxygen standards for those airplanes. The FAA airplanes is described in Action Notice provides adequate protection against the concurs with this statement. This A 8110.23, dated September 26, 1990. A effects of hypoxia following rapid rulemaking addresses the physiological copy of this document has been placed decompression. The data show that the limitations of occupants of transport in the Rules Docket. Following issuance blood oxygen saturation level following category airplanes which can experience of these amendments, the concepts the decompression is not significantly depressurization to cabin altitudes contained herein would be applicable to depressed even if the crew member is greater than 34,000 feet. However, the airplanes which incorporate changes in breathing 30 percent oxygen, as long as the oxygen systems or increases in commenter does not recommend any the oxygen supplied to the crew approved operating altitudes, in specific changes in the proposals. member goes to 100% immediately. accordance with § 21.101. For high The JAA notes that future rulemaking After considering all the negative altitude approvals, this has been relative to the Joint Airworthiness comments received and reviewing accomplished in the past through Regulations (JAR) will require existing data regarding high altitude special conditions which contain retroactive application for each new decompressions, the FAA has provisions essentially the same as those amendment, and asks if the FAA is determined that it is appropriate to embodied in these amendments. considering similar action. As noted Several comments express concerns withdraw this proposal. The proposed earlier, application of new amendments regarding long term use of 100 percent § 25.1447(c)(4), requiring that one flight to the FAR are made applicable to type oxygen by fightcrews. One of these crewmember be wearing an oxygen certification programs in accordance parties suggests that the crew member mask and breathing 100 percent oxygen with § 21.101 of the FAR. There are no use normally diluted oxygen with the when operating at altitudes where the plans to require retroactive application regulator set at the ‘‘normal’’ position. cabin altitude can reach 34,000 feet in of new amendments to the existing fleet, Another states that 100 percent oxygen the event of a decompression, has been as suggested by the JAA. The JAA also should not be permitted unless adequate withdrawn. suggests considering a number of added safeguards have been established. A One commenter states that, regarding concerns regarding operations at high third party states that 100 percent the proposed § 25.1447(c)(5), portable altitudes, such as the effects of icing on oxygen should be used only for short oxygen equipment would only be ‘‘at airspeed and pressure probes, changes periods as an emergency measure due to hand’’ if the crew members were sitting in static stability criteria for high mach/ a health hazard. One commenter by the oxygen equipment or were high altitude operation, and health recommends deleting the proposed actually using it, and recommends hazards related to cosmic radiation § 25.1447(c)(4) and retaining striking the work ‘‘immediately’’ from during high altitude cruise. A second § 121.333(c)(2), which requires at least the proposal. The FAA does not believe commenter recommends that the one pilot to wear and use an oxygen this change is necessary or warranted. proposal be revised to address standards mask at altitudes of 41,000 feet and This requirement is retained from the related to the exposure of crewmembers greater. Another commenter believes existing § 25.1447(c)(4), and is to cosmic radiation when operating at that wearing an oxygen mask at lower considered met in existing airplanes by altitudes up to 51,000 feet. The effects altitudes ‘‘is not necessary nor is it having portable oxygen equipment of icing (ice crystals) on airspeed and useful.’’ One commenter notes that located adjacent to the crew member pressure probes and stability criteria 28692 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109, Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations were not considered in the special rules provide an acceptable level of breathe 100 percent oxygen when conditions issued prior to this safety, and the proposed rules will operating at altitudes where the cabin rulemaking, and no data was submitted result in ‘‘undue restrictions or altitude can reach 34,000 feet in the by the commenter to support its unvalidated costly additional effort.’’ event of a decompression. In response to position. No action is contemplated by Another commenter expresses a similar public comments and cost the FAA regarding these comments. The opinion, and comments that adoption of considerations, the FAA has withdrawn effects of cosmic radiation are not these standards will have a significant this proposal and will subject it to addressed in this proposal, and no data economic impact due to requiring further study. In regard to the were submitted by either commenter in retrofit of many existing airplanes. The commenter’s recommendation regarding support of their suggestions. The FAA is FAA does not share these views. The small entities, the magnitude of the aware of the concerns expressed by the protection afforded the occupants costs and the number of affected small commenters and may consider further should be the same for any transport entities, rather than simply the rulemaking to address those concerns. category airplane, regardless of volume. incidence of costs, are the criteria by One commenter suggests requiring Larger airplanes have shown which a rule is judged to have a initial and periodic training including decompression characteristics similar to significant economic impact on small altitude chamber and pressure breathing the small airplanes. If the applicant can entities. A regulatory flexibility instruction for pilots of airplanes demonstrate that the cabin altitude does determination of the final rule is affected by this rulemaking. As the not exceed prescribed limits, many of presented in the next section of this certification rules in part 25 do not the provisions of this amendment do not document. address specific training requirements, apply. In any case, these rules are not The same commenter also states that this proposal is outside the scope of this retroactive to existing airplanes as a the Regulatory Evaluation does not take rulemaking. However, this proposal will result of this rulemaking, and only new into consideration evolving FAA policy be discussed with the FAA organization or modified airplanes are required to of applying the latest FAR amendments responsible for crew training. meet the new requirements. Another when determining the certification basis One commenter notes that the FAA commenter makes the point that there for amended type certifications. The should require improvements in have been recent decompression events FAA agrees and has added this policy pressure demand masks to improve involving large airplanes wherein the to this final regulatory evaluation, comfort, and suggests that research and decompression ‘‘is surely as explosive without affecting the justification of the development in comfort and human as any to be realized on a smaller Lear rule. It is FAA’s policy that every effort factors is needed. The FAA believes that Jet . . .,’’ and agrees with the proposals. be made to provide a level of safety there is oxygen equipment available that Another commenter believes that equal to the latest certification standards meets the requirements of this rule and existing supplemental oxygen systems for existing airplanes that are updated also provides an acceptable level of are acceptable, and if the requirements by amended or supplemental type comfort. The small executive jet in Notice 89–31 are adopted, there are certificates. Amendments to the FAR airplanes approved under existing strong arguments for elimination of the may be made applicable to derivative special conditions are so equipped. If passenger oxygen system. The FAA does airplanes in accordance with § 21.101 if further improvements are needed, the not concur with these statements. While it is determined that the new or marketplace will drive the development it is recognized that not all passengers redesigned system is not adequately and availability of these products. will be able to don their oxygen addressed in the regulations One commenter suggests that the FAA equipment, the protection afforded by incorporated by reference to the type has failed to consider the relatively the systems currently installed provides design. small transport category airplanes acceptable protection from the effects of The commenter also identifies a intended for commuter airline hypoxia at an acceptable cost for the statement in the NPRM Regulatory operation. The example noted is a majority of the occupants from the Evaluation that incorrectly assumes that 16,000 pound airplane intended to carry effects of hypoxia. Even when the new airplanes will not have engines 25 passengers, operating at altitudes of decompression event is slower or the mounted in positions which could 25,000 to 30,000 feet. The commenter cabin altitude is limited, and the oxygen damage the fuselage. The commenter states that the manufacturer will apply masks are not absolutely essential for appears to be misinterpreting FAA’s for certification to the highest expected survival, some protection is afforded to language. The statement being referred operating altitude and the amendments all the passengers when the cabin to by the commenter is one pertaining of this proposal will apply. The specific altitude exceeds safe limits. The only to small volume transport comments related to these concerns are operating rules also require the addressed elsewhere in this document, airplanes. The FAA agrees that most installation of this equipment. other transport category airplanes will but the commenter apparently believes One commenter states that the have wing-mounted engines located that these applicants should not have economic analysis reflects an operating such that fragments from an engine these requirements imposed on their cost increase of $19 million per year, burst could affect the fuselage and airplanes. The position adopted by the implying that the rule would have to pressure vessel. FAA with this rulemaking action is that save 19 lives per year to be reasonable. any airplane operating at flight altitudes The same commenter recommends References revising the Regulatory Flexibility where decompression can result in a Reference 1. ‘‘Factors Influencing the Time hazard to the occupants must be Determination because small entities of Safe Unconsciousness (TSU) for designed to provide protection. may operate affected airplanes and may Commercial Jet Passengers Following Cabin One commenter recommends leaving incur increased operating costs. In each Decompression’’ by James G. Gaume, the regulations as they now exist for case, the commenter appears to be Aerospace Medicine, April 1970. large airplanes operating up to 45,000 referring to FAA’s economic analysis of Reference 2. Aerospace Information Report feet and directing the proposed rules to proposed § 25.1447(c)(4). As noted (AIR) No. 822 and 825B (Physiology Section); the smaller airplanes operating at higher earlier, Notice 89–31 proposed that SAE Committee A–10. altitudes. This party states that large § 25.1447(c)(4) require that one flight Copies of pertinent portions of these airplanes certified under the existing crewmember wear an oxygen mask and documents have been placed in the Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109, Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28693

Rules Docket and are available for 34,000 feet. This pressurized supply of landing of the airplane. Systems that public inspection. oxygen provides some additional operate within this category are referred protection against hypoxia at altitudes to as critical systems. Glossary up to 39,000 feet. Physiology Altitude Limits. The Pressure Demand Mask With Mask- Regulatory Evaluation Summary response of human beings to increased Mounted Regulator. A pressure demand Proposed changes to Federal altitude varies with the individual. mask with the regulator attached regulations must undergo economic People that smoke or are in poor health directly to the mask, rather than analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 will be affected at a much lower altitude mounted on the instrument panel or directs that each Federal agency shall than people who are young and in good other area within the flight deck. The propose or adopt a regulation only upon physical condition. Without mask-mounted regulator eliminates the a reasoned determination that the supplementary oxygen, most people problem of a long hose which must be benefits of the intended regulation will begin to experience a reduction in purged of air before oxygen is delivered justify its costs. Section, the Regulatory night vision or general visual acuity at to the mask. Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies approximately 5,000 feet altitude. At an Continuous Flow Oxygen System. The to analyze the economic effect of altitude of approximately 10,000 feet, a oxygen system typically provided to regulatory changes on small entities. person will begin to display measurable passengers. The passenger mask most Third, the Office of Management and deterioration in mental abilities and commonly used in transport category Budget directs agencies to assess the physical dexterity after a period of airplanes is equipped with a reservoir effects of regulatory changes on several hours. At 18,000 feet, the mental bag, which is replenished by a international trade. In conducting these deterioration may result in continuous flow of oxygen. This design analyses, the FAA has determined that unconsciousness, and the time of useful incorporates a check valve between the this rule: (1) will generate benefits that consciousness (TUC) is generally about reservoir bag and the face mask to justify its costs; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 15 minutes. At 25,000 feet, the TUC for prevent introduction of exhaled gasses regulatory action’’ as defined in the most people is about 3–10 minutes. At into the bag and assure 100% oxygen in Executive Order and is not ‘‘significant’’ altitudes above 25,000 feet, the TUC the reservoir. Dilution is accomplished as defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies decreases very rapidly, becoming only a at the later phases in inspiration by a and Procedures; (3) will not have a few seconds at 40,000 feet. If a person loaded ambient air valve which significant economic impact on a is breathing 100 percent oxygen, introduces ambient air following substantial number of small entities; however, the partial pressure of oxygen depletion of the oxygen in the reservoir and (4) will not constitute a barrier to in the lungs at 34,000 feet altitude is the bag. international trade. These analyses, same as that for a person breathing air Probable Failures. Probable failures at sea level. At 40,000 feet, a person may be expected to occur several times available in the docket, are summarized breathing 100 percent oxygen will have during the operational life of each below. the same partial pressure of oxygen in airplane. The probability of occurrence Regulatory Evaluation Summary the lungs as a person breathing air at is on the order of 1 × 10¥5 or greater 10,000 feet. Therefore, 34,000 feet is the (Advisory Circular 25.1309–1A). The The rule may impose relatively highest altitude at which a person consequences of the failure or the incremental costs in that applicant would be provided complete protection required corrective action may not manufacturers will be required to from the effects of hypoxia, and 40,000 significantly impact the safety of the demonstrate compliance and operators feet is the highest altitude at which 100 airplane or the ability of the crew to may experience increased operating percent oxygen will provide reasonable cope with adverse operating conditions. costs. The FAA has determined that protection for the time period needed to Systems that operate within this these potential incremental costs will be descend to a safe altitude. category are referred to as nonessential exceeded by the safety and efficiency Hypoxia. Hypoxia is a condition systems. benefits of the rule. caused by insufficient oxygen. It results Improbable Failures. Improbable A. Ventilation and Cabin Cooling— from the reduced oxygen partial failures are not expected to occur during § 25.831 (a), (c), (d), and (g) pressure in the inspired air caused by the total operational life of a random the decrease in barometric pressure with single airplane of a particular type, but The FAA has determined that health increasing altitude. may occur during the total operational and safety considerations justify the Diluter Demand Oxygen System. A life of all airplanes of a particular type. airflow design requirements of flightcrew oxygen system consisting of a The probability of occurrence is on the § 28.831(a) for all transport category close-fitting mask with a regulator that order of 1 × 10¥5 or less. The airplanes. First, cabin crewmembers supplies a flow of oxygen proportional consequences of the failure or the must be able to perform their duties to cabin altitude. Regulators are usually required corrective action must not without undue discomfort or fatigue. designed to provide zero percent oxygen prevent the continued safe flight and Secondly, benefits may be realized from and 100 percent cabin air at cabin landing of the airplane. Systems that the assured availability of the additional altitudes of 8,000 feet or less, with the operate within this category are referred airflow when it is required. Third, fresh ratio changing to 100 percent oxygen to as essential systems. airflow is necessary to provide adequate and zero percent cabin air at Extremely Improbable Failures. smoke clearance in the event of smoke approximately 34,000 feet cabin Extremely improbable failures are so accumulation in the passenger cabin, an altitude. Oxygen is supplied only when unlikely that they need not be event which has occurred on several the user inhales, reducing, the amount considered to ever occur, unless occasions. Fourth, administrative of oxygen that is required. engineering judgement would require benefits will be realized because Pressure Demand Oxygen System. their consideration. The probability of codified regulations are more efficient Similar to diluter demand equipment, occurrence is on the order of 1 × 10¥9 than special conditions. Finally, it is except that oxygen is automatically or less. This category includes failures noted that other airworthiness supplied to the mask under pressure at or combinations of failures that would authorities have comparable ventilation cabin altitudes above approxmately prevent the continued safe flight and standards. 28694 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109, Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

The airflow design requirements in and (3) in the event that some occupants requirements. For this reason, revised § 25.831(a) are not expected to do not receive supplemental oxygen, § 25.1447(c)(3)(ii) will allow other result in significant cost changes. they nevertheless will be protected means of protection for flight Incremental design and manufacturing against physiological injury. crewmembers if they afford the same costs will be negligible because most Revised § 25.841(a)(1) is equivalent to protection. current airplane models were designed existing § 25.841(a) except for editorial To the extent that the changes codify with the additional airflow capability changes, elimination of the words special conditions that would have and, even in the absence of this rule, ‘‘reasonably’’ and ‘‘or malfunctions,’’ continued to be applied to future high future airplane models would likely and addition of the term ‘‘failure altitude airplane type certifications, the continue to be so designed. Incremental conditions.’’ Revised § 25.841(a)(2), amendments will have no incremental operating costs are expected to be which limits exposure of occupants economic effect other than the nominal because the rule isn’t an after decompression to a cabin altitude administrative benefits of codified operating requirement and because the not greater than 40,000, is unchanged regulations relative to special additional airflow is not required at all from previously established standards conditions. for airplanes using diluter demand times and under all operating Regulatory Flexibility Determination conditions. Furthermore, to the extent (flightcrew) and continuous flow that the amendment codifies special (passenger) oxygen equipment. It The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 conditions that would have continued combines the executive transport (RFA) was enacted by Congress to to be applied to future high altitude category high altitude special conditions ensure that small entities are not airplane certifications, it will not cause and § 25.1309, i.e., the degree of the unnecessarily or disproportionately changes in costs. hazard must be inversely related to the burdened by Government regulations. The new § 25.831(g) supplements the probability of the failure condition. The RFA requires a Regulatory requirements found in § 25.1309 by The FAA has determined that the Flexibility Analysis, in which limiting exposure times to excessive amendment will provide an acceptable alternatives are considered and temperatures in the crew and passenger level of safety at an acceptable cost. To evaluated if a rule is expected to have compartments which can present a demonstrate compliance with revised ‘‘a significant economic impact on a hazard to continued safe flight and § 25.841, an approved emergency substantial number of small entities.’’ landing, and the limits are appropriate descent procedure and a cabin altitude FAA Order 2100.14A, Regulatory for all transport category airplanes, analysis must be prepared and the crew Flexibility Criteria and Guidance, regardless of certificated maximum would perform an emergency descent in prescribes standards for complying with flight altitude. accordance with the approved RFA review requirements in FAA procedure. For probable system failures, rulemaking actions. The Order defines B. Pressurization and Pressure Vessel the critical failure case (probable system ‘‘small entities’’ in terms of size Integrity—§§ 25.365(d) and 25.841(a) failure) system failure tests must be thresholds, ‘‘significant economic The higher structural safety factor in conducted at the maximum airplane impact’’ in terms of annualized cost revised § 25.365(d) is necessary for altitude. For improbable failures, the thresholds, and ‘‘substantial number’’ as airplanes operating above 45,000 feet cabin altitude could be established by a number which is not less than eleven because a rapid decompression could be analysis and verified by tests at a lower and which is more than one-third of the catastrophic to occupants. Therefore, altitude with the results extrapolated to small subject to the proposed or final the FAA finds that this event should be the higher altitude. To the extent that rule. extremely improbable; i.e., not expected the rule codifies special conditions that The rule will affect manufacturers and to occur during the lifetime of an entire would have continued to be applied to operators of transport category airplanes fleet of airplanes. Service history shows future high altitude airplane type produced under future new, and some that decompressions at high altitudes certifications, it will have no amended and supplemental, airplane are not extremely remote events even for incremental economic effects. There type certifications. For manufacturers, airplanes assessed to damage tolerance will also be administrative benefits in Order 2100.14A specifies a size criteria. Loss of cabin pressure at lower that codified regulations are more threshold for classification as a small altitudes has not been catastrophic due efficient than special conditions. entity as 75 or fewer employees. Since to higher ambient pressures and no part 25 airplane manufacturer has 75 relatively short emergency descent time. C. Oxygen Equipment—§ 25.1447(c) or fewer employees, the rule will not The higher structural safety factor was The FAA has determined that have a significant economic impact on included in the SST and executive operation in accordance with the a substantial number of small airplane transport category airplane special revised oxygen equipment standards manufacturers. The size threshold for conditions to reduce the likelihood of will provide an acceptable level of classification as a small operator is the structural failure and to limit the size of safety. By specifying the type of oxygen ownership (but not necessarily the the opening if a failure occurs. The equipment for the crew and the manner operation) of nine or fewer aircraft. The amendment will have a negligible cost. of its use, there will be assurance that annualized cost thresholds constituting Revised § 25.841(a) will provide the flightcrew will retain its ability to ‘‘significant economic impact’’ for airworthiness standards that allow safely operate the airplane during a operators of aircraft-for-hire, when subsonic airplanes to operate at the decompression. Panel-mounted expressed in 1994 dollars, are $120,000 highest altitude for which the applicant regulators have proven satisfactory, but for scheduled operators whose fleets manufacturer chooses to demonstrate the FAA has determined that in a high consist entirely of aircraft with seating that, after decompression caused by a altitude rapid decompression, the capacities of over 60, $69,000 for other single failure or combination of failures protection afforded by a mask-mounted scheduled operators, and $4,900 for that are not shown to be extremely regulator is superior to that of panel- unscheduled operators. The annualized improbable: (1) the flightcrew will mounted regulators. The FAA intends to incremental costs of this rule amortized remain alert and be able to fly the allow sufficient latitude for system over a maximum nine-airplane fleet are airplane; (2) the cabin occupants will be designers to develop safer and/or less expected to be less than these protected from the effects of hypoxia; expensive approaches to specific annualized cost thresholds. The FAA Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109, Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28695 has therefore determined that the rule subsonic transport airplanes for 2. By amending § 25.365, by revising will not have a significant economic operation to an altitude of 51,000 feet is paragraph (d), to read as follows: impact on a substantial number of small not expected to result in substantial operators. costs, the FAA has determined that this § 25.365 Pressurized compartment loads. final rule is not major as defined in * * * * * International Trade Impact Assessment Executive Order 12866. For the same (d) The airplane structure must be The rule will have little or no effect reason and because this is an issue designed to be able to withstand the on the sale of U.S. airplanes in foreign which has not prompted a great deal of pressure differential loads markets and the sale of foreign airplanes public concern, this final rule is not corresponding to the maximum relief into the U.S. considered to be significant as defined valve setting multiplied by a factor of Federalism Implications in Department of Transportation 1.33 for airplanes to be approved for Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 operation to 45,000 feet or by a factor of The regulations adopted herein will FR 11034; February 26, 1979). In 1.67 for airplanes to be approved for not have substantial direct effects on the addition, since there are no small operation above 45,000 feet, omitting states, on the relationship between the entities affected by this rulemaking, it is other loads. national government and the states, or certified, under the criteria of the * * * * * on the distribution of power and Regulatory Flexibility Act, that this final responsibilities among the various rule, a promulgation, will not have a 3. By amending § 25.831 by revising levels of government. Therefore, in significant economic impact, positive or paragraph (a) and by adding a new accordance with Executive Order 12612, negative, on a substantial number of paragraph (g) to read as follows: it is determined that this final rule will small entities. A copy of the final § 25.831 Ventilation. not have sufficient federalism regulatory evaluation prepared for this implications to warrant the preparation project may be examined in the public (a) Under normal operating conditions of a Federalism Assessment. docket or obtained from the person and in the event of any probable failure conditions of any system which would International Compatibility identified under the caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. adversely affect the ventilating air, the The FAA has reviewed corresponding ventilation system must be designed to International Civil Aviation List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 provide a sufficient amount of Organization regulations and Joint Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation uncontaminated air to enable the Airworthiness Authorities regulations, safety, Safety. crewmembers to perform their duties where they exist, and has identified no without undue discomfort or fatigue and differences in these amendments and The Amendment to provide reasonable passenger the foreign regulations. Accordingly, the FAA amends part 25 comfort. For normal operating conditions, the ventilation system must Paperwork Reduction Act of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) (14 CFR part 25) as follows: be designed to provide each occupant In accordance with the Paperwork with an airflow containing at least 0.55 Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–511), PART 25ÐAIRWORTHINESS pounds of fresh air per minute. there are no requirements for STANDARDS: TRANSPORT * * * * * information collection associated with CATEGORY AIRPLANES this rule. (g) The exposure time at any given 1. The authority citation for part 25 temperature must not exceed the values Conclusion continues to read as follows: shown in the following graph after any Because amending the airplane and Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– improbable failure condition. equipment airworthiness standards for 44702, 44704. BILLING CODE 4910±13±M 28696 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109, Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 4910±13±C § 25.1447 Equipment standards for oxygen with one hand, within five seconds and 4. By amending § 25.841 by revising dispensing units. without disturbing eyeglasses or causing paragraph (a) to read as follows: * * * * * delay in proceeding with emergency (c) * * * § 25.841 Pressurized cabins. duties; and (1) There must be an oxygen (ii) Allows, while in place, the (a) Pressurized cabins and dispensing unit connected to oxygen performance of normal communication compartments to be occupied must be supply terminals immediately available functions. equipped to provide a cabin pressure to each occupant, wherever seated, and (3) The oxygen dispensing equipment altitude of not more than 8,000 feet at at least two oxygen dispensing units for the flight crewmembers must be: the maximum operating altitude of the connected to oxygen terminals in each (i) The diluter demand or pressure airplane under normal operating lavatory. The total number of dispensing demand (pressure demand mask with a conditions. units and outlets in the cabin must diluter demand pressure breathing (1) If certification for operation above exceed the number of seats by at least regulator) type, or other approved 25,000 feet is requested, the airplane 10 percent. The extra units must be as oxygen equipment shown to provide the must be designed so that occupants will uniformly distributed throughout the same degree of protection, for airplanes not be exposed to cabin pressure cabin as practicable. If certification for to be operated above 25,000 feet. altitudes in excess of 15,000 feet after operation above 30,000 feet is requested, (ii) The pressure demand (pressure any probable failure condition in the the dispensing units providing the demand mask with a diluter demand pressurization system. required oxygen flow must be pressure breathing regulator) type with (2) The airplane must be designed so automatically presented to the mask-mounted regulator, or other that occupants will not be exposed to a occupants before the cabin pressure approved oxygen equipment shown to cabin pressure altitude that exceeds the altitude exceeds 15,000 feet. The crew provide the same degree of protection, following after decompression from any must be provided with a manual means for airplanes operated at altitudes where failure condition not shown to be of making the dispensing units decompressions that are not extremely extremely improbable: immediately available in the event of improbable may expose the flightcrew (i) Twenty-five thousand (25,000) feet failure of the automatic system. to cabin pressure altitudes in excess of for more than 2 minutes; or (2) Each flight crewmember on flight 34,000 feet. deck duty must be provided with a (ii) Forty thousand (40,000) feet for (4) Portable oxygen equipment must quick-donning type oxygen dispensing any duration. be immediately available for each cabin unit connected to an oxygen supply attendant. (3) Fuselage structure, engine and terminal. This dispensing unit must be system failures are to be considered in immediately available to the flight Issued in Washington, DC, on May 29, 1996. evaluating the cabin decompression. crewmember when seated at his station, * * * * * and installed so that it: David R. Hinson, 5. By amending § 25.1447, by revising (i) Can be placed on the face from its Administrator. paragraphs (c) (1) through (4), to read as ready position, properly secured, sealed, [FR Doc. 96–13947 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] follows: and supplying oxygen upon demand, BILLING CODE 4910±13±M federal register June 5,1996 Wednesday Open VideoSystems;FinalRule 47 CFRPart76 Commission Communications Federal Part V 28697 28698 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS hours in the FCC Reference Center prospective OVS operators are estimated COMMISSION (room 239), 1919 M Street, NW, to be in existence within the next year. Washington, D.C. 20554, and may be Average number of entities that 47 CFR Part 76 purchased from the Commission’s copy prospective OVS operators must notify contractor, International Transcription with each Notice of Intent: 45. Average [CS Docket No. 96±46; FCC 96±249] Service, (202) 857–3800, 1919 M Street, burden to each OVS operator to Open Video Systems NW, Washington, D.C. 20554. complete a Notice of Intent and to The Second Report and Order provide copies to all applicable entities: AGENCY: Federal Communications contains proposed and/or modified 8 hours apiece; therefore 10 × 8 = 80 Commission. information collections. It has been hours. Estimated number of written ACTION: Final rule. submitted to the OMB for review, as requests for additional information that required by the Paperwork Reduction will be received subsequent to Notices SUMMARY: The Second Report and Order Act of 1995. The Commission, as part of of Intent: 25 per Notice of Intent × 10 describes rules and policies concerning its continuing effort to reduce Notices = 250. Average burden to open video systems. The Second Report paperwork burdens, invites the general prospective video programming and Order amends our regulations to public and OMB to comment on the providers to make each written request: reflect the provisions regarding open information collections contained in the 2 hours apiece; therefore 10 × 25 × 2 = video systems in the Second Report and Order. Comments 500 hours. Average burden to each OVS Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the should address: (a) whether the operator to provide the additional ‘‘1996 Act’’). The Second Report and proposed collections of information are information to all prospective video Order fulfills Congress’ mandate in necessary to the proper performance of programming providers: 8 hours apiece; adopting the 1996 Act and will provide the functions of the Commission, therefore 10 × 8 = 80 hours. Total guidance to open video system including whether the information shall burden for all respondents = 80 + 500 operators, video programming have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of + 80 = 660 hours. Rate Justification providers, and consumers concerning the Commission’s burden estimates; (c) requirements: Estimated number of rate open video systems. ways to enhance the quality, utility, and complaints that video programming DATES: Effective date: July 5, 1996, clarity of the information collected; and providers will file: 5 per OVS operator; except for § 76.1502 which is not (d) ways to minimize the burden of the therefore 10 × 5 = 50. Estimated number effective until approval by OMB of the collection of information on the of rate justifications filed by OVS new information requirements. The respondents, including the use of operators in response to rate complaints: Commission will publish a document at automated collection techniques or 50. Burden to video programming a later date notifying the public as to the other forms of information technology. providers for filing complaints: 1 hour effective date of § 76.1502. OMB Approval Number:3060–0700. per complaint; therefore 50 × 1 = 50 Written comments by the public on Title:Implementation of Section 302 hours. Burden to OVS operators for the proposed and/or modified of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; filing rate justifications: 20 hours per information collections are due on or Open Video Systems. justification; therefore 10 × 5 × 20 = before July 5, 1996. Written comments Type of Review:Revision of a 1,000 hours. Total burden for all must be submitted by the Office of currently approved collection. respondents: 50 + 1,000 = 1050 hours. Management and Budget (OMB) on the Respondents:640. (10 OVS operators, Must-Carry and Retransmission proposed and/or modified information 250 video programming providers that Consent requirements: Number of OVS collections on or before 60 days after may request additional Notice of Intent operators: 10. Average number of publication of the Second Report and information, file rate complaints, or broadcast stations in each OVS Order in theFederal Register. initiate dispute cases, 60 broadcast operator’s area of carriage: 6. Average stations that may elect type of carriage ADDRESSES: burden to broadcast stations for each A copy of any comments on or make network non-duplication the information collections contained election for must-carry or notifications, 300 must-carry list retransmission consent: 2 hours per herein should be submitted to Dorothy requesters, 20 oppositions to OVS × × Conway, Federal Communications election; therefore 10 6 2 hours = operator certifications.) 120 hours. Annual recordkeeping Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, Number of Responses:3750. (10 burden for OVS operators to maintain N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or via Notices of Intent, 250 requests for list of its broadcast stations carried in the Internet to [email protected], and to additional Notice of Intent information, fulfillment of must-carry requirements: Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 250 responses to requests for additional 4 hours per OVS operator; therefore 10 NEOB, 725–17th Street, N.W., Notice of Intent information, 50 rate × 4 = 40 hours. Estimated annual Washington, D.C., 20503 or via the complaints, 50 rate justifications, 60 number of written requests received by Internet to [email protected]. carriage elections, 10 must-carry OVS operators: 30 per OVS operator; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: recordkeepers, 300 must-carry list therefore 10 × 30 = 300. Burden for Rick Chessen, Cable Services Bureau, requests, 300 provisions of must-carry completing written requests: .25 hours (202) 418–7200. For additional lists, 1200 notifications of network non- per request; therefore 10 × 30 × .25 = 75 information concerning the information duplication rights to OVS operators, hours. Burden to OVS operators to collections contained herein, contact 1200 OVS operator notifications of respond to requests: .25 hours per Dorothy Conway at 202–418–0217, or network non-duplication rights to request; therefore 10 × 30 × .25 = 75 via the Internet at [email protected]. programming providers, 10 hours. Total burden for all respondents: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a certifications of compliance, 20 120 + 40 + 75 + 75 = 310 hours. synopsis of the Commission’s Report oppositions to certifications of Sports Exclusivity, Network Non- and Order in CS Docket No. 96–46, FCC compliance, 20 dispute case Duplication and Syndicated Exclusivity No. 96–249, adopted May 31, 1996 and complainants, and 20 dispute case requirements: Estimated number of released June 3, 1996. The full text of defendants.) occurrences where television broadcast this decision is available for inspection Estimated Burden to Respondents: stations must notify OVS operators of and copying during normal business Notice of Intent requirements: 10 exclusive or non-duplication rights Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28699 being exercised: 6 stations in each OVS stationery and postage at $2 apiece for reasonable, and not unjustly or operator’s area of carriage × 20 annual 20 opposition filings = $40. $50 + $40 unreasonably discriminatory, Congress notifications × 10 OVS operators = 1200. = $90. sought to foster competition by Burden to television stations to make Dispute Resolutions costs of encouraging multiple programming notifications: .5 hours per notification; stationery and postage at $2 apiece for sources on open video systems. therefore 12400 × .5 = 600 hours. 20 notices + 20 responses to notices = 3. The open video system model can Burden for each OVS operator to make $80. Costs of stationery and postage at provide the competitive benefits that notifications available to all $10 apiece for 10 complainants in Congress hoped to achieve: market entry programming providers on their dispute cases + 10 defendants in dispute by new providers, enhanced systems: 1 hour per notification × 1200 cases = $200. $80 + $200 = $280. competition, streamlined regulation, occurrences = 1200 hours. Total burden Total Estimated Costs to Respondents: investment in infrastructure and for all respondents: 600 + 1200 = 1800 $8590. ($1900 + $200 + $1320 + $4800 technology, diversity of programming hours. + $90 + $280). choices and increased consumer choice. Certification Process requirements: Needs and Uses: The information We believe that the best way to achieve Annual burden to OVS operators to collections contained herein are Congress’ goals is to give open video complete certifications: 1 hour apiece; necessary to implement the statutory system operators the flexibility to enter therefore 10 × 1= 10 hours. Number of provisions for Open Video Systems and compete based on the demands of oppositions estimated to be filed with contained in the Telecommunications the marketplace. Our approach reflects the Commission: 2 per certification; Act of 1996. the reduced regulatory burdens clearly × therefore 2 10 = 20. Average burden Second Report and Order—Open Video envisioned by Congress for open video for completing oppositions: 4 hours per Systems systems. Where necessary, the opposition; therefore 20 × 4 = 80 hours. Commission has provided a level of Total burden for all respondents: 10 + 1. New Section 653 of the guidance to parties in order to comply 80 = 90 hours. Communications Act establishes a new with Congress’ particular directives Dispute Resolution requirements: framework for entry into the video under Section 653 and to give certainty Estimated number of notices filed by programming delivery marketplace—the to the parties. complainant: 20. Estimated number of ‘‘open video system.’’ See Sections 651 4. On March 11, 1996, the defendants’ responses to notices filed: and 653 of the Communications Act of Commission released a Report and 20. Average burden for each notice and 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 151 Order and Notice of Proposed response to notice: 4 hours apiece; (‘‘Communications Act’’). As designed Rulemaking, seeking comment on how therefore 40 × 4 = 160 hours. We by Congress, the open video framework to implement the requirements of estimate that the 20 notices will result provides an option, particularly to a Section 653. See Report and Order and in the initiation of 10 dispute cases. The local exchange carrier, for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CS average burden for complainants and distribution of video programming other Docket No. 96–46 and CC Docket No. defendants for undergoing all aspects of than as a ‘‘cable system’’ governed by all 87–266 (terminated), released March 11, the dispute case: 25 hours per case; of the provisions of Title VI of the 1996, 61 FR 10496 (March 14, 1996) (the therefore 20 (10 complainants + 10 Communications Act. If a telephone ‘‘NPRM’’). We received 61comments defendants) × 25 = 500 hours. Total company agrees to comply with certain and 79 replies in response to the NPRM. burden to all respondents: 160 + 500 = non-discrimination and other After consideration of the comments 660 hours. requirements it can be certified as an and reply comments, we hereby adopt Total Annual Burden to Respondents: operator of an ‘‘open video system’’ and the Second Report and Order herein. 4570 hours. (660 + 1050 + 310 + 18600 subjected to streamlined regulation under Title VI. A. Qualifications To Be an Open Video + 90 + 660) System Operator Estimated Cost to Respondents: 2. In establishing this structure, we Notices of Intent costs of stationery and believe that Congress intended to 5. We conclude that Section 653(a)(1) postage at $2 apiece for (10 Notices of advance competition in two areas of the authorizes the Commission to allow Intent × 45 entities) + 250 requests for video marketplace. First, Congress non-local exchange (‘‘non-LECs’’) to additional information + 250 responses sought to encourage telephone operate open video systems, and to to requests for additional information = companies to enter the video allow LECs to operate open video $1900. programming distribution market and to systems outside of their telephone Rate Justifications costs of stationery deploy open video systems in order to service areas, when the public interest, and postage at $2 apiece for 50 rate ‘‘introduce vigorous competition in convenience, and necessity are served. complaints + 50 rate justifications = entertainment and information markets’’ We further conclude that it would serve $200. by providing a competitive alternative the public interest, convenience and Must-Carry and Retransmission to the incumbent cable operator. necessity to permit: (1) non-LECs that Consent costs of stationery and postage Telecommunications Act of 1996 are not cable operators; (2) LECs outside at $2 apiece for 60 carriage elections + Conference Report, S. Rep. 104–230 at of their telephone service areas; and (3) 300 requests for lists + 300 provisions 178 (February 1, 1996) (‘‘Conference cable operators outside of their cable of lists = $1320. Report’’). The incentive provided by franchise areas, to own or operate open Sports Exclusivity, Network Non- Congress to encourage such entry was video systems. With respect to cable Duplication and Syndicated Exclusivity not only exemption from particular operators within their cable franchise costs of stationery and postage at $2 requirements of Title VI, but that areas, we conclude that it would serve apiece for 1200 notifications to OVS streamlined Title VI obligations would the public interest, convenience, and operators + 1200 OVS operator apply in lieu of, and not in addition to, necessity to allow a cable operator to notifications to programming providers any requirements under Title II. Second, operate an open video system in its = $4800. by requiring open video system cable franchise area if it is subject to Certification Process costs of operators to provide carriage ‘‘effective competition’’ in its cable stationery, diskettes, and postage at $5 opportunities for video programming franchise area under Section 623(l)(1) of for 10 certifications = $50. Costs of providers on terms that are just and the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 28700 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

§ 543(l)(1). This condition shall apply programming providers. Applicants will heading clearly indicating that the even if a cable operator also provides be required to file for certification using document is a Notice of Intent; the open local exchange services within its cable FCC Form 1275 (OMB approval video system operator’s name, address franchise area. In certain circumstances, pending). and telephone number; a description of particularly where the entry of a 7. Open video system operators may the system’s projected service area; a facilities-based competitor into a market apply for certification at any point prior description of the system’s projected served by an incumbent cable operator to the commencement of service, subject channel capacity, in terms of analog, would likely be infeasible, we believe to conditions. If construction of new digital, and other type(s) of capacity, that it would be consistent with the physical plant is required, the applicant upon activation of the system; a public interest to allow the incumbent must obtain Commission approval of its description of the steps a prospective cable operator to convert its cable certification prior to the commencement video programming provider must system to an open video system even if of construction. If no new construction follow to seek carriage on the system, it is not subject to ‘‘effective is required, Commission approval of including the name, address and competition’’ in its cable franchise area certification may be obtained at any telephone number of a person to contact under Section 623(l)(1) of the point prior to the commencement of for further information; the starting and Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. service that would allow the applicant ending dates of the initial enrollment § 543(l)(1). We will consider petitions sufficient time to comply with the period; and a certification that the from cable operators seeking such a Commission’s notification requirements system operator has complied with all public interest finding. Our decision to herein. relevant notification requirements under allow cable operators to become open 8. We will consider comments or our open video system regulations video system operators under these oppositions to a certification that are concerning must-carry and circumstances shall not be construed to filed within five days of the retransmission consent, including a list affect the terms of any existing Commission’s receipt of the of all local commercial and non- franchising agreements or other certification. Disapproval of a commercial television stations served, contractual agreements. certification will not preclude the and a certificate of service showing that applicant from filing a revised the Notice of Intent has been served on B. Certification Process certification or from refiling its original all local franchising authorities entitled 6. In light of the brief period (ten submission with a statement addressing to establish requirements under Section days) allowed for Commission review of the issues in dispute. Such refilings 611 of the Communications Act. certification filings, we conclude that must be served on any objecting party 11. In addition to the information in Congress intended the certification or parties. Any certification filing that the Notice, the open video system process to be streamlined. We will the Commission does not disapprove operator will be required to provide require that certifications be verified by within ten days will be deemed within five business days of receiving a an officer or director of the applicant, approved. If the representations written request from a potential video stating that, to the best of his or her contained in a certification filing prove programming provider certain information and belief, the to be materially false or materially information, including: the projected representations made therein are inaccurate, the Commission retains the activation date of the system (if a system accurate. The certification must contain authority to revoke an open video is to be activated in stages, an operator particular facts and representations system operator’s certification or to should describe each stage and the about the system, including: (1) the impose such other penalties it deems projected dates on which each stage will applicant’s name, address and appropriate, including forfeitures. be activated; a preliminary rate estimate; telephone number; (2) a statement of C. Carriage of Video Programming the information a video programming ownership, including all affiliated provider will be required to provide to Providers entities; (3) if the applicant is a cable qualify as a commercially bona fide operator applying for certification 9. We affirm our tentative conclusion video programming provider; technical within its cable franchise area, a that the 1996 Act does not require that information that is reasonably necessary statement that the applicant is qualified the open video system operator be to prospective video providers to assess to operate an open video system under prohibited from participating in the whether to seek capacity on the system; Section 76.1501 of the Commission’s allocation of channel capacity. We any transmission or reception rules; (4) a statement that the applicant believe that the statute and equipment needed by a video agrees to comply and to remain in implementing rules will prevent an programming provider to interface compliance with each of the open video system operator from successfully with the open video Commission’s regulations under Section discriminating against unaffiliated video system; and the equipment available to 653(b); (5) if the applicant is required programming providers, facilitate the carriage of unaffiliated under 47 CFR § 64.903(a) to file a cost notwithstanding the operator’s video programming and the electronic allocation manual, a statement that the involvement in the allocation process. forms that will be accepted for applicant will file changes to its manual 10. These rules and policies are processing and subsequent transmission at least 60 days prior to commencement designed to implement Sections through the system. of service; (6) a general description of 653(b)(1)(A) and 653(b)(1)(B) of the 12. The open video system operator the anticipated communities or areas to Communications Act. An open video may establish terms and conditions of be served upon completion of the system operator will file a ‘‘Notice of carriage for video programming system; (7) the anticipated amount and Intent’’ (‘‘Notice’’) with the providers that are just and reasonable, type (i.e., analog or digital) of capacity Commission. The Commission will and are not unreasonably or unjustly (for switched digital systems, the release the Notice to the public. The discriminatory. For instance, an open anticipated number of available channel Notice will contain certain information video system operator may: (1) take input ports); and (8) a statement that the that a video programming provider reasonable steps to ensure that a applicant will comply with the reasonably would need in order to prospective video programming Commission’s notice and enrollment assess whether to seek carriage on the provider’s request for capacity is bona requirements for unaffiliated video system. The Notice must include: a fide; (2) generally exclude an Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28701 incumbent, competing in-region cable count against the operator’s one-third on a shared channel must be operator from obtaining capacity on its limit. Channels carrying ‘‘shared’’ conditioned on the approval of the system when such carriage would programming will count against the program service. We take this to mean siginificantly impede facilities-based operator’s one-third limit on a pro-rata simply that each video programming competition; (3) require video basis, e.g., if the operator shares the provider using the shared channel has programming providers to obtain channel with one other video reached its own agreement with the capacity in increments of no less than programming provider, it will count as programming service. We also find that one full-time channel, however, the half of a channel against the operator’s the statutory provision requiring operator may not require video limit. The remaining two-thirds of subscribers have ‘‘ready and programming provider to obtain capacity, other than PEG and must-carry immediate’’ access to programming capacity only in amounts greater than channels, must be allocated to carried on shared channels means that one full-time channel; (4) preclude unaffiliated video programming unaffiliated video programming providers on an open, fair, non- channel sharing must be transparent to providers from selecting the discriminatory basis. The Commission subscribers. programming on more capacity than the does not require a specific allocation 18. An open video system operator operator itself and its affiliates; (5) methodology. may not discriminate among video negotiate co-packaging agreements with 16. After service commencement, an programming providers with respect to unaffiliated video programming open video system operator will be technology or technical information providers; and (6) require assurances required to allocate open capacity, if necessary to access the system. that a video programming provider will any is available, at least every three deliver video programming over the years beginning three years after the D. Rates, Terms, and Conditions of open video system within some system is activated, through an open, Service reasonable time after the system is fair, non-discriminatory process. Such 19. We will accord a strong activated. open capacity will include capacity that 13. At the conclusion of the open becomes available during the year, e.g., presumption that carriage rates are just enrollment or notice period, the open due to a system upgrade or the and reasonable for open video system video system operator will determine expiration of carriage contracts, and any operators where at least one unaffiliated whether demand for carriage, including capacity on which the open video video programming provider, or its own demand, exceeds the system’s system operator is selecting the video unaffiliated programming providers as a channel capacity. For this purpose, programming beyond one-third of group, occupy capacity equal to the analog and digital capacity must be activated channel capacity. Changes in lesser of one-third of capacity or that treated separately. Specifically, if the an operator’s PEG and must-carry occupied by the open video system system contains both analog and digital obligations which cause changes in the operator and its affiliates, and where capacity, the open video system level of available open video system any rate complained of is no higher than operator must separately assess whether capacity must be accommodated in the average of the rates paid by analog demand exceeds analog capacity accordance with the rules adopted in unaffiliated programmers receiving and whether digital demand exceeds this Order. An operator must keep a list carriage from the open video system digital capacity. Analog capacity shall of qualified video programming operator. be measured in 6 MHz channel providers that have sought carriage or 20. We adopt our tentative conclusion increments, and digital capacity shall be additional carriage during the previous measured in bandwidth. three year period. that some level of rate differentiation is 14. Further, we anticipate that 17. In addition, we find that channel permissible, provided that the bases for concerns regarding the methods for positioning is an important part of the differences are not unjust or soliciting carriage demand and allocating channel capacity to video unreasonable. We therefore agree with allocating system capacity will be programming providers, and therefore those commenters that argue that open alleviated with capacity significantly will require an open video system video system operators should be given higher than carriage demand. Therefore, operator to assign channel positions in flexibility to offer different carriage when an open video system operator a non-discriminatory manner. We also rates. can demonstrate that, due to technology, find that, given Section 653(b)(1)(A)’s 21. We conclude that it is unnecessary the system’s capacity is plentiful as specific exemption of must-carry and and undesirable to require open video compared to demand, we will consider PEG from its general non-discrimination system operators to disclose publicly its waiving the rules adopted in this Order. requirements, an open video system carriage contracts. In general, we agree 15. If demand for carriage does not operator must comply with the channel with those telephone companies that exceed system capacity, the open video positioning requirements contained in argue that making carriage contracts system operator may fill all video those rules. Finally, we find that the public would stifle competition by programming providers’ demands for statute leaves to an open video system forcing them to divulge sensitive capacity, including its own. If demand operator’s discretion whether to create for carriage exceeds capacity, the open shared channels for some or all of the information. In order to protect video video system operator may select the duplicative programming on its system. programming providers from programming services on no more than However, we disagree with telephone discriminatory conduct, we will require one-third of the system’s activated companies who argue that the statutory all open video system operators to make channel capacity. Public, educational, reference to ‘‘any video programming preliminary rate estimates available to and governmental (‘‘PEG’’) and must- service’’ means that an open video potential video programming providers. carry channels carried pursuant to system operator may select—in advance If, however, a complaint is filed, Sections 611, 614 and 615 of the of any actual duplication—which regardless of which party bears the Communications Act will count in the program services to place on shared burden of proof, the open video system system’s total activated channel channels. We also note that certain operator’s contracts with video capacity for purposes of calculating the cable operators and programmers argue programming providers will be subject operator’s one-third limit, but will not that the placement of a program service to discovery. 28702 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

E. Applicability of Title VI Provisions local franchising authority may require demand for channel capacity. Because that educational and govermental access PEG access channels are expressly 1. Public, Educational and channels be designated on that network exempt from Section 653(b)(1)(A)’s non- Governmental Access Channels to the extent such channels are discrimination requirement, an open 22. The first issue we must address designated on the institutional network video system operator need not and with respect to PEG use is how PEG of the local cable operator. should not wait until the next three-year access obligations should be established 26. In addition, absent an agreement reallocation to comply with new PEG for open video systems, including the to the contrary, the open video system access obligations, but should comply extent and amount of channel capacity operator will be subject to the same with such obligations whenever and other resources that open video rules and procedures as those imposed additional capacity is or becomes system operators should be required to on the local cable operator regarding the available. devote to PEG use. We conclude that use of PEG channels for other 30. Where there is no local cable open video system operators should in programming when such channels are operator and the open video system the first instance be permitted to not being used for PEG. operator and the local franchising negotiate their PEG access obligations 27. We will require cable operators to authority cannot agree on appropriate with the relevant local franchising permit open video system operators to PEG access obligations, we believe that authority. These negotiations may connect with their PEG feeds. We will the open video system operator should include the local cable operator if the leave how this connection is make a reasonable amount of channel local franchising authority, the open accomplished to the discretion of the capacity available for PEG access, as video system operator and the cable parties, allowing them to take into well as provide reasonable support of operator so desire. consideration the exact physical and PEG, services, facilities and equipment. 23. We are unaware of any cable technical circumstances of the cable and First, the open video system operator’s operator that charges PEG programmers open video systsms involved. If the PEG access obligations shall depend on for access to the PEG channels on its cable and open video system operators whether there used to be a cable cable system. Therefore, because the cannot agree on how this connection franchise agreement in that franchise PEG access obligations of open video can best be accomplished, the local area. If there was, the open video system system operators are to the extent franchising authority may decide. In operator shall follow the PEG terms of possible to be no greater or lesser than this context, the local franchising the previously existing franchise those imposed on cable operators, we do authority may require that the agreement. Absent a previous cable not foresee open video system operators connection take place on government franchise agreement, the open video charging PEG programmers for PEG use. property or on public rights of way. system operator’s PEG access We recognize that certain costs will be 28. With regard to cost sharing, the obligations shall be determined by associated with providing PEG costs of connection and maintaining comparison to the franchise channels. These costs may be recovered PEG facilities and equipment shall be agreement(s) for the nearest operating as an element of the carriage rate. divided equitably between the cable cable system with a commitment to 24. Although we believe that operator and the open video system provide PEG access. negotiation is the best way to establish operator. This shall include captial 31. We believe that PEG access the appropriate PEG access obligations contributions and any other costs or channels should be provided to all for each open video system operator, we investments directly relating to or subscribers to the open video system. recognize that the parties may be unable supporting PEG access and required by The provision of PEG channels to all to reach agreement. We therefore believe the cable operator’s franchise open video system subscribers is it is necessary to have a default agreement. Capital expenses incurred important to ensure that the PEG access mechanism for establishing PEG access prior to the open video system obligations imposed on open video obligations. If the open video system operator’s connection shall be subject to system operators are ‘‘no greater or operator and the local franchising cost sharing on a pro rata basis to the lesser’’ than those imposed on cable authority are unable to come to an extent such investments have not been operators. agreement, we will require the open fully amortized by the cable operator. 32. We also conclude that open video video system operator to satisfy the 29. Where the open video system system operators should be subject to same PEG access obligations as the local operator and the local franchising PEG access requirements for every cable operator. We believe this can be authority cannot negotiate an agreement franchise area with which its system accomplished by connection to the regarding PEG access, and the open overlaps. We believe that, despite open cable operator’s PEG access channel video system operator is instead video system operators not being subject feeds and by sharing the costs directly satisfying its PEG access obligations by to franchise requirements, pursuant to related to supporting PEG access, connection and cost sharing with the Section 653(c)(1)(C), it is appropriate to including costs of PEG equipment and cable operator’s PEG facilities, the open require open video system operators to facilities, and equipment necessary to video system operator’s PEG access comply with these franchise by achieve the connection. We also obligations should change to the extent franchise requirements so that the determine that, under these that the cable operator’s PEG access obligations imposed on the open video circumstances, in order to comply with obligations change with the franchise system operator with respect to PEG the statutory directive that to the extent renewal. Accordingly, open video access are ‘‘no greater or lesser’’ than possible the obligations be no greater or system operators should be prepared to those imposed on cable operators, as lesser than those imposed on cable adjust their systems to comply with new required by Section 653(c)(2)(A) of the operators, the open video system PEG access obligations as necessary. An Communications Act. operator must provide the same amount open video system operator will not, of channel capacity for PEG access as however, be required to displace other 2. Must-Carry and Retransmission the local cable operator is required to programmers to accommodate PEG Consent provide. channels until channel capacity 33. We find that at this time the 25. If an open video system operator becomes available, whether it be due to public interest will best be served by builds an institutional network, the increased channel capacity or decreased application of the cable must-carry and Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28703 retransmission consent rules to open open video systems that span multiple involves certain expansions of our video systems, even though future television markets will be subject to the program access rules. system configurations may require same must-carry and retransmission 38. Section 653(c)(1)(A) applies the modification of our regulations. If our consent rules as cable systems that span program access provisions to open video regulations later become inadequate for multiple markets. system operators. Given this statutory open video system operators, we intend language, we conclude that the program (2) Retransmission Consent to address promptly the problem. For access restrictions shall apply to the now, we are guided by Congress’ 36. We find that our existing conduct of open video system operators directive that we impose obligations retransmission consent rules should in the same manner as they are that are ‘‘no greater or lesser’’ than the also be applied to the distribution of currently applied to cable operators and obligations currently imposed on cable programming over open video systems. common carriers or their affiliates that operators. These rules generally prohibit provide video programming directly to multichannel video programming subscribers. Specifically, the conduct of (1) Must-Carry providers from retransmitting the signal an open video system operator shall be 34. Pursuant to Section 614(b)(7) and of a commercial broadcasting station subject to Section 628(b), which 615(h), the operator of a cable system is without the station’s express authority. prohibits unfair methods of competition required to ensure that signals carried in Our retransmission consent rules will and unfair or deceptive acts or practices. fulfillment of the must-carry apply to any video programming In addition, the program access requirements are provided to every provider on an open video system that provisions which preclude certain subscriber of the system. Sections 614 provides more than one channel of specific conduct, including undue or and 615 also generally state the number video programming. Given the inherent improper influence, and discrimination of must-carry stations that a cable differences between cable systems and in prices, terms, or conditions, shall operator is required to provide. We open video systems, we believe that the apply to open video system operators as believe that in order to apply obligations application of our retransmission well. Similarly, the limitations on that are no greater or lesser than those consent rules in this fashion will exclusive contracts contained in imposed on cable operators, we must impose obligations that are no greater or Sections 628(c)(2) (C) and (D) shall also apply these requirements to open lesser than those imposed on cable apply to open video system operators so video system operators. Consequently, operators. The open video system that open video system operators will we find that the operator of an open operator is charged with the generally be restricted from entering video system must ensure that every responsibility for assuring that its into exclusive contracts with satellite subscriber on the open video system system meets the requirements of our programmers in which an open video receives all appropriate must-carry must-carry rules. We believe that it is system operator has an attributable channels carried in accordance with our also appropriate as a matter of interest, but not in which a cable rules. An open video system operator administrative efficiency that open operator has an attributable interest. will be required to fulfill this obligation video system operators receive all must- Thus, any practice, understanding, regardless of whether or not individual carry/retransmission consent election arrangement or activity, including subscribers on its system subscribe to statements that broadcast stations are exclusive contracts, between an open the open video system operator’s required to send under our video system operator and a satellite programming package. We do not find it retransmission consent rules. However, programmer vertically integrated with necessary to prescribe a specific method open video system operators will not be an open video system operator that to be used by an open video system responsible for making retransmission prevents an MVPD from obtaining operator to comply with these consent arrangements for all satellite programming in an area requirements, such as a requirement programming carried on the system. unserved by a cable operator as of the that an open video system operator must Once retransmission consent has been date of enactment of the 1992 Cable Act use a basic tier. We recognize that elected, broadcast stations will have to is per se unlawful. Exclusive contracts certain costs will be associated with negotiate agreements with individual between an open video system operator providing must-carry channels. These video programming providers on the and a satellite programmer vertically costs may be recovered as an element of open video system. Television broadcast integrated with an open video system the carriage rate. stations are not required to make the operator which relate to an area served 35. As a related matter, we leave the same elections for open video systems by cable as of the date of enactment of decision of how to offer any necessary and cable systems in the same the 1992 Cable Act are prohibited unless customer premises equipment to the geographic area. the Commission first determines that open video system operator, including such a contract is in the public interest 3. Program Access whether the open video system operator in accordance with the factors set forth will offer it directly or require video 37. We believe that four general issues in Section 628(c)(2)(D). Moreover, programming providers to provide the arise in the context of applying the Section 628 and or program access rules equipment. In addition, an open video program access rules to open video shall apply to any affiliate established system operator will be required to systems. The first concerns the extent to by an open video system operator to implement the channel positioning which the program access regime distribute programming on its system. requirements contained in the must- restricts the activities of open video We also believe it is reasonable to, and carry rules in a manner as similar as system operators. The second pertains will therefore insert a note in Section possible to that of a cable operator, to how the program access regime 76.1000(h) of our rules indicating that including, for example, identifying restricts the conduct of open video satellite open video system broadcast stations on the same channels system video programming providers. programming is included within the as their over-the-air channel numbers, The third issue concerns the extent to definition of satellite cable or on a channel mutually agreed upon which the benefits of the program access programming. by the station and the operator. statute and rules apply to open video 39. The programming relationships Consistent with the statutory system video programming providers. that are likely to occur with respect to requirement of comparable treatment, The fourth issue raised by commenters open video systems raise additional 28704 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations program access issues that are not raised objectives should additional types of in enacting the program access by the programming relationships on conduct emerge as barriers to provisions, that exclusive contracts can cable systems. In the cable context, an competition and obstacles to the broader often have pro-competitive effects under agreement to carry programming is distribution of satellite cable and certain market conditions. However, generally between a programmer and a broadcast programming. We will apply strategic vertical restraints can also cable operator. Restricting the activities the program access rules under Section deter entry into markets for the of cable operators and satellite 628 to exclusive contracts between a distribution of multichannel video programmers vertically integrated with satellite programmer in which a cable programming. Accordingly, the cable operators therefore addresses operator has an attributable interest Commission’s program access policies Congress’ concern over cable operator (‘‘cable-affiliated satellite programmer’’) seek to balance the likely competitive control over video programming. In the and an open video system video harm to consumers created by a open video system context, however, programming provider in which a cable particular vertical arrangement against there may be many programmers operator has an attributable interest its likely efficiency benefits. In the providing packages of programming (‘‘cable-affiliated open video system context of open video systems, unless directly to subscribers. An agreement to programming provider’’). Specifically, carry programming may be between a the Commission first determines that such exclusive contracts will be exclusive arrangements for satellite programmer and an open video system prohibited unless the contract pertains programming which favor cable- operator or between a programmer who to an area served by a cable operator as affiliated video programming providers produces programming and one who of the date of the enactment of the 1992 are in the public interest under Section will distribute it directly to subscribers. Cable Act and the Commission first Moreover, a video programmer may determines that the exclusive 628(c)(4), the potential for competitive provide its own programming directly to arrangement is in the public interest harm from such contracts requires their subscribers by purchasing channel under the factors listed in Section prohibition. capacity on an open video system 628(c)(4). Two types of cable-affiliated 43. As stated above, a satellite platform. satellite programmer/cable-affiliated programmer may also provide its own 40. We believe that, in order to open video system programming programming directly to subscribers by effectuate the purposes of the program provider relationships will be affected purchasing channel capacity on an open access statute in the open video context, by this restriction on exclusive video system platform. It is therefore open video system programming contracts. First, this rule will preclude possible for a programmer vertically providers should be subject to the a cable-affiliated satellite programmer integrated with a cable operator to program access restrictions to the extent from entering into an exclusive contract purchase channel capacity, to provide described below. In the open video to provide its own programming to a its own programming directly to system context, a vertically integrated cable-affiliated open video system satellite programmer will not be per se subscribers and to refuse to sell the programming provider with which the programming it owns to another MVPD precluded from selling its programming programmer is affiliated. Second, the exclusively to one MVPD on an open on the open video system. Such a new rule will preclude, absent prior refusal to sell would appear to be video system, as long as that MVPD is Commission approval, a cable-affiliated not affiliated with the same type of unreasonable because it discriminates satellite programmer from entering into against a class of distributors, i.e., open operator as the vertically integrated an exclusive contract to provide its satellite programmer. Similarly, cable video system programming providers. programming to an open video system operators, common carrriers or their Furthermore, this type of refusal to sell programming provider that is affiliated affiliates providing video programming would result in the same situation with another cable operator. directly to subscribers and open video which we have deemed contrary to the system operators are not generally 42. We believe that subjecting these purposes of Section 628 when achieved restricted from entering into exclusive types of exclusive contracts to prior through an exclusive contract, i.e., contracts with non-vertically integrated Commission review is necessary to restricting competitive access to programmers. We do not intend to fulfill the objectives of the program vertically integrated satellite cable foreclose challenges to exclusive access rules in the open video system programming to a vertically integrated contracts between vertically integrated context. The program access entity. We believe this would satellite programmers and MVPDs, requirements have at their heart the consequently be actionable under including unaffiliated MVPDs, on open objective of releasing programming to Section 628(c). video systems under Section 628(b) or existing or potential competitors of 44. Open video system operators and Section 628(c)(2)(B), which prohibits, traditional cable systems so that the video programming providers that with limited exceptions, discrimination public may benefit from the provide more than one channel of among competing MVPDs by a vertically development of competitive integrated satellite programmer. distributors. Our primary concern is that programming on an open video system 41. We believe that the purposes of exclusive arrangements among cable- are MVPDs. We will not create an the program access rules and statute are affiliated open video system exception to our rules that would served by extending the current program programmers and cable-affiliated exclude open video system operators or access rules to apply to exclusive satellite programmers may serve to open video system programming arrangements between satellite impede development of open video providers from the benefits of our programmers in which a cable operator systems as a viable competitor to cable program access rules. Accordingly, we has an attributable interest and open to the extent that popular programming will add a note to the definition of video system programming providers in services are denied to open video MVPD contained in Section 76.1000(e) which a cable operator has an system operators or unaffiliated open of our rules to indicate that video attributable interest. We believe that video system programmers that seek to programming providers on open video Section 628(b) authorizes the package such programming for systems that provide more than one Commission to adopt additional rules to distribution to subscribers. In adopting channel of programming to subscribers accomplish the program access statutory this rule, we recognize, as did Congress are MVPDs. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28705

4. Sports Exclusivity, Network Non- Section 611. However, we believe that construction schedules, (2) Duplication and Syndicated Exclusivity Congress did not intend to infringe establishment of standards and 45. We believe that we can directly upon local communities’ prerogative to procedures for constructing lines across apply our existing cable regulations manage their rights-of-way in order to private property, (3) determination of regarding sports exclusivity, syndicated protect the public health and safety. insurance and indemnity requirements, State and local authorities may impose (4) establishment of rules for local exclusivity and network non- conditions on an open video system building codes, (5) repairing and duplication to open video systems. We operator for use of the rights-of-way, so resurfacing construction-damaged do not believe that open video systems long as such conditions are applied streets, (6) ensuring public safety in the that span multiple geographic zones or equally to all users of the rights-of-way use of rights-of-way by gas, telephone, communities should be treated any (i.e., are non-discriminatory and electric, cable, and similar companies, differently than similar cable systems. competitively neutral). Conversely, state and (7) keeping track of the various The record evidence indicates that large and local authorities may not impose systems using the rights-of-way to cable systems are able to comply with specific conditions on use of the rights- prevent interference among facilities. these provisions, and no commenter has of-way that are unrelated to their 52. We will apply the fee to all gross provided any reason why open video management function or that apply to revenues received by an open video systems should not be required to an open video system operator system operator or its affiliates, comply with the same regulations. In differently than they apply to other including all revenues received from addition, we find that open video rights-of-way users. subscribers and all carriage revenues system operators should be responsible 49. Any state or local requirement that received from unaffiliated video for compliance with these rules. seeks to impose Title VI ‘‘franchise-like’’ programming providers. Gross revenues 46. In all cases, we find that television requirements on an open video system will not include revenues collected by stations must notify the open video operator would directly conflict with unaffiliated video programming system operator of the exclusive or non- Congress’ express direction that open providers from their subscribers or duplication rights being exercised. video system operators need not obtain advertisers, etc.—gross revenues will When the open video system operator local franchises. Examples of such only include fees paid to the OVS receives such a notification, it will be ‘‘franchise-like’’ requirements include operator. We will also require any gross required to give the appropriate video constructing institutional networks, revenues fee that the open video system programming providers an opportunity donating money to local educational or operator or its affiliate collects from to either substitute signals or delete charitable institutions, or specifying the subscribers to be excluded from gross signals where possible. Therefore, we amount or type of capacity that the revenues. require that open video system system must possess. Such requirements 53. Thus, we conclude that a state or operators make all notices of exclusive are preempted because they ‘‘stand[ ] as local government requirement that or non-duplication rights received an obstacle to the accomplishment of directs an open video system operator to immediately available to the appropriate the full purposes and objectives of obtain a Title VI franchise, or impose video programming providers on their Congress.’’ We believe the most natural Title VI ‘‘franchise like’’ requirements, systems. We would not expect to reading of Section 653, in light of to operate an open video system directly impose sanctions on an OVS operator Congress’s stated intent, is that state and conflicts with Section 653 of the for violations of the exclusivity rules by local governments cannot require any Communications Act and is preempted. an unaffiliated program supplier if the open video system operator to obtain a F. Information Provided to Subscribers operator provided proper notices to the Title VI franchise from a state or local program supplier and took prompt steps authority for use of public rights-of-way 54. We believe, as stated in the to stop the distribution of the infringing necessary to operate its open video Notice, that Section 653(b)(1)(E)(i) is program once it was notified of the system. intended to be a specific application of violation. 50. The state or local government the non-discrimination requirement may, however, impose non- contained in Section 653(b)(1)(A). 5. Other Title VI Provisions discriminatory and competitively Specifically, we believe that this 47. The Commission will, as proposed conditions on an open video system provision is meant to ensure that an in the NPRM, apply the following operator for use of the rights-of-way, so open video system operator does not provisions of the Communications Act long as such conditions are applied favor itself or its affiliates in its and the Commission’s rules thereunder equally to all users of the rights-of-way interaction with the customer at the to open video systems: Section 613 (c) (i.e., are non-discriminatory and point of actual program selection (i.e., through (h) regarding ownership competitvely neutral). For instance, a when the subscriber is choosing a restrictions; Section 616 regarding state or local government could impose particular channel to watch). The type regulation of carriage agreements; normal fees associated with zoning and of ‘‘material or information’’ that Section 623(f) regarding negative option construction of an open video system, therefore would fall within the scope of billing; Section 631 regarding subscriber so long as such fees were applied in a Section 653(b)(1)(E)(i) includes privacy; and Section 634 regarding non-discriminatory and competitively navigational devices, guides (electronic equal employment opportunity. neutral manner. Conversely, state and or paper) and menus used by the local authorities may not impose subscriber to actively select 6. Preemption of Local Franchising specific conditions on the use of the programming. Requirements rights-of-way that are unrelated to their 55. An open video system operator 48. Section 653 exempts an open management function or that apply to may not discriminate in favor of video system operator from the an open video system operator affiliated programming by, for example, requirement of obtaining a local differently than they apply to other ‘‘burying’’ unaffiliated programmers in franchise under Section 621, although users of the rights-of-way. difficult to access portions of electronic the operator still must pay a gross 51. Local authorities will retain their guides, navigational devices or menus, revenue fee ‘‘in lieu of’’ a franchise fee ability to address the following valid or by otherwise placing affiliated and must satisfy obligations under local concerns: (1) coordination of programming in more prominent 28706 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations positions on the electronic guides, guide or menu, it would similarly have restrictions while Section 653 does not. navigational devices or menus. To the to prohibit its own logo or branding Section 272(g)(2) specifically sets a extent that an open video system information under Section similar competitive condition on the operator uses billing inserts to advertise 653(b)(1)(E)(i). lifting of the joint marketing restrictions its service generally, rather than G. Dispute Resolution between telephone exchange and providing inserts as a guide to program interLATA services: a BOC’s selection, we believe that such inserts 60. Given the short 10-day period in authorization under Section 271(d) to fall outside the scope of Section which the Commission must approve or provide interLATA services in an in- disapprove a certification request, we 653(b)(1)(E)(i). We believe that a paper region State. Again, no such condition believe that the dispute resolution programming guide that is intended to was established in Section 653. be used at the point of actual channel process will play a key role in ensuring selection would be governed by Section the success of the open video 64. Since Congress chose not to adopt 653(b)(1)(E)(i). framework. In order for the joint marketing restrictions in Section 56. Section 653(b)(1)(E)(i) prohibits Commission’s review to be as efficient 653 even though (1) it specifically the open video system operator from and thorough as possible, we adopt our applied joint marketing restrictions to unreasonably discriminating in favor of suggestion in the Notice to model our other provisions of the 1996 Act, and (2) its affiliated programming by means of open video system dispute resolution it restricted joint marketing in some discriminatory use of on-system process after our rules governing provisions of the 1996 Act until the advertising, if that advertising is program access disputes (except for introduction of competition in the local contained in any channel selection must-carry complaints and petitions for telephone market, we decline to adopt guide, aid or menu. Accordingly, an special relief). joint marketing restrictions here. We open video system operator may not use 61. We will seek to dispose of as note, however, that any entity that offers its position as controller of a many cases as possible on the basis of any telecommunications service will be navigational device or menu to advertise a complaint, answer and reply. Parties subject to both the customer proprietary should include all relevant evidence, its programming on the navigational network information (‘‘CPNI’’) including documentary evidence, in the device or menu, while at the same time restrictions set forth in Section 222 of complaint and answer to support their disallowing unaffiliated programming the Communications Act and any providers comparable opportunities to claims. Discovery will not be permitted as a matter of right, but on a case-by- regulations the Commission establishes advertise on the navigational device or pursuant to Section 222. Similarly, any menu. case basis as deemed necessary by the 57. Menus offered by the OVS Commission staff reviewing the provider of cable or open video service operator may inform the viewer that complaint. Any complaint filed will be subject to the cable privacy other services (that the consumer has pursuant to Section 653(a)(2) must be restrictions set forth in Section 631. not ordered) are available on the open filed within one year of the date on b. Bundling video system, and direct the subscriber which the open video system operator’s how to access a second screen with actions allegedly violated Commission 65. Section 653 also does not address more complete information on those rules. the issue of ‘‘bundling,’’ which we other services. In addition, for 62. Finally, while we encourage define in this context to mean the programming to which the consumer parties to use ADR techniques to offering of video service and local has actually subscribed, no attempt to resolve their dispute without exchange service in a single package at programming service on the open video the Commission’s direct involvement, a single price. We would also treat as system operator’s navigational device we believe that a clause in a carriage bundling the situation in which an should be more difficult to select than agreement requiring ADR before a entity offers one service at a discount if any other programming service. dispute could be brought to the the customer purchases another service. 58. An open video system operator is Commission would not be a ‘‘just and We disagree that the bundling of not relieved of the non-discrimination reasonable’’ term or condition of telephone and video services will be provisions of Section 653(b)(1)(E)(i) if carriage. Such a requirement could anti-competitive, and increase the risk the operator offers a navigational device delay an aggrieved party’s right to of cross-subsidization of the competitive that works only with affiliated video redress significantly beyond the 180-day service by the monopoly service. We programming packages. In addition, the period mandated by Congress. In believe that the Commission’s Part 64 open video system operator may not addition, permitting operators to require cost allocation rules and any evade its obligation to ensure that other as a condition of carriage that all amendments thereto will protect non-affiliated programming providers disputes be resolved through ADR, may adequately regulated telephone are represented on a navigational lead operators to mandate ADR ratepayers from a misallocation of costs device, guide or menu simply by having practices that give them an unfair that could lead to excessive telephony the service nominally provided by its advantage over complainants. affiliate. rates. However, we will impose certain 59. We find that the ‘‘suitable and H. Joint Marketing, Bundling and safeguards to protect consumers in these unique’’ identification requirement of Structural Separation circumstances. First, the open video Section 653(b)(1)(E)(ii) would be 63. Section 653 is silent on the issue system operator, where it is the satisfied if an open video system of joint marketing. The Act does, incumbent LEC, may not require that a operator’s navigational device included however, expressly impose joint subscriber purchase its video service in a provider’s name (broadcast station call marketing restrictions on telephone order to receive local exchange service. letters and network affiliation, for companies in other contexts. Given that Second, while the open video system example), but not its logo or branding these Sections were all enacted as part operator may offer subscribers a device. However, if the open video of the 1996 Act, we find it a significant discount for purchasing the bundled system operator chooses to prohibit indication of Congress’ intent that package, the LEC must impute the unaffiliated providers’ logos or branding Sections 271(e), 272(g) and 274(c) unbundled tariff rate for the regulated information on its navigational device, contain express joint marketing service. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28707 c. Structural Separation Regulatory Flexibility Analysis: including whether the information shall 66. We disagree with those Collectively, the National League of have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of commenters that argue that a separate Cities; the United States Conference of the Commission’s burden estimates; (3) affiliate requirement nevertheless Mayors; the National Association of ways to enhance the quality, utility, and should be imposed pursuant to Section Counties; the National Association of clarity of the information collected; and 272. We believe that Congress did not Telecommunications Officers and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the intend to impose a separate affiliate Advisors; Montgomery County, collection of information on the requirement on LECs providing open Maryland; the City of Los Angeles, CA; respondents, including the use of video service. First, Section 653 is silent the City of Chillicothe, OH; the City of automated collection techniques or on whether LECs and others must Dearborn, Michigan; the City of other forms of information technology. Dubuque, Iowa; the City of St. Louis, provide open video service through a 73. Written comments by the public separate affiliate. In fact, Congress MO; the City of Santa Clara, CA; and the on the modified information collections expressly directed that Title II City of Tallahassee, FL filed reply are due on or before June 20, 1996, and requirements not be applied to ‘‘the comments in response to the Initial establishment and operation of an open Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. These reply comments are due on or before video system’’ under Section 653. In reply comments assert that a significant July 1, 1996. Written comments must be addition, Section 272 exempts number of small governmental entities submitted by OMB on modified ‘‘incidental interLATA services’’ from will be burdened by the proposals of the information collections on or before the separate affiliate requirement, and Commission and commenters. The August 5, 1996. A copy of any includes certain video programming Commission has considered these reply comments on the information services within the definition of comments and has attempted to collections contained herein should be ‘‘incidental interLATA services’’ structure the open video system rules submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal described in Section 271(g). Since we set forth in this Second Report and Communications Commission, Room Order so as to minimize the conclude that Congress did not intend 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, administrative burden upon small to apply a separate affiliate requirement DC 20554, or via the Internet to governmental entities. in this context, we need not address [email protected] and to Timothy Fain, whether the provision of video 71. Significant alternatives considered: Petitioners representing OMB Desk Officer, 10236, NEOB, 725— programming would qualify as an 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC ‘‘information service’’ under Section cable interests, telephone interests, programming interests, consumer 20503 or via the Internet to 272(a)(2)(C), or exercise our authority [email protected]. For additional under Section 272(f)(3). Rather, we will interests and local government interests submitted several alternatives aimed at information concerning the information adhere to Congress’ intent and decline collections contained herein contact to impose a separate affiliate minimizing administrative burdens. In Dorothy Conway at 202–418–0217, or requirement here. this proceeding, the Commission has considered these alternatives and has via the Internet at [email protected]. I. Advanced Telecommunications attempted both to accommodate the Ordering Clauses Incentives concerns raised by the parties and to 67. In order to promote the minimize the administrative burdens 74. Accordingly, it is ordered that, development of advanced upon the parties in accordance with pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), telecommunications to consumers, the Congress’ desire for the Commission to and 653 of the Communications Act of Commission will consider proposals for develop a streamlined regulatory model 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), for open video service operators. actions to encourage open video system 154(j), 303(r), and 573, the rules, deployment of advanced Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requirements and policies discussed in telecommunications services as defined Analysis this Second Report and Order ARE in Section 706 of the 1996 Act. This adopted and Sections 76.1000 and approach will be available on a case-by- 72. The requirements adopted in the Second Report and Order have been 76.1500 through 76.1515 of the case basis for open video system Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 1000, operators that can demonstrate a need analyzed with respect to the Paperwork 76.1000 and 76.1500 through 76.1515 for additional deregulatory measures to Reduction Act of 1995 (the ‘‘1995 Act’’) ARE AMENDED as set forth below. successfully deploy advanced and found to impose new or modified telecommunications to all consumers. information collection requirements on 75. It is further ordered that the the public. Implementation of any new requirements and regulations Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or modified requirement will be subject established in this decision shall 68. Pursuant to the Regulatory to approval by the Office of become effective upon approval by Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601– Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) as OMB of the new information collection 12, the Commission’s final analysis with prescribed by the 1995 Act. The requirements adopted herein, but no respect to the Second Report and Order Commission, as part of its continuing sooner than July 5, 1996. is as follows: effort to reduce paperwork burdens, 69. Need and purpose of this action: invites the general public and OMB to 76. It is further ordered that the The Commission, in compliance with comment on the information collections Secretary shall send a copy of this Section 302(a) of the contained in this Second Report and Second Report and Order including the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Order as required by the 1995 Act, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to pertaining to open video systems, is Public Law No. 104–13. OMB comments the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the required to adopt rules and procedures are due on or before August 5, 1996. Small Business Administration in necessary to implement this section of Comments should address: (1) Whether accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the the Telecommunications Act of 1996. the proposed collection of information Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 70. Summary of issues raised by the is necessary for the proper performance No. 96–354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. public in response to the Initial of the functions of the Commission, §§ 601 through 699 (1981). 28708 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Communications Commission. arrangement pertains to an area served (f) Cable service. This term shall have LaVera F. Marshall, by a cable system as of October 5, 1992, the same meaning as provided in the Acting Secretary. and the Commission determines in cable television rules, 47 CFR 76.5(ff). accordance with Section § 76.1002(c)(4) (g) Other terms. Unless otherwise List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76 that such arrangment is in the public expressly stated, words not defined in Cable television. interest. this part shall be given their meaning as 4. A new Subpart S is added to Part used in Title 47 of the United States Appendix B 76 to read as follows: Code, as amended, and, if not defined Rule Changes Subpart SÐOpen Video Systems therein, their meaning as used in Part 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part 76 of Title 47 of the Code of Sec. Federal Regulations is amended as 76.1500 Definitions. § 76.1501 Qualifications to be an open follows: 76.1501 Qualifications to be an open video video system operator. system operator. Any person may obtain a certification PART 76ÐCABLE TELEVISION 76.1502 Certification. to operate an open video system SERVICE 76.1503 Carriage of video programming providers on open video systems. pursuant to Section 653(a)(1) of the 1. The authority citation for Part 76 is 76.1504 Rates, terms and conditions for Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. revised to read as follows: carriage on open video systems. 573(a)(1), except that an operator of a 76.1505 Public, educational and cable system, regardless of any other Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, service that the cable operator may 301, 302, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, governmental access. 317, 325, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 533, 534, 76.1506 Carriage of television broadcast provide, may not obtain such a 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 552, signals. certification within its cable service area 76.1507 Competitive access to satellite 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573. unless it is subject to ‘‘effective cable programming. competition,’’ as defined in Section 2. Section 76.1000 is amended by 76.1508 Network non-duplication. 623(l)(1) of the Communications Act, 47 adding notes to paragraphs (e) and (h) 76.1509 Syndicated program exclusivity. U.S.C. 543(l)(1). A cable operator that is to read as follows: 76.1510 Application of certain Title VI provisions. not subject to effective competition § 76.1000 Definitions. 76.1511 Fees. within its cable service area may file a * * * * * 76.1512 Programming information. petition with the Commission, seeking a (e) * * * 76.1513 Dispute resolution. finding that particular circumstances Note to paragraph (e): A video 76.1514 Bundling of video and local exist that make it consistent with the programming provider that provides more exchange services. public interest, convenience, and than one channel of video programming on necessity to allow the operator to Subpart SÐOpen Video Systems an open video system is a multichannel convert its cable system to an open video programming distributor for purposes § 76.1500 Definitions. video system. Nothing herein shall be of this subpart O and Section 76.1507. (a) Open video system. A facility construed to affect the terms of any * * * * * consisting of a set of transmission paths franchising agreement or other (h) * * * and associated signal generation, contractual agreement. Note to paragraph (h): Satellite programming which is primarily intended for reception, and control equipment that is Note to § 76.1501: An example of a circumstance in which the public interest, the direct receipt by open video system designed to provide cable service which convenience and necessity would be served operators for their retransmission to open includes video programming and which by permitting a cable operator not subject to video system subscribers shall be included is provided to multiple subscribers effective competition to become an open within the definition of satellite cable within a community, provided that the video system operator within its cable service programming. Commission has certified that such area is where the entry of a facilities-based * * * * * system complies with this part. competitor into its cable service area would 3. Section 76.1004 is amended by (b) Open video system operator likely be infeasible. designating the existing text as (‘‘operator’’). Any person or group of paragraph (a), and adding paragraph (b) persons who provides cable service over § 76.1502 Certification. to read as follows: an open video system and directly or (a) An operator of an open video through one or more affiliates owns a system must certify to the Commission § 76.1004 Applicability of program access significant interest in such open video that it will comply with the rules to common carriers and affiliates. system, or otherwise controls or is Commission’s regulations in 47 CFR * * * * * responsible for the management and 76.1503, 76.1504, 76.1506(m), 76.1508, (b) Sections 76.1002(c)(1) through (3) operation of such an open video system. 76.1509, and 76.1513. If construction of shall be applied to a common carrier or (c) Video programming provider. Any new physical plant is required, the its affiliate that provides video person or group of persons who has the Commission must approve such programming by any means directly to right under the copyright laws to select certification prior to the commencement subscribers in such a way that such and contract for carriage of specific of construction. If no new construction common carrier or its affiliate shall be video programming on an open video is required, the Commission must generally restricted from entering into system. approve such certification prior to the an exclusive arrangement for satellite (d) Activated channels. This term commencement of service at such a cable programming or satellite broadcast shall have the same meaning as point in time that would allow the programming with a satellite cable provided in the cable television rules, applicant sufficient time to comply with programming vendor in which a 47 CFR 76.5(nn). the Commission’s notification common carrier or its affiliate has an (e) Shared channel. Any channel that requirements. attributable interest or a satellite carries video programming that is (b) Certifications must be verified by broadcast programming vendor in selected by more than one video an officer or director of the applicant, which a common carrier or its affiliate programming provider and offered to stating that, to the best of his or her has an attributable interest, unless the subscribers. information and belief, the Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28709 representations made therein are and determine the level of demand for (ii) A preliminary carriage rate accurate. carriage on the system among potential estimate; (c) Certifications must be filed on FCC video programming providers in a non- (iii) The information a video Form 1275 and must include: discriminatory manner. programming provider will be required (1) The applicant’s name, address and (1) Notification. An open video to provide to qualify as a video telephone number; system operator shall file with the programming provider, e.g., (2) A statement of ownership, Secretary of the Federal creditworthiness; including all affiliated entities; Communications Commission a ‘‘Notice (iv) Technical information that is (3) If the applicant is a cable operator of Intent’’ to establish an open video reasonably necessary for potential video applying for certification in its cable system, which the Commission will programming providers to assess franchise area, a statement that the release in a Public Notice. The Notice of whether to seek capacity on the open applicant is qualified to operate an open Intent shall include the following video system, including what type of video system under Section 76.1501. information: customer premises equipment (4) A statement that the applicant (i) A heading clearly indicating that subscribers will need to receive service; agrees to comply and to remain in the document is a Notice of Intent to (v) Any transmission or reception compliance with each of the establish an open video system; equipment needed by a video Commission’s regulations in §§ 76.1503, (ii) The name, address and telephone programming provider to interface 76.1504, 76.1506(m), 76.1508, 76.1509, number of the open video system successfully with the open video and 76.1513; operator; system; and (5) If the applicant is required under (iii) A description of the system’s (vi) The equipment available to 47 CFR 64.903(a) of this chapter to file projected service area; facilitate the carriage of unaffiliated a cost allocation manual, a statement (iv) A description of the system’s video programming and the electronic that the applicant will file changes to its projected channel capacity, in terms of form(s) that will be accepted for manual at least 60 days before the analog, digital and other type(s) of processing and subsequent transmission commencement of service; capacity upon activation of the system; through the system. (3) Qualifications of video (6) A general description of the (v) A description of the steps a programming providers. An open video anticipated communities or areas to be potential video programming provider system operator may impose reasonable, served upon completion of the system; must follow to seek carriage on the open (7) The anticipated amount and type non-discriminatory requirements to video system, including the name, (i.e., analog or digital) of capacity (for assure that a potential video address and telephone number of a switched digital systems, the programming provider is qualified to person to contact for further anticipated number of available channel obtain capacity on the open video information; input ports); and system. (vi) The starting and ending dates of (8) A statement that the applicant will (c) One-third limit. If carriage demand the initial enrollment period for video comply with the Commission’s notice by video programming providers programming providers; and enrollment requirements for exceeds the activated channel capacity (vii) The process for allocating the unaffiliated video programming of the open video system, the operator system’s channel capacity, in the event providers. of the open video system and its (d) Comments or oppositions to a that demand for carriage on the system affiliated video programming providers certification must be filed within five exceeds the system’s capacity; and may not select the video programming days of the Commission’s receipt of the (viii) A certification that the operator services for carriage on more than one- certification and must be served on the has complied with all relevant third of the activated channel capacity party that filed the certification. If the notification requirements under the on such system. Commission does not disapprove Commission’s open video system (1) Measuring capacity. For purposes certification within ten days after regulations concerning must-carry and of this section: receipt of an applicant’s request, the retransmission consent (§ 76.1506), (i) If an open video system carries certification will be deemed approved. including a list of all local commercial both analog and digital signals, an open If disapproved, the applicant may file a and non-commercial television stations video system operator shall measure revised certification or refile its original served, and a certificate of service analog and digital activated channel submission with a statement addressing showing that the Notice of Intent has capacity independently; the issues in dispute. Such refilings been served on all local cable (ii) Channels that an open video must be served on any objecting party franchising authorities entitled to system is required to carry pursuant to or parties. establish requirements concerning the the Commission’s regulations designation of channels for public, concerning public, educational and § 76.1503 Carriage of video programming educational and governmental use. governmental channels and must-carry providers on open video systems. (2) Information. An open video channels shall be included in ‘‘activated (a) Non-discrimination principle. system operator shall provide the channel capacity’’ for purposes of Except as otherwise permitted in following information to a video calculating the one-third of such applicable law or in this part, an programming provider within five capacity on which the open video operator of an open video system shall business days of receiving a written system operator and its affiliates are not discriminate among video request from the provider, unless allowed to select the video programming providers with regard to otherwise included in the Notice of programming for carriage. Such carriage on its open video system, and Intent: channels shall not be included in the its rates, terms and conditions for such (i) The projected activation date of the one-third of capacity on which the open carriage shall be just and reasonable and open video system. If a system is to be video system operator is permitted to not unjustly or unreasonably activated in stages, the operator should select programming where demand for discriminatory. describe the respective stages and the carriage exceeds system capacity; (b) Demand for carriage. An operator projected dates on which each stage will (iii) Channels that an open video of an open video system shall solicit be activated; system operator carries pursuant to the 28710 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Commission’s regulations concerning programming. An operator shall (B) Limit video programming retransmission consent shall be maintain a file of qualified video providers from selecting the included in ‘‘activated channel programming providers who have programming on more capacity than the capacity’’ for purposes of calculating the requested carriage or additional carriage amount of capacity on which the system one-third of such capacity on which the since the previous allocation of operator and its affiliates are selecting open video system operator and its capacity. Information regarding how a the programming for carriage; and affiliates are allowed to select the video video programming provider should (C) Refuse carriage on its open video programming for carriage. Such apply for carriage must be made system to a competing, in-region cable channels shall be included in the one- available upon request. operator or its affiliates that offers cable third of capacity on which the open Note 1 to paragraph (c)(2)(ii): An open service to subscribers located in the video system operator is permitted to video system operator will not be required to service area of the open video system, select programming, where demand for comply with the regulations contained in this except where the allocation of open carriage exceeds system capacity, to the section if there is no open capacity to be video system capacity to a competing extent that the channels are carried as allocated at the end of the three year period. cable operator is consistent with the part of the programming service of the Note 2 to paragraph (c)(2)(ii): An open public interest, convenience, and operator or its affiliate, subject to video system operator shall be required to necessity. accommodate changes in obligations paragraph (c)(1)(iv); and Note to paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(C): The (iv) Any channel on which shared concerning public, educational or governmental channels or must-carry Commission will except situations where it programming is carried shall be is determined that facilities-based included in ‘‘activated channel channels in accordance with Sections 611, 614 and 615 of the Communications Act and competition will not be significantly capacity’’ for purposes of calculating the the regulations contained in this part. impeded. We will provide a specific one-third of such capacity on which the exception in a situation in which: the open video system operator and its (iii) Channel sharing. An open video competing, in-region cable operator and affiliates are allowed to select the video system operator may carry on only one affiliated systems offer service to less than programming for carriage. Such channel any video programming service 20% of the households passed by the open that is offered by more than one video video system; and the competing, in-region channels shall be included in the one- cable operator and affiliated systems provide third of capacity on which the open programming provider (including the cable service to a total of less than 17,000 video system operator is permitted to operator’s video programming affiliate), subscribers within the open video system’s select programming, where demand for provided that subscribers have ready service area. and immediate access to any such carriage exceeds system capacity, to the (3) Nothing in this paragraph shall be programming service. Nothing in this extent the open video system operator construed to limit the number of section shall be construed to impair the or its affiliate is one of the video channels that the open video system rights of programming services. programming providers sharing such operator and its affiliates, or another channel. Note 1 to paragraph (c)(2)(iii): An open video programming provider, may offer Note to paragraph (c)(1)(iv): For example, video system operator may implement to provide directly to subscribers. Co- if the open video system operator and two channel sharing only after it becomes packaging is permissible among video unaffiliated video programming providers apparent that one or more video programming services will be offered by programming providers, but may not be each carry a programming service that is a condition of carriage. Video placed on a shared channel, the shared multiple video programming providers. An channel shall count as 0.33 channels against open video system operator may not select, programming providers may freely elect the one-third amount of capacity allocable to in advance of any duplication among video whether to enter into co-packaging the open video system operator, where programming providers, which programming arrangements. demand for carriage exceeds system capacity. services shall be placed on shared channels. Note to paragraph (c)(3): Any video (2) Allocating capacity. An operator of Note 2 to paragraph (c)(2)(iii): Each video programming provider on an open video programming provider offering a an open video system shall allocate system may co-package video programming programming service that is carried on a that is selected by itself, an affiliated video activated channel capacity through a shared channel must have the contractual fair, open and non-discriminatory programming provider and/or unaffiliated permission of the video programming service video programming providers on the system. process; the process must be insulated to offer the service to subscribers. The from any bias of the open video system placement of a programming service on a § 76.1504 Rates, terms and conditions for operator and verifiable. shared channel, however, is not subject to the carriage on open video systems. (i) If an open video system carries approval of the video programming service or (a) Reasonable rate principle. An both analog and digital signals, an open vendor. open video system operator shall set video system operator shall treat analog Note 3 to paragraph (c)(2)(iii): Ready and immediate access in this context means that rates, terms, and conditions for carriage and digital capacity separately in the channel sharing is ‘‘transparent’’ to that are just and reasonable, and are not allocating system capacity. subscribers. unjustly or unreasonably (ii) Subsequent changes in capacity or discriminatory. demand. An open video system operator (iv) Open video system operator (b) Differences in rates. must allocate open capacity, if any, at discretion. Notwithstanding the (1) An open video system operator least once every three years, beginning foregoing, an operator of an open video may charge different rates to different three years from the date of service system may: classes of video programming providers, commencement. Open capacity shall be (A) Require video programming provided that the bases for such allocated in accordance with this providers to request and obtain system differences are not unjust or section. Open capacity shall include all capacity in increments of no less than unreasonably discriminatory. capacity that becomes available during one full-time channel; however, an (2) An open video system operator the course of the three-year period, as operator of an open video system may shall not impose different rates, terms, well as capacity in excess of one-third not require video programming or conditions based on the content of of the system’s activated channel providers to obtain capacity in the programming to be offered by any capacity on which the operator of the increments of more than one full-time unaffiliated video programming open video system or its affiliate selects channel; provider. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28711

(c) Just and reasonable rate costs associated with packaging various public, educational and governmental presumption. A strong presumption will programs for the open video system access, including costs of public, apply that carriage rates are just and operator’s offering. A third category educational and governmental access reasonable for open video system related to the infrastructure or services, facilities and equipment, and operators where at least one unaffiliated engineering costs identified with equipment necessary to achieve the video programming provider, or building and maintaining the open connection. The open video system unaffiliated programming providers as a video system. Contained in each is a operator must provide the same amount group, occupy capacity equal to the profit allowance attributed to the of public, educational and governmental lesser of one-third of the system economic value of each component. access as the local cable operator is capacity or that occupied by the open When an open video system operator required to carry. video system operator and its affiliates, provides only carriage through its (2) The local franchising authority and where any rate complained of is no infrastructure, however, the shall impose the same rules and higher than the average of the rates paid programming and packaging flows from procedures on an open video system by unaffiliated programmers receiving the independent program provider, who operator as it imposes on the local cable carriage from the open video system bears the cost. The open video system operator with regard to the open video operator. operator avoids programming and system operator’s use of channel (d) Examination of rates. Complaints packaging costs, including profits. capacity designated for public, regarding rates shall be limited to video These avoided costs should not be educational and governmental access programming providers that have sought reflected in the price charged an use when such capacity is not being carriage on the open video system. If a independent program provider for used for such purposes. video programming provider files a carriage. The imputed rate also seeks to (3) The local cable operator is complaint against an open video system recognize the loss of subscribers to the required to permit the open video operator meeting the above just and open video system operator’s system operator to connect with its reasonable rate presumption, the burden programming package resulting from public, educational and governmental of proof will rest with the complainant. carrying competing programming. access channel feeds. The open video If a complaint is filed against an open system operator and the cable operator video system operator that does not § 76.1505 Public, educational and may decide how to accomplish this meet the just and reasonable rate governmental access. connection, taking into consideration presumption, the open video system (a) An open video system operator the exact physical and technical operator will bear the burden of proof to shall be subject to public, educational circumstances of the cable and open demonstrate, using the principles set and governmental access requirements video systems involved. If the cable and forth below, that the carriage rates for every cable franchise area with open video system operator cannot subject to the complaint are just and which its system overlaps. agree on how to accomplish the reasonable. (b) An open video system operator connection, the local franchising (e) Determining just and reasonable must ensure that all subscribers receive authority may decide. The local rates subject to complaints. Carriage any public, educational and franchising authority may require that rates subject to complaint shall be governmental access channels within the connection occur on government presumed just and reasonable if they are the subscribers’ franchise area. property or on public rights of way. no greater than an imputed carriage rate (c) An open video system operator (4) The costs of connection and based on the following. The imputed may negotiate with the local cable maintaining public, educational and rate will reflect what the open video franchising authority of the governmental access channel capacity, system operator, or its affiliate, ‘‘pays’’ jurisdiction(s) which the open video services, facilities and equipment shall for carriage of its own programming. system serves to establish the open be divided equitably between the cable Use of this approach is appropriate in video system operator’s obligations with operator and the open video system circumstances where the pricing is respect to public, educational and operator. Shared costs shall include applicable to a new market entrant (the governmental access channel capacity, capital contributions and any other open video system operator) that will services, facilities and equipment. These costs or investments directly relating to face competition from an existing negotiations may include the local cable or supporting public, educational and incumbent provider (the incumbent operator if the local franchising governmental access and required by cable operator), as opposed to authority, the open video system the cable operator’s franchise circumstances where the pricing is used operator and the cable operator so agreement. Capital expenses incurred to establish a rate for an essential input desire. prior to the open video system service that is charged to a competing (d) If an open video system operator operator’s connection shall be subject to new entrant by an incumbent provider. and a local franchising authority are cost sharing on a pro-rata basis to the With respect to new market entrants, an unable to reach an agreement regarding extent such investments have not been efficient component pricing model will the open video system operator’s fully amortized by the cable operator. produce rates that encourage market obligations with respect to public, (5) The local franchising authority entry. If the carriage rate to an educational and governmental access may not impose public, educational and unaffiliated program provider surpasses channel capacity, services, facilities and governmental access obligations on the what an operator earns from carrying its equipment within the local franchising open video system operator that would own programming, the rate can be authority’s jurisdiction: exceed those imposed on the local cable presumed to exceed a just and (1) The open video system operator operator. reasonable level. An open video system must satisfy the same public, (6) Where there is no existing local operator’s price to its subscribers will be educational and governmental access cable operator, the open video system determined by several separate costs obligations as the local cable operator by operator must make a reasonable components. One general category are connecting with the cable operator’s amount of channel capacity available for those costs related to the creative public, educational and governmental public, educational and governmental development and production of access channel feeds and by sharing the use, as well as provide reasonable programming. A second category are costs directly related to supporting support for services, facilities and 28712 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations equipment relating to such public, over any public, educational, or or ‘‘cable community or communities’’ educational and governmental use. If a governmental use of channel capacity shall apply to an open video system franchise agreement previously existed provided pursuant to this subsection, community or communities. Any in that franchise area, the open video provided, however, that any open video provision of § 76.54 that refers to ‘‘non- system operator shall be required to system operator may prohibit the use on cable television homes’’ shall apply to maintain the previously existing public, its system of any channel capacity of households that do not receive educational and governmental access any public, educational, or television signals from multichannel terms of that franchise agreement. governmental facility for any video programming distributors. Any Absent a previous cable franchise programming which contains nudity, provision of § 76.54 that refers to a agreement, the open video system obscene material, indecent material as ‘‘cable television system’’ shall apply to operator shall be required to provide defined in § 76.701(g), or material an open video system. channel capacity, services, facilities and soliciting or promoting unlawful (d) Definitions applicable to the must- equipment relating to public, conduct. For purposes of this section, carry rules. Section 76.55 shall apply to educational and governmental access ‘‘material soliciting or promoting all open video systems in accordance equivalent to that prescribed in the unlawful conduct’’ shall mean material with the provisions contained in this franchise agreement(s) for the nearest that is otherwise proscribed by law. An section. Any provision of § 76.55 that operating cable system with a open video system operator may require refers to a ‘‘cable system’’ shall apply to commitment to provide public, any access user, or access manager or an open video system. Any provision of educational and governmental access. administrator agreeing to assume the § 76.55 that refers to a ‘‘cable operator’’ responsibility of certifying, to certify shall apply to an open video system Note to paragraph (d)(6): If a cable system operator. Any provision of § 76.55 that converts to an open video system, the that its programming does not contain operator will be required to maintain the any of the materials described above refers to the ‘‘principal headend’’ of a previously existing terms of its public, and that reasonable efforts will be used cable system as defined in § 76.5(pp) educational and governmental access to ensure that live programming does shall apply to the equivalent of the obligations. not contain such material. principal headend of an open video system. Any provision of § 76.55 that (7) The open video system operator § 76.1506 Carriage of television broadcast refers to a ‘‘franchise area’’ shall apply must adjust its system(s) to comply with signals. to the service area of an open video new public, educational and (a) The provisions of Subpart D shall system. governmental access obligations apply to open video systems in (e) Signal carriage obligations. Any imposed by a cable franchise renewal; accordance with the provisions provision of § 76.56 that refers to a provided, however, that an open video contained in this subpart. ‘‘cable television system’’ or ‘‘cable system operator will not be required to (b) For the purposes of this Subpart S, system’’ shall apply to an open video displace other programmers using its television stations are significantly system. Any provision of § 76.56 that open video system to accommodate viewed when they are viewed in refers to a ‘‘cable operator’’ shall apply public, educational and governmental households that do not receive to an open video system operator. access channels. The open video system television signals from multichannel Section 76.56(d)(2) shall apply to open operator shall comply with such public, video programming distributors as video systems as follows: An open video educational and governmental access follows: system operator shall make available to obligations whenever additional (1) For a full or partial network every subscriber of the open video capacity is or becomes available, station—a share of viewing hours of at system all qualified local commercial whether it is due to increased channel least 3 percent (total week hours), and television stations and all qualified non- capacity or decreased demand for a net weekly circulation of at least 25 commercial educational television channel capacity. percent; and stations carried in fulfillment of its (8) The open video system operator (2) For an independent station—a carriage obligations under this section. and/or the local franchising authority share of viewing hours of at least 2 (f) Channel positioning. Open video may file a complaint with the percent (total week hours), and a net system operators shall comply with the Commission, pursuant to our dispute weekly circulation of at least 5 percent. provisions of § 76.57 to the closest resolution procedures set forth in See § 76.1506(c). extent possible. Any provision of § 76.1514, if the open video system Note to paragraph (b): As used in this § 76.57 that refers to a ‘‘cable operator’’ operator and the local franchising paragraph, ‘‘share of viewing hours’’ means shall apply to an open video system authority cannot agree as to the the total hours that households that do not operator. Any provision of § 76.57 that application of the Commission’s rules receive television signals from multichannel refers to a ‘‘cable system’’ shall apply to regarding the open video system video programming distributors viewed the an open video system, except the operator’s connection and/or cost subject station during the week, expressed as references to ‘‘cable system’’ in sharing obligations under this section. a percentage of the total hours these § 76.57(d) which shall apply to an open households viewed all stations during the (e) If an open video system operator video system operator. maintains an institutional network, as period, and ‘‘net weekly circulation’’ means the number of households that do not receive (g) Notification. Any provision of defined in Section 611(f) of the television signals from multichannel video § 76.58 that refers to a ‘‘cable operator’’ Communications Act, the local programming distributors that viewed the shall apply to an open video system franchising authority may require that station for 5 minutes or more during the operator. Any provision of § 76.58 that educational and governmental access entire week, expressed as a percentage of the refers to a ‘‘cable system’’ shall apply to channels be designated on that total households that do not receive an open video system. Any provision of institutional network to the extent such television signals from multichannel video § 76.58 that refers to a ‘‘principal channels are designated on the programming distributors in the survey area. headend’’ shall apply to the equivalent institutional network of the local cable (c) Significantly viewed signals; of the principal headend for an open operator. method to be followed for special video system. (f) An open video system operator showings. Any provision of § 76.54 that (h) Modification of television markets. shall not exercise any editorial control refers to a ‘‘cable television community’’ Any provision of § 76.59 that refers to a Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28713

‘‘cable system’’ shall apply to an open municipal entity (including system operator, its affiliate that video system. Any provision of § 76.59 unincorporated communities within provides video programming on its open that refers to a ‘‘cable operator’’ shall unincorporated areas and including video system and a satellite cable apply to an open video system operator. single, discrete unincorporated areas). programming vendor in which an open (i) Compensation for carriage. Any (2) Notification of programming to be video system operator has an provision of § 76.60 that refers to a deleted pursuant to this section shall be attributable interest, as follows: No open ‘‘cable operator’’ shall apply to an open served on the open video system video system operator or its affiliate that video system operator. Any provision of operator. The open video system provides video programming on its open § 76.60 that refers to a ‘‘cable system’’ operator shall make all notifications video system shall engage in any shall apply to an open video system. immediately available to the appropriate practice or activity or enter into any Any provision of § 76.60 that refers to a video programming providers on its understanding or arrangement, ‘‘principal headend’’ shall apply to the open video system. An open video including exclusive contracts, with a equivalent of the principal headend for system operator shall not be subject to satellite cable programming vendor or an open video system. sanctions for any violation of these rules satellite broadcast programming vendor (j) Disputes concerning carriage. Any by an unaffiliated program supplier if for satellite cable programming or provision of § 76.61 that refers to a the operator provided proper notices to satellite broadcast programming that ‘‘cable operator’’ shall apply to an open the program supplier and subsequently prevents a multichannel video video system operator. Any provision of took prompt steps to stop the programming distributor from obtaining § 76.61 that refers to a ‘‘cable system’’ distribution of the infringing program such programming from any satellite shall apply to an open video system. once it was notified of a violation. cable programming vendor in which an Any provision of § 76.61 that refers to a (n) Exemption from input selector open video system operator has an ‘‘principal headend’’ shall apply to the switch rules. Any provision of § 76.70 attributable interest, or any satellite equivalent of the principal headend for that refers to a ‘‘cable system’’ or ‘‘cable broadcasting vendor in which an open an open video system. systems’’ shall apply to an open video video system operator has an (k) Manner of carriage. Any provision system or open video systems. attributable interest for distribution to of § 76.62 that refers to a ‘‘cable (o) Special relief and must-carry person in areas not served by a cable operator’’ shall apply to an open video complaint procedures. The procedures operator as of October 5, 1992. system operator. set forth in § 76.7 shall apply to special (2) Section 76.1002(c)(2) shall only (l) Retransmission consent. Section relief and must-carry complaints restrict the conduct of an open video 76.64 shall apply to open video systems relating to open video systems, and not system operator, its affiliate that in accordance with the provisions the procedures set forth in § 76.1514 provides video programming on its open contained in this paragraph. (Dispute resolution). Any provision of video system and a satellite cable (1) Any provision of § 76.64 that refers § 76.7 that refers to a ‘‘cable television programming vendor in which an open to a ‘‘cable system’’ shall apply to an system operator’’ or ‘‘cable operator’’ video system operator has an open video system. Any provision of shall apply to an open video system attributable interest, as follows: No open § 76.64 that refers to a ‘‘cable operator’’ operator. Any provision of § 76.7 that video system operator or its affiliate that shall apply to an open video system refers to a ‘‘cable television system’’ provides video programming on its open operator. shall apply to an open video system. video system shall enter into any (2) Must-carry/retransmission consent Any provision of § 76.7 that refers to a exclusive contracts, or engage in any election notifications shall be sent to the ‘‘system community unit’’ shall apply to practice, activity or arrangement open video system operator. An open an open video system or that portion of tantamount to an exclusive contract, for video system operator shall make all an open video system that operates or satellite cable programming or satellite must-carry/retransmission consent will operate within a separate and broadcast programming with a satellite election notifications received available distinct community or municipal entity cable programming vendor in which an to the appropriate programming (including unincorporated communities open video system operator has an providers on its system. within unincorporated areas and attributable interest or a satellite (3) Television broadcast stations are including single, discrete broadcast programming vendor, unless not required to make the same election unincorporated areas). the Commission determines in for open video systems and cable accordance with § 76.1002(c)(4) that systems in the same geographic area. § 76.1507 Competitive access to satellite such a contract, practice, activity or (4) An open video system cable programming. arrangement is in the public interest. commencing new operations shall (a) Any provision that applies to a (3) Section 76.1002(c)(3) (i) through notify all local commercial and cable operator under §§ 76.1000 through (ii) shall only restrict the conduct of an noncommercial broadcast stations as 76.1003 shall also apply to an operator open video system operator, its affiliate required under paragraph (l) of this of an open video system and its affiliate that provides video programming on its section on or before the date on which which provides video programming on open video system and a satellite cable it files with the Commission its Notice its open video system, except as limited programming vendor in which an open of Intent to establish an open video by paragraph (a) (1)–(3) of this section. video system operator has an system. Any such provision that applies to a attributable interest, as follows: (m) Sports broadcast. Section 76.67 satellite cable programming vendor in (i) Unserved areas. No open video shall apply to open video systems in which a cable operator has an system operator shall enter into any accordance with the provisions attributable interest shall also apply to subdistribution agreement or contained in this paragraph. any satellite cable programming vendor arrangement for satellite cable (1) Any provisions of § 76.67 that in which an open video system operator programming or satellite broadcast refers to a ‘‘community unit’’ shall has an attributable interest, except as programming with a satellite cable apply to an open video system or that limited by paragraph (a) (1)–(3) of this programming vendor in which an open portion of an open video system that section. video system operator has an operates or will operate within a (1) Section 76.1002(c)(1) shall only attributable interest or a satellite separate and distinct community or restrict the conduct of an open video broadcast programming vendor in 28714 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations which an open video system operator (including unincorporated communities available to all appropriate video has an attributable interest for within unincorporated areas and programming provider on the system. distribution to persons in areas not including single, discrete An open video system operator shall not served by a cable operator as of October unincorporated areas). Any provision of be subject to sanctions for any violation 5, 1992. § 76.92 that refers to a ‘‘cable television of these rules by an unaffiliated program (ii) Served areas. No open video community’’ shall apply to an open supplier if the operator provided proper system operator shall enter into any video system community. Any notices to the program supplier and subdistribution agreement or provision of § 76.92 that refers to a subsequently took prompt steps to stop arrangement for satellite cable ‘‘cable television system’s mandatory the distribution of the infringing programming or satellite broadcast signal carriage obligations’’ shall apply program once it was notified of a programming with a satellite cable to an open video system’s mandatory violation. programming vendor in which an open signal carriage obligations. (d) Any provision of § 76.156 that video system operator has an (c) Any provision of § 76.94 that refers refers to a ‘‘cable community’’ shall attributable interest or a satellite to a ‘‘cable system operator’’ or ‘‘cable apply to an open video system broadcast programming vendor in television system operator’’ shall apply community. Any provision of § 76.156 which an open video system operator to an open video system operator. Any that refers to a ‘‘cable community unit’’ has an attributable interest, with respect provision of § 76.94 that refers to a or ‘‘community unit’’ shall apply to an to areas served by a cable operator, ‘‘cable system’’ or ‘‘cable television open video system or that portion of an unless such agreement or arrangement system’’ shall apply to an open video open video system that operates or will complies with the limitations set forth system except § 76.94 (e) and (f) which operate within a separate and distinct in § 76.1002(c)(3)(iii). shall apply to an open video system community or municipal entity (b) No open video system operator. Open video system operators (including unincorporated communities programming provider in which a cable shall make all notifications and within unincorporated areas and operator has an attributable interest information regarding the exercise of including single, discrete shall: network non-duplication rights unincorporated areas). Any provision of (1) engage in any practice or activity immediately available to all appropriate §§ 76.156 through 76.158, and 76.163 or enter into any understanding or video programming provider on the that refers to a ‘‘cable system’’ shall arrangement, including exclusive system. An open video system operator apply to an open video system. contracts, with a satellite cable shall not be subject to sanctions for any (e) Any provision of § 76.159 that programming vendor or satellite violation of these rules by an refers to ‘‘cable television’’ or a ‘‘cable broadcast programming vendor for unaffiliated program supplier if the system’’ shall apply to an open video satellite cable programming or satellite operator provided proper notices to the system. broadcast programming that prevents a program supplier and subsequently took (f) Any provision of § 76.161 that multichannel video programming prompt steps to stop the distribution of refers to a ‘‘community unit’’ shall distributor from obtaining such the infringing program once it was apply to an open video system or that programming from any satellite cable notified of a violation. portion of an open video system that is programming vendor in which a cable (d) Any provision of § 76.95 that affected by this rule. operator has an attributable interest, or refers to a ‘‘cable system’’ or a ‘‘cable any satellite broadcasting vendor in community unit’’ shall apply to an open § 76.1510 Application of certain Title VI which a cable operator has an video system or that portion of an open provisions. attributable interest for distribution to video system that operates or will The following sections within Part 76 person in areas not served by a cable operate within a separate and distinct shall also apply to open video systems: operator as of October 5, 1992. community or municipal entity §§ 76.71, 76.73, 76.75, 76.77 and 76.79 (2) enter into any exclusive contracts, (including unincorporated communities (Equal Employment Opportunity or engage in any practice, activity or within unincorporated areas and Requirements); §§ 76.503 and 76.504 arrangement tantamount to an exclusive including single, discrete (ownership restrictions); § 76.981 contract, for satellite cable programming unincorporated areas). (negative option billing); and or satellite broadcast programming with §§ 76,1300, 76.1301 and 76.1302 a satellite cable programming vendor in § 76.1509 Syndicated program exclusivity. (regulation of carriage agreements); which a cable operator has an (a) Sections 76.151 through 76.163 provided, however, that these sections attributable interest or a satellite shall apply to open video systems in shall apply to open video systems only broadcast programming vendor, unless accordance with the provisions to the extent that they do not conflict the Commission determines in contained in this section. with this subpart S. Section 631 of the accordance with Section 76.1002(c)(4) (b) Any provision of § 76.151 that Communications Act (subscriber that such a contract, practice, activity or refers to a ‘‘cable community unit’’ shall privacy) shall also apply to open video arrangement is in the public interest. apply to an open video system. systems. (c) Any provision of § 76.155 that § 76.1508 Network non-duplication. refers to a ‘‘cable system operator’’ or § 76.1511 Fees. (a) Sections 76.92 through 76.97 shall ‘‘cable television system operator’’ shall An open video system operator may apply to open video systems in apply to an open video system operator. be subject to the payment of fees on the accordance with the provisions Any provision of § 76.155 that refers to gross revenues of the operator for the contained in this section. a ‘‘cable system’’ or ‘‘cable television provision of cable service imposed by a (b) Any provision of § 76.92 that refers system’’ shall apply to an open video local franchising authority or other to a ‘‘cable community unit’’ or system except § 76.155(c) which shall governmental entity, in lieu of the ‘‘community unit’’ shall apply to an apply to an open video system operator. franchise fees permitted under Section open video system or that portion of an Open video system operators shall make 622 of the Communications Act. Gross open video system that operates or will all notifications and information revenues under this paragraph means all operate within a separate and distinct regarding exercise of syndicated gross revenues received by an open community or municipal entity program exclusivity rights immediately video system operator or its affiliates, Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28715 including all revenues received from Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 573) of all information and supporting subscribers and all carriage revenues may commence an adjudicatory authority furnished in a pending received from unaffiliated video proceeding at the Commission. The complaint proceeding. Information programming providers. Gross revenues Commission shall resolve any such submitted, as well as relevant legal does not include revenues collected by dispute within 180 days after the filing authorities, must be current and unaffiliated video programming of a complaint. updated as necessary and in a timely providers from their subscribers. Any (b) Alternate dispute resolution. An manner at any time before a decision is gross revenues fee that the open video open video system operator may not rendered on the merits of the complaint. system operator or its affiliate collects provide in its carriage contracts with (e) Complaint. from subscribers shall be excluded from programming providers that any dispute (1) A complaint filed under this part gross revenues. An operator of an open must be submitted to arbitration, shall contain: video system may designate that portion mediation, or any other alternative (i) The name of the complainant and of a subscriber’s bill attributable to the method for dispute resolution prior to each defendant; fee as a separate item on the bill. submission of a complaint to the (ii) The type of entity that describes Commission. complainant (e.g., individual, private § 76.1512 Programming information. (c) Notice required prior to filing of association, partnership, or (a) An open video system operator complaint. Any aggrieved party corporation), the address and telephone shall not unreasonably discriminate in intending to file a complaint under this number of the complainant, and the favor of itself or its affiliates with regard section must first notify the potential address and telephone number of each to material or information (including defendant open video system operator defendant; advertising) provided by the operator to that it intends to file a complaint with (iii) The name, address and telephone subscribers for the purpose of selecting the Commission based on actions number of complainant’s attorney, if programming on the open video system, alleged to violate one or more of the complainant is represented by counsel; or in the way such material or provisions contained in this part or in (iv) Citation to the section of the information is provided to subscribers. Section 653 of the Communications Act. Communications Act and/or the Note to paragraph (a): ‘‘Material or The notice must be in writing and must Commission regulation or order alleged information’’ as used in paragraph (a) of this be sufficiently detailed so that its to have been violated; section means material or information that a recipient(s) can determine the specific (v) A complete statement of facts, subscriber uses to actively select nature of the potential complaint. The which, if proven true, would constitute programming at the point of program potential complainant must allow a such a violation; selection. minimum of ten (10) days for the (vi) Any evidence that supports the (b) In accordance with paragraph (a) potential defendant(s) to respond before truth or accuracy of the alleged facts; of this section: filing a complaint with the Commission. (vii) Evidence that the open video (1) An open video system operator (d) General pleading requirements. system operator’s conduct at issue shall not discriminate in favor of itself Complaint proceedings under this part violated a section of the or its affiliate on any navigational are generally resolved on a written Communications Act and/or device, guide or menu; record consisting of a complaint, Commission regulation or order. (2) An open video system operator answer, and reply, but may also include (viii) If discrimination in rates, terms, shall not omit television broadcast other written submissions such as briefs and conditions of carriage is alleged, stations or other unaffiliated video and written interrogatories. All written documentary evidence shall be programming services carried on the submissions, both substantive and submitted such as a preliminary carriage open video system from any procedural, must conform to the rate estimate or a programming contract navigational device, guide (electronic or following standard: that demonstrates a differential in price, paper) or menu. For programming (1) Pleadings must be clear, concise, terms or conditions between services that an open video system and explicit. All matters concerning a complainant and a competing video subscriber has not ordered, menus claim, defense or requested remedy, programming provider or, if no provided by an open video system should be pleaded fully and with programming contract or preliminary operator shall, at a minimum, inform specificity; carriage rate estimate is submitted with the subscriber how to access an (2) Pleadings must contain facts the complaint, an affidavit signed by an additional screen that lists the which, if true, are sufficient to officer of complainant alleging that a unordered programming services. constitute a violation of the differential in price, terms or conditions (c) An open video system operator Communications Act or of a exists, a description of the nature and shall ensure that video programming Commission regulation or order, or a extent (if known or reasonably providers or copyright holders (or both) defense to such alleged violation; estimated by the complainant) of the are able to suitably and uniquely (3) Facts must be supported by differential, together with a statement identify their programming services to relevant documentation or affidavit; that defendant refused to provide any subscribers. (4) Legal arguments must be further specific comparative (d) An open video system operator supported by appropriate judicial, information; shall transmit programming Commission, or statutory authority; (ix) If a programming contract or a identification without change or (5) Opposing authorities must be preliminary carriage rate estimate is alteration if such identification is distinguished; submitted with the complaint in transmitted as part of the programming (6) Copies must be provided of all support of the alleged violation, specific signal. non-Commission authorities relied upon references to the relevant provisions which are not routinely available in therein; and § 76.1513 Dispute resolution. national reporting systems, such as (x) The specific relief sought. (a) Complaints. Any party aggrieved unpublished decisions or slip opinions (2) Every complaint alleging a by conduct that it alleges to constitute of courts or administrative agencies; and violation of the open video system a violation of the regulations set forth in (7) Parties are responsible for the requirements shall be accompanied by a this part or in Section 653 of the continuing accuracy and completeness sworn affidavit signed by an authorized 28716 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations officer or agent of the complainant. This the issues. Any defendant failing to file motions or pleadings by any party will affidavit shall contain a statement that and serve an answer within the time not be accepted. the affiant has read the complaint and and in the manner prescribed by these (i) Discovery. that to the best of the affiant’s rules may be deemed in default and an (1) The Commission staff may in its knowledge, information, and belief order may be entered against defendant discretion order discovery limited to the formed after reasonable inquiry, it is in accordance with the allegations issues specified by the Commission. well grounded in fact and is warranted contained in the complaint. Such discovery may include answers to under Commission regulations and (3) The answer shall state concisely written interrogatories or document policies, or is a good faith argument for any and all defenses to each claim production. the extension, modification or reversal asserted and shall admit or deny the (2) The Commission staff may in its of such regulations or policies, and it is averments on which the adverse party discretion direct the parties to submit not interposed for any improper relies. If the defendant is without discovery proposals, together with a purpose. If the complaint is signed in knowledge or information sufficient to memorandum in support of the violation of this rule, the Commission form a belief as to the truth of an discovery requested. Such discovery upon motion or its own initiative, shall averment, the defendant shall so state requests may include answers to written impose upon the complainant an and this has the effect of a denial. When interrogatories, document production or appropriate sanction. a defendant intends in good faith to depositions. The Commission staff will (3) The following format may be used deny only part of an averment, the then hold a status conference with the in cases to which it is applicable, with answer shall specify so much of it as is parties, pursuant to paragraph (l) of this such modifications as the circumstances true and shall deny only the remainder. section, to determine the scope of may render necessary: The defendant may make its denials as discovery. If the Commission staff specific denials of designated averments Before The Federal Communications determines that extensive discovery is Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554 or paragraphs, or may generally deny all required or that depositions are In the Matter of Complainant the averments except such designated warranted, the staff will advise the File No. (To be inserted by the averments or paragraphs as the parties that the proceeding will be Commission) v. Defendant. defendant expressly admits. When the referred to an administrative law judge [Insert Subject or Nature of Issue: Unjust or defendant intends to controvert all in accordance with paragraph (o) of this Unreasonable Discrimination in Rates, averments, the defendant may do so by section. Terms, and Conditions; Discriminatory general denial. (j) Confidentiality of proprietary Denial of Carriage] (4) Averments in a complaint are Open Video System Complaint deemed to be admitted when not denied information. To: The Commission. in the answer. (1) Any materials generated or The complainant (here insert full name of (5) An answer to a discrimination provided by a party in connection with complainant and type of entity of such the pre-complaint notification complainant): complaint shall state the reasons for any differential in prices, terms or procedure required under paragraph (c) 1. (Here state the complainant’s post office of this section and in the course of address and telephone number). conditions between the complainant 2. (Here insert the name, address and and its competitor, and shall specify the adjudicating a complaint under this telephone number of each defendant). particular justification relied upon in provision may be designated as 3. (Here insert fully and clearly the specific support of the differential. Any proprietary by that party if the party act or thing complained of, together with documents or contracts submitted believes in good faith that the materials such facts as are necessary to give full pursuant to this paragraph (f)(5) may be fall within an exemption to disclosure understanding of the matter, including protected as proprietary pursuant to contained in the Freedom of relevant legal and documentary support). paragraph (j) of this section. Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(b). Wherefore, complainant asks (here state Any party asserting confidentiality for specifically the relief desired). (g) Reply. Within twenty (20) days (Date) llllllllllllllllll after service of an answer, the such materials shall so indicate by (Name of complainant) llllllllll complainant may file and serve a reply clearly marking each page, or portion lllllllllllllllllllll which shall be responsive to matters thereof, for which a proprietary (Name, address, and telephone number of contained in the answer and shall not designation is claimed. If a proprietary attorney, if any) contain new matters. Failure to reply designation is challenged, the party (4) The complaint must be will not be deemed an admission of any claiming confidentiality will have the accompanied by appropriate evidence allegations contained in the answer, burden of demonstrating, by a demonstrating that the required except with respect to any affirmative preponderance of the evidence, that the notification pursuant to paragraph (c) of defense set forth therein. Replies material designated as proprietary falls this section has been made. containing information claimed by under the standards for nondisclosure (f) Answer. defendant to be proprietary under enunciated in the FOIA. (1) Any open video system operator paragraph (j) of this section shall be (2) Materials marked as proprietary upon which a complaint is served under submitted to the Commission in may be disclosed solely to the following this section shall answer within thirty confidence pursuant to the requirements persons, only for use in prosecuting or (30) days of service of the complaint, of § 0.459 of this chapter and clearly defending a party to the complaint unless otherwise directed by the marked ‘‘Not for Public Inspection.’’ An action, and only to the extent necessary Commission. edited version removing all proprietary to assist in the prosecution or defense of (2) The answer shall advise the parties data shall be filed with the Commission the case: and the Commission fully and for inclusion in the public file within (i) Counsel of record representing the completely of the nature of any and all five (5) days from the date the unedited parties in the complaint action and any defenses, and shall respond specifically reply is submitted, and shall be served support personnel employed by such to all material allegations of the on the defendant. attorneys; complaint. Collateral or immaterial (h) Motions. Except as provided in (ii) Officers or employees of the issues shall be avoided in answers and this section, or upon a showing of opposing party who are named by the every effort should be made to narrow extraordinary circumstances, additional opposing party as being directly Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28717 involved in the prosecution or defense this part, as well as affidavits and pertaining to a variety of interlocutory of the case; exhibits. matters relevant to the conduct of the (iii) Consultants or expert witnesses (3) Any briefs submitted shall be filed complaint proceeding including, inter retained by the parties; concurrently by both the complainant alia, procedural matters, discovery, and (iv) The Commission and its staff; and and defendant at such time as is the submission of briefs or other (v) Court reporters and stenographers designated by the staff. Such briefs shall evidentiary materials. These rulings will in accordance with the terms and not exceed fifty (50) pages. be promptly memorialized in writing conditions of this section. (4) Reply briefs may be submitted by and served on the parties. When such (3) The persons designated in either party within twenty (20) days rulings require a party to take paragraph (j)(2) of this section shall not from the date initial briefs are due. affirmative action not subject to disclose information designated as Reply briefs shall not exceed thirty (30) deadlines established by another proprietary to any person who is not pages. provision of this part, such action will authorized under this section to receive (5) Briefs containing information be required within ten (10) days from such information, and shall not use the which is claimed by an opposing or the date of the written memorialization information in any activity or function third party to be proprietary under unless otherwise directed by the staff. other than the prosecution or defense in paragraph (j) of this section shall be (m) Specifications as to pleadings, the case before the Commission. Each submitted to the Commission in briefs, and other documents; individual who is provided access to the confidence pursuant to the requirements subscriptions. information by the opposing party shall of § 0.459 of this chapter, and shall be (1) All papers filed in a complaint sign a notarized statement affirmatively clearly marked ‘‘Not for Public proceeding under this part must be stating, or shall certify under penalty of Inspection.’’ An edited version drawn in conformity with the perjury, that the individual has removing all proprietary data shall be requirements of Sections 1.49 and 1.50 personally reviewed the Commission’s filed with the Commission for inclusion of this chapter. rules and understands the limitations in the public file within five (5) days (2) All averments of claims or they impose on the signing party. from the date the unedited version is defenses in complaints and answers (4) No copies of materials marked submitted and served on opposing shall be made in numbered paragraphs. proprietary may be made except copies parties. The contents of each paragraph shall be to be used by persons designated in (l) Status conference. limited as far as practicable to a paragraph (j)(2) of this section. Each (1) In any complaint proceeding statement of a single set of party shall maintain a log recording the under this part, the Commission staff circumstances. Each claim founded on a number of copies made of all may in its discretion direct the attorneys separate transaction or occurrence and proprietary material and the persons to and/or the parties to appear for a each affirmative defense shall be whom the copies have been provided. conference to consider: separately stated to facilitate the clear (5) Upon termination of the complaint (i) Simplification or narrowing of the presentation of the matters set forth. proceeding, including all appeals and issues; (3) The original of all pleadings and petitions, all originals and (ii) The necessity for or desirability of submissions by any party shall be reproductions of any proprietary amendments to the pleadings, signed by that party, or by the party’s materials, along with the log recording additional pleadings, or other attorney. Complaints must be signed by persons who received copies of such evidentiary submissions; the complainant. The signing party shall materials, shall be provided to the (iii) Obtaining admissions of fact or state his or her address and telephone producing party. In addition, upon final stipulations between the parties as to number and the date on which the termination of the complaint any or all of the matters in controversy; document was signed. Copies should be proceeding, any notes or other work (iv) Settlement of the matters in conformed to the original. Except when product derived in whole or in part controversy by agreement of the parties; otherwise specifically provided by rule from the proprietary materials of an (v) The necessity for and extent of or statute, pleadings need not be opposing or third party shall be discovery, including objections to verified. The signature of an attorney or destroyed. interrogatories or requests for written party shall be a certificate that the (k) Other required written documents; attorney or party has read the pleading, submissions. (vi) The need and schedule for filing motion, or other paper; that to the best (1) The Commission may, in its briefs, and the date for any further of his or her knowledge, information discretion, require the parties to file conferences; and and belief formed after reasonable briefs summarizing the facts and issues (vii) Such other matters that may aid inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and presented in the pleadings and other in the disposition of the complaint. is warranted by existing law or a good record evidence. These briefs shall (2) Any party may request that a faith argument for the extension, contain the findings of fact and conference be held at any time after the modification or reversal of existing law; conclusions of law which that party is complaint has been filed. and that it is not interposed for any urging the Commission to adopt, with (3) Conferences will be scheduled by improper purpose. If any pleading or specific citations to the record, and the Commission at such time and place other submission is signed in violation supported by relevant authority and as it may designate, to be conducted in of this provision, the Commission shall analysis. person or by telephone conference call. upon motion or upon its own initiative (2) The Commission may require the (4) The failure of any attorney or impose upon the party an appropriate parties to submit any additional party, following reasonable notice, to sanction. Where the pleading or information it deems appropriate for a appear at a scheduled conference will submission is signed by counsel, the full, fair, and expeditious resolution of be deemed a waiver and will not provisions of Sections 1.52 and 1.24 of the proceeding, including copies of all preclude the Commission from this chapter shall also apply. contracts and documents reflecting conferring with those parties or counsel (n) Copies; service. arrangements and understandings present. (1) The complainant shall file an alleged to violate the requirements set (5) During a status conference, the original plus three copies of the forth in the Communications Act and in Commission staff may issue oral rulings complaint with the Commission. 28718 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

However, if the complaint is addressed should be filed in accordance with or conduct occur which form the basis against multiple defendants, §§ 1.104 through 1.106 of this chapter. of the complaint: complainant shall provide three (q) Interlocutory review. (1) The open video system operator additional copies of the complaint for (1) Except as provided below, no enters into a contract with the each additional defendant. party may seek review of interlocutory complainant that the complainant (2) An original plus two copies shall rulings until a decision on the merits alleges to violate one or more of the be filed of all pleadings and documents has been issued by the staff or rules contained in this part; or other than the complaint. administrative law judge. (2) The open video system operator (3) The complainant shall serve the (2) Rulings listed in this paragraph are offers to carry programming for the complaint on each defendant at the reviewable as a matter of right. An complainant pursuant to terms that the same time that it is filed at the application for review of such ruling complainant alleges to violate one or Commission. may not be deferred and raised as an more of the rules contained in this part; (4) All subsequent pleadings and exception to a decision on the merits: or briefs, as well as all letters, documents (i) If the staff’s ruling denies or or other written submissions, shall be (3) The complainant has notified an terminates the right of any person to open video system operator that it served by the filing party on all other participate as a party to the proceeding, parties to the proceeding, together with intends to file a complaint with the such person, as a matter of right, may Commission based on a request for such proof of such service in accordance with file an application for review of that the requirements of § 1.47 of this operator to carry the complainant’s ruling: programming on its open video system chapter. (ii) If the staff’s ruling requires (5) The parties to any complaint that has been denied or production of documents or other proceeding brought pursuant to this unacknowledged, allegedly in violation written evidence, over objection based section may be required to file of one or more of the rules contained in additional copies of any or all papers on a claim of privilege, the ruling on the this part. filed in the proceeding. claim of privilege is reviewable as a (u) Remedies for violations. (o) Referral to administrative law matter of right; and/or (1) Remedies authorized. Upon judge. (iii) If the staff’s ruling denies a completion of such adjudicatory (1) After reviewing the complaint, motion to disqualify a staff person from proceeding, the Commission shall order answer and reply, and at any stage of participating in the proceeding, the appropriate remedies, including, if the proceeding thereafter, the ruling is reviewable as a matter of right. necessary, the requiring carriage, Commission staff may, in its discretion, (r) Expedited review. awarding damages to any person denied designate any complaint proceeding for (1) Any party to a complaint carriage, or any combination of such an adjudicatory hearing before an proceeding under this part aggrieved by sanctions. Such order shall set forth a administrative law judge. any decision on the merits issued by the timetable for compliance, and shall (2) Before designation for hearing, the staff pursuant to delegated authority become effective upon release. may file an application for review by the staff shall notify, either orally or in (2) Additional sanctions. The Commission in accordance with Section writing, the parties to the proceeding of remedies provided in paragraph (u)(1) of 1.115 of this chapter. its intent to so designate, and the parties this section are in addition to and not (2) Any party to a complaint shall be given a period of ten (10) days in lieu of the sanctions available under proceeding aggrieved by any decision to elect to resolve the dispute through Title VI or any other provision of the on the merits by an administrative law alternative dispute resolution Communications Act. procedures, or to proceed with an judge may file an appeal of the decision adjudicatory hearing. Such election directly with the Commission, in § 76.1514 Bundling of video and local shall be submitted in writing to the accordance with § 1.276(a) and §§ 1.277 exchange services. Commission. (a) through (c) of this chapter, except An open video system operator may (3) Unless otherwise directed by the that unless a stay is granted by the offer video and local exchange services Commission, or upon motion by the Commission, the decision by the for sale in a single package at a single Cable Services Bureau Chief, the Cable administrative law judge will become price, provided that: Services Bureau Chief shall not be effective upon release and will remain (a) the open video system operator, deemed to be a party to a complaint in effect pending appeal. where it is the incumbent local proceeding designated for a hearing (s) Frivolous complaints. It shall be exchange carrier, may not require that a before an administrative law judge unlawful for any party to file a frivolous subscriber purchase its video service in pursuant to this paragraph. complaint with the Commission alleging order to receive local exchange service; (p) Petitions for reconsideration. any violation of this part. Any violation and Petitions for reconsideration of of this paragraph shall constitute an (b) Any local exchange carrier offering interlocutory actions by the abuse of process subject to appropriate such a package must impute the Commission’s staff or by an sanctions. unbundled tariff rate for the unregulated administrative law judge will not be (t) Statute of limitations. Any service. entertained. Petitions for complaint filed pursuant to this reconsideration of a decision on the subsection must be filed within one year [FR Doc. 96–14238 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] merits made by the Commission’s staff of the date on which the following acts BILLING CODE 6712±01±P federal register June 5,1996 Wednesday Executive OrderNo.12880 Executive Order13008ÐAmending The President Part VI 28719

28721

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 61, No. 109

Wednesday, June 5, 1996

Title 3— Executive Order 13008 of June 3, 1996

The President Amending Executive Order No. 12880

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988, as amended (21 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), in accordance with Executive Order No. 12992 of March 15, 1996, and in order to provide for more effective management of the international narcotics control policies of the United States, it is hereby ordered that section 1(c) of Executive Order No. 12880 is amended by deleting ‘‘Department of State’’ and inserting ‘‘Office of National Drug Control Policy’’ in lieu thereof. œ–

THE WHITE HOUSE, June 3, 1996. [FR Doc. 96–14372 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am] Billing code 3195–01–P i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 109 Wednesday, June 5, 1996

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING JUNE

Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Register General Information, indexes and other finding 202±523±5227 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which aids lists parts and sections affected by documents published since Public inspection announcement line 523±5215 the revision date of each title. 19 CFR Laws 3 CFR 12...... 28500 Public Laws Update Services (numbers, dates, etc.) 523±6641 Proclamations: 178...... 28500 For additional information 523±5227 6902...... 28465 Proposed Rules: Presidential Documents Executive Orders: 12880...... 28721 132...... 28522 Executive orders and proclamations 523±5227 13008...... 28721 151...... 28522 The United States Government Manual 523±5227 Administrative Orders: 20 CFR Other Services Memorandums: 404...... 28046 Electronic and on-line services (voice) 523±4534 No. 96±26 of May 22, Privacy Act Compilation 523±3187 1996 ...... 27767 21 CFR TDD for the hearing impaired 523±5229 5 CFR 14...... 28047, 28048 532...... 27995, 27996 70...... 28525 ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARD 73...... 28525 7 CFR Free Electronic Bulletin Board service for Public Law numbers, 74...... 28525 Federal Register finding aids, and list of documents on public 29...... 27997 80...... 28525 inspection. 202±275±0920 610...... 27998 81...... 28525 928...... 28000 82...... 28525 FAX-ON-DEMAND 1230...... 28002 100...... 27771 You may access our Fax-On-Demand service. You only need a fax Proposed Rules: 101...... 27771, 28525 machine and there is no charge for the service except for long 457...... 27512 103...... 27771 104...... 27771 distance telephone charges the user may incur. The list of 8 CFR documents on public inspection and the daily Federal Register’s 105...... 27771 table of contents are available using this service. The document 103...... 28003 109...... 27771 numbers are 7050-Public Inspection list and 7051-Table of 299...... 28003 137...... 27771 Contents list. The public inspection list will be updated 161...... 27771 9 CFR immediately for documents filed on an emergency basis. 163...... 27771 Proposed Rules: 172...... 27771 NOTE: YOU WILL ONLY GET A LISTING OF DOCUMENTS ON 92...... 27797, 28073 177...... 28049 FILE AND NOT THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT. Documents on 178...... 28051, 28525 public inspection may be viewed and copied in our office located 10 CFR 182...... 27771 at 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 700. The Fax-On-Demand 51...... 28467 186...... 27771 telephone number is: 301±713±6905 Proposed Rules: 197...... 27771 430...... 28517 201...... 28525 FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATES, JUNE 700...... 27771 12 CFR 701...... 28525 27767±27994...... 3 747...... 28021 Proposed Rules: 27995±28466...... 4 Proposed Rules: 1...... 28116 28467±28722...... 5 229...... 27802 2...... 28116 704...... 28085 3...... 28116 709...... 28085 5...... 28116 741...... 28085 10...... 28116 12...... 28116 14 CFR 20...... 28116 25...... 28684 56...... 28116 33...... 28430 58...... 28116 39 ...... 28028, 28029, 28031, 28497, 28498 25 CFR 71 ...... 28033, 28034, 28035, 65...... 27780 28036, 28037, 28038, 28039, 66...... 27780 28040, 28041, 28042, 28043, 76...... 27780 28044, 28045 Proposed Rules: 91...... 28416 1...... 27821 95...... 27769 150...... 27822 121...... 28416 166...... 27824 125...... 28416 217...... 27831 135...... 28416 271...... 27833 Proposed Rules: 272...... 27833 39 ...... 28112, 28114, 28518, 274...... 27833 28520 277...... 27833 250...... 27818 278...... 27833 ii Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Reader Aids

26 CFR 7...... 28505 6300...... 28546 49 CFR 40...... 28053 17...... 28506 6400...... 28546 107...... 27948 48...... 28053 Proposed Rules: 6500...... 28546 171...... 28666 Proposed Rules: 7...... 28530 6600...... 28546 172...... 28666 1 ...... 27833, 27834, 28118 7100...... 28546 173...... 28666 38 CFR 7200...... 28546 174...... 28666 29 CFR 2...... 27783 7300±9000...... 28546 178...... 28666 1952...... 28053 14...... 27783 179...... 28666 36...... 28057 44 CFR 190...... 27789 29 CFR 191...... 27789 39 CFR 64...... 28067 Proposed Rules: 192...... 27789 233...... 28059 1904...... 27850 46 CFR 193...... 27789 1952...... 27850 571...... 28423 40 CFR 108...... 28260 Proposed Rules: 30 CFR 52...... 28061 110...... 28260 391...... 28547 Proposed Rules: 63...... 27785 111...... 28260 571 ...... 28123, 28124, 28550, 250...... 28525 264...... 28508 112...... 28260 28560 256...... 28528 265...... 28508 113...... 28260 270...... 28508 161...... 28260 33 CFR 271...... 28508 50 CFR 62...... 27780 300...... 27788, 28511 47 CFR 216...... 27793 100 ...... 27782, 28501, 28502, Proposed Rules: 76...... 28698 247...... 27793 28503 52...... 28531, 28541 620...... 27795 Proposed Rules: 165...... 28055 81...... 28541 672...... 28069, 28070 0...... 28122 180...... 28118, 28120 675 ...... 27796, 28071, 28072 80...... 28122 34 CFR Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 43 CFR 625...... 27851 701...... 27990 Proposed Rules: 48 CFR 650...... 27862 6000...... 28546 Proposed Rules: 651...... 27862, 27948 36 CFR 6100...... 28546 45...... 27851 6...... 28504 6200...... 28546 52...... 27851 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Reader Aids iii

REMINDERS TREASURY DEPARTMENT DEFENSE DEPARTMENT Ohio; comments due by 6- The rules and proposed rules Thrift Supervision Office Acquisition regulations: 13-96; published 4-29-96 in this list were editorially Practice and procedure: Government property; use Pennsylvania; comments due by 6-10-96; published compiled as an aid to Federal Uniform and local rules; and charges clause class 4-26-96 Register users. Inclusion or published 5-6-96 deviation; comments due exclusion from this list has no by 6-14-96; published 5- Wisconsin; comments due legal significance. 15-96 by 6-10-96; published 4- COMMENTS DUE NEXT ENVIRONMENTAL 26-96 WEEK PROTECTION AGENCY Telecommunications Act of RULES GOING INTO Air pollutants, hazardous; 1996; implementation: EFFECT TODAY AGRICULTURE national emission standards: Customer proprietary DEPARTMENT Equivalent emission network information, etc.; COMMODITY FUTURES Agricultural Marketing limitations by permit; telecommunications TRADING COMMISSION Service implementation; comments carriers' use; comments due by 6-11-96; published Practice and procedure: Specialty crops; import due by 6-10-96; published 5-28-96 Ethics training for regulations: 5-10-96 registrants; published 5-6- Medjhool dates grown in Air quality implementation HEALTH AND HUMAN 96 California; comments due plans; approval and SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL by 6-10-96; published 4-9- promulgation; various Food and Drug PROTECTION AGENCY 96 States: Administration Illinois; comments due by 6- Animal drugs, feeds, and Hazardous waste: AGRICULTURE 10-96; published 5-10-96 related products: Treatment, storage, and DEPARTMENT Ohio; comments due by 6- Protein derived from disposal facilities-- Forest Service 14-96; published 5-15-96 ruminants prohibited in Tanks, surface Alaska Federal public lands ruminant feed; comments impoundments, and Wisconsin; comments due subsistence management due by 6-13-96; published containers; organic air by 6-10-96; published 5- regulations 10-96 5-14-96 emission standards; Waters subject to published 6-5-96 Air quality planning purposes; Food for human consumption: subsistence priority designation of areas: Food labeling-- Superfund program: regulation; identification; Arizona; comments due by Nutrient content claims; National oil and hazardous Federal Subsistence 6-10-96; published 5-10- dietary supplements, substances contingency Program and Federal 96 nutrition and ingredient plan-- Subsistence Board's labeling; comment Authority; expansion; Hazardous waste: National priorities list periods extension; comments due by 6-14- Land disposal restrictions-- update; published 6-5- comments due by 6-10- 96 96; published 4-4-96 Wood preserving wastes and toxicity 96; published 4-15-96 FEDERAL DEPOSIT COMMERCE DEPARTMENT characteristic metal Human drugs: INSURANCE CORPORATION National Oceanic and wastes; comments due Orally ingested (OTC) drug Practice and procedure: Atmospheric Administration by 6-10-96; published products containing Uniform rules; published 5- Endangered and threatened 5-10-96 alcohol as inactive 6-96 species: Superfund program: ingredient; maximum FEDERAL RESERVE Sea turtle conservation; National oil and hazardous concentration limit; SYSTEM shrimp trawling substances contingency comments due by 6-10- Practice and procedure: requirements-- plan-- 96; published 5-10-96 Uniform rules; published 5- Soft turtle excluder National priorities list Medical devices: 6-96 devices approval update; comments due Analyte specific regents; removed, etc.; classification/ INTERIOR DEPARTMENT by 6-12-96; published comments due by 6-10- 5-13-96 reclassification as National Park Service 96; published 4-24-96 National priorities list restricted devices; Organization, functions, and Fishery conservation and update; comments due comments due by 6-12- authority delegations: management: by 6-12-96; published 96; published 3-14-96 Field Director; organizational Gulf of Alaska and Bering 5-13-96 INTERIOR DEPARTMENT title change from Regional Sea and Aleutian Islands FEDERAL Fish and Wildlife Service Director; published 6-5-96 groundfish; comments due COMMUNICATIONS Alaska Federal public lands NATIONAL CREDIT UNION by 6-10-96; published 4- COMMISSION subsistence management ADMINISTRATION 15-96 Freedom of Information Act; regulations Practice and procedure: Gulf of Alaska groundfish; implementation; comments Waters subject to Uniform and local rules; comments due by 6-14- due by 6-14-96; published subsistence priority published 6-4-96 96; published 6-4-96 4-15-96 regulation; identification; TREASURY DEPARTMENT Limited access management Radio stations; table of Federal Subsistence Program and Federal Comptroller of the Currency of Federal fisheries in and assignments: off of Alaska Illinois; comments due by 6- Subsistence Board's Practice and procedure: Authority; expansion; Gulf of Alaska and Bering 10-96; published 4-26-96 Uniform and local rules; comments due by 6-14- Sea and Aleutian Kansas; comments due by published 5-6-96 96; published 4-4-96 Islands groundfish; 6-13-96; published 4-29- TREASURY DEPARTMENT comments due by 6-13- 96 INTERIOR DEPARTMENT Customs Service 96; published 5-15-96 Missouri; comments due by Minerals Management Merchandise, special classes: Ocean salmon off coasts of 6-10-96; published 4-26- Service Toshiba Machine Co. and Washington, Oregon, and 96 Outer Continental Shelf; oil, Kongsberg Trading Co.; California; comments due New Mexico; comments due gas, and sulphur operations: sanctions; regulations by 6-10-96; published 5- by 6-10-96; published 4- Tracts offered for sale; high removed; published 6-5-96 24-96 26-96 bids, acceptance or iv Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Reader Aids

rejection; time period RAILROAD RETIREMENT McCauley; comments due TREASURY DEPARTMENT extension; comments due BOARD by 6-11-96; published 4- by 6-14-96; published 5- Railroad Unemployment 12-96 Internal Revenue Service 15-96 Insurance Act: McDonnell Douglas; JUSTICE DEPARTMENT Representative payment; comments due by 6-10- Excise taxes: comments due by 6-10- 96; published 4-10-96 Justice Programs Office Gasoline and diesel fuel dye 96; published 4-11-96 Class E airspace; comments Grants: injection systems; TRANSPORTATION due by 6-14-96; published Violence against women; comments due by 6-12- DEPARTMENT 5-2-96 arrest policies; comments Coast Guard 96; published 3-14-96 due by 6-13-96; published TRANSPORTATION Regattas and marine parades: 5-14-96 DEPARTMENT Newport-Bermuda Regatta; LABOR DEPARTMENT National Highway Traffic comments due by 6-12- Safety Administration Wage and Hour Division 96; published 5-13-96 LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS Motor vehicle safety Migrant and seasonal Searsport Lobster Boat standards: agricultural worker Races; comments due by Accelerator control systems; This is a list of public bills protection: 6-12-96; published 5-13- 96 comments due by 6-14- from the 104th Congress Employ, independent 96; published 4-30-96 which have become Federal contractor and joint TRANSPORTATION Lamps, reflective devices, laws. It may be used in employment, definitions; DEPARTMENT and associated conjunction with ``P L U S'' comments due by 6-12- Federal Aviation equipment-- (Public Laws Update Service) 96; published 3-29-96 Administration on 202±523±6641. The text of Airworthiness directives: Headlamp concealment NUCLEAR REGULATORY devices; Federal laws is not published in the Aerospatiale; comments due COMMISSION regulatory review; Federal Register but may be Production and utilization by 6-12-96; published 4-9- ordered in individual pamphlet 96 comments due by 6-10- facilities; domestic licensing: 96; published 4-11-96 form (referred to as ``slip Airbus; comments due by 6- Reporting reliability and laws'') from the 10-96; published 4-29-96 TRANSPORTATION availability information for Superintendent of Documents, Bell; comments due by 6- DEPARTMENT risk-significant systems U.S. Government Printing 10-96; published 4-10-96 Surface Transportation and equipment; comments Office, Washington, DC 20402 Boeing; comments due by Board due by 6-11-96; published (phone, 202±512±2470). 6-10-96; published 3-11- Carrier rates and service 2-12-96 96 terms: H.R. 1965/P.L. 104±150 PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT CFM International; Rail common carriage; OFFICE comments due by 6-14- disclosure, publication, Coastal Zone Protection Act of Employment: 96; published 4-15-96 and notice of change of 1996 (June 3, 1996; 110 Stat. Federal employee training; Jetstream; comments due rates and other service 1380) comments due by 6-12- by 6-10-96; published 4- terms; comments due by 96; published 5-13-96 29-96 6-10-96; published 5-9-96 Last List May 31, 1996