Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5267

a loan in default until it is at least 30 

days past due. 

6. Hindrance of the Borrowers Ability To 

Recover From Delinquency 

The commentor indicates that the use 

of the term ‘‘delinquent’’ attaches a 

stigma to the account and could hinder 

the borrower’s ability to obtain or 

reschedule financing from private 

creditors. The commentor states that the 

30 day past due period is much like the 

‘‘golden hour’’ after an injury ‘‘when 

medical intervention has the greatest 

chance of success.’’ Concerning the 

effect this change will have on private 

lenders, the Agency believes that 

lenders base commercial lending 

decisions on creditworthiness, 

profitability, security, and other 

financial data. The Agency does not 

believe that FSA’s terminology change 

will affect these decisions.

List of Subjects 

7 CFR Part 1951 

Account servicing, Credit, Debt 

restructuring, Loan programs—

agriculture, Loan programs—housing 

and community development. 

7 CFR Part 1962 

Agriculture, Bankruptcy, Loan 

programs—agriculture, Loan programs—

housing and community development.

7 CFR Part 1965 

Loan programs—agriculture, Loan 

programs—housing and community 

development, Low and moderate 

income housing.

■ Accordingly, 7 CFR chapter XVIII is 

amended as follows:

PART 1951—SERVICING AND 

COLLECTIONS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1951 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 31 

U.S.C. 3716; 42 U.S.C. 1480.

Subpart C—Offsets of Federal 

Payments to USDA Agency Borrowers

■ 2. Amend § 1951.102 to:

■ a. Revise paragraph (b)(6);

■ b. Revise the third sentence of 

paragraph (b)(13), to read as follows:

§ 1951.102 Administrative offset.

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(6) Delinquent or past-due means a 

payment that was not made by the due 

date.

* * * * *

(13) * * * To be feasible the debt 

must exist and be 90 days past due or 

the borrower must be in default of other 

obligations to the Agency, which can be 

cured by the payment.

* * * * *

Subpart S—Farm Loan Programs 

Account Servicing Policies

■ 3. Amend § 1951.906 by removing the 

definition of ‘‘Delinquent borrower’’ and 

adding in its place the definition of 

‘‘Delinquent or past-due borrower’’.

§ 1951.906 Definitions.

* * * * *

Delinquent or past-due borrower. A 

borrower who has failed to make all or 

part of a payment by the due date.

* * * * *

■ 4. Amend the second sentence of 

§ 1951.907 paragraph (c) to read as 

follows:

§ 1951.907 Notice of loan service 

programs.

* * * * *

(c) * * * FLP borrowers who are at 

least 90 days past due will be sent 

exhibit A of this subpart with 

attachments 1 and 2 by certified mail, 

return receipt requested. * * *

* * * * *

PART 1962—PERSONAL PROPERTY

■ 5. The authority citation for part 1962 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 42 

U.S.C. 1480.

Subpart A—Servicing and Liquidation 

of Chattel Security

■ 6. Amend § 1962.40 to revise the first 

sentence of paragraph (b)(2) to read as 

follows:

§ 1962.40 Liquidation.

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(2) In Farm Loan Programs loan cases, 

borrowers who are 90 days past due on 

their payments must receive exhibit A 

with attachments 1 and 2 or attachments 

1, 3, and 4 of exhibit A of subpart S of 

part 1951 of this chapter in cases 

involving nonmonetary default. * * *

* * * * *

PART 1965—REAL PROPERTY

■ 7. The authority citation for part 1965 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 42 

U.S.C. 1480.

Subpart A—Servicing of Real Estate 

Security for Farm Loan Programs 

Loans and Certain Note-Only Cases

■ 8. Amend § 1965.26 to revise the first 

sentence of paragraph (b)(2) to read as 

follows:

§ 1965.26 Liquidation action.

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(2) In Farm Loan Programs loan cases, 

borrowers who are 90 days past due on 

their payments, must receive exhibit A 

with attachments 1 and 2, or 

attachments 1, 3, and 4 of exhibit A of 

subpart S of part 1951 of this chapter in 

cases involving nonmonetary default. 

***

* * * * *

Dated: January 15, 2004. 

J.B. Penn, 

Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 

Agricultural Services. 

Dated: January 16, 2004. 

Gilbert Gonzalez, 

Under Secretary for Rural Development.

[FR Doc. 04–1792 Filed 2–3–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 50 

RIN 3150–AH32 

Minor Changes to Decommissioning 

Trust Fund Provisions

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission.

ACTION: Direct final rule: Confirmation 

of effective date. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is confirming the 

effective date of December 24, 2003, for 

the direct final rule that was published 

in the Federal Register on November 20, 

2003 (68 FR 65386). This direct final 

rule amended the NRC’s regulations 

related to decommissioning trust fund 

provisions to correct typographical 

errors and make minor changes to a 

final rule promulgated by the NRC in 

December of 2002.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of 

December 24, 2003, is confirmed for this 

direct final rule.

ADDRESSES: Documents related to this 

rulemaking may be examined at the 

NRC Public Document Room, located at 

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. These same 

documents may also be viewed and 

downloaded electronically via the 

rulemaking Web site (http://

5268 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

1 68 FR 51070 (Aug. 25, 2003); III FERC Stats. & 

Regs. ¶ 31,150 (July 23, 2003). Corrections to the 

final rule were published in the Federal Register at 

68 FR 61742–61743 (Oct. 30, 2003), 68 FR 63194 

(Nov. 7, 2003), and 68 FR 69957 (Dec. 16, 2003). 

The integrated process regulations are found in 18 

CFR part 5.

2The traditional licensing process regulations are 

found in 18 CFR parts 4 and, for relicensing, part 

16.

3The alternative licensing procedures are found 

at 18 CFR 4.34(e).

4WUWC is composed of various urban water 

utilities in several western states.

5Until July 22, 2005, a potential applicant may 

elect to use either the traditional or integrated 

process, but must, as now, receive authorization to 

use the ALP.

6 18 CFR 5.3.

7 18 CFR 5.3(c)(1)(ii).

8HRC Request at pp. 4–5.

9 68 FR 13988 (Mar. 21, 2003); IV FERC Stats. & 

Regs. ¶ 32,568 (Feb. 20, 2003).

ruleforum.llnl.gov). For information 

about the interactive rulemaking Web 

site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher (301) 

415–6219, e-mail: CAG@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian J. Richter, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555, Telephone (301) 415–1978, email: bjr@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 20, 2003 (68 FR 65386), the 

NRC published a direct final rule 

amending its regulations in 10 CFR part 

50 related to decommissioning trust 

fund provisions to correct typographical 

errors and make minor changes to a 

final rule entitled ‘‘Decommissioning 

Trust Provisions,’’ promulgated by the 

NRC on December 24, 2002 (67 FR 

78332). In the direct final rule, NRC 

stated that if no significant adverse 

comments were received, the direct 

final rule would become effective on 

December 24, 2003. The NRC did not 

receive any comments on the direct 

final rule. Therefore, this rule is 

effective as scheduled.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day 

of January, 2004.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Michael T. Lesar, 

Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division 

of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–2240 Filed 2–3–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Parts 2, 4, 5, 9, 16, 375, and 385 

[Docket No. RM02–16–001; Order No. 2002–

A] 

Hydroelectric Licensing Under the 

Federal Power Act; Order on 

Rehearing of Final Rule 

Issued January 23, 2004.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Order on rehearing of final rule.

SUMMARY: On July 23, 2003, the 

Commission issued a final rule 

amending its regulations to establish a 

new hydroelectric licensing process that 

integrates pre-filing consultation with 

preparation of the Commission’s NEPA 

document and improves coordination of 

the licensing process with other Federal 

and state regulatory processes. The final 

rule retained the existing traditional 

licensing process and the alternative 

licensing procedures, and established 

rule for selection of a licensing process. 

The final rule also modified some 

aspects of the traditional licensing 

process. 

The Commission herein denies the 

requests for rehearing and grants certain 

requests for clarification.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The revisions 

implemented in this order on rehearing 

of the final rule are effective October 23, 

2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Clements, Office of the General Counsel, 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, 202–502–8070.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Before 

Commissioners: Pat Wood, III, 

Chairman; Nora Mead Brownell, Joseph 

T. Kelliher, and Suedeen G. Kelly. 

I. Introduction 

1. In this order, the Commission 

addresses requests for rehearing of 

Order No. 2002, which amends the 

Commission’s regulations for licensing 

of hydroelectric projects by establishing 

a new licensing process (the integrated 

process).1 The final rule also retains the 

existing traditional licensing process 2

and the alternative licensing procedures 

(ALP).3 Requests for rehearing were 

filed by the Hydropower Reform 

Coalition (HRC), Edison Electric 

Institute (EEI), and Western Urban 

Water Coalition (WUWC).4

II. Discussion 

A. Good Cause To Approve Use of 

Traditional Process 

2. The final rule provides that after a 

transition period ending July 22, 2005, 

the integrated process will be the 

default licensing process, but a potential 

license applicant may apply for 

authorization to use the traditional 

process or ALP.5 The standard for 

granting a request to use the traditional 

process or ALP is ‘‘good cause shown.’’6

3. Potential applicants requesting to 

use the traditional process and 

commenters thereon are encouraged to 

address various criteria. These are: (1) 

Likelihood of timely license issuance; 

(2) complexity of the resource issues; (3) 

level of anticipated controversy; (4) 

relative cost of the traditional process 

compared to the integrated process; (5) 

the amount of available information and 

potential for significant disputes over 

studies; and (6) other factors believed by 

the requester or commenter to be 

pertinent.7

4. HRC states that it supports these 

criteria, but that the ‘‘good cause’’

standard should be specifically linked 

to overcoming the presumption that the 

integrated process is the default. 

Otherwise, it fears, the meaning of 

‘‘good cause’’ and the significance of the 

criteria will be ambiguous. HRC 

requests that we define good cause to 

mean that use of the traditional process 

is more likely than the integrated 

process to maximize coordination of all 

pertinent regulatory processes, assure 

timely adoption and implementation of 

a study plan, and prevent, resolve, or 

narrow disputes related to the study 

plan and environmental protection 

measures.8

5. EEI, supported by WUWC, requests 

that we clarify that good cause may be 

shown notwithstanding that a licensing 

proceeding is likely to be complex and 

controversial. In support, EEI suggests 

that non-licensees will attempt to thwart 

requests to use the traditional process 

by manufacturing issues and 

controversies. It also reiterates 

comments on the notice of proposed 

rulemaking 9 that complexity and 

controversy may make the integrated 

process less suitable than the traditional 

process because the former is more 

collaborative in nature, and that the cost 

of the integrated process may be so great 

as to outweigh all other considerations.

6. We are not persuaded that the 

regulations need to be changed or 

clarified in this regard. The outcomes 

included in HRC’s suggested definition 

may weigh in favor of a good cause 

finding, but we are not prepared in 

advance of any requests being filed to 

conclude that they are the only, or the 

most important, considerations in all 

possible cases. We agree with EEI that 

good cause may be shown 

notwithstanding that a license 

proceeding is likely to be complex or 

controversial, but are also not prepared 

to speculate on the particular