53250 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 1997 / Proposed Rules

well as to identify areas of agreement or

disagreement, it is not the intent of the

workshop process to develop a

consensus agreement of the participants

on the rulemaking issues.

To have a manageable discussion, the

number of participants in each

workshop will be limited. The

Commission, through the facilitator for

the workshop, will attempt to ensure

participation by the broad spectrum of

interests that may be affected by the

rulemaking. These interests include:

Nuclear medicine physicians; physician

specialists, such as cardiologists and

radiologists; medical physicists; medical

technologists; nurses; medical education

and certification organizations;

radiopharmaceutical interests; hospital

administrators; patients rights

advocates; Agreement States; Federal

agencies; and experts in risk analysis.

Other members of the public are

welcome to attend, and the public will

have the opportunity to comment on the

rulemaking issues and the workshop

discussions at periodic intervals during

the workshops. Questions about

participation may be directed to the

facilitator, Francis X. Cameron.

To ensure that each workshop

addresses the issues in a consistent

manner, the workshops will have a

common pre-defined scope and agenda

focused primarily on the alternatives,

with draft regulatory text, developed by

the Part 35 Working and Steering

Groups. However, the workshop format

will be sufficiently flexible to allow for

the introduction of additional related

issues that the participants may want to

raise. The workshop commentary will

be transcribed and made available to the

participants and the public.

Copies of the issue papers developed

by the staff will be provided to the

workshop participants. Also, copies will

be available for members of the public

in attendance at the workshops, as well

as available through NRC’s Public

Document Room (U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Attention: NRC

Public Document Room, Washington,

DC 20555–0001) and on the Internet via

NRC’s Technical Conference Forum

(http://techconf.llnl.gov/noframe.html).

Public input is solicited during the

development of the proposed rule but,

to be most helpful, should be received

by March 1, 1998. Comments received

after this date will be considered if it is

practical to do so, but the Commission

only is able to ensure consideration of

comments received on or before this

date. Written input and suggestions can

be sent to Secretary, Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff. Hand-deliver

comments to 11555 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, MD, between 7:30 a.m. and

4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.

Dated at Rockville, Md., this 6th day of

October 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Donald A. Cool,

Director, Division of Industrial and Medical

Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–27084 Filed 10–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

RIN 3150–AE38

Acceptability of Plant Performance for

Severe Accidents; Scope of

Consideration in Safety Regulations

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking: Withdrawal.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC or Commission) is

withdrawing an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking that outlined

alternative approaches to generic

regulation addressing the challenges

from severe accidents for future light

water reactors. The Commission has

decided that a rule change to provide

generic requirements for performance

during postulated severe accidents is

not warranted at this time. The basis for

this decision is that a purpose for the

rule was to provide guidance for future

designs and to facilitate then ongoing

design certification rulemaking. With all

current design certification rulemaking

either complete or nearing completion

and future applicants not foreseen,

expenditure of the resources to

promulgate the rule is not warranted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles E. Ader, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–

5622.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

September 28, 1992, (57 FR 44513), the

Commission published an advance

notice of proposed rulemaking

(ANPRM) to consider amending its

regulations to provide generic

requirements to address the challenges

from severe accidents for future light

water reactors. The advance notice of

proposed rulemaking outlined three

alternative approaches to the

specification of requirements addressing

severe accident performance. The first

alternative, described as a hardware

oriented rule, would specify reasonable

design features or design characteristics

directed towards prevention or

mitigation of explicitly identified risk

significant phenomena. The risk

significant phenomena identified were:

hydrogen generation, transport and

combustion, high pressure melt ejection,

core concrete interactions and basemat

ablation, long term containment

overpressurization, steam explosions

from fuel-coolant interactions, and

containment bypass. These phenomena

represent the potential contributors to

containment failure or bypass and thus

the mechanisms for large offsite

radioactive release. Alternative 2,

described as a phenomena oriented rule,

was a modification of the first

alternative wherein an overall

containment performance goal would be

specified along with the phenomena to

be considered, as identified above. The

designer would then be required to

perform analyses of the impact of those

phenomena and develop and propose

the design features to meet the goal.

Regulatory guides would address

analytical methods, acceptance criteria

and design criteria for hardware. This

approach, similar to Alternative 1,

would be an overlay on the existing

design basis specified in 10 CFR part 50

and justified on an enhanced safety

basis. The third alternative, described as

a general design criteria (GDC) oriented

rule, involved development of a set of

new design requirements to address

specific challenges and issued as

changes to Appendix A, ‘‘General

Design Criteria’’ to 10 CFR part 50. Each

new design criterion would describe the

nature of the challenges as well as the

success criterion and involve the

development of Regulatory Guides to

provide additional guidance on analysis

methods and assumption. This

approach was similar to the other

alternatives, especially Alternative 2,

but differs in that the existing 10 CFR

part 50 design basis would be modified

to include severe accidents.

A primary purpose for the generic

severe accident rulemaking was to add

consistency and standardization to the

resolution of severe accident issues for

future designs based on current

technical information. While, in general,

consistency among many design reviews

is best achieved through generic rules,

as a practical matter, since the number

of new applicants is likely to remain

quite limited, it is more efficient to

proceed with design-specific reviews. In

fact, the Commission is not aware of any

new applicants in the foreseeable future.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 1997 / Proposed Rules 53251

Another purpose of the generic severe

accident rulemaking, i.e., facilitation of

design certification rulemaking, has

been rendered moot by the experience

gained in design certification

rulemakings. The design certification

rulemakings are completed for the

General Electric Advanced Boiling

Water Reactor and ABB–CE System 80+

and the only design currently under

review is the Westinghouse AP600. The

resolution of severe accident design

specific requirements would be set forth

in the AP600 design control document

and approved in the AP600 design

certification rulemaking.

While certain arguments in favor of

generic rulemaking (i.e., promoting

consistency and standardization in the

resolution of severe accident issues and

providing guidance to future LWR

designers and applicants) continue to

apply in varying degrees, practical

aspects limit the need for such an

activity. At this point, given the lack of

any new potential plant or design

applicants, the Commission believes

that the benefits of generic rulemaking

do not justify the allocation of resources

to proceed with the development of new

regulations addressing severe accidents.

Upon consideration of the potential

value of a generic rule, the status of the

review and design certification of future

reactors, and the potential resource

requirements, the Commission believes

that the value in pursuing generic severe

accident rulemaking does not warrant

the resource expenditure. While the

Commission does not perceive the need

for generic rulemaking in the

foreseeable future, should conditions

change regarding potential applicants,

the Commission would reassess the

merits of rulemaking at that time.

For the reasons discussed, the

Commission is withdrawing the

ANPRM.

Dated at Rockville, Md. this 7th day of

October, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 97–27082 Filed 10–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD

12 CFR Parts 933 and 935

[No. 97–60]

RIN 3069–AA69

Eligibility for Membership and

Advances

AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance

Board.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance

Board (Finance Board) is proposing to

amend certain of its regulations relating

to combination business or farm

properties on which a residence is

located. The amendments would

eliminate the requirement that at least

50 percent of the value of such

properties be attributable to the

residential portion of the property (50

percent test). The amendments are

intended to assist smaller depository

institutions, particularly those located

in rural areas, to qualify for Federal

Home Loan Bank (Bank) membership

and, once admitted, to provide the

collateral necessary to obtain advances.

DATES: The Finance Board will accept

comments on this proposed rule in

writing on or before November 13, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Elaine L.

Baker, Executive Secretary, Federal

Housing Finance Board, 1777 F Street,

N.W., Washington DC 20006. Comments

will be available for public inspection at

this address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie

Paller, Senior Financial Analyst, Office

of Policy, (202) 408–2842, or Neil R.

Crowley, Associate General Counsel,

Office of General Counsel, (202) 408–

2990, Federal Housing Finance Board,

1777 F Street, N.W., Washington DC

20006.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background

Section 4(a) of the Federal Home Loan

Bank Act (Bank Act), 12 U.S.C. 1424(a),

establishes the eligibility criteria for

depository institutions to become

members of the Federal Home Loan

Bank System (Bank System). Section

10(a) of the Bank Act, id. 1430(a),

authorizes a Bank to make secured

advances to its members and specifies

the types of collateral that a Bank may

accept when originating or renewing an

advance. With respect to both

membership criteria and eligible

collateral, the regulations of the Finance

Board permit the use of loans that are

secured by business or farm properties

on which there is a residence, but only

if the value of the residential portion

equals or exceeds 50 percent of the

value of the entire parcel. The Finance

Board is concerned that those

regulations may be overly restrictive

and therefore is proposing to amend

them, as described below.

A. Membership

Section 4(a)(2) of the Bank Act

requires, in part, that an insured

depository institution have ‘‘at least 10

percent of its total assets in residential

mortgage loans’’ in order to be eligible

for membership. Id. 1424(a)(2). The

Finance Board has defined ‘‘residential

mortgage loan’’ to include, among other

things, a ‘‘home mortgage loan.’’ 12 CFR

933.1(bb). The Finance Board has

defined ‘‘home mortgage loan’’ to

include, in part, a loan secured by a first

lien on ‘‘combination business or farm

property where at least 50 percent of the

total appraised value of the combined

property is attributable to the residential

portion of the property.’’ Id.

§ 933.1(n)(1)(iii). The term

‘‘combination business or farm

property’’ means real property for which

the value is attributable to residential,

and business or farm uses. Id. § 933.1(i).

B. Collateral for Advances

Section 10(a)(1) of the Bank Act

requires a Bank making or renewing an

advance to its members to maintain a

security interest in certain specified

types of collateral, among which are

‘‘first mortgages on improved residential

property.’’ 12 U.S.C. 1430(a)(1). The

Finance Board has defined ‘‘improved

residential real property’’ to mean

‘‘residential real property excluding real

property to be improved, or in the

process of being improved, by the

construction of dwelling units.’’ 12 CFR

935.1. The Finance Board has defined

‘‘residential real property’’ to include,

among other things, ‘‘combination

business or farm property, provided that

at least 50 percent of the total appraised

value of the combined property is

attributable to the residential portion of

the property.’’ Id. The term

‘‘combination business or farm

property’’ means ‘‘real property for

which the total appraised value is

attributable to the combination of

residential, and business or farm uses.’’

Id.

II. Analysis of the Proposed Rule

The Finance Board believes that

community depository institutions,

particularly those located in rural areas,

often are essential to the housing

finance activities and the broader

economic well-being of the

communities they serve. Such

institutions may have less demand for

conventional single and multi-family

mortgage credit and their service areas

may be characterized by low population

density and a low level of economic

activity. In such circumstances, those

institutions may not be able to originate

a substantial number of residential first

mortgage loans. Moreover, many loans

originated by rural banks may be made

on the security of family farms, which