30026 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 105 /Tuesday, June 2, 1998 / Notices

requirements. During the 1992 to 1994

timeframe, the NRC staff issued Generic

Letter (GL) 92–08, ‘‘Thermo-Lag 330–1

Fire Barriers’’ and subsequent requests

for additional information that

requested licensees to submit plans and

schedules for resolving the Thermo-Lag

issue. The NRC staff has obtained and

reviewed all licensees’ corrective plans

and schedules. The staff is concerned

that some licensees may not be making

adequate progress toward resolving the

plant-specific issues, and that some

implementation schedules may be either

too tenuous or too protracted. For

example, several licensees informed the

NRC staff that their completion dates

had slipped by 6 months to as much as

3 years. For plants that have completion

action scheduled beyond 1997, the NRC

staff has met with these licensees to

discuss the progress of the licensees’

corrective actions and the extent of

licensee management attention

regarding completion of Thermo-Lag

corrective actions. In addition, the NRC

staff discussed with licensees the

possibility of accelerating their

completion schedules.

GPUN was one of the licensees with

which the NRC staff held a meeting. At

this meeting, the NRC staff reviewed

with GPUN the schedule of Thermo-Lag

corrective actions. Subsequent to that

meeting GPUN submitted by letter dated

October 1, 1997, a supplement to their

integrated schedule which changed the

implementation schedule of Thermo-lag

corrective actions. Based on the

information submitted by GPUN, the

NRC staff has concluded that the

schedule presented by GPUN is

reasonable. This conclusion is based on

the (1) amount of installed Thermo-Lag,

(2) the complexity of the plant-specific

fire barrier configurations and issues, (3)

the need to perform certain plant

modifications during outages as

opposed to those that can be performed

while the plant is at power, and (4)

integration with other significant, but

unrelated issues that GPUN is

addressing at its plant. In order to

remove compensatory measures such as

fire watches, it has been determined that

resolution of the Thermo-Lag corrective

actions by GPUN must be completed in

accordance with the current GPUN

schedule. By letter dated April 27, 1998,

the NRC staff notified GPUN of its plan

to incorporate GPUN’s schedule

commitment into a requirement by

issuance of an order and requested

consent from the Licensee. By letter

dated May 11, 1998, the Licensee

provided its consent to issuance of a

Confirmatory Order.

III

The Licensee’s commitment as set

forth in its letter of May 11, 1998, is

acceptable and is necessary for the NRC

to conclude that public health and

safety are reasonably assured. To

preclude any schedule slippage and to

assure public health and safety, the NRC

staff has determined that the Licensee’s

commitment in its May 11, 1998, letter

be confirmed by this Order. The

Licensee has agreed to this action. Based

on the above, and the Licensee’s

consent, this Order is immediately

effective upon issuance.

IV

Accordingly, pursuant to sections

103, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, and the Commission’s

regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR

Part 50, it is hereby ordered, effective

immediately, that:

GPUN shall complete final implementation

of Thermo-Lag 330–1 fire barrier corrective

actions at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating

Station described in the GPUN submittal to

the NRC dated October 1, 1997. The

scheduled completion date for all corrective

actions is Refueling Outage 18. Overall work

package closeout will be completed by

December 31, 2000.

The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, may relax or rescind, in

writing, any provisions of this

Confirmatory Order upon a showing by

the Licensee of good cause.

V

Any person adversely affected by this

Confirmatory Order, other than the

Licensee, may request a hearing within

20 days of its issuance. Where good

cause is shown, consideration will be

given to extending the time to request a

hearing. A request for extension of time

must be made in writing to the Director,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20555, and include a

statement of good cause for the

extension. Any request for a hearing

shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Attention: Chief, Rulemaking and

Adjudications Staff, Washington, D.C.

20555. Copies of the hearing request

shall also be sent to the Director, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20555, to the Deputy

Assistant General Counsel for

Enforcement at the same address, to the

Regional Administrator, NRC Region I,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

475 Allendale Rd., King of Prussia, PA

19406–1415, and to the Licensee. If such

a person requests a hearing, that person

shall set forth with particularity the

manner in which his/her interest is

adversely affected by this Order and

shall address criteria set forth in 10 CFR

2.714(d).

If a hearing is requested by a person

whose interest is adversely affected, the

Commission will issue an Order

designating the time and place of any

such hearing. If a hearing is held, the

issue to be considered at such hearing

shall be whether this Confirmatory

Order should be sustained.

In the absence of any request for

hearing, or written approval of an

extension of time in which to request a

hearing, the provisions specified in

Section IV above shall be final 20 days

from the date of this Order without

further order or proceedings. If an

extension of time for requesting a

hearing has been approved, the

provisions specified in Section IV shall

be final when the extension expires if a

hearing request has not been received.

An answer or a request for hearing shall

not stay the immediate effectiveness of

this Order.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of May 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–14518 Filed 6–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Docket Nos. 50–220 and 50–410]

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License, Proposed no Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–63

and NPF–69 issued to Niagara Mohawk

Power Corporation (the licensee or

NMPC) for operation of the Nine Mile

Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (NMP1)

and Unit 2 (NMP2), respectively,

located in the town of Scriba, Oswego

County, New York.

The proposed amendments would

change administrative sections of the

Technical Specifications (TS) (Sections

6.1, ‘‘Responsibility’’; 6.2,

‘‘Organization’’; 6.5, ‘‘Review and

Audit’’; 6.6, ‘‘Reportable Occurrence

Action’’; and 6.7, ‘‘Safety Limit

Violation’’) to reflect a restructuring of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 105 /Tuesday, June 2, 1998 / Notices 30027

the licensee’s upper management

organization for the Nuclear Division.

The Nuclear Division organizational

restructuring would involve the

elimination of the Vice President and

General Manager—Nuclear position and

the establishment of the Vice

President—Nuclear Generation position.

The Chief Nuclear Officer (CNO) would

assume corporate and TS responsibility

for overall plant nuclear safety (a

responsibility currently assigned to the

Vice President and General Manager—

Nuclear). The TS responsibility for plant

operation (also currently assigned to the

Vice President and General Manager—

Nuclear) would be assumed by the Vice

President—Nuclear Generation. The

new Vice President—Nuclear

Generation position would report

directly to the CNO. In addition to

existing responsibilities delineated by

TS 6.5.3.1, 6.5.3.9, and 6.5.3.10, the

CNO would have overall responsibility

for oversight of the Nuclear Division,

including corporate and TS

responsibility for overall plant nuclear

safety, with authority to take such

measures as may be needed to ensure

acceptable performance of his staff in

operating, maintaining, and providing

technical support to the plant. The CNO

would be responsible for periodically

issuing management direction

emphasizing the primary

responsibilities of the Shift Supervisor.

The changes for NMP1 would also

correct a clerical error in which a

previous Amendment No. (No. 144) was

omitted when designating superseded

amendments during preparation of prior

Amendment No. 157.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration. Under

the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR

50.92, this means that operation of the

facility in accordance with the proposed

amendment would not (1) involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from

any accident previously evaluated; or

(3) involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its

analysis of the issue of no significant

hazards consideration, which is

presented below:

11. The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit

1 [or Unit 2], in accordance with the

proposed amendment, will not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed amendment updates the

* * * TS to reflect the revised NMPC

Nuclear Division upper management

organizational structure and associated

reassignments of responsibilities. The

proposed organizational structure provides

more direct lines of authority by reestablishing the position and responsibilities

of Vice President—Nuclear Generation and

eliminating the position of Vice President

and General Manager—Nuclear. The Vice

President—Nuclear Generation will assume

TS responsibility for plant operation. The

Chief Nuclear Officer is reassigned corporate

and TS responsibility for overall plant

nuclear safety with direct reporting from the

Vice Presidents responsible for Nuclear

Generation, Engineering, and Safety

Assessment and Support. The Chief Nuclear

Officer is also assigned the responsibility for

periodically issuing management direction

emphasizing the primary responsibilities of

the Shift Supervisor. The proposed

organizational structure and associated

reassignments of responsibilities provide for

the integrated management of activities

necessary to support the safe operation of the

* * * nuclear facility * * *.

The proposed changes are limited to the

administrative sections of the TS and the

changes do not alter the technical content or

intent of the affected administrative

requirements and responsibilities. The

revised organizational structure will not

affect the design, function, or operation of

any plant structure, system, or component

(SSC), nor will it affect any maintenance,

modification, or testing activities. Thus, there

will be no impact on the capability of any

SSC to perform its credited safety function to

prevent an accident or mitigate the

consequences of an accident as previously

evaluated. Since the proposed changes are

limited to administrative requirements and

responsibilities, the changes do not involve

accident precursors or initiators previously

evaluated. It is, therefore, concluded that the

probability of accident initiation will remain

as previously evaluated and there will be no

adverse effect on the conditions and

assumptions of any previously evaluated

accident. Hence, there will be no degradation

of any fission product barrier which could

increase the radiological consequences of any

accident. Accordingly, operation in

accordance with the proposed amendment

will not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit

1 [or Unit 2], in accordance with the

proposed amendment, will not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The revised Nuclear Division

organizational structure will not affect the

design, function, or operation of any plant

SSC, nor will it affect any maintenance,

modification, or testing activities. The

proposed changes are limited to the

administrative sections of the TS and the

changes do not alter the technical content or

intent of the affected administrative

requirements and responsibilities. As a

result, the proposed changes will not impact

the process variables, characteristics, or

functional performance of any SSC in a

manner that could create a new failure mode,

nor will the changes introduce any new

modes of plant operation or eliminate any

requirements or impose any new

requirements which could affect plant

operation such that new credible accidents

are introduced. Accordingly, operation in

accordance with the proposed amendment

will not create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit

1 [or Unit 2], in accordance with the

proposed amendment, will not involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed amendment updates the TS

to reflect the revised NMPC Nuclear Division

upper management organizational structure

and associated reassignments of

responsibilities. The proposed changes are

limited to the administrative sections of the

TS and the changes do not alter the technical

content or intent of the affected

administrative requirements and

responsibilities. As such, the proposed

changes do not involve any hardware

changes or physical alteration of the plant

and the changes will have no impact on the

design or function of any SCC.

Implementation of the proposed changes will

promote clear management control and

effective lines of authority and

communication between the organizational

units to assure necessary attention to nuclear

safety matters. It is, therefore, concluded that

the proposed changes do not eliminate any

requirements or responsibilities, impose any

new requirements or responsibilities, or alter

any physical parameters which could reduce

the margin to an acceptance limit.

Accordingly, operation in accordance with

the proposed amendment will not involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

licensee’s analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendments requests involve no

significant hazards consideration.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or
30028 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 105 /Tuesday, June 2, 1998 / Notices

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received. Should

the Commission take this action, it will

publish in the Federal Register a notice

of issuance and provide for opportunity

for a hearing after issuance. The

Commission expects that the need to

take this action will occur very

infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Chief, Rules and

Directives Branch, Division of

Administrative Services, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and should cite the publication

date and page number of this Federal

Register notice. Written comments may

also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30

a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.

Copies of written comments received

may be examined at the NRC Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By July 2, 1998, the licensee may file

a request for a hearing with respect to

issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR Part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at the Reference

and Documents Department, Penfield

Library, State University of New York,

Oswego, New York 13126. If a request

for a hearing or petition for leave to

intervene is filed by the above date, the

Commission or an Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board, designated by the

Commission or by the Chairman of the

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Panel, will rule on the request and/or

petition; and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of hearing or

an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, by the above date. A

copy of the petition should also be sent

to the Office of the General Counsel,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to

Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire, Winston &

Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW, Washington,

DC 20005–3502, attorney for the

licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(I)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the applications for

amendment dated May 15, 1998 (two

letters, one for each unit), which is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and at the local

public document room located at the

Reference and Documents Department,

Penfield Library, State University of

New York, Oswego, New York 13126.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of May 1998.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 105 /Tuesday, June 2, 1998 / Notices 30029

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Darl S. Hood,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

I–1, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–14516 Filed 6–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Draft NUREG: Issuance, Availability

The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has published a

draft report entitled ‘‘Analysis of Spent

Fuel Heatup Following Loss of Water in

a Spent Fuel Pool’’ (NUREG/CR–6441).

The report describes a methodology for

predicting the spent fuel heatup in the

event of loss of water in the spent fuel

pool. The methodology has been

formulated and implemented within a

computer code called SHARP (Spentfuel Heatup: Analytical Response

Program). The code modeling

framework, including the mathematical

models and solution methods are

described in the draft NUREG/CR–6441.

NUREG/CR–6441 has incorporated a

users’ manual for the SHARP code and

it discusses how to compute the results

of the spent fuel heatup characteristics

using representative design parameters

and fuel loading assumptions. The

SHARP code is intended to provide

NRC a method for analyzing the safety

of spent fuel in the pool for post

shutdown conditions. This situation

may occur when a licensee requests

relief from regulatory requirements

during the decommissioning process at

their nuclear reactor facility.

NUREG/CR–6441 has been prepared

for the NRC by Brookhaven National

Laboratory (BNL) and is now available

for review and comment. Copies of draft

report may be obtained from the

Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office, P.O. Box

37082, Washington, DC 20013–7082.

Copies are also available from the

National Technical Information Service,

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,

Virginia 22161. A copy is also available

for inspection and/or copying for a fee

in the NRC Public Document Room,

2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC. The software for the

SHARP code can be obtained by

contacting Kia L. Jackson, Mail Stop T–

9 F31, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555;

Phone (301) 415–6250; E-mail:

klj@nrc.gov. For additional information,

please contact the NRC program

manager, George J. Mencinsky, Mail

Stop T–9 F31, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555;

Phone (301) 415–6206; E-mail:

gjm@nrc.gov.

Comments on the draft report should

be sent to the Chief, Rules Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

Services, Mail Stop P–223, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555. Copies of the comments

received may be examined at the NRC

Public Document Room at 2120 L Street,

NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Comments will be most helpful if they

are received by August 3, 1998.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of April, 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John W. Craig,

Director, Division of Regulatory Applications,

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.

[FR Doc. 98–14515 Filed 6–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[USCG–1998–3882]

Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel

Advisory Committee (CFIVAC);

Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Request for applications.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is seeking

applications for appointment to

membership on the Commercial Fishing

Industry Vessel Advisory Committee

(CFIVAC). CFIVAC provides advice and

makes recommendations to the Coast

Guard on the safety of the commercial

fishing industry.

DATES: Applications must reach the

Coast Guard on or before October 1,

1998.

ADDRESSES: You may request an

application form by writing to

Commandant (G–MSO–2); U.S. Coast

Guard, room 1210, 2100 Second Street

SW., Washington, DC 20593–0001; by

calling 202–267–0214; or by faxing 202–

267–4570. Submit applications to the

same address. This notice is available

on the internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For questions on this notice, contact

Lieutenant Commander Randy Clark,

Assistant Executive Director of CFIVAC,

rclark@comdt.uscg.mil, or, LTJG Karen

Weaver, kweaver@comdt.uscg.mil,

telephone 202–267–0214, fax 202–267–

4570. For questions on this docket,

contact Carol Kelly, Coast Guard

Dockets Team Leader, or Paulette

Twine, Chief, Documentary Services

Division, U.S. Department of

Transportation, 202–366–9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel

Advisory Committee (CFIVAC) is a

Federal advisory committee constituted

under 5 U.S.C. App. 2. As required by

the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel

Safety Act of 1988, the Coast Guard

established CFIVAC to provide advice to

the Coast Guard on issues related to the

safety of commercial fishing vessels

regulated under chapter 45 of title 46,

United States Code, which includes

uninspected fishing vessels, fish

processing vessels, and fish tender

vessels. CFIVAC consists of 17 members

as follows: Ten members from the

commercial fishing industry who reflect

a regional and representational balance

and have experience in the operation of

vessels to which chapter 45 of Title 46,

United States Code applies, or as a crew

member or processing line member on

an uninspected fish processing vessel;

one member representing naval

architects or marine surveyors; one

member representing manufacturers of

equipment for vessels to which chapter

45 applies; one member representing

education or training professionals

related to fishing vessel, fish processing

vessel, or fish tender vessel safety, or

personnel qualifications; one member

representing underwriters that insure

vessels to which chapter 45 applies; and

three members representing the general

public, including whenever possible, an

independent expert or consultant in

maritime safety and a member of a

national organization composed of

persons representing owners of vessels

to which chapter 45 applies and persons

representing the marine insurance

industry.

CFIVAC meets at least once a year in

different seaport cities nationwide.

Special meetings may also be called.

Subcommittee meetings are held to

consider specific problems as required.

Applications will be considered for

six positions that expire or become

vacant in October 1999 in the following

categories: (a) Commercial Fishing

Industry (four positions); (b) General

Public (one position); (c) Equipment

Manufacturers (one position). Persons

selected as general public members are

required to complete a Confidential

Financial Disclosure Report, OGE Form

450, on an annual basis. Neither the

report nor the information it contains

may be released to the public, except

under an order issued by a Federal court

or as otherwise provided under the

Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a).

Each member serves for a term of

three years. A limited portion of the