Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 / Notices 32253

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 Athens

Public Library, 405 E. South Street,

Athens, Alabama. 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.

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

General Counsel, Tennessee Valley

Authority, 400 West Summit Drive, ET

10H, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902,

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).

If a request for a hearing is received,

the Commission’s staff may issue the

amendment after it completes its

technical review and prior to the

completion of any required hearing if it

publishes a further notice for public

comment of its proposed finding of no

significant hazards consideration in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and

50.92. For further details with respect to

this action, see the application for

amendments dated September 6, 1996

as supplemented June 6, and December

11, 1996, April 11, May 1, August 14,

October 15, November 5 and 14,

December 3, 4, 15, 22, 23, 29, and 30,

1997, January 23, March 12 and 13,

April 16, 20, and 28, May 7, 14, and 19,

and June 2, 1998, which are 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

Athens Public Library, 405 E. South

Street, Athens, Alabama.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

L. Raghavan,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

II–3, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–15708 Filed 6–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362]

Southern California Edison Company,

et al., San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 2 and 3; Issuance of

Director’s Decision Under 10 CFR

2.206

Notice is hereby given that the

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, has acted on a Petition for

action under 10 CFR 2.206 received

from Ms. Patricia Borchmann dated June

23, 1997, as supplemented by letters

dated June 28, July 11, and October 21,

1997, for the San Onofre Nuclear

Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2

and 3.

The Petitioner requested that the Unit

2 and Unit 3 outages be extended until

all outstanding public health and safety

concerns identified were fully resolved.

In its letter dated September 22, 1997,

acknowledging the Petition, the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (Commission or

NRC) informed the Petitioner that as a

result of its evaluation of the concerns

raised, only two issues would be

considered pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 for

preparation of a Director’s Decision. The

first issue involves whether, when

responding to issues regarding SONGS

identified by members of the public, the

NRC has fragmented responses and

failed to comprehensively address

issues in total and whether issues

identified at SONGS when considered

as a whole, reveal trends or systemic

problems in the operation of the SONGS

units. The second issue involves the

SONGS analysis of evacuation time in

the emergency preparedness plan.

The Director of the Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation has determined that

the Petitioner’s request should be

denied for the reasons stated in the
32254 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 / Notices

‘‘Director’s Decision Under 10 CFR

2.206’’ (DD–98–05), the complete text of

which follows this notice and which is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555, and at

the Local Public Document Room

located at the Main Library, University

of California, P.O. Box 19557, Irvine,

California 92713.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

Director’s Decision Under 10 CFR

§ 2.206

I. Introduction

By Petition dated June 23, 1997, and

supplemented by letters of June 28, July

11, and October 21, 1997, Patricia

Borchmann (Petitioner) requested that

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(Commission or NRC) take action with

regard to San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station (SONGS) Units 2 and 3. The

Petitioner requested that the NRC take

immediate action to prevent the SONGS

units from restarting until all the issues

she raised were resolved. In support of

the requested action the Petitioner

asserted a variety of safety issues

concerning the SONGS units. The issues

raised included those concerning the

emergency evacuation plans for SONGS,

the size of the SONGS pressurizers, the

condition of the SONGS Unit 1

membrane under the spent fuel pool

(SFP) and SFP leak detection

monitoring, loss of coolant accident

dose calculations, the potential for

criticality accidents due to the use of

high density storage racks in the SFP,

the NRC’s failure to comprehensively

address issues that have been raised and

the withholding of certain data, the

production of tritium and the

cumulative effects of low level

radiation. In its letter dated September

22, 1997, acknowledging the Petition,

the NRC informed the Petitioner that

there was insufficient basis to warrant

the immediate action requested and that

as a result of an evaluation of the issues

raised, only two issues would be

considered pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 for

preparation of a Director’s Decision. The

first issue involves whether, when

responding to issues regarding SONGS,

the NRC has fragmented responses and

failed to comprehensively address

issues in total and whether issues

identified at SONGS when considered

as a whole, reveal trends or systemic

problems in the operation of the SONGS

units. The second issue involves the

SONGS analysis of evacuation time in

the emergency preparedness plan. The

Petitioner stated that the evacuation

time estimates and the traffic capacity

analysis for SONGS underestimated the

actual number of vehicles that would be

on the road and were based on the

flawed assumption of only one vehicle

per household. Further, the Petitioner

was concerned that the analysis did not

assume lane closures of major roads,

which have been observed during

natural events in the past.

My Decision in this matter follows.

II. Discussion

A. Assessment of Whether SONGS

Issues Considered as a Whole Reveal

Trends or Systemic Problems

In the Petitioner’s June 28 letter, the

Petitioner asserted that NRC responses

to another individual’s concerns

reflected a tendency to fragment issues

and isolate responses, and that the NRC

failed to comprehensively address the

‘‘big picture.’’ In the October 21 letter,

the Petitioner asserted that the NRC

responses to concerns related to a

SONGS Unit 1 SFP plastic membrane

further reinforced the Petitioner’s

concerns related to the NRC fragmenting

issues. In the NRC’s September 22,

1997, and February 17, 1998, responses

to the Petitioner, the NRC indicated that

an assessment would be performed to

determine if issues considered as a

whole reveal trends or systemic

problems associated with the safe

operation of the SONGS units. The NRC

further informed the Petitioner that it

would review the handling of the Unit

1 SFP membrane to determine if issues

considered as a whole indicated

systemic problems or trends associated

with the operation of the SONGS units.

In order to effectively respond to

concerns related to SONGS, the staff has

maintained documentation of the issues

raised and the NRC responses to these

issues. To ensure that NRC responses to

SONGS Units 1, 2, and 3 issues are

consistent and that previously raised

issues are taken into consideration, the

NRC has designated a manager to serve

as the NRC point of contact for

responding to these issues.

Furthermore, the process for

evaluation and determination of the

safety significance of issues raised

includes reviewing previously

identified issues regarding SONGS. The

previously identified concerns and

responses are evaluated to determine if

they are similar, if they have an impact

on the issues under review, if they

should be included in the evaluation of

the issue under review, and if the

response to the issue under review

changes previous evaluations.

The staff performed an independent

review of the previous SONGS issues

together with those noted in the

Petition. This review determined that

there was no indication of trends or

systemic problems affecting the safe

operation of the SONGS units or

affecting the validity of existing

conclusions. Moreover, the staff did not

find any evidence that issues had not

been fully considered or that

relationships with other issues had been

ignored. In sum, the staff has concluded

that issues identified regarding the

SONGS units have been satisfactorily

reviewed and that there is no basis for

the Petitioner’s assertion.

B. Analysis of the SONGS Traffic

Capacity Analysis

Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR), Section 50.54(q),

states, in part, that ‘‘[a] licensee

authorized to possess and operate a

nuclear power reactor shall follow and

maintain in effect emergency plans

which meet the standards in § 50.47(b)

and the requirements in Appendix E of

this part.’’ Part 50 of 10 CFR, Appendix

E, Section IV, ‘‘Content of Emergency

Plans,’’ states, in part, that ‘‘[t]he

nuclear power reactor operating

applicant shall also provide an analysis

of the time required to evacuate and for

taking other protective actions for

various sectors and distances within the

plume exposure pathway EPZ

[emergency planning zone] for transient

and permanent populations.’’ Guidance

on developing an evacuation time

estimate (ETE) study is given in

Appendix 4 of NUREG–0654/FEMAREP–1, Rev. 1, ‘‘Criteria for Preparation

and Evaluation of Radiological

Emergency Response Plans and

Preparedness in Support of Nuclear

Power Plants.’’ The analysis of the time

required to evacuate the transient and

permanent population from various

areas within the plume exposure

pathway EPZ at San Onofre is set forth

in Appendix G of the SONGS

Emergency Plan. The ETEs in the San

Onofre Emergency Plan are also

reflected in the emergency plans for the

offsite jurisdictions located in the plume

exposure pathway EPZ for San Onofre,

which is about 10 miles in radius.

As indicated in the September 22,

1997, response to the Petitioner, the

NRC requires nuclear power plant

licensees to study the population

distribution relative to the

transportation network in the vicinity of

a nuclear power plant and to develop

ETEs on the basis of the results of the

study. However, NRC regulations do not
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 / Notices 32255

1Regarding the Petitioner’s comment that an

evacuation zone limited to only 10 miles is ‘‘sorely

inadequate,’’ the size of the EPZs for commercial

nuclear power plants in the United States is

established by NRC regulations, and the NRC has

consistently found that a plume exposure EPZ of

about 10 miles in radius provides an adequate

planning basis for radiological emergency planning.

See NUREG–1251, Vol. 1, ‘‘Implications of the

Accident at Chernobyl for Safety Regulation of

Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in the United

States,’’ April 1989, and see Long Island Lighting

Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit

1), CLI–87–12, 26 NRC 383, 395 (1987) where the

Commission ruled that 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2)

precludes adjustments on safety grounds to the size

of an EPZ that is ‘‘about 10 miles in radius.’’

specify any preset minimum evacuation

time that must be met in order for a site

to be acceptable or for emergency plans

to be approved. The objective of an ETE

study is to have ETEs that reasonably

reflect the evacuation times for the

various sectors and distances

surrounding a nuclear power plant site

for a number of evacuation scenarios for

use by emergency planners and

decisionmakers in the emergency

planning process. ETEs are used

primarily during the planning process to

identify potential traffic bottlenecks so

that effective traffic control and

management measures can be

developed. In the event of a serious

accident requiring offsite protective

actions such as evacuation, plant

conditions are the primary indicators

used by the NRC and licensee to

determine protective actions rather than

offsite dose calculations and estimates

of evacuation times.

Guidance on protective actions for

severe reactor accidents is given in draft

Supplement 3 to NUREG–0654,

‘‘Criteria for Protective Action

Recommendations for Severe

Accidents,’’ issued in July 1996. This

guidance states that in the event of a

severe reactor accident involving actual

or projected core damage with potential

for offsite consequences, plant operators

should recommend prompt evacuation

of the area near the plant. In this case,

the decision to evacuate is based on

plant conditions, including the status of

the reactor core and the systems

intended to protect the core, and not on

the amount of time it may take to

evacuate the nearby areas.

The NRC staff took the Petitioner’s

concerns into consideration during a

review of an updated ETE analysis for

San Onofre submitted by the licensee on

July 25, 1997, in Revision 7 to the

SONGS Emergency Plan. The Petitioner

asserted that the emergency plans for

SONGS underestimated the actual

number of vehicles projected to be used

during an emergency event, resulting in

an overestimated assumption about

traffic system capacity. The Petitioner

stated that the evacuation and traffic

capacity analysis for SONGS was based

on the flawed assumption that only one

vehicle per household would be used

during an evacuation following an

emergency event at SONGS. The

Petitioner indicated that this was not a

realistic assumption and that many

more vehicles would be used during an

emergency evacuation because parents

working at separate locations would

need more than one vehicle to evacuate

with children attending different

schools or day care centers or engaged

in other activities.

Although the use of one vehicle per

household is often assumed in ETE

studies, the NRC found, based on a

review of the ETE study in Revision 7

to the SONGS Emergency Plan (Section

3.4, pages 12–13), that the San Onofre

ETE analysis assumes a higher number

of vehicles. Different numbers of

vehicles are used in daytime and

nighttime scenarios to reflect different

conditions. All the scenarios assume

more than one vehicle per household.

Based on its review, the NRC concludes

that the methodology used to generate

the number of evacuating vehicles

reasonably reflects the number of

potentially evacuating vehicles for an

emergency at San Onofre.

The Petitioner asserted that even

under worst-case scenario assumptions,

such as flooding, the current ETE

analysis assumes there would be no lane

closures, such as occurred during

flooding and mudslides in 1994 in

Laguna Beach. On the basis of a review

of the ETE analysis in Revision 7 of the

SONGS Emergency Plan, the NRC found

that the ETE study contains a

comprehensive analysis of road closures

after earthquakes (Chapter 11, pages 66–

80), and that the road closures in the

analysis were very severe and provide a

very clear understanding of the

sensitivity of the ETE analysis to road

closures (Section 5.4, page 17). Thus,

the NRC concludes that ETEs can be

used by emergency planners to aid in

decisionmaking for a wide range of

adverse conditions, including lane and

road closures caused by flooding and

mudslides.

The Petitioner expressed a concern for

the need for an updated traffic capacity

analysis and evacuation time study to

evaluate capacity and levels of service

on Interstate 5 (I–5) at the Via de la

Valle exit at peak hours during summer

when both Del Mar Fair and Del Mar

Race Track are operating. The Via de la

Valle interchange is about 30 miles to

the south of San Onofre. This is well

beyond the influence area of the EPZ1

evacuation traffic. Furthermore, areas to

the south of San Onofre generally have

lighter evacuation traffic since the

population in the EPZ is more

concentrated to the north. Thus, the

NRC finds that there is no reason that

the ETE needs to consider traffic

congestion in the Via de la Valle

Interchange area on I–5 as it is well

beyond the EPZ and outside the EPZ

perimeter traffic control area.

Finally, on January 27, 1998, FEMA

informed the NRC that on the basis of

the results of the full-participation

exercise conducted at San Onofre on

October 28, 1997, FEMA found that the

offsite radiological emergency response

plans and preparedness for the State of

California and the jurisdictions specific

to the San Onofre site can be

implemented and provide reasonable

assurance that appropriate measures can

be taken off site to protect the health

and safety of the public in the event of

a radiological emergency at San Onofre.

III. Conclusion

The NRC staff has conducted a review

of the previous SONGS issues together

with the issues raised by the Petitioner

and determined that there is no basis for

concluding that the NRC has fragmented

issues and there is no indication that

issues reveal trends or systemic

problems with the conduct of reviews of

these concerns or operation of the

SONGS units. As a result, I find that the

NRC has evaluated the issues

appropriately and find no trends or

systemic flaws that would invalidate

those reviews.

As discussed above, the NRC staff has

evaluated the emergency planning

concerns raised by the Petitioner and

found that the current emergency plans

and preparedness at San Onofre

adequately address the Petitioner’s

concerns. On the basis of FEMA’s

findings on offsite emergency

preparedness and the NRC’s findings on

the adequacy of onsite emergency

preparedness, the NRC continues to find

that there is reasonable assurance that

adequate protective measures can and

will be taken in the event of a

radiological emergency at the SONGS

facility.

For the reasons discussed above, no

basis exists for taking the action

requested by the Petitioner.

Accordingly, the Petitioner’s request for

action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 is

denied. A copy of this Decision will be

filed with the Secretary of the

Commission for the Commission to

review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206

of the Commission’s regulations. As

provided by this regulation, the

Decision will constitute the final action

of the Commission 25 days after

issuance, unless the Commission, on its
32256 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 / Notices

own motion, institutes a review of the

Decision within that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

[FR Doc. 98–15642 Filed 6–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7690–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request for Review of an Information

Collection: Information and

Instructions on Your Reconsideration

Rights, RI 38–47

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–13, May 22, 1995), this

notice announces that the Office of

Personnel Management (OPM) intends

to submit to the Office of Management

and Budget a request for review of an

information collection. Information and

Instructions on Your Reconsideration

Rights, RI 38–47, outlines the

procedures required to request

reconsideration of an initial OPM

decision about Civil Service or Federal

Employees retirement, Retired Federal

or Federal Employee Health Benefits

requests to enroll or change enrollment,

or Federal Employees’ Group Life

Insurance coverage. The forms lists the

procedures and time periods required

for requesting reconsideration.

Approximately 6,000 annuitants and

survivors request reconsideration

annually. We estimate it takes

approximately 45 minutes to apply. The

annual burden is 4500 hours.

Comments are particularly invited on:

—Whether this collection of information

is necessary for the proper

performance of functions of the Office

of Personnel Management, and

whether it will have practical utility;

—Whether our estimate of the public

burden of this collection is accurate,

and based on valid assumptions and

methodology; and

—Ways in which we can minimize the

burden of the collection of

information on those who are to

respond, through use of the

appropriate technological collection

techniques or other forms of

information technology.

For copies of this proposal, contact

Jim Farron on (202) 418–3208, or E-mail

to jmfarron@opm.gov

DATES: Comments on this proposal

should be received on or before August

11, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments

to—Lorraine E. Dettman, Chief,

Operations Support Division,

Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S.

Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E

Street, NW, Room 3349, Washington,

DC 20415.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION—CONTACT:

Mary Beth Smith-Toomey, Budget &

Administrative Services Division, (202)

606–0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance,

Director.

[FR Doc. 98–15653 Filed 6–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request for Revision of

Information Collection RI 20–63

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–13, May 22, 1995), this

notice announces that the Office of

Personnel Management will submit to

the Office of Management and Budget a

request for reclearance of the following

information collection. RI 20–63,

Survivor Annuity Election for a Spouse,

is an enclosure covered by a letter

explaining why OPM is sending the

form and is used by the Civil Service

Retirement System (CSRS) to provide

information and a survivor benefits

election opportunity to annuitants who

have notified the CSRS that they have

married.

There are estimated to be 2,400

respondents for RI 20–63 and 200 for

the cover letter. It is estimated to take

45 minutes to complete the form with a

burden of 1,800 hours and 10 minutes

to complete the letter, which gives a

burden of 34 hours. The total burden for

RI 20–63 is 1,834 hours.

For copies of this proposal, contact

Jim Farron on (202) 418–3208, or E-mail

to jmfarron@mail.opm.gov

DATES: Comments on this proposal

should be received on or before July 12,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments

to—

Lorraine E. Dettman, Chief, Operations

Support Division, Retirement and

Insurance Service, U.S. Office of

Personnel Management, 1900 E Street,

NW, Room 3349, Washington, DC

20415–0001

and

Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk Officer,

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, New Executive Office

Building, NW, Room 3002,

Washington, DC 20503.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION—CONTACT:

Mary Beth Smith-Toomey, Budget &

Administrative Services Division, (202)

606–0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance,

Director.

[FR Doc. 98–15654 Filed 6–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Nonforeign Area Cost-of-Living

Allowances; Price and Background

Surveys; Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the

Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

has submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) a

request for review of two previouslyapproved information collections for

which approval has expired. OPM uses

the two information collections—a price

survey and a background survey—to

gather data to be used in determining

cost-of-living allowances (COLAs) for

certain Federal employees in Alaska,

Hawaii, Guam and the Commonwealth

of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto

Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The

price survey is conducted generally on

an annual basis. The background survey

is conducted approximately once every

5 years, but is also conducted on a

limited basis in preparation for each of

the price surveys.

DATES: Submit comments on or before

July 13, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Send or deliver

comments both to—

• Donald J. Winstead, Assistant Director

for Compensation Administration,

Workforce Compensation and

Performance Service, Office of

Personnel Management, Room 7H31,

1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC