41302 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 1998 / Notices

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 TU Electric 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 TU Electric must be

completed in accordance with current

TU Electric schedules. By letter dated

May 20, 1998, the NRC staff notified TU

Electric of its plan to incorporate TU

Electric’s schedule commitment into a

requirement by issuance of an order and

requested consent from the Licensee. By

letter dated June 2, 1998, the Licensee

provided its consent to issuance of a

Confirmatory Order.

III

The Licensee’s commitment as set

forth in its letter of June 2, 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 June 2, 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:

TU Electric shall complete final

implementation of Thermo-Lag 330–1

fire barrier corrective actions at

Comanche Peak, Unit 1, described in TU

Electric submittals to the NRC dated

April 9 and May 1, 1998, by December

31, 1998.

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: Rulemakings 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 IV,

611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400,

Arlington, Texas, 76011 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 28 day

of July 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–20601 Filed 7–31–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards, Subcommittee Meeting on

Reliability and Probabilistic Risk

Assessment; Notice of Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on

Reliability and Probabilistic Risk

Assessment will hold a meeting on

August 26, 1998, Room T–2B3, 11545

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to

public attendance.

The agenda for the subject meeting

shall be as follows:

Wednesday, August 26, 1998—10:00

a.m. until the conclusion of business

The Subcommittee will discuss issues

in the Staff Requirements Memorandum

dated April 20, 1998, regarding

situation-specific cases where

probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)

results and insights have improved the

existing regulatory system and specific

areas in which PRA, when applied

properly, can have a positive impact on

the regulatory system. The purpose of

this meeting is to gather information,

analyze relevant issues and facts, and to

formulate proposed positions and

actions, as appropriate, for deliberation

by the full Committee.

Oral statements may be presented by

members of the public with the

concurrence of the Subcommittee

Chairman; written statements will be

accepted and made available to the

Committee. Electronic recordings will

be permitted only during those portions

of the meeting that are open to the

public, and questions may be asked only

by members of the Subcommittee, its

consultants, and staff. Persons desiring

to make oral statements should notify

the cognizant ACRS staff engineer

named below five days prior to the

meeting, if possible, so that appropriate

arrangements can be made.

During the initial portion of the

meeting, the Subcommittee, along with

any of its consultants who may be

present, may exchange preliminary

views regarding matters to be

considered during the balance of the

meeting.

The Subcommittee will then hear

presentations by and hold discussions

with representatives of the NRC staff, its

consultants, and other interested

persons regarding this review.

Further information regarding topics

to be discussed, whether the meeting

has been canceled or rescheduled, and

the Chairman’s ruling on requests for

the opportunity to present oral

statements and the time allotted therefor

can be obtained by contacting the

cognizant ACRS staff engineer, Mr.

Michael T. Markley (telephone 301/

415–6885) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15

p.m. (EDT). Persons planning to attend

this meeting are urged to contact the

above named individual one or two

working days prior to the meeting to be

advised of any potential changes to the

agenda, etc., that may have occurred.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 1998 / Notices 41303

Dated: July 28, 1998.

Sam Duraiswamy,

Chief, Nuclear Reactors Branch.

[FR Doc. 98–20599 Filed 7–31–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Draft NUREG Report; Issuance,

Availability

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

has issued for public comment Draft

NUREG–1521 titled ‘‘Technical Review

of Risk-Informed, Performance-Based

Methods for Nuclear Power Plant Fire

Protection Analyses.’’

As part of the staff’s efforts to focus

licensee and NRC resources on risksignificant activities, and to decrease the

prescriptiveness of its regulations

through performance-based methods

that allow licensees increased flexibility

in implementing NRC regulations, the

staff has conducted a technical review

to identify opportunities in the fire

protection area. Draft NUREG–1521

presents a technical review and analysis

of risk-informed, performance-based

methods that are alternatives to those in

current prescriptive fire protection

requirements or guidance that could

allow cost-effective methods for

implementing safety objectives, focusing

licensee efforts, and achieving greater

efficiency in the use of resources for

plant safety. A technical analysis of the

usefulness of the results and insights

derived from these methods (including

accounting for the uncertainties in the

results) in improving regulatory

decision making is presented.

Public comments are being solicited

on Draft NUREG–1521. Comments may

be accompanied by additional relevant

information or supporting data. The

staff specifically requests comments on

(1) whether information on any other

technical methods and models for riskinformed, performance applications not

covered in the report exist and should

be reviewed and included, and (2) riskinformed, performance-based

applications beyond those discussed in

the report that would provide regulatory

focus on risk significant issues, and

flexibility to licensees in implementing

NRC safety objectives.

A free single copy of Draft NUREG–

1521 may be requested by written

request to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, ATTN: Distribution and

Mail Services Section, Office of

Administration, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. Written comments may be

submitted to the Rules and Directives

Branch, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001. Hand

deliver comments on draft NUREG–

1521 to 11545 Rockville Pike, Maryland

between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m on

Federal Workdays. Copies of comments

received may be examined at the NRC

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street

NW., Washington, DC. Comments will

be most helpful if received by November

30, 1998. This document is also

available at the NRC Web Site, http://

www.nrc.gov. See the link under

‘‘Technical Reports in the NUREG

Series’’ on the ‘‘Reference Library’’ page.

You may also provide comments at this

NRC Web Site. Instructions for sending

comments electronically are included

with the document, NUREG–1521, at

the web site.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of July 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Thomas L. King,

Director, Division of Systems Technology,

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.

[FR Doc. 98–20600 Filed 7–31–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Budget Rescissions and Deferrals

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED

STATES:

In accordance with the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of

1974, I herewith report one proposed

rescission of budgetary resources, totaling

$5.2 million.

The proposed rescission affects programs

of the Department of the Interior.

William J. Clinton

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 24, 1998.

Rescission Proposal No. R98–25

PROPOSED RESCISSION OF BUDGET

AUTHORITY

Report Pursuant to Section 1012 of P.L.

93–344

Agency: DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR

Bureau: Bureau of Land Management

Account: Mineral leasing and associated

payments

New budget authority: $5,200,000

Other budgetary resources:——

Total budgetary resources: 5,200,000

Amount proposed for rescission:

5,200,000

Proposed appropriations language:

The budget authority provided by

section 503 of Public Law 105–83 is

hereby rescinded.

Justification: The proposal would

rescind $5,200 thousand for a

conveyance to the State of Montana of

Federal mineral rights. This amount was

canceled under the Line Item Veto Act,

which the Supreme Court ruled

unconstitutional on June 25, 1998.

In connection with the Crown Butte/

New World Mine acquisition (addressed

in section 502 of P. L. 105–83), section

503 provides for the uncompensated

conveyance to the State of Montana of

either $10 million in Federal mineral

rights in Montana or the Federal mineral

rights in Otter Creek Tracts 1, 2, and 3

(in Montana).

Section 503 would cause Federal

taxpayers to lose their share of royalties

from Federally-owned lands, which

would normally be split between the

State where the Federally-owned lands

are located and the U.S. Treasury upon

development of Federal mineral rights.

The Federal share would be $5.2

million. The section would set a costly,

unnecessary precedent by requiring the

Federal Government to ‘‘compensate’’ a

State for a purchase or exchange of

lands between the Federal Government

and a willing seller. This precedent

could, therefore, discourage innovative,

cost-effective land protection solutions

in the future.

This proposed rescission applies to

the budget authority under each of the

alternative conveyances under sections

503(a)(1) and 503(a)(2).

This action is taken pursuant to the

Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1512).

Estimated programmatic effect: As a

result of the proposed rescission, net

Federal outlays will decrease, as

specified below.

(Note: The amount of the effect depends on

whether mineral rights would have been

conveyed under section 503(a)(1) or under

section 503(a)(2). As discussed below, the

Administration estimates that mineral rights

would more likely have been conveyed under

section 503(a)(1).) This will have a

commensurate effect on the Federal budget

deficit.