Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Notices 65729

would need to address in the formal

proposal the concerns raised in the

consultation session and to provide

assurances that management commits to

allocating enough resources and to

implementing the program in

accordance with the proposal.

(3) Program Sufficiency Review. OPS

and state officials affected by the

pipeline system would examine the

proposal for completeness against the

technical process and quality program

standards. This is estimated to occur

within sixty to ninety days of the date

OPS received the proposal. The review

would determine safety expectations

from the program initiatives and that

current safety would be equalled or

exceeded. OPS would also consider

experience with the operator,

compliance history and performance.

The sufficiency review could result in

a proposal being accepted or returned.

OPS acceptance at this stage would

mean officially accepting the

demonstration project as an alternative

to complying with the current

regulatory process. A returned proposal

would lead to second consultation

where recommendations would be made

or the project could be postponed to a

later date.

(4) Technical Process Review. OPS

and its consultants would perform this

review after several months of the

project’s operation under the risk

management scheme and periodically

thereafter to assure that the program is

meeting the safety goals established by

the program performance indicators or

metrics. It will take several years to

assess trends on long range issues. This

review would involve substantive

engineering reviews to validate former

assumptions and expected outcomes. A

follow-on joint government/industry

team process would be charged with the

task of developing guidelines on use of

performance measurements. The review

would verify that operators were

keeping to their planned program

milestones.

(5) Required Public Prospectus. As

part of the process review, an operator

in the demonstration programs would

prepare public documents that explain

its risk management plans and

objectives. An operator would explain

how it plans to meet or exceed existing

safety levels, what its performance

metrics are and how well it has

performed. The public would be able to

read the operator prospectus before OPS

conducts the process reviews and

forward any questions to OPS to present

during the regularly scheduled audit.

OPS could provide feedback through

public notice or other means. This

mechanism is designed to improve

accountability to the public.

(6) Conflict Resolution. Procedures

may be developed to resolve conflicts

between an operator and the

government or other stakeholders on

program adequacy.

(7) Civil Penalties. Penalties would be

administered for an operator not

following the technical process and

quality program standards and not

keeping its program commitments

within its risk management plan and

would be addressed within the

provisions of the existing regulations.

VII. Fourth Element: Third Party

Review Being Considered

The final planned framework element

being considered would be a third party

review that would be conducted during

the four year demonstration project.

OPS would contract with an

independent scientific organization to

give OPS findings on the planned

framework. Findings would include

whether the draft standard is adequate

and complete, and whether the

administrative project framework is

sufficient to assure that the program is

delivering the expected goals.

VIII. Evaluation and Follow-Up

A limited number of demonstration

projects would provide the opportunity

to evaluate whether operators’ risk

management decisions on how best to

use their companies’ resources to

protect people and the environment are

an appropriate alternative to industrywide regulation. The Demonstration

program in its entirety would be

evaluated in the final year. A successful

evaluation would (1) determine that risk

management can be a cost-effective way

to manage risks pipelines pose and (2)

give operators flexibility to manage risk

based on their companies’ needs,

conditions and expertise rather than

complying with compliance-based

safety regulations.

Successfully completing the

demonstration projects is an important

part of the Government’s evolving

regulatory process. OPS and industry

having sufficient pipeline operator

safety data is critical to managing the

risks pipelines pose. OPS does not have

enough safety data to be statistically

meaningful as a risk management

baseline. OPS believes the

demonstration program would identify

the type and amount of pipeline

performance data, pipeline

characteristics including failure data,

needed to manage risk. The

demonstration projects might also lead

to more research and development

activity in designing models to predict

pipeline failure. The demonstration

projects would also be the basis for

improving the industry technical

standards for other operators to develop

more effective risk management

programs and helping OPS be more

creative, effective, and flexible in

overseeing and approving ways to make

pipelines safer.

OPS would report lessons learned

from the demonstration projects through

public meetings and to Congress. The

report would address project results,

including whether or not the

demonstrations maintained or

strengthened safety and how OPS and

industry can improve safety.

Issued in Washington, DC on December 11,

1995.

Richard B. Felder,

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

[FR Doc. 95–30775 Filed 12–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service

1996 Fee Schedules for the Issuance of

Definitive Securities and TREASURY

DIRECT Securities Accounts

AGENCY: Bureau of the Public Debt,

Fiscal Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Treasury is announcing two schedules

of fees to be charged in 1996 for

marketable Treasury securities. The

schedules are for the fees charged for

the issuance of definitive securities and

the fees for the annual maintenance of

certain TREASURY DIRECT securities

accounts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 2, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maureen Parker, Director, Division of

Securities Systems, Bureau of the Public

Debt, Parkersburg, West Virginia,

26106–1328, (304) 480–7761.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 23, 1995, the Department of the

Treasury established fee schedules for

the issuance of definitive securities and

the maintenance of certain TREASURY

DIRECT securities accounts.

The Treasury has decided that the

fees for the issuance of definitive

securities and the maintenance of

certain TREASURY DIRECT Securities

Accounts in 1996 should remain

unchanged from the amounts currently

in effect.
65730 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Notices

Schedule of Fees for Definitive

Securities

The fee schedule for the issuance of

a definitive security is as follows: a fee

of $50 will be charged for each

definitive security issued on a transfer,

reissue, exchange or withdrawal from

book-entry form, or as a result of the

granting of relief on account of loss,

theft, destruction, mutilation or

defacement. Payment of the fee must

accompany the request for the issue of

securities in physical form. If a request

results in the issuance of more than one

security, the amount of the fee is arrived

at by multiplying the number of pieces

requested by $50. The fee announced

above applies beginning January 2,

1996.

Schedule of Fees for TREASURY

DIRECT Securities Accounts

The fee schedule for TREASURY

DIRECT securities accounts is as

follows: each TREASURY DIRECT

securities account holding Treasury

bonds, notes and bills, pursuant to 31

CFR Part 357, that exceeds $100,000 in

par amount will be charged an annual

maintenance fee in the amount of $25.

For 1996, this will be imposed on

accounts exceeding $100,000 in par

amount as of May 17, 1996. The

determination as to what accounts are

subject to the fee shall be made

annually. Each account holder will be

individually billed.

Dated: December 7, 1995.

Van Zeck,

Acting Commissioner of the Public Debt.

[FR Doc. 95–30781 Filed 12–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–39–P