Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Notices 30099

Inc., Lincoln, MA; Promis Systems

Corporation, Toronto, Ontario,

CANADA; and NIIIP Project Office,

Stamford, CT.

NIIIP’s area of planned activity is

development of open industry software

protocols that will integrate computing

environments across the U.S.

manufacturing base.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 96–14976 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993; X Consortium, Inc.

Notice is hereby given that, on May

29, 1996, pursuant to § 6(a) of the

National Cooperative Research and

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), the X Consortium,

Inc., has filed written notifications

simultaneously with the Attorney

General and the Federal Trade

Commission disclosing changes in its

membership. The notifications were

filed for the purpose of extending the

Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages

under specified circumstances.

Specifically, the changes are as follows:

Draper Laboratory, Arlington, VA;

Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory,

Cambridge, MA; and TriTeal Corp.,

Carlsbad, CA have been added to the

venture. AT&T Global Information

Solutions, West Columbia, SC;

Compagnie Europeene des Techniques

de l’Ingeniere Assistee, Toulon,

FRANCE; O’Reilly & Associates, Inc.,

Cambridge, MA; Tatung Science and

Technology, Milpitas, CA; and Visual

Information Technologies, Inc.,

Richardson, TX have withdrawn from

the venture.

No other changes have been made in

either the membership or planned

activity of the group research project.

Membership in this group research

project remains open, and the X

Consortium, Inc., intends to file

additional written notifications

disclosing all changes in membership.

On September 15, 1993, the X

Consortium, Inc., filed its original

notification pursuant to § 6(a) of the Act.

The Department of Justice published a

notice in the Federal Register pursuant

to § 6(b) of the Act on November 10,

1993 (58 FR 59737).

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 96–14975 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 94–26]

Nestor A. Garcia, M.D.; Grant of

Restricted Registration

On February 18, 1994, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Nestor A. Garcia,

M.D., (Respondent) of North Miami,

Florida, notifying him of an opportunity

to show cause as to why DEA should

not deny his application for registration

as a practitioner under 21 U.S.C. 823(f),

as being inconsistent with the public

interest. Specifically, the Order to Show

Cause alleged in substance that: (1)

Between April and August of 1990, the

Respondent entered three separate

addiction programs for treatment of his

abuse of Demerol, a Schedule II

controlled substance. (2) On February

13, 1991, the Florida Department of

Professional Regulation (DPR) issued an

emergency order suspending his state

medical license, but on July 27, 1992,

ordered the reinstatement of his state

license subject to certain limitations.

However, there were three actions

pending against his license. (3) On

February 28, 1991, after the suspension,

the Respondent submitted DEA Form

222 to a pharmacy to order meperidine,

a Schedule II controlled substance. (4)

On November 5, 1991, the Respondent

surrendered his DEA Certificate of

Registration, AG2355370.

On March 22, 1994, the Respondent,

through counsel, filed a timely request

for a hearing, and following prehearing

procedures, a hearing was held in

Miami, Florida, on March 29, 1995,

before Administrative Law Judge Mary

Ellen Bittner. At the hearing, both

parties called witnesses to testify, and

the Government introduced

documentary evidence. After the

hearing, counsel for both sides

submitted proposed findings of fact,

conclusions of law and argument. On

December 5, 1995, Judge Bittner issued

her Opinion and Recommended Ruling,

recommending that the Respondent’s

application for registration be granted

only as to controlled substances in

Schedules IV and V, with specifically

enumerated restrictions. Neither party

filed exceptions to her decision, and on

January 16, 1996, Judge Bittner

transmitted the record of these

proceedings to the Deputy

Administrator.

The Deputy Administrator has

considered the record, and pursuant to

21 CFR 1316.67, hereby issues his final

order based upon findings of fact and

conclusions of law as hereinafter set

forth. The Deputy Administrator adopts,

in full, the Opinion and Recommended

Ruling of the Administrative Law Judge,

and his adoption is in no manner

diminished by any recitation of facts,

issues and conclusions herein, or of any

failure to mention a matter of fact or

law.

Specifically, the Deputy

Administrator finds that the parties

have stipulated that Demerol is a

Schedule II controlled substance

pursuant to 21 CFR 1308.12. the Deputy

Administrator also finds that Valium is

the brand name for diazepam, a

Schedule IV controlled substance

pursuant to 21 CFR 1308.14.

The Respondent is a physician who

specializes in psychiatry. On January

26, 1993, he completed an Application

for Registration under the Controlled

Substances Act, requesting DEA register

him as a practitioner and authorize him

to handle Schedule II nonnarcotic

substances, both narcotic and

nonnarcotic Schedule III substances,

Schedule IV substances, and Schedule V

substances. The Respondent also

disclosed on the form that his medical

license had been suspended on or about

February 25, 1990, but had been

reinstated on December 8, 1992.

A detective from the Broward County,

Florida, Sheriff’s Department (Detective)

testified at the hearing before Judge

Bittner, stating that in late 1988, the

Respondent was arrested and charged

with sexual activity, while in custodial

and familial authority, with a sixteenyear-old girl, LW. The Detective testified

that LW told him that in November of

1988, while she was a patient at South

Florida State Hospital, she had

developed a relationship with the

Respondent, her treating psychiatrist.

She told the Detective that she had been

transferred to the psychiatric unit of

Hollywood Memorial Hospital, had

escaped from that hospital, and had

lived with the Respondent in a motel

room across the street from the hospital

where he worked. LW told the Detective

that she had maintained a sexual

relationship with the Respondent. The

Detective testified that he was able to

verify some of the information provided

by LW, specifically that the Respondent

had rented the motel room. However,

the charges were eventually dropped.

The Respondent did not testify before

Judge Bittner. However, Dr. Goetz, the

director of the Physicians’ Recovery

Network (PRN) testified, stating that he

had visited the Respondent on April 5,

1990, and on that same day the

Respondent was admitted to the

Chemical Dependency Unit of the Mt.

Sinai Medical Center in Miami. There,

a urine sample tested positive for
30100 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Notices

meperidine and benzodiazepine, and

the Respondent was diagnosed as

having advanced chemical dependency

to intravenous and intramuscular

Demerol. The Respondent admitted that

he had self-prescribed and self-injected

Demerol and Valium.

During the course of the Respondent’s

treatment, he was transferred to the

Talbott Recovery Center in Atlanta,

Georgia, then to the Parkside Recovery

Center in Illinois, but he did not

complete the treatment program at

either location. After his discharge from

Parkside, the Respondent returned to

Talbott for reassessment, and on August

27, 1990, the medical directors of

Talbott and Parkside recommended to

the PRN that the Respondent refrain

from practicing medicine for one year,

allowing him time to focus on his

recovery.

In October of 1990, Dr. Goetz wrote to

the Florida Department of Professional

Regulation (DPR), recommending that

the Respondent’s license be suspended

because he had not progressed

satisfactorily in his recovery program,

and because he was still exhibiting

drug-seeking behavior. On December 13,

1990, the DPR ordered the Respondent

to submit to mental and physical

examinations, and the physician who

conducted the mental examination

concluded that the Respondent’s

chemical dependency and sociopathic

personality traits ‘‘could impair his

ability to practice medicine with

reasonable skill and safety.’’

As a result, on February 13, 1991, the

DPR issued an emergency suspension

order, suspending the Respondent’s

state medical license on the grounds

that he had violated Florida Statute

section 458.331(1)(s) by ‘‘being unable

to practice medicine with reasonable

skill and safety to patients by reason of

illness or use of alcohol, drugs,

narcotics, chemicals, or any other type

of materials or as a result of any mental

or physical condition,’’ and based upon

a finding that the Respondent’s

continued practice of medicine

‘‘constitutes an immediate and serious

danger to the health, safety and welfare

of the public.’’ Yet on February 25,

1991, the Respondent used a DEA Form

222 to order meperidine.

After a formal hearing,on September

23, 1991, the DPR’s Board of Medicine

(Medical Board) issued a final order

suspending the Respondent’s medical

license for one year, ‘‘or until he

appears before the Board and exhibits

his ability to practice with skill and

safety.’’ The Medical Board found that

the Respondent was impaired as a

consequence of drug dependency, that

the dependency rendered him unable to

practice medicine with reasonable skill

and safety to his patients, that his

dependency was a chronic condition

that tends to relapse, and that he had

failed to establish that he had recovered

from his impaired condition. On

November 5, 1991, the Respondent

voluntarily surrendered his DEA

Certificate of Registration.

Subsequently, on July 27, 1992, the

Medical Board granted the Respondent’s

petition for reinstatement, ‘‘contingent

on his appearance before the Probation

Committee with a current psychiatric

evaluation by a psychiatrist approved by

the Board and a very stringent proposed

practice plan.’’

Dr. Goetz further testified before Judge

Bittner that, when he first met the

Respondent in April of 1990, the

Respondent was addicted to Demerol.

He opined that addicts commonly

engage in the type of behavior displayed

by the Respondent, for drug addiction

changes the addict’s ‘‘emotional

responses,’’ affects sexual behavior, and

distorts the addict’s perceptions of

reality and his value system. However,

he also testified that once an individual

had been out of treatment, drug-free,

and in recovery for a few years, he

typically is able to return to work. Dr.

Goetz stated that ‘‘[a]ll of our records

indicate that [the Respondent] is in

compliance, that he’s been able to

function well since he’s been relicensed

by the Board of Medicine, and I think

it’s fair to say that he is in early

recovery.’’

Dr. Goetz also recalled that he had

previously testified before the Medical

Board, stating that the Respondent was

in a state of recovery and no longer

posed a threat to the public interest. He

also opined before Judge Bittner that the

Medical Board’s decision to reinstate

the Respondent’s license represented a

finding that the Respondent was fit to

practice medicine. He concluded that

the public interest would be served if

the Respondent were to receive a DEA

registration.

However, Judge Bittner noted in her

opinion that Dr. Goetz did not testify as

to any firsthand knowledge of the

Respondent’s condition or state of

recovery, ‘‘but rather about addiction in

general and about what he had learned

of Respondent’s recovery from

examining the PRN’s records.’’ Also, on

cross-examination, Dr. Goetz agreed that

an addict can have relapses even after

years of sobriety, that a psychiatrist can

practice without a Schedule II

registration, and that physicians with

self-abuse problems are particularly

hard to treat because they can so easily

obtain controlled substances. He also

stated that, as of the date of the hearing

before Judge Bittner, the Respondent

was still on probation with the Medical

Board. However, since September of

1991, the Respondent had complied

with the PRN requirements, including

submitting to random urine tests.

Dr. Jules Trop, a specialist in

addictionology, also testified before

Judge Bittner, stating that he had treated

approximately 10,000 addicts and

alcoholics in his practice, and that,

since August of 1991, he had been the

Respondent’s ‘‘monitoring physician’’,

the physician who maintains contact

with the Respondent on behalf of the

PRN and reports to the PRN about his

progress. However, Dr. Trop testified

that, beginning in approximately June of

1994, he had ceased directly observing

the Respondent, who had been assigned

to a small group for treatment. Yet Dr.

Trop stated that he received reports

from the Respondent’s therapist, and

that ‘‘all reports are that [the

Respondent’s] attendance has been

regular. His cooperation has continued.

His recovery is ongoing. His urines have

been negative. That’s essentially it.’’

Dr. Trop also testified that an addict

typically loses his or her moral and

ethical standards, and that recovery is

dependent upon regaining those

standards and behaviors. He observed

that he had seen change in the

Respondent and believed that he is now

in ‘‘progressive recovery.’’ On crossexamination, Dr. Trop acknowledged

that the term ‘‘progressive recovery’’

implies that recovery is never complete,

and that it is always possible that an

addict will relapse. Like Dr. Goetz, Dr.

Trop also testified that physicians were

particularly susceptible to addiction

because their work was high-stress, and

because physicians had money and

access to controlled substances.

However, Dr. Trop also opined that a

physician who was being monitored by

the PRN was less likely to relapse, with

the monitoring serving as a deterrent.

Dr. Trop also agreed with Dr. Goetz,

stating that it would not be against the

public interest to grant the Respondent’s

DEA application.

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), the

Deputy Administrator may deny an

application for registration as a

practitioner, if he determines that

granting the registration would be

inconsistent with the public interest.

Section 823(f) requires that the

following factors be considered:

(1) The recommendation of the

appropriate State licensing board or

professional disciplinary authority.

(2) The applicant’s experience in

dispensing, or conducting research with

respect to controlled substances.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Notices 30101

(3) The applicant’s conviction record

under Federal or State laws relating to

the manufacture, distribution, or

dispensing of controlled substances.

(4) Compliance with applicable State,

Federal, or local laws relating to

controlled substances.

(5) Such other conduct which may

threaten the public health or safety.

These factors are to be considered in

the disjunctive; the Deputy

Administrator may rely on any one or a

combination of factors and may give

each factor the weight he deems

appropriate in determining whether a

registration should be revoked or an

application for registration denied. See

Henry J. Schwarz, Jr., M.D., Docket No.

88–42, 54 FR 16422 (1989).

Noting the absence of any conviction

record, the Deputy Administrator finds

factors one, two, four, and five relevant

in determining whether the

Respondent’s registration would be

inconsistent with the public interest. As

to factor one, ‘‘recommendation of the

appropriate State licensing board,’’ the

Florida DPR suspended the

Respondent’s medical license in 1991,

and reinstated the license in July of

1992, under probationary conditions

that remain in effect through September

of 1996. The Deputy Administrator

concurs with Judge Bittner’s analysis of

the State licensing board’s actions. By

reinstating the Respondent’s medical

license, the DPR indicated that it

viewed the Respondent’s condition as

less threatening to the public’s interest

than in 1991. However, by levying

probationary conditions upon his

practice of medicine, the DPR asserted

that the Respondent’s conduct

continued to require scrutiny for the

protection of the public.

Although the Government placed into

the record two outstanding

administrative complaints, pending

before the DPR since 1992, the Deputy

Administrator agrees with Judge

Bittner’s evaluation of these complaints.

She wrote:

I conclude that it would be inappropriate

to rely on the unresolved administrative

complaints in deciding the issues before me,

for they are merely allegations, analogous to

complaints in indictments, and do not prove

the violations alleged therein by a

preponderance of the evidence. Cf. Alra Lab.,

Inc., No. 92–42, 59 Fed. Reg. 50620, 50620

(DEA 1994) (allegations contained in an

indictment should not be considered because

there was nothing on the record tending to

prove or disprove them).

As to factor two, the Respondent’s

‘‘experience in dispensing * * *

controlled substances,’’ and factor four,

the Respondent’s ‘‘[c]ompliance with

applicable State, Federal, or local laws

relating to controlled substances,’’ the

Deputy Administrator finds significant

the Respondent’s history of selfprescribing and self-injecting of

Demerol and Valium, leading to his selfprofessed addiction to Demerol. As

Judge Bittner wrote, ‘‘[the] Respondent’s

self-prescribing of Demerol to maintain

his addiction was not for a legitimate

medical purpose and was therefore not

a lawful prescription within the

meaning of 21 CFR 1306.04.’’

Further, in February of 1991, after his

medical license had been suspended,

the Respondent used a DEA Form 222

to order meperidine, when he no longer

was authorized to so act. The Deputy

Administrator agrees with Judge

Bittner’s finding that such unauthorized

ordering of Demerol violated applicable

state and federal law.

As to factor five, ‘‘[s]uch other

conduct which may threaten the public

health or safety,’’ the Respondent’s

actions documented in the record

pertaining to LW in 1988 cause the

Deputy Administrator concern.

Specifically, the Detective’s testimony

concerning the Respondent’s actions

with a sixteen-year-old patient who had

escaped from a custodial psychiatric

treatment setting remains unrebutted in

the record. The Respondent’s defense,

that such actions were a result of his

drug addiction, does little to alleviate

the concern raised by his unprofessional

conduct, especially given the

Respondent’s failure in the drug

rehabilitation treatment programs at

Talbott and Parkside. The Deputy

Administrator also finds it significant

that both Dr. Goetz and Dr. Trop agreed

that physicians were particularly

susceptible to addiction because of their

access to controlled substances.

However, as to the Government’s offer

of proof concerning more recent acts

involving the Respondent and LW, the

Deputy Administrator concurs with

Judge Bittner’s ruling concerning the

offered evidence. The Deputy

Administrator finds that, under the

circumstances, due process requires that

he not consider the offered evidence in

reaching a determination in this matter,

and, accordingly, he has not considered

the Detective’s testimony concerning the

Respondent’s conduct with LW in 1990.

The Deputy Administrator also finds

that the Respondent provided mitigating

evidence through the testimony of Dr.

Goetz and Dr. Trop. Specifically, both

doctors noted that the Respondent

remained in compliance with the

conditions of his probation. Further, the

Medical Board has found the

Respondent fit to practice medicine,

although also finding it necessary to

reinstate his license on probationary

terms. The Respondent has continued to

successfully participate in a drug

rehabilitation program of counselling

and urinalysis testing as monitored by

the PRN. Although both Dr. Goetz and

Dr. Trop testified that the Respondent

was in ‘‘early recovery,’’ or that his

recovery was ‘‘ongoing,’’ the Deputy

Administrator concurs with Judge

Bittner’s conclusion that ‘‘the evidence

that [the] Respondent remained drugfree for three-and-one-half-years prior to

the hearing weighs in favor of granting

his application.’’

Therefore, after reviewing the record,

the Deputy Administrator agrees with

Judge Bittner’s recommendation and

finds that the public interest is best

served by granting the Respondent a

restricted registration. Specifically, that

portion of the Respondent’s application

to handle controlled substances in

Schedule II, nonnarcotic, and Schedule

III, is denied. However, the portion of

his application to handle controlled

substances in Schedules IV and V is

granted, with the following restrictions

and conditions: (1) The Respondent’s

controlled substances-handling

authority is limited to the writing of

prescriptions only. He shall not be

authorized to dispense, possess, or store

any controlled substances, except that

he may administer controlled

substances in a hospoital setting, and he

may possess controlled substances that

are medically necessary for his own use

and have been obtained pursuant to a

valid prescription issued by another

practitioner. (2) The Respondent is not

authorized to prescribe any controlled

substances for his own use. (3) For two

years from the effective date of this

order, the Respondent shall, every

calendar quarter, submit a log to the

Special Agent in charge of the nearest

DEA office or his designee. The log shall

contain a list of all prescriptions for

controlled substances the Respondent

has written during the previous quarter,

to include the date of each prescription,

the patient’s name, the name and

amount of the controlled substance(s)

prescribed, and the pathology for which

the prescription was written.

Accordingly, the Deputy

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, pursuant to the

authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C.

823, and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,

hereby orders that the pending

application of Nestor A. Garcia, M.D.,

for a DEA Certificate of Registration for

a practitioner be, and it hereby is,

denied in part and granted in part,

subject to the limitations enumerated

above. This order is effective July 15,

1996.
30102 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Notices

Dated: June 7, 1996.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–14953 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

National Institute of Corrections

Advisory Board Meeting

Time and Date: 12:30 p.m., Monday,

June 24, 1996.

Place: Ramada Inn, 1117 Williston

Road, Burlington, Vermont.

Status: Open.

Matters To Be Considered: Update on

the reimbursement plan for NIC

services, Office of Justice Programs’

update on the Violent Offender and

Truth In Sentencing Grant Program,

update on the District of Columbia

Department of Corrections Study,

progress report from the task force on

prison construction standardization and

techniques, update on the NIC

Executive Excellence Program, status of

the final report on the mental health in

jails survey, status report on the

positional asphyxia video proposal, and

the FY 1997 program plan

recommendations.

Contact Person for More Information:

Larry Solomon, Deputy Director, (202)

307–3106, ext. 155.

Morris L. Thigpen,

Deputy Director.

[FR Doc. 96–15009 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–36–M

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Chemistry;

Notice of Meeting

In accordance with the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463, as amended), the National Science

Foundation announces the following

meeting:

Name: Special Emphasis Panel in

Chemistry (#1191).

Date and Time: July 1–2, 1996, 8:00 am to

5:00 pm.

Place: University of Texas, Austin, TX.

Type of Meeting: Closed.

Contact Person: Karolyn K. Eisenstein,

Program Director, Office of Special Projects,

Chemistry Division, Room 1055, National

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd.

Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: (703) 306–

1850.

Purpose of Meeting: To review the renewal

proposal, evaluate the Science and

Technology Center, and make a

recommendation concerning future funding

of the Science and Technology Center.

Agenda: To evaluate: (a) the research

program; (b) educational and outreach

activities; and (3) the knowledge transfer

activities and the management of the STC. To

make a recommendation on the future

funding of the STC.

Reason for Closing: The proposal being

reviewed includes information of a

proprietary or confidential nature, including

technical information, financial data, such as

salaries; and personal information

concerning individuals associated with the

proposals. These matters are within

exemptions (4) and (6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c),

the Government in the Sunshine Act.

Dated: June 10, 1996.

[FR Doc. 96–15012 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION

SAFETY BOARD

Public Hearing in Maryland: Railroad

Accident

In connection with its investigation of

the collision and derailment of a MARC

commuter passenger train with

AMTRAK Train 29, The Capitol

Limited, near Silver Spring, Maryland,

on February 16, 1996, the National

Transportation Safety Board will

convene a public hearing at 9:00 a.m.

(local time), on June 26, 1996, at the

DoubleTree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike

(Route 355), Rockville, Maryland 20852.

For more information, contact Pat

Cariseo, Office of Public Affairs,

Washington, D.C. 20594, telephone

(202) 382–0660.

Dated: June 7, 1996.

Bea Hardesty,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 96–14997 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7533–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–261]

Carolina Power & Light Company, H.B.

Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit

No. 2; Exemption

I

Carolina Power and Light Company

(CP&L or the licensee) is the holder of

Facility Operating License No. DPR–23,

which authorizes operation of the H.B.

Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No.

2 (HBR), at steady-state reactor power

level not in excess of 2300 megawatts

thermal. The facility consists of one

pressurized water reactor located at the

licensee’s site in Darlington County,

South Carolina. The license provides,

among other things, that it is subject to

all rules, regulations and Orders of the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the

Commission or NRC) now or hereafter

in effect.

II

Section III.J of Appendix R to Part 50

of Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR Part 50) requires

that emergency lighting units with at

least an 8-hour battery power supply be

provided in all areas needed for

operation of post-fire safe shutdown

equipment and in access and egress

routes thereto. The NRC may grant

exemptions from the requirements of

the regulations which, pursuant to 10

CFR 50.12(a), are (1) Authorized by law,

will not present an undue risk to the

public health and safety, and are

consistent with the common defense

and security; and (2) present special

circumstances. Special circumstances

exist whenever, according to 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii), ‘‘Application of the

regulation in the particular

circumstances would not serve the

underlying purpose of the rule or is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule * * *.’’

III

By letters dated February 2, 1995,

May 15, 1995, and September 29, 1995,

Carolina Power & Light Company (the

licensee), requested an exemption from

certain technical requirements of

Section III.J of Appendix R to 10 CFR

Part 50 for HBR. Section III.J of

Appendix R requires that emergency

lighting units with at least an 8-hour

battery power supply be provided in all

areas needed for operation of post-fire

safe shutdown equipment and in access

and egress routes thereto. The licensee

plans to implement procedure

enhancements to its post-accident safe

shutdown procedure that would require

manual operation of certain valves. The

licensee proposed to use the dieselbacked security lighting system for

access and egress to, and operation of,

auxiliary feedwater (AFW) valves AFW–

1 and AFW–104 and instrument air (IA)

valve IA–297, stating that the use of the

diesel-backed security lighting system

will provide an equivalent level of fire

safety to that achieved by compliance

with Section III.J of Appendix R to 10

CFR Part 50 for access and egress to, and

operation of, valves AFW–1 and AFW–

104, located in fire zone 33, and valve

IA–297, located in fire zone 25.

IV

Valves AFW–1, AFW–104, and IA–

297 are located in outdoor areas within

the protected area. These areas and the

access and egress paths do not have 8-

hour fixed battery-operated emergency