Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Notices 31169

Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA).

The denial notice was signed on March

25, 1996 and published in the Federal

Register on April 3, 1996 (61 FR 14812).

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c)

reconsideration may be granted under

the following circumstances:

(1) If it appears on the basis of facts

not previously considered that the

determination complained of was

erroneous;

(2) if it appears that the determination

complained of was based on a mistake

in the determination of facts not

previously considered; or

(3) if in the opinion of the Certifying

Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of

the law justified reconsideration of the

decision.

Workers at the subject firm were

engaged in employment related to the

production of diapers. The Union

claims that sales, production and

employment at the Eau Claire,

Wisconsin production facility have

declined. The Union also claims that

competitors in the diaper industry

produced articles of sort in Mexico and

Canada and those articles are being

exported to the United States. The

Union further claims that Paragon Trade

Brands, the owner of the Pope & Talbot

production facility since January 1995,

has purchased the Mabesa diaper

facility in Mexico.

The Department’s denial of NAFTATAA for workers of Pope & Talbot, Inc.,

Eau Claire, Wisconsin was based on the

fact the increased import criteria (3) and

(4) were not met. There was no shift of

production from the subject plant to

Mexico or Canada, nor was there any

company or customer imports of

disposable baby diapers that are like or

directly competitive with those

produced by Pope & Talbot, Inc.

Paragon Trade Brands, Inc.

announced intent to enter into a

contract with a Mexican firm to produce

disposable baby diapers would not

provide a basis for a worker group

certification.

Conclusion

After review of the application and

investigative findings, I conclude that

there has been no error or

misinterpretation of the law or of the

facts which would justify

reconsideration of the Department of

Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the

application is denied.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 5th day of

June 1996.

Curtis K. Kooser,

Acting Program Manager, Policy and

Reemployment Services, Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 96–15551 Filed 6–18–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

REVIEW COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

June 13, 1996.

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday,

June 20, 1995.

PLACE: Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K

Street, N.W., Washington, DC.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The

Commission will consider and act upon

the following:

1. Ambrosia Coal & Construction Co., and

Steen, emp. by Ambrosia Coal &

Construction Co., Docket Nos. PENN 93–233

and PENN 94–15. (Issues include whether

the judge correctly determined that the

operator violated 30 C.F.R. § 77.404(a) and

that the violation was significant and

substantial and the result of unwarrantable

failure, whether Steen’s conduct was

imputable to the operator, whether Steen was

liable under section 110(c) of the Mine Act,

and whether the penalty assessments were

appropriate.)

Any person attending this meeting

who requires special accessibility

features and/or auxiliary aids, such as

sign language interpreters, must inform

the Commission in advance of those

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R.

§ 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO: Jean

Ellen (202) 653–5629 /(202) 708–9300

for TDD Relay / 1–800–877–8339 for toll

free.

Jean H. Ellen,

Chief Docket Clerk.

[FR Doc. 96–15714 Filed 6–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6735–01–M

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 96–064]

NASA Advisory Council, Advisory

Committee on the International Space

Station (ACISS); Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and

Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub.

L. 92–463, as amended, the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration

announces a meeting of the NASA

Advisory Council, Advisory Committee

on the International Space Station.

DATES: July 8, 1996, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00

p.m.; and July 9, 1996, 11:00 a.m. to

5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Lyndon B. Johnson Space

Center, Building 1, Room 966, Houston,

TX 77058–3696.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Bruce Luna, Code M–4, National

Aeronautics and Space Administration,

Washington, DC 20546, 202/358–1101.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

meeting will be open to the public up

to the seating capacity of the room. The

agenda for the meeting is as follows:

—International Partnerships

—Hardware Status

—Test and Verification

—Space Station Science and

Technology Program

—XCRV Status

It is imperative that the meeting be

held on these dates to accommodate the

scheduling priorities of the key

participants. Visitors will be requested

to sign a visitor’s register.

Dated: June 13, 1996.

Leslie M. Nolan,

Advisory Committee Management Officer,

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–15500 Filed 6–18–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Conversion to the Metric System;

Policy Statement

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final policy statement.

SUMMARY: On September 27, 1995, the

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) published a request for public

comment on its existing metrication

policy. This action was taken in

accordance with the NRC’s policy

statement of October 7, 1992, in which

the Commission was to assess the state

of metric use by the licensed nuclear

industry in the United States after 3

years to determine whether the policy

should be modified. The purpose of this

notice is to inform the public of the

Commission’s decision that its

Statement of Policy on Conversion to

the Metric System does not need to be

modified, that it considers this policy

final, and that its conversion to the

metric system is complete.
31170 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Notices

1The metric system refers to units belonging to

the Internationale System of Units, which is

abbreviated SI (from the French Le Syste`me

Internationale d’Unite`s), as interpreted or modified

for use in the United States by the Secretary of

Commerce.

2On August 10, 1988, Congress passed the

Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act (the Act),

(19 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.), which amended the Metric

Conversion Act of 1975, (15 U.S.C. 205a et seq.).

Section 5164 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 205a) designates

the metric system as the preferred system of weights

and measures for the United States trade and

commerce. The Act also requires that all Federal

agencies convert to the metric system of

measurement in their procurements, grants, and

other business-related activities by the end of fiscal

year 1992.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 19, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Frank A. Costanzi, Chairman, NRC

Metrication Oversight Committee, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555; telephone: (301)

415–6250; e-mail FAC@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 27, 1995 (60 FR 49928),

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) published a request

for public comment on its policy

statement on Conversion to the Metric

System 1 in the Federal Register. This

request for public comment was in

accordance with the Policy Statement

published on October 7, 1992 (57 FR

46202), which called for the

Commission to determine, after 3 years,

whether the policy should be modified.

Before the publication of the request

for public comment, the NRC staff

contacted various industrial, standards,

and governmental organizations to

determine their view of the policy. The

organizations contacted included the

American National Standards Institute

(ANSI), the American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM), the

American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (ASME), the Institute of

Electrical and Electronics Engineers

(IEEE), Inc., the Nuclear Energy Institute

(NEI), the Nuclear Utility Backfitting

and Reform Group (NUBARG), the

United States Pharmacopeial

Convention (USP), Inc., the Society of

Nuclear Medicine, and the Organization

of Agreement States (OAS).

Comments Received

With few exceptions, these various

organizations stated their support for

the current NRC policy. The nuclear

power industry position seems to be

exemplified by the NEI comments in

which they continue to support the

current NRC Metrication Policy and ‘‘a

transition to the metric system that is

market-driven and avoids a sudden or

precipitous move to conduct licensing

and regulatory matters in metric units.’’

As for the standards-setting groups,

ASME strongly supports the Omnibus

Trade and Competitiveness Act 2 and

believes that the NRC policy is in

accordance with those requirements.

IEEE related that its ‘‘standards are to be

primarily metric beginning in 1998 and,

with minor exceptions, exclusively

metric beginning in 2000.’’ Also, IEEE

believes that the United States

Government ‘‘can and should do more

than it has done to further the

metrication process in this country.’’ In

response to the NRC’s request, IEEE

provided the following three comments

relating directly to the NRC’s position:

(1) The NRC should drop the use of

dual units in its publications and to use

‘‘metric units exclusively except where

doing so would clearly be detrimental to

public health and safety.’’

(2) The NRC policy of using the

English system for all event reporting

and emergency response

communications, although prudent in

1992, may now cause confusion and

have a negative impact after various

relevant standards have been converted.

(3) The NRC should include the

following statement in its policy:

‘‘Nothing in this statement of policy

should be interpreted to require the use

of the English system of measurement,

or to forbid the use of consensus based

standards that are exclusively metric.’’

This was proposed so those in the

private sector who wish to move faster

than the Government may be protected.

With respect to IEEE’s first comment

concerning the dropping of dual units,

the NRC believes that because of the

relatively low number of licensees

operating in the metric system, it would

not be beneficial to make such a change,

especially because it would not lead to

any improvement in the public health

and safety. IEEE’s second comment calls

for dropping that portion of the policy

requiring event reporting and

emergency communication between

licensees and any Government agency to

be in the English system of

measurement. IEEE believes that the

English-only event reporting and

emergency communication may have a

negative impact after various relevant

standards have been converted to the

metric system. To consider such a

change is premature, because the

standards referred to by IEEE have not

been converted. The IEEE’s last

comment calls for the insertion of a

statement noting that use of the English

system is not required and that the use

of metric standards is not prohibited.

This statement is consistent with the

NRC policy as written, with the

exception of the use of the English

system in event reporting and

emergency communication as discussed

above.

The USP pointed out that the use of

dual units by NRC is in line with USP’s

position and practice. However, the

OAS position is that ‘‘to be truly

responsive to Congress the Commission

now should go on record as requiring

the use of SI units in all its

communication and documentation.’’

Also, OAS recommended that the NRC

‘‘support the dual citation standard with

the SI unit appearing first and the

English or special units following in

brackets or parentheses’’ to

accommodate the editing style of the

various States. As noted in the October

7, 1992, Federal Register notice

announcing the NRC’s metrication

policy, the NRC believed and continues

to believe that if metrication were made

mandatory by a rulemaking, no

corresponding improvement in public

health and safety would result but costs

would be incurred without benefit. The

editing style recommended by OAS is

consistent with NRC policy. Comments

were not received from the remaining

groups contacted by the NRC staff.

Four letters were received in response

to the September 27, 1995, request for

public comment. They were from NEI

and three nuclear power utilities. NEI’s

statement remained consistent with

their earlier positions on metrication,

namely that they did not believe that it

would be in the best interest of safety

for the NRC to require nuclear power

reactors to be operated using SI units.

Also, NEI continues to support the

NRC’s policy and recommended that the

policy remain unchanged.

With respect to the individual utilities

which responded, one requested that

the NRC not change the part of the

policy which requires that all event

reporting and emergency response

communications between licensees and

any Government authority be in the

English system of measurement.

Another utility endorsed NEI’s position

and believes the existing policy is

reasonable. The third utility also

endorsed the NEI position and ‘‘strongly

discourage(d)’’ any change to that part

of the policy requiring event reporting

and emergency response

communications between licensees and

any Government authorities to be in the

English system of measurement.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

In accordance with the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Notices 31171

determined that this action is not a

major rule and has verified this

determination with the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs of

OMB.

Statement of Policy

The Commission’s policy on

Conversion to the Metric System

remains essentially as stated in the

Federal Register (57 FR 46202) of

October 7, 1992.

The NRC supports and encourages the

use of the metric system of

measurement by licensed nuclear

industry. In order to facilitate the use of

the metric system by licensees and

applicants, beginning January 7, 1993,

the NRC will publish the following

documents in dual units: New

regulations, major amendments to

existing regulations, regulatory guides,

NUREG-series documents, policy

statements, information notices, generic

letters, bulletins, and all written

communications directed to the public.

Documents specific to a licensee, such

as inspection reports and docketed

material dealing with a particular

licensee, will be in the system of units

employed by the licensee. This protocol

reflects a general approach that only

documents applicable to all licensees, or

to all licensees of a given type in which

a licensee may operate in the metric

system will contain dual units.

Otherwise, English or metric units alone

are permissible. In dual-unit documents,

the first unit presented will be in the

International System of Units with the

English unit shown in brackets. The

NRC will modify existing documents

and procedures as needed to facilitate

use of the metric system by licensees

and applicants. In addition, the NRC

will provide staff training as needed.

Further, through its participation in

national, international, professional,

and industry standards organizations

and committees and through its work

with other industry organizations and

groups, the NRC will encourage and

further the use of the metric system in

formulating and adopting standards and

policies for the licensed nuclear

industry.

However, if the NRC concludes that

the use of any particular system of

measurement would be detrimental to

the public health and safety, the

Commission will proscribe the use of

that system by regulation, order, or

other appropriate means. In particular,

all event reporting and emergency

response communications between

licensees, the NRC, and State and local

authorities will be in the English system

of measurement. Further, the NRC will

follow the Federal Acquisition

Regulation and the General Services

Administration metrication program in

executing procurements. Lastly, the

Commission considers this policy final

and conversion to the metric system

complete. The Commission does not

intend to revisit this policy unless it is

causing an undue burden or hardship.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day

of June 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 96–15397 Filed 6–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Biweekly Notice

Applications and Amendments to

Facility Operating Licenses Involving

No Significant Hazards Considerations

I. Background

Pursuant to Public Law 97–415, the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(the Commission or NRC staff) is

publishing this regular biweekly notice.

Public Law 97–415 revised section 189

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended (the Act), to require the

Commission to publish notice of any

amendments issued, or proposed to be

issued, under a new provision of section

189 of the Act. This provision grants the

Commission the authority to issue and

make immediately effective any

amendment to an operating license

upon a determination by the

Commission that such amendment

involves no significant hazards

consideration, notwithstanding the

pendency before the Commission of a

request for a hearing from any person.

This biweekly notice includes all

notices of amendments issued, or

proposed to be issued from May 24,

1996, through June 7, 1996. The last

biweekly notice was published on June

5, 1996 (61 FR 28604).

Notice Of Consideration Of Issuance Of

Amendments To Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

And Opportunity For A Hearing

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

following amendment requests involve

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. The basis for this

proposed determination for each

amendment request is shown below.

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

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 before

action is taken. 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 Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

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 6D22, 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 a hearing and petitions

for leave to intervene is discussed

below.

By July 19, 1996, 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