31966 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Notices

uncertainties in the material properties and

the radiation environment. As the NRC staff

accumulates more surveillance data from

licensees, it periodically evaluates the data to

determine whether the Regulatory Guide 1.99

methodology needs revision. The licensee

surveillance database consists of data from

several hundred licensee capsules.

The Heavy Section Steel Irradiation

Program provides experimental evaluation of

the effects of chemistry and radiation

environment on the irradiation embrittlement

of reactor pressure vessel steels, including

the effects of thermal aging, recovery of

fracture toughness by thermal annealing, and

reembrittlement trends on annealed reactor

vessel materials. This program, in

conjunction with the Radiation

Embrittlement and Prediction Program, is

developing improved methods for predicting

irradiation embrittlement. Both programs are

evaluating, experimentally and analytically,

the mechanisms that control irradiation

embrittlement to justify extrapolation of the

empirical model to predict plant-specific

irradiation embrittlement. These programs

are validating the analytical and empirical

models through the testing of service

degraded reactor vessel materials.

The NRC staff’s recommended

methodology for determining the effect of

thermal annealing on RPV embrittlement is

documented in Regulatory Guide 1.162,

‘‘Format and Content of Report for Thermal

Annealing of Reactor Pressure Vessels.’’

NUREG/CR–6327, ‘‘Models for Embrittlement

Recovery due to Annealing of Reactor

Pressure Vessel Steels,’’ contains the data

and evaluation that form the bases for the

percent recovery of radiation embrittlement

from thermal annealing that is documented

in Regulatory Guide 1.162. The thermal

annealing rule, 10 CFR 50.66, requires that

each licensee performing a thermal anneal

must monitor the post-anneal

reembrittlement trend using a surveillance

program that conforms with the intent of

appendix H. The effect of thermal annealing

on RPV embrittlement is adequately

addressed by requiring licensees to monitor

the post-anneal reembrittlement trend

through a surveillance program and by use of

the Regulatory Guide 1.162 methodology.

Based on analysis performed by licensees

and the NRC, the staff has concluded that the

overall integrity analyses, including the

various margins, are conservative and that

they provide reasonable assurance that the

vessels can withstand normal operation and

accident conditions. Furthermore, each

licensee must bear the burden of

demonstration the adequacy of its pressure

vessel to withstand the effects of a transient

causing overcooling concurrent with or

followed by significant pressure when the

methodology of Regulatory Guide 1.99,

Revision 2, does not predict an acceptable

result. Should a licensee not be able to

demonstrate, or be unwilling to expend the

resources to demonstrate, the adequacy of its

pressure vessel (which may include actual

samples of base material), the plant must be

shutdown as was the case for Yankee Rowe.

Test material from the Yankee Rowe

pressure vessel would not be of value in

estimating the level of embrittlement,

thermal annealing recovery, and

reembrittlement after annealing at currently

operating U.S. facilities. The Yankee Rowe

reactor operated at a lower temperature than

typical of operating plants, making any data

on embrittlement from Yankee Rowe difficult

to correlate with other light water reactor

designs in the U.S.

Samples from the Rancho Seco vessel

would not provide useful information since

equivalent weld material and vessel wall

samples are available from the Babcock and

Wilcox Owners Group and from the canceled

Midland Nuclear Plant. These samples are

currently being evaluated in a program that

irradiates the samples in test reactors. These

components and samples, taken from power

reactors and irradiated in test reactors, will

provide data that could be correlated to other

sample research programs that utilize

research reactors.

The licensee for the San Onofre 1 reactor

has submitted a decommissioning plan to the

NRC that proposes SAFSTOR, or long-term

storage of the facility, until the licenses for

San Onofre Units 2 and 3 expire, sometime

after 2013. Therefore, the Unit 1 vessel will

remain onsite and in a condition that would

allow samples of test material to be obtained

for a substantial period of time, should it be

determined that such samples would be

useful for study.

The Trojan Nuclear Plant is currently

undergoing active dismantlement. Portland

General Electric, the licensee, is planning to

remove the reactor vessel and dispose of it

at the Hanford, Washington low-level burial

site no earlier than 1998. The staff currently

is pursuing the possibility of obtaining

samples from the reactor vessel once the

reactor vessel reaches the burial site.

For the above reasons, the staff concludes

that sufficient information is already and will

be available to appropriately and timely

address the radiation embrittlement

phenomenon.

IV. Conclusion

the Petitioners have not provided sufficient

bases to warrant the suspension of

decommissioning plans or activities at the

four nuclear power plants in order to take

specimens of reactor vessels for the purpose

of studying nuclear power reactor pressure

vessels radiation embrittlement phenomena.

Moreover, as explained above, sufficient

information is available to the staff to address

such radiation embrittlement phenomena in

a manner which protects public health and

safety without the issuance of an order.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above,

the Petition, including the request to take

emergency actions is denied.

A copy of this Director’s Decision will be

filed with the Office of the Secretary for the

Commission to review in accordance with 10

CFR 2.206(c). As provided by § 2.206(c), this

decision will constitute the final action of the

Commission 25 days after issuance, unless

the Commission, on its own motion,

institutes a review of the decision within that

time.

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 14th day of

June 1996.

Frank J. Miraglia,

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 96–15838 Filed 6–20–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Cumulative Report on Rescissions and

Deferrals

June 1, 1996.

This report is submitted in fulfillment

of the requirement of section 1014(e) of

the Congressional Budget and

Impoundment Control Act of 1974

(Public Law 93–344). Section 1014(e)

requires a monthly report listing all

budget authority for the current fiscal

year for which, as of the first day of the

month, a special message had been

transmitted to Congress.

This report gives the status, as of June

1, 1996, of 24 rescission proposals and

six deferrals contained in seven special

messages for FY 1996. These messages

were transmitted to Congress on October

19, 1995; and on February 21, February

23, March 5, March 13, April 12, and

May 14, 1996.

Rescissions (Attachments A and C)

As of June 1, 1996, 24 rescission

proposals totaling $1.4 billion had been

transmitted to the Congress. Congress

approved eight of the Administration’s

rescission proposals in P.L. 104–134. A

total of $963.4 million of the rescissions

proposed by the President was

rescinded by that measure. Attachment

C shows the status of the FY 1996

rescission proposals.

Deferrals (Attachments B and D)

As of June 1, 1996, $2,376.5 million

in budget authority was being deferred

from obligation. Attachment D shows

the status of each deferral reported

during FY 1996.

Information From Special Message

The special messages containing

information on the rescission proposals

and deferrals that are covered by this

cumulative report are printed in the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Notices 31967

editions of the Federal Register cited

below:

60 FR 55154, Friday, October 27, 1995

61 FR 8691, Tuesday, March 5, 1996

61 FR 10812, Friday, March 15, 1996

61 FR 13350, Tuesday, March 26, 1996

61 FR 17915, Tuesday, April 23, 1996

61 FR 26226, Friday, May 24, 1996

Alice M. Rivlin,

Director.

ATTACHMENT A—STATUS OF FY 1996 RESCISSIONS

[In millions of dollars]

Budgetary

resources

Rescissions proposed by the President .................................................................................................................................................. 1,425.9

Rejected by the Congress ....................................................................................................................................................................... ¥62.1

Amounts rescinded by P.L. 104–134 ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥963.4

Currently before the Congress ...................................................................................................................................................... 400.4

ATTACHMENT B—STATUS OF FY 1996 DEFERRALS

[In millions of dollars]

Budgetary

resources

Deferrals proposed by the President ....................................................................................................................................................... 3,689.6

Routine Executive releases through May 1, 1996 .................................................................................................................................. ¥1,313.2

(OMB/Agency releases of $1,313.2 million, partially offset by cumulative positive adjustment of $4 thousand.)

Overturned by the Congress ................................................................................................................................................................... ....................

Currently before the Congress ...................................................................................................................................................... 2,376.5

ATTACHMENT C—STATUS OF FY 1996 RESCISSION PROPOSALS—AS OF JUNE 7, 1996

[Amounts in thousands of dollars]

Agency bureau account

Amounts pending before Congress

Date of

message

Previously

withheld

and

made

available

Date

made

available

Amount

rescinded

Congressional

Rescission action

No.

Less than

45 days

More than

45 days

Department of Agriculture

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:

Buildings and facilities ............... R96–8 ................ 12,000 3–5–96 12,000 5–6–96

Department of Defense

Procurement:

Aircraft procurement, Army ....... R96–11 140,000 .................... 4–12–96

Procurement of ammunition,

Army.

R96–12 47,200 .................... 4–12–96

Other procurement, Army .......... R96–13 5,800 .................... 4–12–96

Procurement of ammunition,

Navy and Marine Corps.

R96–15 10,000 4–12–96

Shipbuilding and conversion,

Navy.

R96–14 9,200 .................... 4–12–96

Missile procurement, Air Force R96–1 ................ 310,000 2–21–96 ................ ................ 310,000 P.L. 104–134

Other procurement, Air Force ... R96–2 ................ 265,000 2–21–96 ................ ................ 265,000 P.L. 104–134

National guard and reserve

equipment.

R96–16 13,600 .................... 4–12–96

Research, Development, Test, and

Evaluation Research, development, test, and evaluation

Army .......................................... R96–4

496–17

................

9,600

19,500 2–23–96

4–12–96

................ ................ 19,500 P.L. 104–134

Research, development test, and

evaluation:

Navy .......................................... R96–5

R96–18

................

39,800

35,000 2–23–96

4–12–96

................ ................ 35,000 P.L. 104–134

Research, development, test, and

evaluation:

Air Force .................................... R96–3

R96–6

R96–19

................

................

58,000

245,000

44,900

....................

2–21–96

2–23–96

4–12–96

................ ................ 245,000

44,900

P.L. 104–134

P.L. 104–134

Research, development, test, and

evaluation:
31968 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Notices

1The Postal Service has submitted documentation

bearing an ‘‘MC,’’ or mail classification designation.

While the proposals to increase net revenue appear

to fit the pattern of an ‘‘R,’’ or rate designation, there

is no apparent substantive reason to change the

designation for the case at this time, and in the

ATTACHMENT C—STATUS OF FY 1996 RESCISSION PROPOSALS—AS OF JUNE 7, 1996—Continued

[Amounts in thousands of dollars]

Agency bureau account

Amounts pending before Congress

Date of

message

Previously

withheld

and

made

available

Date

made

available

Amount

rescinded

Congressional

Rescission action

No.

Less than

45 days

More than

45 days

Defense-wide ............................. R96–7

R96–20

................

67,200

40,600 2–23–96

4–12–96

................ ................ 40,600 P.L. 104–134

Military Construction:

Military construction, Army ........ R96–21 ................ 10,000 3–13–96 10,000 6–7–96

Military construction, Navy ........ R96–22 ................ 8,000 3–13–96 8,000 6–5–96

Military construction, Air Force R96–23 ................ 15,000 3–13–96 15,000 5–23–96

Military construction, Defensewide.R96–24 ................ 13,000 3–13–96 13,000 6–7–96

Military construction, Air National Guard.R96–25 ................ 4,000 3–13–96 4,000 6–7–96

General Services Administration

Real Property Activities:

Federal buildings fund ............... R96–9 ................ 3,500 3–5–96 (1) ................ 3,400 P.L. 104–134

Total Rescissions ................... 400,400 1,025,500 ................ 62,000 ................ 963,400

[FR Doc. 96–15809 Filed 6–20–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3110–01–M

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION

[Docket No. MC96–3; Order No. 1115]

Special Services Fees and

Classifications; Notice of Request for

Changes in Domestic Mail

Classification Schedule Provisions and

Rates for Special Services and Order

Instituting Proceedings

[Issued June 12, 1996].

Before Commissioners: Edward J. Gleiman,

Chairman; W.H. ‘‘Trey’’ LeBlanc III, ViceChairman; George W. Haley; and H. Edward

Quick, Jr.

Notice is hereby given that on June 7,

1996, the United States Postal Service

filed a request with the Postal Rate

Commission pursuant to section 3623 of

the Postal Reorganization Act [39 USC

§ 3623] for a recommended decision on

proposed changes in provisions of the

Domestic Mail Classification Schedule

(DMCS) and rates that affect selected

special services. See Request of the

United States Postal Service for a

Recommended Decision on Special

Service Changes (June 7, 1996) (referred

to herein as ‘‘Request’’).

Contents of the filing. The Service’s

Request proposes changes to the terms

of service and rates for post office boxes

(including caller service), certified mail,

return receipt, insurance, and registry

service. It proposes to treat the

production of postal cards as a new

special service distinct from the postage

that such cards require, and to rename

postal cards ‘‘stamped cards.’’ It also

proposes to eliminate special delivery

service. The Postal Service’s Request

does not encompass any changes to the

rates for the classes and subclasses of

mail, nor the fees for other special

services not specifically addressed by its

proposals. Request at 3. The changes

proposed may be summarized as

follows:

Post Office Boxes

• Increase basic Group I fees by an

average of 24 percent.

• (Group I fees apply at city delivery

offices).

• Increase basic Group II fees by 100

percent.

• (Group II fees apply at non-city

delivery offices).

• Eliminate basic fees for offices with

no carrier delivery.

• Institute an annual $36 nonresident fee.

• Refine definitions of the fee

categories.

Certified Mail/Return Receipts

• Increase certified mail fee by 40

cents.

• Replace the two basic return receipt

options with one option.

• Replace the two return receipts for

merchandise options with one option.

• Clarify the categories of mail

eligible to use return receipt for

merchandise service.

Insurance

• Raise the indemnity limit from $600

to $5000.

• Raise the indemnity limit for

Express Mail merchandise from $500 to

$5000.

• Reduce the limit for Express Mail

document reconstruction from $50,000

to $500.

Registry

• Simplify fee schedule by

eliminating uninsured registry service

over $100.

Postal Cards

• ‘‘Postal cards,’’ which are sold to

customers by the Postal Service,

renamed ‘‘stamped cards’’.

• Institute a 2-cent fee (above postage)

for stamped cards.

Special Delivery

• Eliminate special delivery service.

See Direct Testimony of W. Ashley

Lyons on Behalf of United States Postal

Service (hereafter ‘‘USPS-T–1’’) at 4–5.

Effect on net revenue. Unlike the

Postal Service’s other recent

classification reform proposals, its

proposal in this docket is not intended

to have a neutral effect on its overall net

revenue. The Postal Service estimates

that if its proposals in this docket had

been in effect throughout FY 1996, they

would have increased system revenues

by $339.9 million while increasing

system costs by only $0.5 million, for a

net increase in system revenue of $339.4

million. USPS-T–1 at 8–9.

A request that would increase system

net revenue so substantially is normally

considered in an omnibus rate

proceeding.1 In this request the Postal