The Nuclear Regulatory Commission received a petition for rulemaking dated November 2, 1995, submitted by Portland General Electric Company. The petition was docketed as PRM-72-2 and published in the Federal Register , with a 75-day comment period, on February 1, 1996 (61 FR 3619).

The petitioner requested that the NRC amend 10 CFR Part 72 to add the authority to store radioactive waste that exceeds the concentration limits of radionuclides established for Class C waste in 10 CFR 61.55. 1 This material is commonly referred to as “greater than class C” waste or GTCC waste. GTCC waste is generally unsuitable for near-surface disposal as low-level waste (LLW), even though it is legally defined as LLW. 10 CFR 61.55(a)(2)(iv) requires that this type of waste be disposed of in a geologic repository unless approved for an alternative disposal method on a case-specific basis by the NRC.

The petitioner is an NRC-licensed utility responsible for the Trojan Nuclear Plant (Trojan). In the petition, the petitioner anticipated that it would need to dispose of GTCC waste during decommissioning. The decommissioning plan specifies the transfer of spent reactor fuel, currently being stored in the spent fuel pool, to an onsite Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) licensed under 10 CFR Part 72. The petitioner requested that 10 CFR Part 72 be revised to permit GTCC waste to be stored at the ISFSI pending transfer to a permanent disposal facility. The petitioner suggested that, because the need to provide interim storage for GTCC waste is not specific to Trojan but is generic, the regulations in 10 CFR Part 72 should be amended to explicitly provide for storage of GTCC waste in a licensed ISFSI. 2

The petitioner believes that storage of GTCC waste under 10 CFR Part 72 will ensure safe interim storage. This storage would provide for public health and safety and environmental protection as required for spent fuel located at an ISFSI or spent fuel and high-level waste stored at a Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation (MRS).

The specific changes proposed in the petition would explicitly include interim storage of GTCC waste within the Purpose, Scope, and Definitions sections of 10 CFR Part 72 in order to treat GTCC waste in a manner similar to that for spent nuclear fuel. The revised definitions would only apply to the interim storage of GTCC waste under the authority of 10 CFR Part 72.

If this rule is adopted in final form, the petition would be granted in part and denied in part. This proposed rule would grant the petitioner's request to authorize GTCC waste storage under a 10 CFR Part 72 license, but as discussed later, uses a different approach.

The notice of receipt of the petition for rulemaking invited interested persons to submit written comments concerning the petition. The NRC received six comment letters. Five comment letters were received from nuclear facilities and one from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). NEI provided another letter on this subject directly to the NRC Chairman on February 2, 1999, and the NRC responded on March 25, 1999. The comments were reviewed and considered in the development of NRC's decision on this petition. These comments are available in the NRC Public Document Room.

All six commenters supported the petition. Two of the commenters (Sacramento Municipal Utility District and Yankee Atomic Electric Company) are currently decommissioning their reactors.

As a result of the petition and the comment letters, the NRC developed a draft rulemaking plan to further consider the development of a rule that would meet the intent of the petition. In SECY-97-056, dated March 5, 1997, the NRC staff provided a draft rulemaking plan to the Commission outlining a rule that would modify 10 CFR Part 72 to allow storage of material, which when disposed of would be classified as GTCC waste, under the authority of 10 CFR Part 72 using the performance criteria of this part. As discussed in this draft rulemaking plan, currently licensees are authorized to store GTCC waste under the regulations in 10 CFR Part 30 and/or Part 70. Therefore, the draft rulemaking plan discussed adding an option to store GTCC waste under 10 CFR Part 72 while maintaining the existing option to store this waste using the authority of 10 CFR Parts 30 and 70. This plan was sent to the Agreement States for their comments on April 18, 1997. Four States provided comments—Illinois, New York, Texas, and Utah.

The draft rulemaking plan described how an ISFSI or an MRS might be regulated by both the NRC and an Agreement State (this is discussed in more detail in the Discussion section). The draft rulemaking plan did not require that the licensing jurisdiction for GTCC waste remain with NRC, but did suggest that Agreement States could voluntarily relinquish their licensing authority for GTCC waste stored at an ISFSI. The draft rulemaking plan specifically requested Agreement State input relative to their likelihood of voluntarily relinquishing their authority for licensing when an ISFSI or an MRS is used for storing GTCC waste.

Three of the four state commenters indicated that they were opposed to voluntarily relinquishing their authority and preferred to maintain their licensing authority for GTCC waste. One state supported the concept. One state commenter questioned that inefficiencies will result from Agreement State regulation of GTCC waste at a reactor site concurrent with NRC regulation of spent fuel remaining at the site. The commenter noted that similar situations already exist when LLW is stored at the site. Another state commenter noted that there “* * * have been many instances where an agreement state and NRC have effectively collaborated in the regulation of a single facility.” Another state commenter noted that the NRC recently informed the states that they could voluntarily relinquish their authority for sealed sources and devices and it was “* * *vehemently opposed to any rule that automatically usurps a state's licensing authority without the State's consent.”

Current NRC regulations are not clear on the acceptability of storing reactor-related GTCC waste co-located at an ISFSI or an MRS. Co-location is the storage of spent fuel and other radioactive material in their respective separate containers. This situation has created confusion and uncertainty on the part of decommissioning reactor licensees and may create inefficiency and inconsistency in the way the NRC handles GTCC waste licensing matters.

Currently, 10 CFR Part 50 licensees (Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities) are authorized to store all types of reactor-related radioactive materials, including material that, when disposed of, would be classified as GTCC waste. The GTCC waste portion is currently being stored either within the reactor vessel, in the spent fuel pool, or in a radioactive material storage area, pending development of a suitable permanent disposal facility. Reactor-related GTCC waste is typically in a solid form ( i.e., mostly activated metals) such as reactor vessel internals, nozzles, and in-core instrumentation. A small amount of GTCC waste may also be in the form of a sealed source that was used during the operation of the reactor. GTCC waste may consist of either byproduct material or special nuclear material. The authority to license the possession and storage of GTCC waste is contained within 10 CFR Part 30 for byproduct material and in 10 CFR Part 70 for special nuclear material. Under 10 CFR 50.52, the Commission may combine multiple licensing activities of an applicant that would otherwise be licensed individually in single licenses. Thus, the 10 CFR Part 50 license authorizing operation of production and utilization facilities currently includes, within it, the authorization to possess byproduct and special nuclear material that would otherwise need to be separately licensed under 10 CFR Parts 30 or 70.

Under current regulations, while a 10 CFR Part 50 license is in effect, a reactor licensee can store spent fuel generated at the reactor site under either a general license pusuant to 10 CFR 72.210 or a specific license pursuant to 10 CFR Part 72. In addition, the reactor licensee who has a 10 CFR Part 50 license, can store GTCC waste generated at the reactor site under the 10 CFR Parts 30 and 70 authority included in the 10 CFR Part 50 license.

Under current regulations, when the 10 CFR Part 50 license terminates, a reactor licensee can continue to store spent fuel generated at the reactor site under a specific license pursuant to 10 CFR Part 72. However, a general license under 10 CFR 72.210 would terminate because the 10 CFR Part 50 license has terminated, and the reactor licensee would need to apply for a specific license under 10 CFR Part 72 in order to continue to store spent fuel at the reactor site. Furthermore, the 10 CFR Parts 30 and 70 licenses included in the 10 CFR Part 50 licenses are also terminated when the 10 CFR Part 50 license terminates and the reactor licensee can only store GTCC waste by applying for a specific NRC license under 10 CFR Parts 30 and/or 70, or an equivalent Agreement State license if the facility is located in an Agreement State.

Under the proposed regulations, when a 10 CFR Part 50 license is terminated, the reactor licensee will only apply for an NRC license, but will have the option to store GTCC waste under either 10 CFR Part 72 or under 10 CFR Parts 30 and 70. This proposed regulation maintains Federal jurisdiction for GTCC waste under either approach (10 CFR Part 72 or 10 CFR Parts 30 and 70).

The proposed changes in this rulemaking would allow a 10 CFR Part 72 specific licensee to co-locate reactor-related GTCC waste within an ISFSI or an MRS. Applicants for a specific license would be required to provide a Safety Analysis Report (SAR) which would describe how the GTCC waste would be stored. The SAR would describe how structures, systems, and components that are important to safety are properly designed to allow the storage of GTCC waste within an ISFSI or MRS. There are no separate design criteria for GTCC waste storage containers. Safe storage of GTCC waste will be governed by the provisions of 10 CFR Parts 20 and 72. The applicant shall ensure that the co-location of this radioactive material does not have an adverse affect on the safe storage of spent fuel and the operation of the ISFSI. Based on an acceptable review of the SAR, the NRC would issue a 10 CFR Part 72 specific license. Current 10 CFR Part 72 specific license holders would be required to submit an application to amend their 10 CFR Part 72 license, if they desire to store GTCC waste at their ISFSI.

Under existing regulations, storage of GTCC waste at an ISFSI after termination of the reactor licensee's 10 CFR Part 50 license could lead to (1) NRC regulating the spent fuel at an ISFSI and (2) Agreement States regulating GTCC waste at the same location. The NRC has exclusive regulatory authority over a reactor licensee's storage of all radioactive material both spent fuel and of GTCC waste during the term of the 10 CFR Part 50 license. Once the 10 CFR Part 50 license is terminated an Agreement State would have authority for any GTCC waste stored by the utility.

The NRC believes that decommissioning activities at commercial nuclear power plants will generate relatively small volumes of GTCC waste relative to the amount of spent fuel that exists at these sites. GTCC waste exceeds the concentration limits of radionuclides established for Class C in §§ 61.55(a)(3)(ii), 61.55(a)(4)(iii), or 61.55(a)(5)(ii). GTCC waste is not generally acceptable for near-surface disposal at licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. There currently are no routine disposal options for GTCC waste. Because GTCC waste is unlikely to be disposed of at a LLW disposal site regulated under 10 CFR Part 61, the GTCC waste must be stored in the interim.

In general, reactor-related GTCC wastes can be grouped into two categories. The first is activated metals, irradiated metal components from nuclear reactors such as core shrouds, support plates, and core barrels. The second is process wastes such as filters and resins resulting from the operation and decommissioning of reactors. In addition, there may be a small amount of GTCC waste generated from other activities associated with the reactor's operation ( e.g., reactor start-up sources).

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 gave the Federal Government (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) the primary responsibility for developing a national strategy for disposal of GTCC waste. The Act also gave the NRC the licensing responsibility for a disposal facility for GTCC waste. Until a disposal facility is licensed, there is a need for interim storage of GTCC waste.

In the development of the proposed rule, the NRC has identified a potential policy issue associated with DOE's responsibility for the disposal of GTCC waste. Because DOE has not yet identified criteria or technical regulations for a disposal package for spent fuel or GTCC waste, the NRC is concerned that the commingling of spent fuel and GTCC waste ( i.e., the two types of waste stored within the same cask) may be unacceptable for permanent disposal in the geologic repository. In such a case, the spent fuel and GTCC waste would need to be removed from the storage container before the spent fuel is placed in the geologic repository.

The NRC desires to formulate regulations which both reduce radiological exposure and costs associated with repackaging the spent fuel and GTCC waste into two separate containers. Therefore, information from DOE on disposal polices will be helpful in developing commingling storage criteria for 10 CFR Part 72 (and enable the NRC to preclude a storage option that would be unacceptable for permanent disposal). Allowing commingling may be a technically safe and economical use of spent fuel storage cask space. The NRC staff has already reviewed and concluded, on a case-by-case basis, that GTCC waste in certain specific components associated with, and integral to, spent fuel ( e.g., burnable poison rod assemblies, control rod assemblies, and thimble plugs) can be safely stored in the same cask with spent fuel. For current and future reviews, the NRC has developed guidance for the storage of these specific components. The position in the proposed rule is to preclude commingling of other reactor-related GTCC waste not integral to the spent fuel assemblies.

The proposed rule also precludes storage of liquid GTCC waste under 10 CFR Part 72. However, there are alternatives for a 10 CFR Part 50 licensee that desires to terminate their license yet still possesses liquid GTCC waste. These alternatives include the licensee's submission of an application for a 10 CFR Part 30 or 70 license, with the appropriate conditions for storage of liquid GTCC waste, or the licensee's submission of a request for an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 72.

However, and as discussed below, the NRC is specifically requesting additional input from stakeholders, including DOE, to develop a more effective rulemaking. This includes commingling of GTCC waste and spent fuel (in an ISFSI) or spent fuel, high-level waste, and GTCC waste (in an MRS) and storage of potentially hazardous or liquid GTCC wastes.

The Commission is seeking input from stakeholders on various technical topics associated with the storage of GTCC waste. Submit responses to these questions as identified in the ADDRESSES section listed above.

The storage of GTCC waste at an ISFSI or MRS presents safety and technical issues that differ from those previously addressed by the NRC for the storage of spent fuel. For example, some forms of GTCC waste may be susceptible to radiolytic or thermal decomposition. Consequently, the design of a container for the storage of GTCC waste would need to consider the generation of gas or other products. Furthermore, chemical, galvanic, or thermal interactions may occur between GTCC waste, spent fuel, and the cask internals for GTCC waste and spent fuel stored in the same cask ( i.e , commingled).

Accordingly, the Commission is requesting comments from interested stakeholders on the following safety, technical or licensing issues. Guided by these comments, the Commission will consider these issues in the development of a final rule on the storage of GTCC waste under 10 CFR Part 72. Comments are not limited to the safety and technical issues listed below. Comments on proposed performance criteria for storage of GTCC waste are particularly requested. The performance criteria should ensure that systems, structures, and components (SSCs) which are important to safety will retain their ability to perform design functions during GTCC waste normal storage operations, anticipated occurrences, and accidents.

1. Should the storage of certain forms of GTCC waste and spent fuel in the same cask be prohibited? Or, should storage be permitted if performance criteria can be established? If so, what criteria should be used?

2. Should the storage of explosive, pyrophoric, combustible, or chemically reactive GTCC waste be prohibited in either commingled or separate GTCC casks? Or should storage be permitted if performance criteria can be established? If so, what criteria should be used?

3. Should the storage of GTCC that may generate or release gases via radiolytic or thermal decomposition, including flammable gases, be prohibited in either commingled or separate GTCC casks? Or should storage be permitted if performance criteria can be established? If so, what criteria should be used?

4. Should the storage of solid GTCC waste that may contain free liquid ( e.g. , dewatered resin) be prohibited in either commingled or separate GTCC casks? Or should storage be permitted if performance criteria can be established? If so, what criteria should be used?

5. Should the storage of liquid GTCC waste be prohibited in either commingled or separate GTCC casks? Or should storage be permitted if performance criteria can be established? If so, what criteria should be used?

6. If reactor licensees, after termination of their 10 CFR Part 50 license, elect to store reactor-related GTCC waste under the provisions of 10 CFR Parts 30/70, is additional guidance needed to provide a more efficient licensing process?

The NRC is proposing to modify 10 CFR Parts 72 and 150. The proposed changes to these parts are necessary to allow the interim storage of NRC-licensed reactor-related GTCC waste within an ISFSI or an MRS and to require that the licensing responsibility for this waste remain under Federal jurisdiction. This proposed action deals only with GTCC waste used or generated by a commercial power reactor licensed under 10 CFR Part 50 ( i.e. , not a research reactor) and does not include any other sources of GTCC waste nor does it include other forms of LLW generated under a 10 CFR Part 50 license. Because reactor-related GTCC waste is initially under Federal jurisdiction while the reactor facility is operated and the ultimate disposal of GTCC waste is also under Federal jurisdiction, the NRC believes that the interim period between termination of a reactor license and ultimate disposal should also remain under Federal jurisdiction. GTCC waste could become eligible for disposal in a geologic repository in the future. Spent fuel can be stored in an ISFSI or a MRS pending ultimate disposal. Therefore, for efficiency and consistency of licensing, the NRC believes that 10 CFR Part 72 should be modified to also allow the storage of GTCC waste within these facilities under NRC's jurisdiction. The existing regulatory scheme, which would allow for Federal-State-Federal jurisdiction over the generation, interim storage, and disposal of GTCC, waste is an inefficient approach. It is inefficient for NRC and an Agreement State to both spend scarce resources to license and inspect an ISFSI that stores both spent fuel and GTCC waste. Additionally, 10 CFR Part 150 would require conforming changes.

This proposed rule would allow storage of reactor-related GTCC waste under a 10 CFR Part 72 specific license. The proposed changes would modify 10 CFR Part 72 to allow storage of GTCC waste under this part using the performance criteria of 10 CFR Part 72 (General Design Criteria in Subpart F). This would provide a more efficient means of implementing what is essentially already permitted by the regulations (storage of GTCC waste co-located at an ISFSI or an MRS). When storing spent fuel and GTCC waste within an ISFSI or MRS, the licensee or applicant must provide a description of how storage of the GTCC waste will not have an adverse effect on the ISFSI or MRS or on public health and safety and the environment.

The proposed rule would not eliminate the current availability of storing GTCC waste under the authority of a 10 CFR Part 30 or 70 license. Neither 10 CFR Parts 30 nor 70 include explicit criteria for storage of GTCC waste. Therefore, a licensing process conducted under these regulations would be more complicated and resource intensive because the licensee would need to develop new proposed storage criteria and the NRC would then need to review and approve these criteria within the licensing process. If this approach is followed, the NRC is proposing that Federal jurisdiction would be retained over the reactor-related GTCC waste stored under 10 CFR Parts 30 and 70.

Comparing these two approaches, the NRC recognizes that the licensing process will be simpler with less regulatory burden if all the radioactive waste to be stored at an ISFSI or MRS is stored under the authority of one 10 CFR Part 72 license. 10 CFR Part 72 was developed specifically for storage of spent fuel at an ISFSI and spent fuel and high-level waste at an MRS. The general storage criteria of 10 CFR Part 72 will be applied to GTCC waste storage. Under 10 CFR Parts 30 and 70, GTCC waste storage criteria would need to be developed on a case-by-case basis to support licensing under these parts. Also, using 10 CFR Part 72 to store reactor-related GTCC waste would eliminate the need for multiple licenses for the storage of spent fuel and GTCC waste.

Moreover, the NRC is still evaluating technical issues arising from the commingling of spent fuel and reactor-related GTCC waste in the same storage container and issues arising from the storage of reactor-related liquid GTCC waste, under a 10 CFR Part 72 specific license. Therefore, this proposed rule would permit the co-locating of spent fuel and solid reactor-related GTCC waste in different casks and containers within an ISFSI or MRS. However, the proposed rule is not structured to permit the commingling of spent fuel and GTCC waste in the same storage cask, except for specific components associated with, and integral to, the spent fuel. Additionally, this proposed rule is not structured to permit the storage of liquid reactor-related GTCC waste. However, a licensee or applicant may submit an exemption request pursuant to § 72.7 for approval for commingling of spent fuel and solid reactor-related GTCC waste in the same storage cask, or storing liquid reactor-related GTCC waste. The NRC will review and approve these types of requests on a case-by-case basis. As stated above, the NRC is still evaluating these technical issues and as noted earlier is asking for additional input during the public comment period for use in the development of the final rule.

Without this change, after termination of the 10 CFR Part 50 license, a licensee would need multiple licenses—10 CFR Part 72 for spent fuel and 10 CFR Part 30 or 70 (or both) for GTCC waste. Having one license for the ISFSI (or MRS) under 10 CFR Part 72 will be simpler for both licensees and the NRC, relative to approval and management.

The NRC believes that the concept proposed in the petition of storing GTCC waste under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 72 is valid. However, the NRC also believes that the method proposed by the petitioner, that is modifying the definition of spent fuel to include GTCC waste, could lead to confusion. Modifying the definition of spent fuel would only apply to spent fuel as defined under 10 CFR Part 72 and would not be technically accurate.

Therefore, the NRC is proposing to add a definition of GTCC waste within § 72.3 that would be consistent with 10 CFR 61.55. The NRC has evaluated 10 CFR Part 72 to determine which sections need to be modified to accommodate storage of solid GTCC waste co-located with spent fuel within an ISFSI or an MRS. The majority of the changes to 10 CFR Part 72 would simply add the term “GTCC waste” to the appropriate sections and paragraphs (typically immediately after the terms “spent fuel” or “high-level waste”). Section 72.120 would be revised to require that GTCC waste be in a solid form. The NRC anticipates issuing guidance on the storage of GTCC waste under 10 CFR Part 72 in conjunction with issuance of the final rule.

10 CFR Part 150 would be modified to be consistent with the changes proposed for 10 CFR Part 72. The proposed change to 10 CFR Part 150 (Exemptions and Continued Regulatory Authority in Agreement States and in Offshore Waters Under Section 274) would specify that any GTCC waste stored in an ISFSI or an MRS is under NRC jurisdiction. This Part would also be modified to indicate that licensing the storage of any GTCC waste that originates in, or is used by, a facility licensed under 10 CFR Part 50 (a production utilization facility) is the responsibility of the NRC.

The NRC will continue to recover costs for generic activities related to the storage of GTCC waste under 10 CFR Part 72 through 10 CFR Part 171 annual fees assessed to the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning class of licensees. Subsequent to issuing the final revision to 10 CFR Part 72, 10 CFR Part 170 will be amended to clarify that full costs fees will be assessed for amendments and inspections related to the storage of GTCC waste under 10 CFR Part 72.

Section 274(c)1 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, provides that no agreement entered into by the NRC with a State “shall provide for discontinuance of any authority and the Commission shall retain authority and responsibility with respect to regulation of—(1) the construction and operation of any production or utilization facility or any uranium enrichment facility.” The NRC has incorporated this statutory prohibition into its regulations in 10 CFR 150.15(a) and (a)(1) which states that:

Specifically, with regard to the storage of reactor-related GTCC waste, the NRC proposes continued Federal authority over the GTCC waste after termination of the 10 CFR Part 50 license. Thus, under the option of obtaining 10 CFR Part 30 and/or 70 licenses, the GTCC waste would remain under Federal authority. If the option of obtaining a specific license under 10 CFR Part 72 is chosen, the GTCC waste would also remain under Federal authority. This licensing authority would be irrespective of the physical location of the storage facility (either on or off the originating reactor site).

However, this proposed rule is not intended to change other current responsibilities for Class A, B, and C reactor-related LLW after termination of the 10 CFR Part 50 license. In addition, under 10 CFR 72.128(b), any LLW generated by the ISFSI (or an MRS) must be treated and stored onsite awaiting transfer to a disposal site. The licensing authority for treatment and storage of ISFSI or MRS generated LLW would be under 10 CFR Part 72, and therefore, reserved to the NRC.

From a practical matter, the NRC believes that because, under section 3(b)(1)(D) of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, the NRC must license the facility selected by DOE for disposal of GTCC waste, and because the NRC has jurisdiction over GTCC waste while the 10 CFR Part 50 facility is operated, it makes little sense for Agreement States to assume regulatory authority and responsibility over reactor-related GTCC waste that is surrounded on all sides by Federal regulatory authority and responsibility.

The following section is provided to assist the reader in understanding the specific changes made to each section or paragraph in 10 CFR Parts 72 and 150. For clarity of content in reading a section, much of that particular section may be repeated, although only a minor change would be made. Using this section should allow the reader to effectively review the specific changes without reviewing existing material that has been included for content, but has not been significantly changed.

The title to 10 CFR Part 72 would be revised to include GTCC waste.

The following sections or paragraphs would be revised to specify the inclusion of GTCC waste, for clarity, or for completeness: §§ 72.1, 72.2(a) and (c), 72.6(a) and (c), 72.8, 72.16(d), 72.22(e)(3), 72.24 introductory text and (i), 72.28(d), 72.30(a), 72.40(b), 72.44(b)(4), (c)(3)(i), (c)(5), (d) and (g)(2), 72.52(b)(2), (c), and (e), 72.54(c)(1), 72.60(c), 72.72(a), (b), and (d), 72.75(b), (c), (d)(1)(iv), and (d)(2)(ii)(L), 72.76(a), 72.78(a), 72.80(g), 72.82(a) and (b), 72.106(b), 72.108 title and text, 72.122(b)(2), (h)(2), (h)(5), (i), and (l), 72.128 title and (a), and 72.140(c)(2).

Section 72.3: The definition for GTCC waste would be added to 10 CFR Part 72 and the definitions of Design capacity, Independent spent fuel storage installation or ISFSI, Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation or MRS, Spent fuel storage cask or cask, and Structures, systems, and components important to safety, would be revised to specify the inclusion of GTCC waste.

Paragraph 72.24(r): This new paragraph would specify compatibility and suitability of storage of reactor-related GTCC waste at an ISFSI or MRS. This requirement would ensure that the co-location of this radioactive material does not have an adverse affect on the safe storage of spent fuel and the operation of the facility.

Section 72.120: This section has been modified to provide some general considerations for the storage of GTCC waste within an ISFSI or MRS.

Paragraph 150.15(a)(7)(i) and (ii): This essentially repeats the existing paragraphs, but would be revised for consistency with the new § 150.15(a)(7)(iii).

Paragraph 150.15(a)(7)(iii): This new paragraph would specify that the storage of reactor-related GTCC waste within an ISFSI or an MRS licensed pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 and/or Part 72 is exempt from Agreement State authority.

Paragraph 150.15(a)(8): This new paragraph would specify that the storage of reactor-related GTCC waste licensed under 10 CFR Part 30 and/or Part 70 is exempt from Agreement State authority.

In the NRC's proposed rule, “Clarification and Addition of Flexibility to Part 72” (64 FR 59677; November 3, 1999), additional changes are being proposed to 10 CFR Part 72. Some of the sections being revised by the “Clarification” rulemaking may also be changed to specify the inclusion of GTCC waste depending upon how this rule is finalized. The changes proposed in this rulemaking are based upon the current 10 CFR Part 72 text. The final GTCC rulemaking will incorporate necessary conforming changes based on the final “Clarification” rulemaking.

Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), 10 CFR Part 72 and § 150.15 continue to be classified as compatibility Category “NRC.” The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The Commission is particularly interested in the position of the Agreement States on issues raised in this proposed rule. Specifically, the Commission would like Agreement State comment on the following questions:

1. What is the position of the Agreement States on NRC assuming jurisdiction of storage of GTCC waste generated during the operation of a 10 CFR Part 50 license after termination of the 10 CFR Part 50 license?

2. What controls and regulatory framework would the Agreement States envision assuming they have jurisdiction over GTCC waste generated during the operation under a 10 CFR Part 50 license after termination of the 10 CFR Part 50 license? How would the Agreement States plan to ensure consistency with a national regulatory scheme?

3. The NRC staff is not aware of any current Agreement State license for the storage of reactor-related GTCC waste. Are there any such licenses within your State or are you aware of any such Agreement State licenses?

The Presidential Memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” directed that the Federal government's writing be in plain language. This memorandum was published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). In complying with this directive, editorial changes have been made in the proposed revision to improve the organization and readability of the existing language of paragraphs being revised. These types of changes are not discussed further in this document. The NRC requests comments on the proposed rule specifically with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used. Comments should be sent to the address listed under the ADDRESSES heading.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-113, requires that agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this proposed rule, the NRC is presenting amendments to its regulations that would allow the licensing of interim storage of GTCC waste. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that establishes generally-applicable requirements and the use of a voluntary consensus standard is not applicable.

The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The proposed rule would provide reactor licensees an additional option of storing GTCC waste under a 10 CFR Part 72 license using spent fuel storage criteria of that part. Storage of GTCC waste at an ISFSI or an MRS would be in a passive mode with no human intervention needed for safe storage. The draft Environmental Assessment determined that there is no significant environmental impact as a result of the proposed changes.

The NRC has sent a copy of the draft environmental assessment and this proposed rule to every State Liaison Officer and every Agreement State and requested their comments on the environmental assessment. The draft environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the environmental assessment and the finding of no significant impact are available from Mark Haisfield, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6196.

This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the information collection requirements.

The public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the information collection. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the information collections contained in the proposed rule and on the following issues:

1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the information will have practical utility?

2. Is the estimate of burden accurate?

3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?

4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques?

Send comments on any aspect of this proposed information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Records Management Branch (T-6 E6), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail at BJS1@NRC.GOV; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0132), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Comments to OMB on the information collections or on the above issues should be submitted by July 17, 2000. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.

If a means used to impose an information collection does not display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection.

The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The draft analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the draft analysis may be obtained from Mark Haisfield, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6196.

The Commission requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. The proposed amendments would apply to reactor licensees, ISFSI licensees, certificate holders, applicants for a Certificate of Compliance, and DOE. The majority, if not all, of these licensees would not qualify as small entities under the NRC's size standards (10 CFR 2.810).

Any small entity subject to this regulation which determines that, because of its size, it is likely to bear a disproportionate adverse economic impact should notify the Commission of this in a comment that indicates the following:

(a) The licensee's size and how the proposed regulation would result in a significant economic burden upon the licensee as compared to the economic burden on a larger licensee.

(b) How the proposed regulations could be modified to take into account the licensee's differing needs or capabilities.

(c) The benefits that would accrue, or the detriments that would be avoided, if the proposed regulations were modified as suggested by the licensee.

(d) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would more closely equalize the impact of regulations or create more equal access to the benefits of Federal programs as opposed to providing special advantages to any individual or group.

(e) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would still adequately protect public health and safety.

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109 and 72.62, do not apply to this proposed rule, and therefore, a backfit analysis is not required because these amendments do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1) or 72.62(a). This proposed rule would not require licensees to use 10 CFR Part 72 to store GTCC waste. It provides a practical option with criteria that licensees may use. It does not preclude, or change, use of 10 CFR Parts 30 and 70 as a licensing mechanism to store GTCC waste. The NRC anticipates that storage of GTCC waste licensed under 10 CFR Part 72 can simplify the licensing process, for both licensees and the NRC, with no significant impact to public health and safety or the environment.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 72 and 150.

Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 99-NM-345-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-NM-345-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.

On April 24, 1997, the FAA issued AD 97-09-12, amendment 39-10008 (62 FR 24013, May 2, 1997), applicable to all Raytheon Model DH.125-1A, -3A, and -400A series airplanes, to require a one-time inspection to detect scoring of the upper fuselage skin around the periphery of the cockpit canopy blister interface, and repair, if necessary. That action was prompted by reports indicating that scoring of the upper fuselage skin had been detected in the area. The requirements of that AD are intended to detect and correct scoring of the upper fuselage skin around the periphery of the cockpit canopy blister interface, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage, and consequent cabin depressurization.

Since the issuance of that AD, the FAA has received numerous reports indicating that scoring has been detected on the upper fuselage skin around the periphery of the cockpit canopy blister interface. Investigation revealed that the scoring was caused by the use of an improper tool (Exacto knife), which was used to remove excess sealant along the interface of the fuselage skin and the cockpit canopy. In light of these additional reports, the FAA has determined that certain Raytheon Model BH.125, DH.125, and HS.125 series airplanes may be subject to the identified unsafe condition.

The FAA has reviewed and approved Raytheon Aircraft Service Bulletin SB 53-93, Revision 2, dated April 2000. The inspection and repair procedures described in this revision are identical to those described in the original issue of the service bulletin (which is referenced in AD 97-09-12). However, this revision expands the effectivity listing to include additional airplanes that are subject to the addressed unsafe condition.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would supersede AD 97-09-12 to continue to require a one-time inspection to detect scoring of the upper fuselage skin around the periphery of the cockpit canopy blister interface, and repair, if necessary. This action would expand the applicability of the existing AD to include additional airplanes that may also be subjected to the identified unsafe condition. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described previously.

There are approximately 290 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 200 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.

The actions that are currently required by AD 97-09-12 and retained in this proposed AD would take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $48,000, or $240 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.

The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00-AGL-17.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Rules docket, FAA, Great Lakes Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484. Communications must identify the docket number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the application procedure.

The FAA is considering an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to modify Class E airspace at Dickinson, ND, by incorporating the correct airport reference point for Dickinson Municipal Airport into the controlled airspace legal descriptions. Controlled airspace extending upward from the surface of the earth is needed to contain aircraft executing instrument approach procedures. The area would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas designated as surface areas are published in paragraph 6002 and Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9G dated September 1, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an establishment body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore this, proposed regulation—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00-AGL-19.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Rules docket, FAA, Great Lakes Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484. Communications must identify the docket number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the application procedure.

The FAA is considering an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish Class E airspace at Soldiers Grove, WI, by creating controlled airspace for Leeward Farm Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth is needed to contain aircraft executing instrument approach procedures. The area would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9G dated September 1, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involved an establishment body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore this, proposed regulation— (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00-AGL-18.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Rules Docket, FAA, Great Lakes Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affiars, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484. Communications must identify the docket number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the application procedure.

The FAA is considering an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to modify Class E airspace at Frankfort, MI, for Frankfort Dow Memorial Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth is needed to contain aircraft executing instrument approach procedures. The area would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9G dated September 1, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an establishment body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore this, proposed regulation—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, OP:FS:FP, Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by August 15, 2000. Comments are specifically requested concerning:

Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the IRS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information (see below);

How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced;

How the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

The collection of information in this proposed regulation is in §§ 1.6050S-1 and 1.6050S-2. In general, eligible educational institutions and insurers must file a Form 1098-T, “Tuition Payments Statement,” with the IRS for each individual with respect to whom payments of qualified tuition and related expenses were received, or reimbursements or refunds of such expenses were made, and furnish an information statement to such individual. This collection of information is required in order to assist the IRS and taxpayers in calculating the amount of any education tax credit allowable under section 25A. In addition, payees who receive from any payor interest payments aggregating $600 or more on one or more qualified education loans must file a Form 1098-E, “Student Loan Interest Statement,” with the IRS and furnish an information statement to the payor. This collection of information is required in order to assist the IRS and taxpayers in calculating the amount of any student loan interest deduction allowable under section 221. The likely respondents are businesses or other for-profit institutions and nonprofit institutions.

Estimated total annual reporting burden for 1998 for Form 1098-T: 2,419,438 hours.

Estimated average annual burden hours per response for Form 1098-T: 7 minutes.

Estimated number of responses for 1998 for Form 1098-T: 20,738,039.

Estimated annual frequency of responses: Once.

Estimated total annual reporting burden for 1998 for Form 1098-E: 437,691 hours.

Estimated average annual burden hours per response for Form 1098-E: 3 minutes.

Estimated number of responses for 1998 for Form 1098-E: 8,753,819.

Estimated annual frequency of responses: Once.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.

Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

This document contains proposed amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) relating to information reporting requirements under section 6050S. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34 (111 Stat. 788) (TRA '97)) added section 25A of the Internal Revenue Code to provide the Hope Scholarship Credit and the Lifetime Learning Credit (education tax credits). In general, the Hope Scholarship Credit and the Lifetime Learning Credit allow certain taxpayers who pay qualified tuition and related expenses to an eligible educational institution to claim a nonrefundable credit against their Federal income tax liability. On January 6, 1999, the IRS issued proposed regulations under section 25A. See 64 FR 794 (1999).

TRA '97 also added section 221 of the Internal Revenue Code to allow certain taxpayers who pay interest on qualified education loans to claim a Federal income tax deduction for their interest payments. In general, a deduction is allowed for interest payments made during the first 60 months in which interest payments are required on a qualified education loan. However, no interest deduction is allowed for any interest paid before January 1, 1998. On January 21, 1999, the IRS issued proposed regulations under section 221. See 64 FR 3257 (1999).

In addition, TRA '97 added section 6050S of the Internal Revenue Code, which requires eligible educational institutions to file information returns and to furnish written information statements to assist taxpayers and the IRS in determining any education tax credit allowable under section 25A. Similarly, section 6050S requires any person engaged in a trade or business of making payments to any individual under an insurance agreement as reimbursements or refunds of qualified tuition and related expenses to file information returns and to furnish written information statements. Lastly, section 6050S requires certain payees who receive payments of interest on one or more qualified education loans to file information returns and to furnish written information statements to assist taxpayers and the IRS in determining any interest deduction allowable under section 221.

The IRS has published several notices prescribing limited information reporting for eligible educational institutions for the years 1998, 1999, and 2000. On December 22, 1997, the IRS published Notice 97-73 (1997-2 C.B. 335), which describes the information that an eligible educational institution must report for 1998. On September 8, 1998, the IRS published Notice 98-46 (1998-36 I.R.B. 21), which extends the application of Notice 97-73 to information returns required under section 6050S for 1999. On December 7, 1998, the IRS published Notice 98-59 (1998-49 I.R.B. 16), which modifies the prior Notices by providing that an institution is not required to file information returns for students who are: (1) Enrolled during the year only in courses for which the student receives no academic credit; or (2) nonresident alien students, unless the student requests the institution to report. On July 26, 1999, the IRS published Notice 99-37 (1999-30 I.R.B. 124), which extends the application of Notice 97-73 (as modified) to information returns required under section 6050S for 2000.

In addition, the IRS has published several notices describing the information reporting for certain payees who receive interest on qualified education loans during the years 1998, 1999, and 2000. On January 20, 1998, the IRS published Notice 98-7 (1998-3 I.R.B. 54), which describes the information reporting required under section 6050S for 1998. On November 16, 1998, the IRS published Notice 98-54 (1998-46 I.R.B. 25), which modifies Notice 98-7 to reflect a technical change to section 221 made by the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-206 (112 Stat. 685)), and extends the application of Notice 98-7 (as modified) to information reporting required under section 6050S for 1999. On July 26, 1999, the IRS published Notice 99-37, which extends the application of Notice 98-7 (as modified) to information returns required under section 6050S for 2000.

This document also contains proposed amendments to the Regulations on Procedure and Administration (26 part 301) relating to the filing of information returns on magnetic media under section 6011(e). Section 6011(e) authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations providing the standards for determining which returns must be filed on magnetic media. Section 6011(e)(2)(A) provides that the Secretary shall not require any person to file returns on magnetic media unless the person is required to file at least 250 returns during the calendar year. Section 6011(e)(2)(B) provides that, in prescribing regulations, the Secretary shall consider the ability of the taxpayer to comply at reasonable cost with the requirements of the regulations.

The proposed regulations require an eligible educational institution (as defined in section 25A(f)(2) and the regulations thereunder) (an institution) that receives payments of qualified tuition and related expenses (as defined in section 25A(f)(1) and the regulations thereunder) with respect to any individual, or makes reimbursements or refunds of such amounts, to file a Form 1098-T with the IRS. In addition, the proposed regulations require any person engaged in a trade or business of making payments under an insurance arrangement as reimbursements or refunds (or other similar amounts) of qualified tuition and related expenses (an insurer) to file a Form 1098-T with the IRS.

Under the proposed regulations, the following information must be reported on Form 1098-T: (a) The name, address, and taxpayer identification number (TIN) (as defined in section 7701(a)(41)) of the institution or the insurer; (b) the name, address, and TIN of the individual with respect to whom payments of qualified tuition and related expenses were received, or reimbursements or refunds were made; (c) the aggregate amount of payments of qualified tuition and related expenses from any source that the institution received with respect to the individual during the calendar year; (d) the aggregate amount of reimbursements or refunds of qualified tuition and related expenses that the institution or insurer made with respect to the individual during the calendar year; (e) the aggregate amount of any scholarships or grants that the institution processed during the calendar year for the payment of the individual's costs of attendance; (f) an indication by the institution whether the individual was enrolled for at least half of the normal full-time work load for the course of study the individual is pursuing for at least one academic period that begins during the calendar year; (g) an indication by the institution whether the individual was enrolled in a program leading to a graduate-level degree, graduate-level certificate, or other recognized graduate-level educational credential; and (h) any other information required by Form 1098-T and its instructions.

The proposed regulations reserve the requirement in section 6050S(b)(2)(B) that an institution or insurer obtain and report the name, address, and TIN of any taxpayer who will claim the individual with respect to whom payments are received, or reimbursements or refunds are made, as a dependent for purposes of the deduction allowable under section 151 for the taxable year. Thus, under the proposed regulations, there is no requirement to obtain and report the name, address, and TIN of any taxpayer who will claim the individual as a dependent on the taxpayer's Federal income tax return.

Consistent with the exceptions to required reporting in Notice 98-59, the proposed regulations provide that an institution or insurer is not required to file a Form 1098-T for an individual who is a nonresident alien, unless the individual requests that the institution or insurer report. In addition, an institution is not required to file a Form 1098-T for an individual who is enrolled during the calendar year only in courses for which the individual receives no academic credit. Under the proposed regulations, the term academic credit means credit awarded by an institution for the completion of coursework leading toward a post-secondary degree, certificate, or other recognized post-secondary educational credential.

The proposed regulations provide that, in determining the payments for qualified tuition and related expenses that an institution must report, payments received with respect to an individual from any source (except for any scholarship or grant that, by its terms, must be applied to expenses other than qualified tuition and related expenses, such as room and board) are treated as payments of qualified tuition and related expenses up to the total amount billed for such expenses.

The proposed regulations provide that an institution or insurer must furnish an information statement to each individual for whom it is required to file a Form 1098-T. The proposed regulations provide that the statement must include the information included on the Form 1098-T filed with the IRS and a legend that identifies the statement as important tax information being furnished to the IRS. The statement must include instructions that state that the taxpayer may not be able to claim an education tax credit under section 25A and the regulations thereunder with respect to the total payments of qualified tuition and related expenses reported for the calendar year. The instructions must state that the amount of the scholarships, grants, reimbursements, or refunds reported for the calendar year and other similar amounts not reported (because they are not processed by the institution) may reduce the amount of any allowable education tax credit for the taxable year or a prior taxable year. The instructions must state that the taxpayer should refer to relevant IRS forms and publications (such as Form 8863, “Education Credits,” and Publication 970, “Tax Benefits for Higher Education”) for explanations relating to the eligibility requirements for, and the calculation of, any allowable education tax credit.

The proposed regulations reserve the requirement in section 6050S(d) that an institution or insurer furnish a statement to any taxpayer who will claim the individual with respect to whom payments are received, or reimbursements or refunds are made, as a dependent for purposes of the deduction allowable under section 151 for the taxable year. Thus, under the proposed regulations, there is no requirement to furnish a statement to any taxpayer who will claim the individual as a dependent on the taxpayer's Federal income tax return.

The proposed regulations describe the rules for the time and manner of filing information returns with the IRS and furnishing information statements. Forms 1098-T must generally be filed with the IRS on or before February 28 (March 31 if filed electronically) of the year following the calendar year in which the payments were received, or reimbursements or refunds were made. In general, an institution or insurer must furnish an information statement to each individual with respect to whom payments of qualified tuition and related expenses were received, or reimbursements or refunds were made, on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year in which payments were received, or reimbursements or refunds were made. Although the regulations do not specifically address the issue of electronic transmission of information statements, the IRS is currently studying the issue. Accordingly, the IRS may address that issue in future guidance.

Under the proposed regulations, an institution or insurer may be subject to a penalty under section 6721 for failure to file correct Forms 1098-T and a penalty under section 6722 for failure to furnish correct information statements. The proposed regulations generally follow the rules under section 6724 for waivers of penalties for certain failures due to reasonable cause. The regulations also provide special rules for soliciting an individual's TIN. An institution or insurer that complies with those rules will not be penalized for any failure to obtain or include a correct TIN on a Form 1098-T or the related information statement.

The proposed regulations require any person engaged in a trade or business that receives from any payor interest of $600 or more for any calendar year on one or more qualified education loans (as defined in section 221(e)(1) and the regulations thereunder) (a payee) to file a Form 1098-E with the IRS. Under the proposed regulations, a payee must report the name, address, and taxpayer identification number (TIN) of the payee; the name, address, and TIN of the payor; and the aggregate amount of interest received during the calendar year from the payor. The payee may be the lender, the holder of the loan, or the loan servicer. The regulations define the payor as the individual carried on the books and records of the payee as the borrower on a qualified education loan. If there are multiple borrowers, the principal borrower indicated on the payee's books and records is treated as the payor for purposes of section 6050S.

Under the proposed regulations, a payee is required to report only interest payments received on a qualified education loan during the first 60 months in which interest payments are required on the loan. The proposed regulations, in general, incorporate the rules of section 221 and the regulations thereunder to determine the 60-month period for which interest payments must be reported. Under the proposed regulations, the 60-month period generally begins on the date the qualified education loan first enters repayment status. However, for qualified education loans made before January 1, 1998, if the payee does not know, and does not have reason to know, the date on which the loan entered repayment status, then, for information reporting purposes, the 60-month period begins on January 1, 1998. For defaulted loans made before January 1, 1998, if the payee does not know, and does not have reason to know, the date on which the loan entered repayment status, then, for information reporting purposes, the 60-month period begins on the earlier of the date the loan went into default or January 1, 1998. If the payee does not know, and does not have reason to know, either the date the loan entered repayment status or the default date, then, for information reporting purposes, the 60-month period begins on January 1, 1998.

The proposed regulations provide that, in determining the aggregate amount of interest payments to be reported by a payee, the term interest includes stated interest, loan origination fees (other than any fees for services), and capitalized interest as described in proposed regulations § 1.221-1(h)(2). However, in order to provide payees sufficient time to develop systems to report amounts other than stated interest, the proposed regulations do not require payees to report loan origination fees and capitalized interest for loans made before January 1, 2002.

The proposed regulations provide rules to determine which loans are qualified education loans subject to information reporting under section 6050S. The regulations provide that, unless the loan is subsidized, guaranteed, financed, or otherwise treated as a student loan under a program of the Federal, state, or local government or an eligible educational institution, the payee must request and obtain a certification from the payor that the loan will be used solely to pay qualified higher education expenses. The regulations provide that the payee may use Form W-9S, “Request for Student's Social Security Number and Borrower Certification,” to request and obtain the certification. If a payee fails to obtain a required certification, the loan is not treated as a qualified education loan for purposes of section 6050S.

The proposed regulations provide that a payee must furnish an information statement to each payor for whom it is required to file a Form 1098-E. The proposed regulations provide that the statement must include the information included on the Form 1098-E filed with the IRS and a legend that identifies the statement as important tax information being furnished to the IRS. The statement must include instructions that state that, under section 221 and the regulations thereunder, the payor may not be able to deduct the full amount of interest reported on the statement. The instructions must state that interest payments are deductible only during the first 60-months that interest payments are required. If the payee reports only stated interest, the instructions must state that the payor may be able to deduct additional amounts ( e.g. , certain loan origination fees and capitalized interest) not reported on the statement. The instructions must also state that the payor should refer to relevant IRS forms and publications (such as Publication 970) for explanations relating to the eligibility requirements for, and the calculation of, any allowable interest deduction on qualified education loans.

The proposed regulations describe the rules for the time and manner of filing information returns with the IRS and furnishing information statements to payors. Forms 1098-E must generally be filed with the IRS on or before February 28 (March 31 if filed electronically) of the year following the calendar year in which the interest payments were received. In general, a payee must furnish an information statement to the payor on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year in which interest payments were received. Although the regulations do not specifically address the issue of electronic transmission of information statements, the IRS is currently studying the issue. Accordingly, the IRS may address that issue in future guidance.

Under the proposed regulations, a payee may be subject to a penalty under section 6721 for failure to file correct Forms 1098-E and a penalty under section 6722 for a failure to furnish correct information statements. The proposed regulations generally follow the rules under section 6724 for waivers of penalties for certain failures due to reasonable cause. The regulations also provide special rules for soliciting the payor's TIN. A payee that complies with those rules will not be penalized for any failure to obtain or include a correct TIN on a Form 1098-E or the related information statement.

The proposed regulations amend the regulations under section 6011(e) to require eligible educational institutions, insurers, and payees who are required to file 250 or more Forms 1098-T or 1098-E to file on magnetic media. Under § 301.6011-2(a)(1), the term magnetic media means any media permitted under applicable regulations, revenue procedures, or publications, including magnetic tape, tape cartridge, and diskette, as well as other media (such as electronic filing).

These regulations are proposed to apply to information returns required to be filed, and information statements required to be furnished, after December 31, 2001. Taxpayers may rely on these proposed regulations for guidance pending the issuance of final regulations. If, and to the extent, future guidance is more restrictive than the guidance in the proposed regulations, the future guidance will be applied without retroactive effect.

It has been determined that these proposed regulations are not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared for this notice of proposed rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 603 and is set forth under the heading “Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis” in this preamble. Pursuant to section 7805(f), this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

The collection of information contained in §§ 1.6050S-1(a) and (b) and 1.6050S-2(a) and (c) is needed to assist the IRS and taxpayers in determining the amount of any education credit allowable under section 25A and the amount of any interest deduction allowable under section 221. The objectives of the proposed regulations are to provide uniform, practicable, and administrable rules under section 6050S. The types of small entities to which the proposed regulations may apply are small eligible educational institutions (such as colleges and universities), certain insurers who reimburse educational expenses, and certain payees who receive payments of interest on qualified education loans. As of the end of December 1999, a total of 20,738,039 Forms 1098-T were filed with the IRS for 1998 and a total of 8,753,819 Forms 1098-E were filed with the IRS for 1998. The current estimated reporting burden is 7 minutes per Form 1098-T and 3 minutes per Form 1098-E. No special professional skills are necessary for preparation of the reports or records. There are no known Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with these proposed regulations. The regulations proposed are considered to have the least economic impact on small entities of all alternatives considered.

Moreover, the proposed regulations requiring filing Forms 1098-T and 1098-E on magnetic media impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping and only prescribe the method of filing information returns that are already required to be filed. Further, these regulations are consistent with the statutory requirement that an eligible educational institution, insurer, or payee is not required to file Forms 1098-T or 1098-E on magnetic media unless required to file at least 250 or more returns during the year. Finally, the economic impact caused by requiring Forms 1098-T and 1098-E on magnetic media should be minimal because most institution's, insurer's, and payee's operations are computerized. Even if their operations are not computerized, the incremental cost of magnetic media reporting should be minimal in most cases because of the availability of computer service bureaus. In addition, the existing regulations under section 6011(e) provide that the IRS may waive the magnetic media filing requirements on a showing of hardship. The waiver authority will be exercised so as not to unduly burden institutions, insurers, and payees lacking both the necessary data processing facilities and access at a reasonable cost to computer service bureaus.

Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written and electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury specifically request comments on the clarity of the proposed regulations and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying.

A public hearing will be scheduled in the Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The IRS recognizes that persons outside the Washington, DC, area may also wish to testify at the public hearing through videoconferencing. Requests to include videoconferencing sites must be received by August 15, 2000. If the IRS receives sufficient indications of interest to warrant videoconferencing to a particular city, and if the IRS has videoconferencing facilities available in that city on the date the public hearing is to be scheduled, the IRS will try to accommodate the requests.

The IRS will publish the time and date of the public hearing and the locations of any videoconferencing sites in a document in the Federal Register .

The principal author of the regulations is Donna Welch, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in the development of the regulations.

Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 301 are proposed to be amended as follows:

This pilot project assesses the appropriateness of designating the sludges resulting from the treatment of the wastewaters generated by the copper metallization process as a listed hazardous waste (F006), and to characterize those factors that may determine whether similar metallization processes should also be exempted from the process description in the F006 listing. No other hazardous wastes generated and/or managed at the IBM facility are affected by this proposed rule. Similarly, no wastewater treatment sludges generated through the treatment of wastewaters resulting from similar copper metallization processes at other facilities are affected by this proposed rule.

The duration of this XL pilot project is 5 years. The exemption from the specified RCRA requirements for the wastewater treatment sludge resulting from the copper metallization process at this IBM facility does not include a “sunset provision” which would automatically terminate the exemption at a certain point in the future (as is typically done in regulatory changes to facilitate XL pilot projects). Instead, EPA and VTDEC (and IBM) commit to evaluating the project at the end of its 5-year term. If the project is determined to be successful, EPA may consider expanding the scope of the exemption to the national level (by rulemaking). If the project is determined to be unsuccessful, EPA will promulgate a rule (after notice and comment) to remove the site-specific exemption and the wastewater treatment sludge will again become subject to the F006 hazardous waste listing. It is the intent of EPA and VTDEC that the conditional exemption remain applicable to the IBM facility until EPA (and VTDEC) takes regulatory action to change the exemption (to either remove it, expand it, or perhaps modify it). The five-year term for this XL pilot project begins upon the effective date of the final rulemaking (the latter of EPA or VTDEC) promulgated to allow for the XL project to be implemented.

Today's proposed rulemaking will not in any way affect the provisions or applicability of any other existing or future regulations.

EPA is soliciting comments on this rulemaking (as well as the draft FPA). EPA will publish responses to comments in a subsequent final rule. The XL project will enter the implementation phase when the final rule is promulgated by EPA and VTDEC, and all signatories to the XL project sign the Final Project Agreement.

The terms of the overall XL project are contained in a draft Final Project Agreement (FPA) on which EPA is also requesting comment. The draft Final Project Agreement (FPA) (also available in today's Federal Register ) is available for public review and comment at the EPA Docket in Washington DC, in the US EPA New England library, at the IBM Essex Junction facility, and on the world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/. Following a review of the public comments and appropriate changes, the FPA would be signed by representatives from EPA, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VTDEC) and IBM.

The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

EPA is publishing this proposed regulation under the authority of sections 2002, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3006, 3010, and 7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6912, 6921, 6922, 6923, 6926, 6930, 6937, 6938, and 6974).

The draft Final Project Agreement (FPA) sets forth the intentions of EPA, VTDEC, and the IBM Essex Junction, VT facility with regard to a project developed under Project XL, an EPA initiative to allow regulated entities to achieve better environmental results with limited regulatory flexibility. The proposed regulation, along with the FPA (also available in today's Federal Register ), would facilitate implementation of the project. Project XL—“eXcellence and Leadership”— was announced on March 16, 1995, as a central part of the National Performance Review and the Agency's effort to reinvent environmental protection. See 60 FR 27282 (May 23, 1995). Project XL provides a limited number of private and public regulated entities an opportunity to develop their own pilot projects to request regulatory flexibility that will result in environmental protection that is superior to what would be achieved through compliance with current and reasonably-anticipated future regulations. These efforts are crucial to EPA's ability to test new strategies that reduce regulatory burden and promote economic growth while achieving better environmental and public health protection. EPA intends to evaluate the results of this and other Project XL projects to determine which specific elements of the project(s), if any, should be more broadly applied to other regulated entities for the benefit of both the economy and the environment.

Under Project XL, participants in four categories—facilities, industry sectors, governmental agencies and communities—are offered the flexibility to develop common sense, cost-effective strategies that will replace or modify specific regulatory requirements, on the condition that they produce and demonstrate superior environmental performance.

The XL program is intended to encourage EPA to experiment with potentially promising regulatory approaches, both to assess whether they provide benefits at the specific facility affected, and whether they should be considered for wider application. Such pilot projects allow EPA to proceed more quickly than would be possible when undertaking changes on a nationwide basis. As part of this experimentation, EPA may try out approaches or legal interpretations that depart from, or are even inconsistent with, longstanding Agency practice, so long as those interpretations are within the broad range of discretion enjoyed by the Agency in interpreting the statutes that it implements. EPA may also modify rules, on a site-specific basis, that represent one of several possible policy approaches within a more general statutory directive, so long as the alternative being used is permissible under the statute.

Adoption of such alternative approaches or interpretations in the context of a given XL project does not, however, signal EPA's willingness to adopt that interpretation as a general matter, or even in the context of other XL projects. It would be inconsistent with the forward-looking nature of these pilot projects to adopt such innovative approaches prematurely on a widespread basis without first determining whether they are viable in practice and successful in the particular projects that embody them. Furthermore, as EPA indicated in announcing the XL program, EPA expects to adopt only a limited number of carefully selected projects. These pilot projects are not intended to be a means for piecemeal revision of entire programs. Depending on the results in these projects, EPA may or may not be willing to consider adopting the alternative interpretation again, either generally or for other specific facilities.

EPA believes that adopting alternative policy approaches and interpretations, on a limited, site-specific basis and in connection with a carefully selected pilot project, is consistent with the expectations of Congress about EPA's role in implementing the environmental statutes (provided that the Agency acts within the discretion allowed by the statute). Congress' recognition that there is a need for experimentation and research, as well as ongoing re-evaluation of environmental programs, is reflected in a variety of statutory provisions, such as section 8001 of RCRA.

To participate in Project XL, applicants must develop alternative environmental performance objectives pursuant to eight criteria: Superior environmental performance; cost savings and paperwork reduction; local stakeholder involvement and support; test of an innovative strategy; transferability; feasibility; identification of monitoring, reporting and evaluation methods; and avoidance of shifting risk burden. The XL projects must have the full support of the affected Federal, State, local and tribal agencies to be selected.

For more information about the XL criteria, readers should refer to the two descriptive documents published in the Federal Register (60 FR 27282, May 23, 1995 and 62 FR 19872, April 23, 1997), and the December 1, 1995 “Principles for Development of Project XL Final Project Agreements” document. For further discussion as to how the IBM Vermont XL project addresses the XL criteria, readers should refer to the draft Final Project Agreement available from the EPA RCRA docket, the U.S. EPA New England library, or the Project XL web page (see ADDRESSES section of today's preamble).

The Project XL program is compartmentalized into four basic developmental phases: The initial pre-proposal phase where the project sponsor comes up with an innovative concept that they would like EPA to consider as an XL pilot project; the second phase where the project sponsor works with EPA and interested stakeholders in developing an XL proposal; the third phase where EPA, local regulatory agencies, and other interested stakeholders review the XL proposal; and the fourth phase where the project sponsor works with EPA, local regulatory agencies, and interested stakeholders in developing a Final Project Agreement and legal mechanism. After promulgation of the final rule (or other legal mechanism) for the XL pilot, and after the Final Project Agreement has been signed by all designated parties, the XL pilot project proceeds onto implementation and evaluation.

The Final Project Agreement (FPA) is a written voluntary agreement between the project sponsor and regulatory agencies. The draft FPA contains a detailed description of the proposed pilot project. It addresses the eight Project XL criteria, and the expectation of the Agency that the XL project will meet those criteria. The draft FPA identifies performance goals and indicators that the project is yielding the expected environmental benefits, and specifically addresses the manner in which the project is expected to produce superior environmental benefits. The draft FPA also discusses the administration of the FPA, including dispute resolution and termination. The draft FPA for this XL project is available for review in the docket for today's action, and also is available on the world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.

EPA is today requesting comments on the draft Final Project Agreement (FPA) and proposed rule to implement key provisions of this Project XL initiative. Today's proposed rule would facilitate implementation of the draft FPA (the document that embodies EPA's intent to implement this project) that has been developed by EPA, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VTDEC), the IBM Essex Junction, VT facility, and other stakeholders. After comments on the draft FPA and proposed rule have been considered, EPA, VTDEC, and IBM expect to sign a final FPA. Today's proposed rule, when finalized, would not be effective in Vermont until the State has made conforming changes to its hazardous waste program.

This proposed rule would apply only to the IBM Essex Junction, VT facility. Further, the regulatory modification being proposed only affects the copper metallization plating process (and the wastes generated by that process) that is the focus of this XL project; wastes resulting from any other operations at the facility are not affected by this proposed rule (or the final rule, when finalized).

IBM does not believe the innovative copper metallization process it uses should be included among those electroplating operations that result in a wastewater treatment sludge that is specifically listed as a hazardous waste (F006), and that the regulatory controls (with associated increases in costs) provide no benefit to the environment.

Under the current RCRA regulatory framework, the generator of a waste is responsible for determining whether the waste is hazardous (see 40 CFR 262.11). There are two ways that a waste is determined to be hazardous; either the waste exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR 261.21, 261.22, 261.23, and 261.24, or the Agency has identified and specifically listed it as a hazardous waste in 40 CFR 261.31, 261.32, and 261.33. The wastewater treatment sludge that is the focus of this XL project typically does not exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste; however, it does meet the narrative listing description for F006, generally described as wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating operations. In promulgating the hazardous waste listings, EPA presented the basis for the listings in 40 CFR part 261, appendix VII ( e.g. , the basis for the F006 listing is the presence of cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and cyanide (complexed) in high enough concentrations to present a risk to human health and the environment if the waste is mismanaged). However, the hazardous waste listings are implemented based on their narrative descriptions, not by a waste-specific assessment of the hazardous constituents the wastes contain (such an assessment is how the “toxicity characteristic” is implemented pursuant to 40 CFR 261.24). To address those wastes that meet the narrative description of a listed hazardous waste but which the generator believes are nonhazardous, RCRA regulations provide a mechanism for the generator to petition the Agency for a determination that the wastes generated at their facility should not be regulated as hazardous ( i.e. , a “delisting” pursuant to 40 CFR 260.22).

On May 19, 1980, EPA promulgated the F006 hazardous waste listing, thereby designating wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations to be a RCRA hazardous waste (see 45 FR 33084). This wastestream is typically generated through the chemical treatment (e.g., lime precipitation) of wastewaters generated by plating operations to precipitate out certain toxic metals. These wastewaters are typically made up of spent plating/coating solutions and rinsewaters (from the rinsing of parts after being plated). As discussed in more detail in the background document supporting the listing of electroplating wastewater treatment sludge (F006), Electroplating and Metal Finishing Operations (pages 105-143) (available in the docket for this proposal), the Agency noted that while there are many various plating processes covered by the listing, they all generally involve hazardous constituents of concern at concentration levels requiring regulatory oversight to ensure that the management and disposal of such sludges will not result in damages to the environment or otherwise present a risk to human health and the environment. The metal constituents found to be commonly used in electroplating operations include cadmium, lead, chromium (in hexavalent form), copper, nickel, zinc, gold and silver. Cyanides, strong acids and strong bases are also used extensively in the general types of plating operations intended to be included in the listing description. As stated earlier, the specific constituents of concern cited as the basis for listing such wastewater treatment sludges as hazardous wastes were cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and cyanide (complexed) (see 40 CFR part 261, appendix VII).

While the actual composition of the electroplating-generated wastewater treatment sludges may vary due to the specific sequence of processing operations (commonly, more than one processing step is involved in a plating operation), in general, the sludges would be expected to contain significant concentrations of toxic metals, and possibly complexed cyanides in high concentrations if the cyanides are not properly isolated in the wastewater treatment process. Thus, the approach to this hazardous waste listing was one where the constituents typically used in the “up-stream” production process were, in part, the basis of the hazardous waste listing applicable to the residuals from wastewater treatment (typically alkaline precipitation of the heavy metals).

The Agency noted in the May 19, 1980 rulemaking that several plating operations were found to not contain significant concentrations of toxic metals or cyanides, such that the sludges resulting from the treatment of the wastewaters resulting from such operations would not be expected to pose a risk to human health and the environment. These operations were accordingly identified and specifically excluded from the F006 listing description: (1) Sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum, (2) tin plating on carbon steel, (3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on carbon steel, (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum plating on carbon steel, (5) cleaning/stripping associated with tin, zinc and aluminum plating on carbon steel, and (6) chemical etching and milling of aluminum. (see 40 CFR 261.31).

Accordingly, the chemical make-up of the materials used in the plating operation was a major consideration in whether the wastewater treatment sludge would be designated a hazardous waste. Other factors that may impact the concentration levels of hazardous constituents in the wastewater treatment sludge are the type and shape of the article being plated, how much of the plating solution is carried over into the rinsewater, and the actual plating process being used.

Since the IBM facility has many complicated manufacturing processes, a review of the basic steps in semiconductor manufacturing relevant to the metallization process which is the subject of this XL project may be useful. In general, the surface of a silicon wafer is cleaned and passivated (i.e., coated to provide an insulating layer) with a very thin silicon oxide layer. An organic photoresist is applied to the wafer and a circuit pattern is exposed onto the resist by shining light onto the wafer through a mask. The exposed photoresist is washed away, while the remainder is hardened to protect the insulating layer. After this is completed, the wafer is treated with inorganic liquids and gases to create the doped circuits which provide the semiconductor function. The hardened resist is then removed with organic solvents. At certain points in the process, metallization techniques are used to electronically connect the stacked layers of the semiconductor device. (The copper metallization process which is the basis for this XL project serves this purpose.) Wafer cleaning and rinsing steps, using mixtures of inorganic acids, oxidizers, and deionized water, occur after many of the process steps. This process cycle is repeated until a fully functional memory or logic device has been produced. After the circuits are built on the wafer, minute amounts of metal are deposited onto the wafer to produce the connections which marry the semiconductor to a module or circuit board for use in a computer. Finally, the wafer is sliced into individual chips for testing and placement onto substrates or modules for use in computer systems.

The new copper metallization process IBM has introduced, which is the subject of this XL project, serves to provide the interconnection of the device circuits, electronically connecting the stacked layers of the semiconductor device. In designing the process, IBM worked with the manufacturers of the plating solutions and the manufacturer of the plating tool (which holds the wafer) to minimize waste and increase efficiency. The metallization process uses this specialized tool to bring only one side of the wafer into contact with the copper plating solution and applies an electrical current to plate the copper onto the wafer surface. Once the metallization process is complete, the wafer is rinsed with sulfuric acid over the plating bath to keep as much plating solution as possible in the bath (thus minimizing the amount of plating solution that is carried over into the rinsewaters). After the sulfuric acid rinse, the wafer is then rinsed with deionized water, and deionized water and sulfuric acid, in a pre-defined sequence, with the resulting rinsewaters being sent through the facility's wastewater treatment system.

For each wafer produced, approximately 3.5 grams of plating solution (containing approximately 0.065 grams of copper) is carried over to the rinsewaters. The volume of water used in the rinsing ranges from 0.5 to 0.7 gallons per wafer. Present projections show that copper mass and rinsewater volume will increase from approximately 110 grams/day and 1000-2000 gallons/day, respectively in the second quarter of 1999 to 180 grams/day and 2000-3000 gallons/day when the process is fully deployed in 2002. 1

Also, the plating unit includes a 40-gallon reservoir for the plating solution that constantly filters and regenerates the solution. The goal in designing and operating this reservoir is to achieve an infinite bath life for the solution. However, it is currently necessary to replace a portion of the used plating solution in the reservoir with new solution. Currently, IBM drums the spent plating solution from the reservoir and sends the material for appropriate off-site management. IBM does not currently, nor plan to in the future, send the spent plating solution from the reservoir through the wastewater treatment system. Thus, the only plating solution that is or will be sent through the facility's wastewater treatment system is the relatively small amount that is carried over to the rinsewaters.

According to tests conducted by IBM, the plating solution currently being used by the facility does not contain any of the hazardous metal constituents and cyanides which were the focus of the original hazardous waste listing for wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations (and thus, these constituents would not be expected to be in the wastewater treatment sludge unless they are introduced from some other production process).

IBM reports other significant environmental benefits of converting to the copper metallization process that should be considered. The copper metallization process replaces an aluminum chemical vapor deposition process that required the vaporization of aluminum for deposit on the wafer. The use of the vapor deposition process entailed cleaning steps that used perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), which are global warming gases. By replacing a majority of the aluminum connections with copper, a significant reduction in global warming gases will be realized simply by minimizing the number of cleaning steps that use PFCs. It should also be noted that while such vapor deposition processes (and subsequent cleaning steps) are still required in other aspects of the semiconductor manufacturing process, IBM has developed an alternative cleaning method that uses dilute nitrogen trifluoride (NF 3 ) instead of PFCs, wherever appropriate. NF 3 has significantly less impact on global warming than PFCs. 2 The Agency recognizes this significant environmental benefit although it is not closely associated with the regulatory flexibility being sought by IBM.

IBM also reports that the new copper metallization process is much more energy efficient (30 to 40% less energy) than the aluminum chemical vapor deposition process it replaces. Similarly, the semiconductor chip produced by the copper metallization process is approximately 25% more energy-efficient than the chip it replaces. IBM expects this type of metallization process (or processes very similar) to become more common in the semiconductor manufacturing industry.

The aluminum chemical vapor deposition process which the copper metallization process replaces was dry and generated no wastewater or sludge that was subject to RCRA. From the time the copper metallization process was first introduced in 1996 until April of 1998, the copper metallization rinsewaters were collected and drummed for off-site disposal, keeping these wastewaters separate from the on-site wastewater treatment system. However, beginning in May 1998, the volume of rinsewater generated (approximately 250 gallons/day) became large enough to make it necessary to introduce the plating rinsewaters into the wastewater treatment system by commingling them with other wastewater streams generated on-site.

Even though the contribution of wastewaters from the copper metallization process to the total volume of wastewater being treated to generate the sludge is minimal (the volume of rinsewaters from the plating operation expected to be generated when the plating process is at full production is 1600 gallons/day, compared with an estimated 5,000,000 gallons/day volume of other on-site wastewaters), the sludge generated by the treatment of the commingled wastewaters is regulated as F006 because it meets the narrative listing description ( i.e. , wastewater treatment sludges from an electroplating operation).

Consequently, IBM's reported annual hazardous waste generation increased from 2.14 million pounds to 5.78 million pounds (1999 totals) and their waste management costs increased by $3,500 per year. Regarding IBM's waste management costs, the State of Vermont has deferred the hazardous waste tax that would normally apply to the generation of an F006 waste (approximately $225,000/year). 3

This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted on March 17, 2000, and released on March 31, 2000. The full text of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center. The complete text may also be obtained through the world wide web, at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/CommonCarrier/Orders, or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we seek further comment on what specific utilization threshold carriers not participating in thousands-block number pooling carriers should meet in order to request growth numbering resources. Commenters that offered a specific utilization threshold suggested that utilization thresholds should be set as low as 60% and as high as 90%. However, very little information was provided as to the basis for these specific threshold levels. We seek comment on specific utilization threshold(s). Comments should include rationale for the specific threshold(s) recommended, including the initial level, annual increases, and the maximum level. We tentatively conclude that a nationwide utilization threshold for growth numbering resources should be initially set at 50%. This threshold would increase by 10% annually until it reaches 80%. Additionally, we propose to require carriers to meet a specific rate center-based utilization threshold for the rate center in which it is seeking additional numbering resources. If parties propose a utilization threshold range, parties should explain in detail what criteria should be used to determine the specific rate-center based utilization threshold within that range. We seek further comment on whether state commissions should be allowed to set the rate-center based utilization threshold within this range based on criteria that we establish. We also seek further comment on utilization thresholds at the rate center level that should operate in unison with the thresholds at the NPA level.

2. Implementation of pooling for non-LNP capable carriers. We seek comment on whether covered CMRS carriers should be required to participate in pooling immediately upon expiration of the LNP forbearance period on November 24, 2002. In the alternative, we seek comment on whether we should allow some sort of transition period between the time that covered CMRS carriers must implement LNP, and the time that they must participate in pooling, and if so, what the minimum reasonable allowance for such a transition period would be. We note that by determining in this order that covered CMRS carriers will be required to participate in pooling once they have acquired LNP capability, we are providing a fairly long lead-time—more than two years—in which all of the necessary preparations may be accomplished. We further note that after they have acquired LNP capability, covered CMRS providers will be subject to the same terms and conditions regarding participation in thousands-block number pooling as are other LNP-capable carriers. For example, CMRS providers within and outside the top 100 MSAs will not be subject to pooling unless they have received a request for LNP from another carrier, and pooling will be limited to the same service area as their LNP deployment.

3. Pricing for Numbers. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (64 FR 32471, June 17, 1999) we indicated that an alternative approach for improving the allocation and utilization of numbering resources would be to require carriers to pay for them. We noted that this approach could be in isolation or in combination with the administrative and numbering optimization approaches identified in the NPRM . One of the primary economic reasons given for opposing a market-based allocation system was that numbering resources are allocated in 10,000 blocks by rate center. Pricing under this paradigm, it was argued, would create a barrier to entry to new markets. In any case, we continue to believe that a market-based approach is the most pro-competitive, least intrusive way of ensuring that numbering resources are efficiently allocated. We believe that thousands-block pooling will substantially reduce the quantity of numbering resources new entrants will need to accumulate to enter a market. Therefore, we seek further comment on how a market-based allocation system for numbering resources could be implemented. Specifically, we seek comment on how a market-based allocation system would affect the efficiency of allocation of numbers among carriers. Given that our motivation in seeking comment on such an approach is to increase the efficiency with which numbering resources are allocated and not to raise additional funds, we also seek comment on whether funds collected in this way could be used to offset other payments carriers make such as contributions to the universal service and TRS programs. Commenters addressing this issue should specifically address how to account for the fact that some carriers, such as interexchange carriers, do not generally use numbering resources but currently contribute to these other programs. Commenters should also ensure that their proposals provide market-based incentives for carriers to economize their use of numbering resources.

4. Recovery of Shared Industry and Direct Carrier-Specific Costs. Requiring incumbent LECs to bear their own costs related to thousands-block number pooling will not disadvantage any telecommunications carrier. All other carriers are also required to bear their own shared industry and carrier-specific costs. In the NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded that incumbent LECs subject to rate-of-return or price cap regulation may not recover their interstate carrier-specific costs directly related to thousands-block number pooling through a federal charge assessed on end-users, but may recover the costs through other cost recovery mechanisms. Several parties agree with the tentative conclusion that thousands-block number pooling costs should not be recovered through a federal charge assessed on end users, but should be recovered through access charges. Some commenters recommend that price cap LECs should be allowed to treat the thousands-block pooling number costs as exogenous cost adjustments or, alternatively, place the costs in a new or existing price cap basket. Other parties, however, urge us to abandon our tentative conclusion because recovery through access charges would violate the competitive neutrality standard of section 251(e)(2).

5. In the Notice, we requested detailed estimates of the costs of thousands-block number pooling and asked that commenters separate the estimates by category of costs. We also sought comment on the appropriate methodology for developing these and other cost estimates. The amount and detail of the data provided in response to our request is insufficient for us to determine the amount and/or magnitude of the costs associated with thousands-block number pooling. Without sufficient cost data, it is difficult for us to determine the appropriate cost recovery mechanism for these costs. We, therefore, find it necessary to request additional cost information prior to making a final decision on the appropriate method of cost recovery. We seek further comment and cost studies that quantify shared industry and direct carrier-specific costs of thousands-block number pooling. We also seek comment and cost studies that take into account the cost savings associated with thousands-block pooling in comparison to the current numbering practices that result in more frequent area code changes.

6. The actions contained in this FNPRM have been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and found that there are no new reporting requirements or burden on the public.

7. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 603 (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this FNPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM provided above in section VIII. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 1 In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

8. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules. The Commission is issuing this Further Notice to seek public comment on (a) What specific utilization threshold carriers not participating in thousands-block number pooling should meet in order to request growth numbering resources; (b) whether state commissions should be allowed to set rate-center based utilization thresholds based on criteria that we establish; (c) whether covered CMRS carriers should be required to participate in thousands-block number pooling immediately upon expiration of the LNP forbearance period on November 24, 2002, or whether a transition period should be allowed; and (d) how a market-based allocation system for numbering resources could be implemented. We also seek to obtain the following: (a) Cost studies that quantify the incremental costs of thousands-block number pooling; (b) cost studies that quantify shared industry and direct carrier-specific costs of thousands-block number pooling; and (c) cost studies that take into account the cost savings associated with thousands-block number pooling in comparison to the current numbering practices that result in more frequent area code changes.

9. The Commission seeks to ensure that the limited numbering resources of the NANP are used efficiently; to protect customers from the expense and inconvenience that result from the implementation of new area codes; to forestall the enormous expense that will be incurred in expanding the NANP, and to ensure that all carriers have the numbering resources they need to compete in the rapidly growing telecommunications marketplace.

10. Legal Basis. The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201, 208, and 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 2

11. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities That May Be Affected by this Report and Order. The RFA requires that an initial regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”  3 The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”  4 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 5 A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 6

12. In this IRFA, we have considered the potential impact of this FNPRM on all users of telephone numbering resources. The small entities possibly affected by these rules include wireline, wireless, and other entities, as described in Appendix B. The SBA has defined a small business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4,812 (Radiotelephone Communications) and 4,813 (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities having no more than 1,500 employees. 7 Although some affected incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) may have 1,500 or fewer employees, we do not believe that such entities should be considered small entities within the meaning of the RFA because they are either dominant in their field of operations or are not independently owned and operated, and therefore by definition are not “small entities” or “small business concerns” under the RFA. Accordingly, our use of the terms “small entities” and “small businesses” does not encompass small ILECs. Out of an abundance of caution, however, for regulatory flexibility analysis purposes, we will separately consider small ILECs within this analysis and use the term “small ILECs” to refer to any ILECs that arguably might be defined by the SBA as “small business concerns.”  8

13. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data the Commission publishes annually in its Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers Report (Locator ). 9 These carriers include, inter alia, local exchange carriers, competitive local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, satellite service providers, wireless telephony providers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, providers of telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange service, and resellers.

14. Total Number of Companies Affected. The U.S. Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at least one year. 10 This number contains a variety of different categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, personal communications services providers, covered specialized mobile radio providers, and resellers. 11 It seems certain that some of those 3,497 telephone service firms may not qualify as small entities or small ILECs because they are not “independently owned and operated.”  12 For example, a PCS provider that is affiliated with an interexchange carrier having more than 1,500 employees would not meet the definition of a small business. It is reasonable to conclude that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are small entity telephone service firms or small ILECs that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.

15. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements. 13 This FNPRM requests comment and cost studies (1) that quantify the incremental costs of thousands-block number pooling; (2) that quantify shared industry and direct carrier-specific costs of thousands-block number pooling; and (3) that take into account the costs savings associated with thousands-block number pooling in comparison to the current number practices that result in more frequent area code changes.

16. Recordkeeping. None.

17. Other Compliance Requirements. None.

18. Steps taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered. We have stated that section 251(e) does not exclude any class of carriers and that all telecommunications carriers must bear numbering administration costs on a competitively neutral basis. 14 Therefore, we find that section 251(e)(2) requires us to ensure that the costs of numbering administration, including thousands-block number pooling, do not affect the ability of carriers to compete. As such, the costs of thousands-block number pooling should not give one provider an appreciable, incremental cost advantage over another when competing for a specific subscriber; and should not have a disparate effect on competing providers' abilities to earn a normal return.

19. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules. None.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 00-104, adopted June 7, 2000, and released June 8, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 00-103, adopted June 7, 2000, and released June 8, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 00-95, adopted May 24, 2000, and released June 2, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800, facsimile (202) 857-3805.

Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding.

Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contact.

For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 00-101, adopted May 24, 2000, and released June 2, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 00-102, adopted May 24, 2000, and released June 2, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

for the specific date and time of the public hearing.

Written comments should be sent to Bob Mahood, Executive Director, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699. Copies of the draft FMP are available from Kim Iverson, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699; telephone: 843-571-4366. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific hearing location.

The draft FMP provides for the following: Establishment of management units for dolphin and wahoo; proposed dealer, vessel and operator permit requirements; reporting requirements; establishment of a maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and OY; definition of overfishing for dolphin and wahoo; and the establishment of a framework procedure for regulatory adjustments without requiring FMP amendments.

The following proposed management measures are under consideration for dolphin and wahoo in the Atlantic EEZ: (1) Prohibition of the sale of recreationally caught fish in the Atlantic EEZ; (2) a limit on the percent of dolphin harvested in the Atlantic EEZ by the recreational fishery and the commercial fishery, at 87 percent and 13 percent, respectively. (Note: Should either sector's catch exceed these percentages, the Council will review the data and evaluate the need for additional regulations which may be established through the FMP's framework procedures); (3) a recreational bag limit of 5 to 10 dolphins per person per day, excluding the captain and crew of for-hire boats in the Atlantic EEZ; (4) a commercial dolphin trip limit of 1,000 to 5,000 lb (453.6 to 2268.0 kg) or an equivalent number of fish, with no transfer at sea allowed in the Atlantic EEZ; (5) no minimum size limit for dolphin in the Atlantic EEZ; (6) a commercial trip limit for wahoo of 500 lb (226.8 kg) or an equivalent number of fish, with no transfer at sea allowed in the Atlantic EEZ; (7) no minimum size limit for wahoo in the Atlantic EEZ; (8) a recreational bag limit of two wahoo per person per day for the recreational fishery, excluding the captain and crew of for-hire boats in the Atlantic EEZ; (9) specification of allowable gear for dolphin and wahoo in the Atlantic EEZ as surface longline and as hook-and-line gear including manual, electric, or hydraulic rod and reels, bandit gear, and spearfishing gear; (10) prohibition of the use of pelagic longline gear for dolphin and wahoo concurrent with time/area closures to the use of such gear for highly migratory pelagic species in the Atlantic EEZ; (11) establish a fishing year of January 1 to December 31 for the dolphin and wahoo fishery; (12) identification of essential fish habitat (EFH) for dolphin and wahoo in the Atlantic; and (13) identification of EFH—Habitat Areas of Particular Concern for dolphin and wahoo in the Atlantic.

The public hearing regarding the draft FMP for Dolphin/Wahoo will be held at the following date, time, and location.

June 25, 2000, 7:00 p.m., Quality Inn Lake Wright, 6280 Northhampton Blvd., Norfolk, VA 23502, Telephone: 757-461-6251.

Copies of the draft FMP can be obtained from the Council (see ADDRESSES ).

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) by June 19, 2000.