81 FR 39289 - Duke Energy; Oconee Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 116 (June 16, 2016)

Page Range		39289-39291
FR Document		2016-14262
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for its review and approval of the decommissioning funding plan submitted by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke), on December 13, 2012, for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) at Oconee Nuclear Station in Oconee County, South Carolina.
Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2016)
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39289-39291]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14262]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 72-04; NRC-2016-0110]


Duke Energy; Oconee Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; 
issuance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an 
environmental assessment (EA) and a finding of no significant impact 
(FONSI) for its review and approval of the decommissioning funding plan 
submitted by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke), on December 13, 2012, 
for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) at Oconee 
Nuclear Station in Oconee County, South Carolina.

DATES: The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on 
June 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0110 when contacting the 
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You 
may access information related to this document, which the NRC 
possesses and is publicly available, using any of the following 
methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0110. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document 
(if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time 
that a document is referenced. In addition, for the convenience of the 
reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are provided in a table in the 
section of this document entitled, Availability of Documents.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Baum, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0018, email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction

    The NRC is considering issuance of the decommissioning funding plan 
(DFP) for the Oconee ISFSI. Duke submitted a DFP for NRC review and 
approval by letter dated December 13, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML12353A033). The NRC staff has prepared a final EA (ADAMS Accession 
No. ML16141A277) in support of its review of Duke's DFP, in accordance 
with the NRC regulations in part 51 of title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR), ``Environmental Protection Regulations for 
Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,'' which implement 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.). Based on the EA, the NRC staff has determined that 
approval of the DFP for the Oconee ISFSI will not significantly affect 
the quality of the human environment, and, accordingly, the staff has 
concluded that a FONSI is appropriate. The NRC staff further finds that 
preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not warranted 
because under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10) or 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11) do not apply 
to the DFP reviews, since the categorical exclusion only apply to 
license amendments and the 10 CFR 72.30 DFP reviews and approvals are 
not license amendment.

II. Environmental Assessment

Background

    The Oconee ISFSI is located in Oconee County, South Carolina. Duke 
is authorized by the NRC, under License No. SFGL-06 and SNM-2503 to 
store spent nuclear fuel at the Oconee ISFSI.
    The NRC requires its licensees to plan for the eventual 
decommissioning of their licensed facilities prior to license 
termination. On June 17, 2011, the NRC published a final rule in the 
Federal Register amending its decommissioning planning regulations (76 
FR 35512). The final rule amended the NRC regulation, 10 CFR 72.30, 
which concerns financial assurance and decommissioning for ISFSIs. This 
regulation now requires each holder of, or applicant for, a license 
under 10 CFR part 72 to submit, for NRC review and approval, a DFP. The 
purpose of the DFP is to demonstrate the licensee's financial 
assurance, i.e., that funds will be available to decommission the 
ISFSI. The NRC staff is reviewing the DFP submitted by Duke on December 
13, 2012. Specifically, the NRC must determine whether Duke's DFP 
contains the information required by 10 CFR 72.30(b) and whether Duke 
has provided reasonable assurance that funds will be available to 
decommission the ISFSI.

Description of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is the NRC's review and approval of Duke's DFP 
submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b). To approve the DFP, the 
NRC will evaluate whether the decommissioning cost estimate (DCE) 
adequately estimates the cost to conduct the required ISFSI 
decommissioning activities prior to license termination, including 
identification of the volume of onsite subsurface material containing 
residual radioactivity that will require remediation to meet the 
license

[[Page 39290]]

termination criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403. NRC will also 
evaluate whether the aggregate dollar amount of Duke's financial 
instruments provide adequate financial assurance to cover the DCE and 
that the financial instruments meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(e).
    The proposed action does not require any changes to the ISFSI's 
licensed routine operations, maintenance activities, or monitoring 
programs, nor does it require any new construction or land disturbing 
activities. The scope of the proposed action concerns only the NRC's 
review and approval of the Duke's DFP. The scope of the proposed action 
does not include, and will not result in, the review and approval of 
any decontamination or decommissioning activity or license termination 
for the ISFSI or any other part of Oconee Nuclear Station.

Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action provides a means for Duke to demonstrate that 
it will have sufficient funding to cover the costs of decommissioning 
the ISFSI, including the reduction of the residual radioactivity at the 
ISFSI to the level specified by the applicable NRC license termination 
regulations concerning release of the property (10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 
CFR 20.1403).

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC's approval of the DFP will not change the scope or nature 
of the operation of the ISFSI and will not authorize any changes to 
licensed operations or maintenance activities. The NRC's approval of 
the DFP will not result in any changes in the types, characteristics, 
or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released 
into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any 
solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFP will not authorize any 
construction activity or facility modification. Therefore, the NRC 
staff concludes that the approval of the DFP is a procedural and 
administrative action that will not result in any significant impact to 
the environment.
    Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 
amended (NHPA), requires federal agencies to consider the effects of 
their undertakings on historic properties. In accordance with the NHPA 
implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800, ``Protection of Historic 
Properties,'' NRC's approval of Duke's DFP constitutes a federal 
undertaking. The NRC, however, has determined that the approval of the 
DFP is a type of undertaking that does not have the potential to cause 
effects on historic properties, assuming such historic properties were 
present, because the NRC's approval of Duke's DFP will not authorize or 
result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or 
changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or 
non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the 
ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Therefore, in 
accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), no consultation is required under 
Section 106 of the NHPA.
    Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, prior to 
taking a proposed action, a federal agency must determine whether (i) 
endangered and threatened species or their critical habitats are known 
to be in the vicinity of the proposed action and if so, whether (ii) 
the proposed Federal action may affect listed species or critical 
habitats. If the proposed action may affect listed species or critical 
habitats, the federal agency is required to consult with the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or the U.S. National Marine Fisheries 
Service. In accordance with 50 CFR 402.13, the NRC has engaged in 
informal consultation with the FWS. The NRC has determined that the 
proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or 
their critical habitats because the NRC's approval of Duke's DFP will 
not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or 
maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or 
quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into 
the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid 
waste. The FWS has concurred with the NRC's determination that the 
proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or 
critical habitat.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

    In addition to the proposed action, the NRC evaluated the no-action 
alternative. The no-action alternative is to deny Duke's DFP. A denial 
of a DFP that meets the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b) does not support 
the regulatory intent of the 2011 rulemaking. As noted in the 
rulemaking EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML090500648), not promulgating the 
2011 final rule would have increased the likelihood of additional 
legacy sites. Thus, denying Duke's DFP, which the NRC has found to meet 
the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b), will undermine the licensee's 
decommissioning planning. On this basis, the NRC has concluded that the 
no-action alternative is not a viable alternative.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    The NRC staff consulted with other agencies and parties regarding 
the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The NRC provided a 
draft of its EA to the South Carolina Department of Health and Human 
Services on August 10, 2015, and gave them 30 days to respond. The 
State never responded. The NRC also consulted with the FWS. The FWS 
concurred with the NRC's determination that the proposed action is not 
likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.

III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action, the review 
and approval of the DFP, submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b), 
will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or 
maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or 
quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into 
the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid 
waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFP will not authorize any 
construction activity, facility modification, or any other land-
disturbing activity. The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed 
action is a procedural and administrative action and as such, that the 
proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of 
the human environment. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined not to 
prepare an EIS for the proposed action but will issue this FONSI. In 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.32(a)(4), the FONSI incorporates the EA by 
reference.

IV. Availability of Documents

    The following documents, related to this Notice, can be found using 
any of the methods provided in the following table. Instructions for 
accessing ADAMS were provided under the ADDRESSES section of this 
Notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        ADAMS Accession
             Date                     Document                No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 13, 2012............  Submission of Duke's   ML12353A033
                                decommissioning
                                funding plan.

[[Page 39291]]

 
February 1, 2009.............  Environmental          ML090500648
                                Assessment for Final
                                Rule--Decommissionin
                                g Planning.
May 31, 2016.................  NRC staff's Final EA   ML16141A277
                                for the approval of
                                the decommissioning
                                funding plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of June 2016.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bernard H. White IV,
Acting Branch Chief, Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, Division of Spent 
Fuel Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2016-14262 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
39290 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2016 / Notices

termination criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402 800, ‘‘Protection of Historic Properties,’’ rulemaking EA (ADAMS Accession No.
or 10 CFR 20.1403. NRC will also NRC’s approval of Duke’s DFP ML090500648), not promulgating the
evaluate whether the aggregate dollar constitutes a federal undertaking. The 2011 final rule would have increased
amount of Duke’s financial instruments NRC, however, has determined that the the likelihood of additional legacy sites.
provide adequate financial assurance to approval of the DFP is a type of Thus, denying Duke’s DFP, which the
cover the DCE and that the financial undertaking that does not have the NRC has found to meet the criteria of 10
instruments meet the criteria of 10 CFR potential to cause effects on historic CFR 72.30(b), will undermine the
72.30(e). properties, assuming such historic licensee’s decommissioning planning.
The proposed action does not require properties were present, because the On this basis, the NRC has concluded
any changes to the ISFSI’s licensed NRC’s approval of Duke’s DFP will not that the no-action alternative is not a
routine operations, maintenance authorize or result in changes to viable alternative.
activities, or monitoring programs, nor licensed operations or maintenance
does it require any new construction or activities, or changes in the types, Agencies and Persons Consulted
land disturbing activities. The scope of characteristics, or quantities of
the proposed action concerns only the The NRC staff consulted with other
radiological or non-radiological
NRC’s review and approval of the effluents released into the environment agencies and parties regarding the
Duke’s DFP. The scope of the proposed from the ISFSI, or result in the creation environmental impacts of the proposed
action does not include, and will not of any solid waste. Therefore, in action. The NRC provided a draft of its
result in, the review and approval of any accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), no EA to the South Carolina Department of
decontamination or decommissioning consultation is required under Section Health and Human Services on August
activity or license termination for the 106 of the NHPA. 10, 2015, and gave them 30 days to
ISFSI or any other part of Oconee Under Section 7 of the Endangered respond. The State never responded.
Nuclear Station. Species Act of 1973, prior to taking a The NRC also consulted with the FWS.
proposed action, a federal agency must The FWS concurred with the NRC’s
Need for the Proposed Action determination that the proposed action
determine whether (i) endangered and
The proposed action provides a threatened species or their critical is not likely to adversely affect listed
means for Duke to demonstrate that it habitats are known to be in the vicinity species or critical habitat.
will have sufficient funding to cover the of the proposed action and if so,
costs of decommissioning the ISFSI, III. Finding of No Significant Impact
whether (ii) the proposed Federal action
including the reduction of the residual may affect listed species or critical The NRC staff has determined that the
radioactivity at the ISFSI to the level habitats. If the proposed action may proposed action, the review and
specified by the applicable NRC license affect listed species or critical habitats, approval of the DFP, submitted in
termination regulations concerning the federal agency is required to consult accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b), will
release of the property (10 CFR 20.1402 with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service not authorize or result in changes to
or 10 CFR 20.1403). (FWS) and/or the U.S. National Marine licensed operations or maintenance
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Fisheries Service. In accordance with 50 activities, or changes in the types,
Action CFR 402.13, the NRC has engaged in characteristics, or quantities of
informal consultation with the FWS. radiological or non-radiological
The NRC’s approval of the DFP will The NRC has determined that the
not change the scope or nature of the effluents released into the environment
proposed action is not likely to from the ISFSI, or result in the creation
operation of the ISFSI and will not adversely affect listed species or their
authorize any changes to licensed of any solid waste. Moreover, the
critical habitats because the NRC’s approval of the DFP will not authorize
operations or maintenance activities. approval of Duke’s DFP will not
The NRC’s approval of the DFP will not any construction activity, facility
authorize or result in changes to modification, or any other land-
result in any changes in the types, licensed operations or maintenance
characteristics, or quantities of disturbing activity. The NRC staff has
activities, or changes in the types, concluded that the proposed action is a
radiological or non-radiological characteristics, or quantities of
effluents released into the environment procedural and administrative action
radiological or non-radiological and as such, that the proposed action
from the ISFSI, or result in the creation effluents released into the environment
of any solid waste. Moreover, the will not have a significant effect on the
from the ISFSI, or result in the creation quality of the human environment.
approval of the DFP will not authorize of any solid waste. The FWS has
any construction activity or facility Therefore, the NRC staff has determined
concurred with the NRC’s determination not to prepare an EIS for the proposed
modification. Therefore, the NRC staff that the proposed action is not likely to
concludes that the approval of the DFP action but will issue this FONSI. In
adversely affect listed species or critical accordance with 10 CFR 51.32(a)(4), the
is a procedural and administrative habitat.
action that will not result in any FONSI incorporates the EA by reference.
significant impact to the environment. Alternative to the Proposed Action
IV. Availability of Documents
Section 106 of the National Historic In addition to the proposed action, the
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended NRC evaluated the no-action alternative. The following documents, related to
(NHPA), requires federal agencies to The no-action alternative is to deny this Notice, can be found using any of
consider the effects of their Duke’s DFP. A denial of a DFP that the methods provided in the following
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

undertakings on historic properties. In meets the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b) table. Instructions for accessing ADAMS
accordance with the NHPA does not support the regulatory intent of were provided under the ADDRESSES
implementing regulations at 36 CFR part the 2011 rulemaking. As noted in the section of this Notice.

ADAMS
Date Document Accession No.

December 13, 2012 .................................. Submission of Duke’s decommissioning funding plan ................................................ ML12353A033

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:04 Jun 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16JNN1.SGM 16JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2016 / Notices 39291

ADAMS
Date Document Accession No.

February 1, 2009 ...................................... Environmental Assessment for Final Rule—Decommissioning Planning ................... ML090500648
May 31, 2016 ............................................ NRC staff’s Final EA for the approval of the decommissioning funding plan ............ ML16141A277

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day General Description of Collection: The ADDRESSES: Submit comments
of June 2016. information collected is required for electronically via the Commission’s
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. consideration for Peace Corps Volunteer Filing Online system at http://
Bernard H. White IV, service. The information in the Health www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit
Acting Branch Chief, Spent Fuel Licensing History Form, will be used by the Peace comments electronically should contact
Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Management, Corps Office of Medical Services to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and determine whether an Applicant will, INFORMATION CONTACT section by
Safeguards. with reasonable accommodation, be able telephone for advice on filing
[FR Doc. 2016–14262 Filed 6–15–16; 8:45 am] to perform the essential functions of a alternatives.
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Peace Corps Volunteer and complete a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
tour of service without undue David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
disruption due to health problems and, 202–789–6820.
PEACE CORPS if so, to establish the level of medical
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
and programmatic support, if any, that
Information Collection Request; may be required to reasonably Table of Contents
Submission for OMB Review accommodate the Applicant.
I. Introduction
AGENCY: Peace Corps. Request for Comment: Peace Corps II. Docketed Proceeding(s)
invites comments on whether the
ACTION: 60-day notice and request for I. Introduction
proposed collections of information are
comments. necessary for proper performance of the The Commission gives notice that the
SUMMARY: The Peace Corps will be functions of the Peace Corps, including Postal Service has filed request(s) for the
submitting the following information whether the information will have Commission to consider matters related
collection request to the Office of practical use; the accuracy of the to negotiated service agreement(s). The
Management and Budget (OMB) for agency’s estimate of the burden of the requests(s) may propose the addition or
review and approval. The purpose of proposed collection of information, removal of a negotiated service
this notice is to allow 60 days for public including the validity of the information agreement from the market dominant or
comment in the Federal Register to be collected; and, ways to minimize the competitive product list, or the
preceding submission to OMB. We are the burden of the collection of modification of an existing product
conducting this process in accordance information on those who are to currently appearing on the market
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of respond, including through the use of dominant or the competitive product
1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). automated collection techniques, when list.
appropriate, and other forms of Section II identifies the docket
DATES: Submit comments on or before
information technology. number(s) associated with each Postal
August 15, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
This notice is issued in Washington, DC, Service request, the title of each Postal
on June 9, 2016. Service request, the request’s acceptance
addressed to Denora Miller, FOIA/
Privacy Act Officer. Denora Miller can Denora Miller, date, and the authority cited by the
be contacted by telephone at 202–692– FOIA/Privacy Act Officer, Management. Postal Service for each request. For each
1236 or email at pcfr@peacecorps.gov. [FR Doc. 2016–14214 Filed 6–15–16; 8:45 am] request, the Commission appoints an
Email comments must be made in text BILLING CODE 6051–01–P
officer of the Commission to represent
and not in attachments. the interests of the general public in the
proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
(Public Representative). Section II also
Denora Miller at Peace Corps address POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION establishes comment deadline(s)
above. pertaining to each request.
[Docket Nos. MC2016–152 and CP2016–196;
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The public portions of the Postal
CP2016–195; CP2016–197; CP2016–198]
Title: Health History Form. Service’s request(s) can be accessed via
OMB Control Number: 0420–0510. New Postal Products the Commission’s Web site (http://
Type of Request: Revison. www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of
Affected Public: Individuals. AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. the Postal Service’s request(s), if any,
Respondents Obligation to Reply: ACTION: Notice. can be accessed through compliance
Voluntary. with the requirements of 39 CFR
Respondents: Potential and current SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing 3007.40.
volunteers. recent Postal Service filings for the The Commission invites comments on
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Burdent to the Public: Commission’s consideration concerning whether the Postal Service’s request(s)
a. Estimated number of respondents: negotiated service agreements. This in the captioned docket(s) are consistent
23,000. notice informs the public of the filing, with the policies of title 39. For
b. Estimated average burden per invites public comment, and takes other request(s) that the Postal Service states
response: 45 minutes. administrative steps. concern market dominant product(s),
c. Frequency of response: One Time. DATES: Comments are due: June 20, applicable statutory and regulatory
d. Annual reporting burden: 17,250 2016 (Comment due date applies to all requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39
hours. Docket Nos. listed above). U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:04 Jun 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16JNN1.SGM 16JNN1
Document Created: 2016-06-16 00:37:40
Document Modified: 2016-06-16 00:37:40
Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.
Dates		The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on June 16, 2016.
Contact		Richard Baum, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0018, email: [email protected]
FR Citation		81 FR 39289