ML20210P712

Informs That NRC Sent to Fr for Publication,Enclosed Final Policy Statement on Restructuring & Economic Deregulation of Electric Utility Industry

ML20210P712
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/13/1997
From:	Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA)
To:	Inhofe J SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
Shared Package
ML20210P710	List: ML20210P707 ML20210P712
References
NUDOCS 9708270309
Download: ML20210P712 (9)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ August 13, 1997 The Honorable James H. Inhofe, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has sent to the Off";e of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed Final Policy Statet int on Restructuring and Economic Deregulation of the Electric Utility industry. This policy statement discusses the NRC's expectations for, red intended approach to, its power reactor licensees as the electric utility industry moves from an environnmt of rate regulation toward greater competition. The NRC has concerns about the possible effects that rate deregulation and disaggregation resultiag from various restructuring actions involving its power reactor licensees could have on the protection of public health and safety. The final policy statement reflects censideration of public comments received on a draft policy statement that was published in the Federal Register un September 23, 1996. Sincerely, 7 I Original signed by Dennis K. Rathbun Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosure:

As stated cc: Senator Bob Graham Identical letters sent to: Rep. Dan Schaefer Sep. Frnk Nilcne-u,( L L:1-DOCUMENT NAME: P:\\ FPS.CONG.797 WITS 9600004 Te seeelve e sopy of thle document,ladcate in the boa: "C' = copy wnhout attachtnent/ enclosure

• E' = Copy with attachtnentlencheure
• It' = 940 copy

'See Prev 6ous Concurrences 0FFICE PM:PGEB l (A)SC:PGEB l BC:PGEB l NAME RWood:sw* BZalcman* DMatthews* DATE 7/15/97 T/15/97 7/21/97 0FFICE OGC (A)D:DRPM l OCA ,q / NAME MSlosson* DRathbt(n& DATE / /97 7/21/97 P/ /f /97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 9708270309 970813 POR ORG NRCCO PDR l 1 ._ _ L

Fed:r:1 Rigistir / Vol. 62 No.160 / Tuesday, August 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 44071 (1) Collect 1 chick box paper for ccch restructuring of the electric utility reasons for the NRC's concerns. Some to boxes of chicks placed in a house industry and the meant by which intends to address those concerns.NRC directly supported the NRC's overall and place the chick papers immediately into large plastic begs and seal the bags. Because of the interest expressed by. listed in Section Ill. Commenter 14, for approach, particularly the five actions (11) Pface the plaW bags containing the chick box papu h a clean box and se veral commenters, the NRC extended example, statad that these five actions the public comment period to February should provide sufficient focus for NRC transport them within 48 hours to a 9,1997. laboratory. The plastic bags do not actions. Commenter 5 believes that the require refrigeration.

11. Summary 4and Response to NRC's current authority is sufficient to Comanents cope with any safety issues raised by rate deregulation. Commenter 31 shares Budg unde n ou 05 7

The NRC received 32 public the NRC's concems but indicated that Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of comments on the draft olicy statement: the draft olicy statement did not ^" 14 from electric utility censees or their address t e key issue, namely, whether Ten 7 My, representatives,8 from State public 1 Administrator, AnimolandPlant Health uulity commissions (PUCs) or other economic deregulation of nuclear power Inspdon her State agencies,5 from public interest is compatible with the protection of IFR Doc. 97-21902 Filed 8-18-97; 8 45 aml groups,4 from private consultants and public health and safety. Other comments, particularly from amocess%sw indhiduals, and 1 from a labor union. The following list provides the names electric utility licensees and their and comment numbers referenced la representatives, suggested that some 'NUCl. EAR HEGULATORY this notice: NRC concerns are overstated. For example.Commenter 4 recommended COMMLSSION

1. NuclearInformation and Resource elimination oflanguage in the policy Service-comment extension request statement that implies that deregulation 10 CFR Part 50 on1 is inevitable. Other commenters

2. Publ Service Commission of Wisconsin Final Policy Statement on the

3. Enginvering Applied Sciences,Inc, suggested that the policy statement Restructuring and Economic

4. TU Electric should recognize that chan e will occur Deregulation of the Electric' Utility

5. Public Service Electric & Gas Company at different rates and, there ore, the NRC industry

6. Minnesota Department of Public Service should individually evaluate

7. Spi el& McDiarmid on behalf of 5 restructuring as it affects each nuclear plant. In any case, restructuring will not AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory g,gp$"$$t Tndiana Inc and Publics,'IN, Citizens Action occur so rapidly or secretly that the NRC Commission.

r Coalition of will not know about it. Others stated ACTION: Final Policy Statement. Citizen, Inc. that many services will remain

SUMMARY

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

9. Wisconsin Emetgency Management, regulated and that the PUCs will act.

Bureau of Technological Hazards Commission (NRC) is issuing this final

10. Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety responsibly. Further, there is no basis st:timent of policy regarding its

11. Intemadonal Brothwhood of Electrical for the NRC to conclude that licensees expectations for, and intended approach Workers will be unable to provide adequate to, its power reactor licensees as the

12. Consolidated Edison Company of New financial assurance for safe operations thetric utility industry moves from an 3 3, ho*g,'r or Ene 8 and decommissioning. The National environment of rate regulation toward Association of Regulatory Utility greater competition. The NRC has

14. GPU Nuclear Commissioners (NARUCl stated that in concerns about the possible effects that

15. Commonwealth Edison Company view of the experimental nature of many

16. Vermont Department of Public Service rete deregulation and disaggregation

17. Marilyn Elle State actions, the NRC should ap deregulation cautiously. Finally,proach resulting from various restructuring

18. GE Stockholders' Alliance for a several actions involving power reactor Sustainable Nuclear. Free Future.

actions that would serve as commenters asked the NRC to avoid licensees could have on the protection to gen Speak Out for Peace and Justice of public health and safety.

20. New England Power Com impediments to deregulation.

ny EFFECTIVE DATE:This policy statement ' "#l f nnatia a d esarce Commenters representing public interest groups generally thought that b3comes effective on October 20,1997. e FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

22. New Jerse' y Division of the Ratepayer

' Advocate nou in a ssing safety once Robart S. Wood, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear

23. Southern California Edison Company related to deregulation. These 2s. Entergy Operations, Inc.

Rigulator) Commission, Washington *

25. Nuclear Energy Institute commenters stated that the NRC should DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-

26. Arizona Public Service Company' take immediate action wit)a respect to on line maintenancefown,ces, extended 1255, e-mail RSW1@nrc. gov.

27. Massachusetts Office of the Attorney '

racti refueling cycles and time during General suppt.EMENTARY INFORMATION:

28. Winston and Strawn on behalf of the refueling, and up front funding of

1. Background

Utility Decommissioning Group decommissioning, among other issues.

29. Dave Crawford and Diane Peterson Some suggested that the policy On September 23,1996, the NRC 30 Natinal Rural Electric Cooperative statement specifically include

= issued a draft policy statement for I* i 3,g,"chnicalConsulting. loc. discussion of possible negative safety Public comment (61 FR 49711). The 3g, risks from economic deregulation, such Purpose of the draft policy statement

32. National Association of Regulatory Utility as cutting corners and deferring capital was to provide a discussion of the commissiones invesunents. These commenters also NRC's concems regarding the potential CTeneral Comments urged the NRC to expand its inspection safety impacts on NRC power reactor hcensees which could result from theMost commenters viewed the and compliance resources to counter the economic deregulation and issuance of the draft policy statement as adverse safety impacts that these timely and appeared to understand the commenters believe will result from deregulation.

i Y

fl 19, 1997 / Rules and Rogulations FSal Register /,Vol.'62, No.160 / Tuesday, August -44072 stated that the emphasis and focus on potentialimpact of economic i NRC's Response to General Comments emergency planning in lessen. deregulation on specific safety programs 1 Regardingblasue of whether the Commentw to suggest that the NRC's and practices. As discussed in the t 'I - poucy statement should address the shift to performance-based and risk-NRC's response to general comments, L1 compatibility between economic ' informed regulations may potentially the NRC will continue to evaluate specific safety concems or 10 CFR 50.59 letl " d th

• i f

thmaten utablished safety margins. review rocesses as part of its safety i hea$th ndsaf th This commenter u d the NRC to robabilistic oversig t programs. For example, on-blieves that economic dwegulation estebush current, y gorous fdentify the line maintenance and incrased fuel f { does not reclude adequate grotectionrisk assessments (PRAs) to are being considered through cf public Ith and ty, owever, risks, which would be used in all bumubC's safety review and inspection the N1 { due to the increased uncertainty appropriate amas of plant operation as oversight programs. Reductions in engendered by state-by state a comerstone to maintaining cost-manpower and training costs, and other effective safety margins in a changing reductions in operation and 3 fn try i e C is e onmed about [ h possible impact on the rotection of. environment. Man commenters did not view maintenance (O&M) and capital 3 public health and safety.T us,in the deregufation as necessarily a additions budgets are of continuing draft policy statement, the NRC disincentive to safe operation. They concern to the NRC.The NRCis e expressed its genwel concems about the cited the incentive to opwate safely and considering changes to t I Manabment Meeting process that possible effects of deregulation, use preventive maintenance due to the n F woul aclude consioerotion of premium placed on unit evallability. -Another commenter expressed the b ,[ realising that such concerns can be either vitiated or exacerbeted depending sefety concerns that commentwa on specific deresulation approaches that that near-term economic lacentives exirt mosed exist,in many cases, .are implemented. in this respect, the for expen titume to maintain rollable. ex$ependently of economic P t - in U NRCiocognises that deregulation will operation. However,this incentive occur at different times, in different decrosess as a plant ages and thus is of deregulation, the NRC believes that these issues have been and are more. . degrees, and in some jurisdictions, ter concem later in a plant's life. li perhaps not at all, and the final policy ' menter 33 suggested that the policy appropriately considered in other NRC g statement more explicitly scognises statement be modified to support a prognms. Alsoindependently of F 1_ economic deregulation,the NRCis these facta. With respect to the concems licensee's use of the to CFR 50.59 striving to make its regulatory p 'i' -j-

• xpreemd by public interest groups review process to determine thatsatablishment of an Independent System -

shout the impct of certain ential through use of risk analysis and other , safety practices, such as on-no Operator (ISO) does not involve an techniouse -oo that the resource's of the g 4 maintenance and outage duration,the unroviewed safety question. NRC has addressed, and will continue - Other commenters indicated that egency'and of licensees an devoted to the most safety significant matters.- P to address, these issues as safety issues. disinantives to este operation should The NRC has extensively reviewed This policy statement is not meent to be be dealt with by limiting reactor State performance incentive programs '[ operating cycles to 18 months and a substitute for latory res== Mas to - specific safety lems. requiring at least 250 hours for refueling and does not believe significant additional nyiew is warranted at this c{ outage.These comsnentwo also tinw. (See footnote 2 in the Policy g Sufhcien of Current Negulatory on line mainteriana F andincentivesfor Safe SPpother commenter expressed Statement below.) i,W Operatan concern that deregulation would be a MnoncialMcdons V Commenters expressed varied E tion Although'most commenters indicated ~ dialacentive to continuing coo as early among nuclear generators, s opinions. Although sonne viewed the N that the NRC's current regulatory tramework is adequate to protect public -- wporting of salsty and operationally NRC's current financial qualifications %q si6nlRcant events and continuation of regulatory framework as sufficient, health and esfoty, others disagreed, Commenter 21 for example, cited the the lastitute of Nuclear Power. others believed that additional measures k experiena with the Millstone facility Operations (INPO). Additionally,the sney be nama=ary Commenter 20 - A and indicated that it is "of increasing peessure on the NkC to reduce costs to indicated that the critical question for t y licensees will inasese, as will pressure the NRCis whether.in the absence of h concern that NRC cannot accurately ,to reduce use of the "wetch list." his independent financial assurances to the y determine the extent and scope that - commenter cited the analogy of the NRC from its licensees, rate regulators y economics plays in the reductions of - resultant events at the Federal Aviation have committed to provide licensees k 4-- c reactor eefety margins and the deferral Administration (FAA) when the altlines with sufficient financial resoun:es. of safety significant issues."his wwo deregulated and urged the NRC to Commenter 2 stated that if recovery of b commenter concluded that the policy - statement has not adequately addressed avoid the FAA's mistekes.His stranded costsis not allowed oris - Q b esfoty hasardsbrought about by commenter i.lso suggested that incentive sevuely restricted, a large number of - g i _- managerial malpractice in response to regulation of nuclear lants may become premature shutdowns may occur, y economic pressuses. Other commenters an altemative to full on and further straining liconeses' financial g stated that the NRC must continue to that the NRC should stu h.contive galifications and diminishing theirLiity to &g l ensure that its own inspectton and - used at Diablo yonand e oversigh programsidentifywhena lgrim. vein,Commenter 15 urged that the NRC f.i licensee is failing to devote sufficient NRC's Nesponse to Cannwnts on aggresolvely affirm that stranded capital h 1 vosources to ensurin6 safe operations. Sufficiencyof Current Regulatory costs must be recovered by utilities. specitically as a result of deficiencies Frarr.ework andincentivesfor Sofe Commenter 16 indicated that those p j i resulting from economic pressure. When Operation nuclear plant licensees that are no 1' utsted should have L necessary,the NRCshould seek. The NRC shares many of the concoms longer rete additional inspection and corpliance expreened by commenters about the 7 sufficient bu ering funds to proceed j j{' resources from Congress Commenter 9 d e 48

Fed:rd Register / Vol. 62, No.160 / Tursday August 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 44073 safely from operations to d: commissioning. Commrntir 8 stated obligatic ns in its d: liber:tions on that the NRC should shut down the financial qualifications. does not believe that Section 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, bnancial ability to sustain safelants of licensees with questionable NRC's Response to C Mnoncioy Quodyimu.ornments on allows the NRC to approve transfers by ,nekative consent. ons operations in a competitive The NRC remains concerned about T e NRC will continue to use its environment and should require them to the impacts of deregulation on its power current method of evaluating a ' costs that cannot be recovereddecommission their facilities. Operating reactor licensees' financial licensee's cash flow under 10 CFR qualifications. The NRC's existing 140.21 to determine a licensee's ability competitively should be borne by the regulatory framework under to CFR to pay deferred premmms under the licensee, not the ratepayer or the Price-50.33(0 requires financial quel fications *** Anderson Act. taxpayer. Commenter 22 believes that reviews for those licensees that no

• l88I0"ig Funding Assurance the NRC should institute ongoing longer meet the definition of " electric financial qualifications reviews every 2 utility" at the operating license (OL)

The consensus appeared to be that the to 5 years for all power reactor licensees, including those that still mest stage. Paragraph 4 of to CFR 50.33(0 NRC should work closely with State the NRC's definition of " electric also provides that the NRC may seek negulators to provide for assurance of additional or mere detailed information decommissioning funding. Commenter utility." Commenter 31 recommends respecting an applicant % or a licensee's 13 recommended that the policy that the NRC examine whether mergerr, financial arrangements and status of statement include a call for the and joint operating agreements would dilute or weaken units and utilities that funds if the Commission considers this continued recovery of decommissioning f information appropriate. The NRC will costs through regulated rates and tanffs are performing well by spreading or evaluate additional rulemaking separate in all jurisdictions. Similarly, diverting existing management from the proposed rulemaking on maintain awareness of State Commenter 16 suggested that the NRC attention, person' el, and other financial assurance requirements for decommissioning proceedings, monitor resources over a larger number of units. decommissioning, to determine whether funding adequacy based on the Other emnmenters appeared quite onhancements to its financial optimistic that additional financial qualifications reviews would be qualifications requiremento are estimates produced in State unnecessary. Commenter 15 suggested necessary in anticipation that seme proceedings, and work with the host power reactor licensees will no longer State to ensure that adequate amounts that the NRC should avoid contlicts be " electric utilities." However, the are provided in decommissioning trust with other agencies having turisdiction NRC continues to believe that its funds. Another commenter stated that over financial qualifications and should

• primary tool for evaluating and ensuring additional decommissioning f not condition license transfers.

safe operations at its licensed facilities. assurance should be required on en ad 5 Commenter 25 and others indicated that is through its inspection and hoc basis and that the NRC shou:d not holding companies should not be. require accelerated decommissioning subject to 10 CFR 50.80 license transfer enforcement programs. In its previous funding. reviews. At enost, the NRC should use. experience, the NRC has found that Many State and licensee commentets there is only an indirect relationship asked the NRC to accept non bypassaole - a " negative consent" approach to formation of holding companies. This between financial qualifications and l charges or other mechanisms, such as study this issue. Although enhancedoperational safety, but it is continuing to. d commenter also recommended that the NRC provide more explicit guidance on decommissioning funding assur.nce. the "no significant hazards" criteria that financial qualifications reviews may-Similarly, those licensees whose States are used with licence amendments. provide the NRC with valuable Commenter 23 asked that the NRC additionalinsights on a licensee's require such mechanisms should be adopt clear criteria for approval of Beneral qualifications to operate its considered " electric utilities" under the license transfer requests and use clear, facilities safely,it is not clear that NRC's regulations. Many commenters unambiguous standards for license enhanced financial qualifications also ruggested that ths NRC take a more proactive role with the Congress, the programs by themselves would prove to 3 'ransfers to nc> utility licensees such as Executh e Branch those offered in the Draft Standard be a sufficient indicator of general increase assurance, and others in order to Review Plan (S.RP) en Financial ability to operate a facility safely, , funds. of decommissioning With respect to the issue of Qualifications and Decommissioning - decommissioning and stranded costs, Most public interest group Funding Assurance (61 FR 68309, ) December 27,1996). The regulations in many states are considering commenters advocated that the NRC to CFR 50.33(f) tot non utility licensees securitization as a non bypassable end " fund-as you-go" decommissioning should be modified and should include charge mechanism to fund the recovery by requiring full, up-front attndards for extended, unplanned of decommissioning, and other stranded, decommissioning far unfunded - outages, such as minimum amounts for costs. The NRC belleves that balances. These commenters also asked ntained earnings, insurance, and securitization has the potential to . that any stranded cost recovery be contractual arrangements. provide an acceptable method of applied to external decommissioning Commenter 22 suggested that. decommissioning funding assurance, trusts and that investors bear the greater "securitization" may be an although other mechanisms that involve share in funding any decommissioning advantageous method of reducing non bypassable charges may provide shortfall. Other comments sought the strandad cost charges to customers. comparable levels of assurance and elimination of internal g '1 Consequently, the NEC should endorse should not be excluded from decommissioning fimding and asked ucuritization as consideration by State authorities. that decommissioning be funded at a ~ regulatory, legal, permissible from a With respect to transfers bf a liceuse. level that would permit a third party to i and public policy under 10 CFR 50.80, the NRC must complete decommissioning. Perspective. Fmally, two commeuters urged the review and approva in writing all such Other specific conunents in the - i NRC to factorin PricerAnderson transfers,if such transfers meet the decommissioning area included (1) a l l appropriate NRC standards. The NRC recommendation that the NRC add an explicit statement to the policy 1 l I Y

e 44074 Fed:r:1 wist:r / Vol. 62, No.160 / Tuesday, August 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations U statement that would inform licensees should take a more proactive role and alter, and likely }eopardize, the business th rn of the NRC's right to assess the timing that the NRC can play a special rol6 in arrangements that underpin co-and liquidity of decommissioning funds educating rate regulators. Commenter 22 ownership. Several of those who m commented on this issue also pointed to ar (Commenter 3);(2) a recommendation proposed that the NRC maintain a the bankruptcy laws as one way of st. for an increase in decommissioning dialogue with all classes of ratepayr.rs, ensuring that co-owners pay their pro al tiporting requirements and assurance perhaps thr) ugh the National rata share, although Commenter 22 el that funds are not diverted to non-Association of State Utility Consumer re decommissioning uses:(3) recognition Advocates. Other suggested venues for suggested that recent NRC experience NRC-State regulatory interface included with bankrupt licensees may not hold fe that if charges are placed on current the National Governors Association, the true in the future. No one directly O electricity customers while competition increases, consumers will avoid nuclear National Conference of State commented on the issue of non owner power and will, therefore, avoid Legislatures, the American legislative operators, although 3 comments ol, contributing to decommissioning Exchange, and similar groups addressed this issue peripherally. it l funding; and b) recognition that (Commenter 25). Commenter 15 NRC,s Response to Comments on Joint st decommissionin is not a stranded cost, suggested that the NRC and NARUC Ownersh'P N because strande costs are known and convene a joint conference on stranded The NRC recognizes that co-owners d2 measurable costs that have already been capital cost recovery. As previously and co-licensees generally divide costs U incurred, whereas decommissioning mentioned, several commenters sl 'I costs are not fully known and have yet indicated that the NRC should act to and output from t' heir facllities by using fc educate Congress and seek legislationin a contractually-defined, pro rata share standard.The NRC has implicitly d to be incurred, areas relevant to plant safety and C NRC,s Response to Comments on restructuring, for example, a national accepted this practice in the past and believes that it should continue to be N Decomnussioning Funding Assurance excise tax to fund decommissioning, the operative practice, but reserves the _ p Many of these comments parallel Finally, Commenter 22 suggested that tc comments received on the Advance the NRC review the States' plans for cost right,in highly unusual situations Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) recovery to ensure that, once recovered where adequate protection of public n health and safety would be 3 (61 FR 15427, April 8,1996) that sought through rates,these revenues are compromised if such action were not f3 comment on restructuring issues as they employed for the purpose for which taken, to consider imposing joint and may relate to decommissioning funding they were collected. severalliability on co-owners of more f a' assurance.The NRC is developing a NRC's Response to Comments on than de mirimis shares when one or l 1 = ci l proposed rule that considers most of Regulatorylnterface more cc owners have defaulted.The I these comments. With respect to the The NRC believes that the policy NRCis addressing the issue of non-kP specific comment that the policy statement adequately covered the NRC's owner operators separately. l l-statement should indicate thM NRC [ retains the right to assess the timing and intent to work closely with rate Antitrust liquidity of decommissioning fuxis, the regulators and others as deregulation Most commenters viewed NRC c! i NRC agrees and will add such a proceeds. The NRC will consider k { statement. Because of the long histork of expanding contacts to tr:clude the other antitrust u effective rate regulatory oversight an groups identified. Altho;gh the NRC performed by other agencies, especially - 11 recovery of safetyhe 1988related expenses will testify before Congress when asked in view of FERC Order 888, and it through rates,it. t to speak on its views on deregulation as recommended that the NRC act to rr t decommissioning rule (53 FR 24018, related to protecting public health and eliminate this redundancy. Commenter ).. ci june 27,1988), the NPsC deferred to the safety, the NRC is evaluating whether it 22 suggested that the NRC develop a 1., s} PUCs and the Federal Energy Regulatory should make specific recomroendations memorandum of understanding with e a a< Commission (FERC) on the timing and on rnechanisms to handle FERC and the Securities and Exchange s4 liquidity of decommissioning trust fund decommissioning costs and operational Commission (SEC) that wcu a: deposits. However, the NRC has the. costs. The NRC recognins that Federal NRC to rely on the judgments of these a e: tl . authority to assess the timing and legislatloa might be of benefit in agencies about market power that do not Il liquidity of su~ch deposits by its resolving these issues. However, the raise issues unique to the NRC's - Il licensees, and intends to exercise this NRC also reccgnizes the vital role that mandate. Another commenter fr f authority with those licensees who lose States have phyed and will continue to recommended working with the rate regulatory oversight. Similarly,10 play in resolving these issues and is Departmeni of Justice to develop a list

ir r '-a' CFR 50.82 specifies a schedule for fully prepared to work with the States of guidelines and criteria to evaluate p

decemmissioning trust fund through either Stats or ledarally requests for ownership changes. U withdrawals and the NRC will thus sponsored initiatives. NRC's Response to Comments on continue to assess the timing of such Joint Ownership Antitrust ' 8: j Virtually all who commsnted in this The NRC is statutorily required under - -d withdrawals. Regula%ryInterface area believe that the NRC should not the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,as if Most commenters support NRC's impose Joint and severalliability on co-amended (AEA),in connection with an c1 ith State and Federal owners of nuclear plants. Rather, each application for a !icense to construct or e< worring closely whough some public co-owner should be limited to its pro operate a facilit under section 103, to interest groups stated that such an effort rata share of operatin8 and evaluate an a icant's or a licensee's s.' rate regulators, alt ' il i would offer scant protection to the decommissioning expenses. The NRC activities un the NRC license to j public (Commenter 17). Many thought should not look to one owner to " ball determirs that these activities do not ' T. 1 that the focus of this cooperatiou 6bould out another owner. Commenter 28 create or maintain a situation tr 1 be on the assurance of recovery of suggested that ony effort to alter the inconsistent with the antitrust laws of . ' I' i decommissioning costs. Some current legal and financial relationship the United States. However, the NRC se i commenters believe that tbr CC among co-owners would retroactively has begun to work with FERC, SEC and

• t g

4' e k / l@ m a

Fed:r:1 Register / Vol. 62. No.160 / Tuesday, August 19, 1997 / Rules and Regul:tions 44075 E ths Departmtnt of Justico to devslop Disaggregation may involve utility require its other licensees (with the methods by which the NRC can restructuring, mergers, and corporate added exception of State and Federal minimize duplication of effort on spinoffs that lead to changes in owners Sovernment licensees of certain 0 16 antitrust issues, while carrying out its or operators oflicensed power reactors facilities) to provide funding assurance statutory responsibilities. The NRC will and may cause some licensees, _ for the full estimated cost of ) also consider seeking legislation to including owners, to cease being an decommissioning, either through full eliminate its review to the extent that its " electric utility" as defined in to CFR up-front funding or by some allowable 3 review duplicates the efforts of other 50.2.5 Such changes may affect the guarantee or surety mechanism. g federal agencies, licensing basis under which the NRC A discussion of the NRC review Ohrtssues originally found a licensee to be process is contained in two draft ) financislly qualified, either as an Standard Review Plans (SRPs) that the Several commenters made " electric utility" or otherwise, to NRC issued for comment: NUREG-1577, observations not directly addressed in the draft policy statement. Commenter 5 construct, operate, or own its power " Standard Review Plan on Power Et stated that nuclear plant operators in the plant, as well as to accumulate adequate Reactor Licensee Financial funds to ensure decommissioning at the Qualifications and Decommissior,ing Northeast United States are subsidir.ing end of reactor life. (See discussion Funding Assurance"(January 1997); b dirtier coal generation from Western below.) and NUREG-1574," Standard Review g U.S. generators. Accordingly, the NRC Rate regulators have typically showed Plan on Andtrust"(January 1997). In ing should articulate its views on the need h for nuclear power and its value for fuel an electric utility to recover prudently addition, the NRC issued an incurred costs of generating,. Adrainistrative Letter on June 21,1996 F diversity and environmental protection. transmitting, and distributing electric that informed power reactor licensees of Commenter 16 recommended that the services. Consequently,in 1984, the their ongoing responsibility to inform NRC urge the Department of Energy to NRC eliminated financial qualifications and obtain advance approval from the proceed with interim spent fuel storage reviews at the OL stage for those NRC for any changes that would '~ to reduce uncertainty and costs facing licensees that met the definition of constitute a transfer of the license, l nuclear plant operators. " electric utility"in to CFR 50.2 (49 FR directly or indirectly, through transter of NRC's Response to Comments on Other 35747, September 17,1984). The NRC control of the NRC license to any person Issues based this decision o': the assumption pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80. This The NRC does not have a role in that "the rate process isssures that funds administrative letter also reminded advocating the positions stated in these needed for safe operation will be made addressees of their responsibility to available to regulated electric utilities" ~ (49 FR 35747, at 35750). However, the ensure that information regarding a comments. licensee's financial qualifications and policy Statement NRC recognized that financial decommissianing funding assurance

f. Basis qualifications reviews for OL appliants that may have a significant implication inight be appropriate in particular cases for public health and safety is promptly

. This policy statement recognizes the in which, for example, "the local public reported to the NRC. changes that are occurring in the electric utility commission will not allow the utility industry and the importance total cost of operating the facility to be 73 3 ecjfj,p,fj,je8 mee P tily these chan8es may have for the NRC and recovered through rates"(49 FR 35747 The NRC is concerned about the its licensees. The NRC's principal at 35751). The Commission also has Potential impact of utility restructuring mission is to regulaN the nation's expressed concern about various Stat, on public health and safety. The NRC ,ter civilian use of byproduct, source, and proposals to implement ecop + has not found a consistent avlationship special nuclear materials to ensum performance inmntive progrwms.s between a licensee's financial health adequate protection of public hoalth and in its 1988 decommissioning rule, the and general indicators of safety such as s ige safety, to promote the commoti^ defense NRC again distinguished between the NRC's Systematic Assessment of the and security, and to' protect ther electric utilities and other licensees by Licensee Performance.The NRC has environment. As part of carrying out allowing " electric utilities" to traditionally relied on its inspection no > not this mission, the NRC must monitor accumulata funds for decommissioning process to indicate when safety licensee activities and any changes in over the remaining terms of their perinnnance has begun to show adverse licensee activities, as well as extemal operating licenses. NRC regulations trends. On the basis ofinspection factors that may affect the ability of program results,the NRC can take p" ladividual licensees to safely operate 'section so.: denna electric cutny u an appropriate action, including. and decommissin licensed power - '"'ig*"EdNyNN'N'hh Public health and 6afety However if a

• • senerates or distributes electrictry ana Ny ultimately
• plant shutdown, to protect Production facilities.

H. Background

• """'#"W by a moanw usutomry Nant is permanently shut down, that autbrity. Invntor. owned utilities. includins plant,a licensee (s) may no longer have The electric utility industry is seneration and distribution subsidiarwa. public access to adequate revenues or other nder entering a period of economic

"'ill'7 i8tric'8. municl allties, rural electric d P deregulation and restructuring that is Edins sL* wt$*o*f any ofN Ni iar. souttes of funds for decommissioning the fadlity. If rete deregulation and ian intended to lead to increased e mpetition in the industry. Increasing, included wtain me meantns of electric nunty/- eqanintional divestiture occur a or 8 See Possible Safety Impacts of F.:nnomic cf.ncurrently with the shutdown of a to C mPetition may force integrated power Performance incentives Final Policy Statement.(sa nuclear plaat either by NRC action or by p, systems to separate (or "disaggregate") ,Q, 3[,1,8Myf "h'$""["*, a licensee's economic decision, that their s g Thus,ystems into functional areas. standards and prograrns. $,NRC understands that IlCensee may n7t be able to provide some licensee: may divest sten instituted many of these prosrams as a means g electrical generation usets from of encouragins electric unlities to lower electric adequate assurat:ce of decommissioning funds. Thus, the NRC believes that its og transmission and distribution assets by ',*'" 'l,nsu nQs e ens,uje concerns about dernulation and C TTnin8 58Parate subsidiaries or even ,3 ,g perbrmanconcenuve programa dimetely may be restructuring lie in tb areas of and 8'Parate companies for generation. replaced by tuu market compeution. adequacy of c,.ecommissioning funds e -a

E i fi ! 44078 q!I Feder:1 Regi2r / Vol. G2, No.160 / Tursday, August 3 19 1997 / Rul:s and Regulations and the potenHal effect that economic deregulation may have on operadonal in consideradon of these concerns, safety. the NRC will evaluate deregulation and B. NRC Responsibilities Vis.a Vis State As the electric utility industry moves restructuring activities as they evolve. ' and Federal Economic Regulators from an environment of substentialRecognizing that the electric utility The NRC has aco econorcic regulation to one ofincreased change,y is likely to undergo great role that State and Fbized the primary industr eral economic competition, tha NRC is concerned as restructuring progresses, the regulators have served, and in n.eny s about the pace of restructuring and rate NRC will condnue to evaluate the need cases will continue to serve,in settine t j deregulation. Approval of organir.ational for regulatory or policy changes to meet rates that include appropriate levels of l and rato dereguladon changes may the effects of deregulauon. The NRC funding for safe operadon and occur rapidly The pace and degree of win take all appropriate acHons to carry decommissioning. For example, the such changes could affect the factual out its mission to protect the health-and preamble to the 1988 decommissioning underpinnings of the NRC's previous safety of the public and, to the extent of rule contained the following statement: conclusions that power reactor licensees its statutory mandate, to ensure "The rule, and the NRC's have access to adequate funds for consistency with Federal antitrust laws. implementation ofit, does not deal with financial ratemaking issues such as rate 7 operauons and can reliably accumulata. The NRCintends to imple'nent adequate funds for decommissionin8 policies and take action as described in of fund collecdon, procedures for fund over the operating lives of their coHecdon, c' 4 t to ratepayers, taxation facilities. For example, rate dereguladon thl policy statement to ensure that its effects, equitability between early and {nancially qualified to ensurewer reactor licensees remain could create situations in which a late ratepayers, accountin procvdures' , gd licensee that previously met the NRC's continued safe operadons and c,,[17e, radons, res onsiveness to y definidon of an " electric utility'.' under. decommissioning. In summary, the NRC change and other sfmilar concerns ' to CFR 50 longer qua.2 may, at some point, nolify for such status. At that Will-

• *
• These matters are outside NRC's'-

point, the NRC will require licensees to -. Continue to cionduct its financial Jurisdiction and are the res or submit proof pursuant to 10 CFR qualifications, decommissioning the State PUCs and (the Fekerasibility of i' l Energy 50.33(f)(4) that they remain financially. funding and antitrusfreviews as Regulatory Commission) FERC"(53 FR I qualified and will requim them to meet described in the SRPs developed in 24018, June 27,1988, at 24038). the more stringent decommissioning concert with this policy statement; Notwithstanding the primary role of funding assurance requirements of 10

• Idrxify all owners, indirect as'well NRC has autkulators in rate matters, the economia re J

CFR 50.75 that are applicable to non- ' as direct. ei auclear power plants *. take actions that may affect a licensee's f' ority under the AEA to electric utilities. Although new and unique

• Establish and maintain working..

4 financial situation when these actions }- relationships with State and Federal rate as a warranted to protect public health j restructuring proposals will necessaril . involve case-by-case reviews by the y, and safety. To date, the NRC has found regulators; and 3 NRC, the NRC staff will advise the . Reevaluate its regulations for their no significant instances in which State

I Commission of such proposals ao that adaquacy to address changes resultingor Federal rate regulation has led to -

the Commission will have the option of from rate deregulation, disallowance of funds for safety-related ii L exercising direct oversight of such A. Adequacy of Current R'egulatory operational and decommissioning g reviews to maintain consisterit NRC - expenses. Some rate regulators may Framework. have chosen to reduce allowable pro ' policy toward new entitles. As patterns g- }; margins through rate disallowances, fith.' i of restructuring begin to emerge, the The NRC believes that lis regulatory licensees have for other reasons NRC will consider standardizmg its. or framework is generally sufficient, at this encountered. financial difficulty. h framework further to streamline, where T 4 time, to address the restructurings and In orderJo possible,its case by case review views knopn;,r;0ie NRC to make its saf' ty reorganizations that willlikely arise as a . process. The NRC has considered, and y and to encourage rate a result of electric utility deregulation. will continue to consider mergers and scheme, the NRC's review process wil - ngulators to c e Absent chan8es to the NRC's te8ulato7 nucleaall wing adequa p 5 outrightsalas of facilities, or portions of facilities, to require NRC r plant safety as e!ectric utilities o; i llow the current framework. The NRC face deregulation, the NRC has taken a fi' notification and prior approvclin believes that its fmancial qualifications number of actions to increase accordance with 10 CFR 50.80 in order requirements are sufficiently broad as to cooperation with State and Federal rate % I o {. 6 to ensure that the transferee or licensee Provide an adequate framework to and financialregulators to promote is appropriately qualified. For example, adequately review new or unique dialogue and minimize the possibility of l'. I i. in certain merger situations, the NRC situations that are not explicitly avered rate deregulation or other actions that i'

• dete: mines whether the surviving arganization willremain an " electric ~

in 10 CFR 50.33(f) and appendix C to would have an adverse effect on safety.

• ~
• utility" as defined in t o CFR 50.2/lf a Part 50, for financial qualifications, and The NRC intends to continue to work license applicant or a licensee falls to in 10 CFR 50.75 for decommissioningand consult with the State PUCai l

additional assurance, the NRC will seek ' ' remove any ambiguities in itsfunding assurance. H meet this definition of financial with FERC and other Federal agen (~ ~ qualifications to operate and regulations and to address those coordinate activities and exchange,cies to - tb ( decommission the facility pursuant to situations that may not be adequately information. However, the Commission -e at to CFR 30.33(f) and 50.75 and as covered under current regulations, the also reserves the flexibility to take discussed in more datallin its SRP on NRC is considering rulemaking to revise appropriate steps in order to assure a *h these subjects.The NRC has also its decomrnissioning funding assurance licensee's adequate accumulation ofpt decommission ng funds. advised licensees that.he formation of requirements, as described in Section

• f C*

and approval pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80. holding companies requires notificction > mod C. Co-Owner Division of Responsibility PL' qualifications regulations are warranted. Many of the NRC's power reactor [ y lictnsees own their plants jointly with e=< es 'm 5 I 0 ! L ll 5 t*!

-- ~ ~ 5 State othst, unrelatzd org:nir.:tions. Although c:pability for safe operation and F. Antitrust Reviews i some co-owners may only be authorized decommissioning that could arise from to have an ownership interest in the rate deregulation and restructuring. The NRC is statutorily required under [i nuclear facility and its nuclear material, Section 184 of the AEA and to CFR the AEA,in connection with an and not to operate it, the NRC views all T0.80 provide that no license shall be application for a license to construct or a["8 co-owners as c licensees who are t transferred, directly or indirectly, operate a facility under section 103, to j, og responsible for complying with the through transfer of control of the evaluate an a plicant's or a licensee's terms of their licenses. See Pubhe Service Company ofindiono,Inc. license, unless the Commission activities un er the NRC license to consents in writtog. The NRC will determine whether these activities onin8 (Marble 11111 Nuclear Generating Station, conunue to review transfers to create or maintain a situation ment'. Units 1 and 2), ALAB-459,7 NRC 179, determine their potentialimpact on the inconsistent with the antitrust lawr of 200-201 (1978). The NRC is concerned licensee's ability both to maintain the United States. However, the NRC d with about the effects on the availability of adequate technical qualifications and will explore with FERC, SEC, and the a rate oPereting and decommissioning funds, organizational control and authority Department of Justice rnethods by which fund and about the division of responsibility tla NRC can minimize duplication of .lon for Operating and decommissioning over the facility and to provide adequate effort on antitrust issues, while tnd funds, when co-owners file for funds for safe operadon sad ures' bankruptcy or otherwise encounter decommissioning. Such consent is maintaining its statutory resoonsibilities. The NRC will consider unancial difficulty.5 The NRC clearly required when a corporate entity seking legislation eliminating its seeks to transfer a linse it holds to a recognizes that co-owners and co-

l.,

licensees generally divide costs and different corporate entity. See fag review mandate to the extent that NRC RC's output from their facilities using a Island Ughting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear reviews are duplicated by other Power Station, Unit 1) CLI-92-4,35 agencies. i'I or contractually defined, pro rata share NRC 69 (1992). The NRC etaff has The NRC anticipates that competitive standard. The NRC has implicitly advised licensees that agency consent reviews over the next 5 to 10 ears will accepted this practice in the past and believes that it should continue to be must be sought and obtained under 10 arise primarily from changes fn control of the opersuve practice, but reserves the CFR 50.80 for the formation of a new of licensed facilities. The regulatory ,the right,in highly unusual situations holding company over an existing review addressing transfer of control of where adequate protocuon of public licensee. Other types of transactions, licer.aes under to CFR 50.80 will be health and safety would be including where non-licensee used to determine whether new owners compromised if such action wem not organizations are proposed to have some or operators will be subject to an NRC taken, to consider imposing joint and degree ofinvolvement in the review with respect to antitrust matters. md several liability on co owners of more mana8ement or operation of the plant, Small Business Regulatory Enforcement ste than de minimis shares when one or have been considered by the staff on a Fairness Act more co-owners have defaulted.

• case-by-case basis to determine whether 10 CFR 50.80 consent is rw Prod.The In acx:ordance with the Small ed D. Financial Qualifications Reviews NRC is evaluating wl'at ty;.a of Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of The NRC believes that the existing transfors or restr ucturings should be 1996, the NRC has determined that this g

regulatory framework contained in to subject to 10 CFR 50 30 review, The action is not a " major rule" and has verified this determination with the CFR 50.33(f) and in the guidance in 10 NRC staff willinfort he Commission Office ofInformation and Regulatory CFR Part 50, Appendix C,is generally of undque or.unusua ansee sufficient at this time to pmvide restructurin8 actions Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. dY reasonable assurane of the financial E. Ducciamissioning ling Assurance Electronic Accesa qualifications of both electric utility and Revisws 37 non-electric utility applicants and The NRC electronic Bulletin Board licensees under the various ownership 'lle NRC believes th the existing System (BBS) on FedWorld may be arrangements of which the staffis - decommissioning fun /, ng assurance accessed by using a personal computer, currently aware. Licensees that remain provisions in 10 CFR U.75 generally a modem, and one of the commonly " electric utilities" will not be subject to provide an adequate regulatory basis for available communications software e,te NRC financial qualifications aview, existing and possible new licensees to packages, or directly by way ofIntemet. other than to determine that such provide reasonable assurance of y of consees,in a% mmain " electric decommissioning funds. However, to Background documents on the final utilities." However, the NRC is examine this and other issues related to policy statement are also evallable, as practical, for downloading and viewing ,E evaltatin the need to develop decommissionin8 funding assurance in on the bulletin board. additiona requirements to ensure anticipation of rate deregulation, the !!usin against potentiel dilution of the NRC published an ANPR (61 FR 15427 modem, g a personal computer ant. the NRC subsystem on Apdl 8,1996).The NRC is considering FedWorld can be accessed directly by a The NRC has hed experience with three a proposed rulemaking developed in dialing the toll free number (600) 303-Nn"U.No,$[',$d *"'"M"n$4,g. msponse to the comments received on 9672. Communication software lued under Chaptw 1I of tb U.S. Benkruptcy Code: the ANPR. In addition, the NRC wishes e, parameters should be set as follows: on to emphasize that it retains the right to Parity to none, data bits to 8. and stop Pubne service company of New Hampshire (PSNHL a caowner and operator of the Seabrook assess the timing of decommissioning tmst fund deposits and withdrawals and bits to 1 (N,8,1). Using ANSI or VT-100 hthNalNw'dN*ntD.Iu mech *c'C"" the liquidity of decommissioning fends terminal emulation, the NRC subsystem cooperiuve tc.;unt a c.ow iw orthe alver send for those licensees that no longer have can then be accessed by selecting the Plant. Both PSNH and EPEC continued their peo " Rules Menu" option from the "NRC r. rate regulatory oversight and insofar as Main Menu." Many NRC subsystems II dNnNo'n*tnleU[tromunnkruptcy C j27th i planuand such timing would potentially impact and databases also have a " Help / successfuHy emwse the protection of public health and . a un remalas to bankruptcy, safety. Information Center" option that is tailored to the particular subsystem. s

i p, 44078 Federal Reglar / Vol, 62. No.160 / Tutsday, August 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulattens {+ Ths NRC subsystrm en FedWorld can } also be accessed by a direct-dial DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are i telephone number for the main F*d*rel Avletion Adminletration FedWorld BBS,(703) 321-3339, or by necewy to keep them operatione.lly using Telnet via Internet: fedworld. gov. 14 CFR Port 71

• cun Therefore, this regulation-(1)

!s no. a 'significar t regulatory action" If using (703) 321-3339 to contact (Airapace Dooket No. 97-AOL-2) under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not i FedWorld, the NRC subsystem will be a "significant rule" under DOT accessed from the main FedWorld menu Removalet Class D Alrepece; Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 by selecting the " Regulatory, . Glenview,IL FR 11034; February 26,1976); and (3) Government Administration and State AcaN0Y: Federal Aviation d es n t warrant preparation of a Systems," then selecting " Regulatory Administradon (FAA)' DOT

• Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated Informetion Mail." At that point, a impact is so minimal. Since this is a ACTION: Final rule.

menu will be displayed that has an 4 routine matter that will only affect air option "U.S. Nuclear Regulatory SUtutARY3 This action removes Class D E" is cer ed Gat hh wm nodan' Commission," which will take you to' airspace at Glenview, IL This airspace the NRC on line inain menu.The NRC is removed due to the closing of the Air On-line area also can be accessed Traffic Control Tower at Glenview Coast u ant am r of smal niles directly by typing "/s": nic" at a Guard Air Field (CGAF), Glenview. IL under the criteria of the Regulatory FedWorld command tine. lf you access The intended effect of this action is to Flex bihtY Act' i NRC from FedWorld's main menu, you Provide an accurate description of - List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 may return to FedWorld by selectin 8 the controlled airspace for Glenview,IL Airspace, Incorporation by reference, " Return to FedWorld" option from the EFFECTWE DATE: 0901 ITfC, September Navigation (alt). NRC on-line main menu. However,if 18,1997. you access NRC at FedWorld by using FOR FLIRTMER INFORMATK)N CONTACT: Adoption of the Amer.dment NRC's toll. free number, you will have - Michelle Behm, Air Traffic Division, in consideration of the foregoing, the full access to all NRC systems, but you Altspace Branch. AGir520 Federal Federal Aviation Administration will not have access to the main - Aviation Administration,2300 East amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: >= FedWorld system. Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois If you contact FedWorld using Telnet, 60018, telephone (847) 294-7568. PART 71--{ AMENDED) you will see the NRC area and menus, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:. 1.The authority citation for part 71 including the Rules menu. Although continues to read as follows: you will be able to download History Authority: 49 U s.C. to6(gl. 40:03,40n s, documents and leave messages, you will On Monday, }anuary 27,1997, the - 40120; E.O.10854,24 FR 9565,3 CFR.1959-1 not be able to write comments or upload FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the 1963 Comp., p. 389. files (comments). If you contact Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR \\ FedWorld using FTP, all files can be Part 71) to remove Class D airspace at $ 71.1 monded)

2. The inco oration by reference in accessed and downloaded but uploads. Glenview, IL (62 FR 3840). The proposal 14 CFR 71.107the Federal Aviation are not allowed; all you will see is a list. was intended to provide an accurate of files without descriptions (normal description of controlled altspace f '

Administration Order 7400.9D, Airspace Gopher look). An index fila listing all Glenview,IL Interested parties were Designations and Reporting Points, files within a subdirectory, with I"[,*$"n tu" dtt n king dated September 4,1996, and effective Se tember 16,1996,is amended as p s j descriptions,is availableJThere is a 15-minute time limli for FTP access: comments on the proposal to the FAA.

• ~

l No comments objecting to the proposal Paragmph 5000 cass D Aaspace, Although FedWorld can also be were received. Class D airspace accessed through the World Wide Web, designations are published in paragraph t like FTP that mode only provides 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9D, dated. Act.n.D Glenview 11.laemovedl access for downloading files and does September 4,1996, and effective j not display the NRC Rules menu. September 16,1996, which is 39,7, issued in Des Plaloes,11Hnois on July 16. For more information on NRC bulletin I"]'P t d by - Maureen woods, 7 Ib ,,,Dal gn boards call Mr. Arthur Davis, Systems Integration and Development Branch, listed in this document will be

• " 8"' Al'I"IIIC N'I*"

NRC, Washington, DC 20555-0001c published subsequently in the Order; IFR Doc. 97-21863 Filed 8-18-97; 8:45 aml sumo caos.m % telephone (301) 415-5780; e mail The Rule - n J AXD3@nic. gov. This amendment to art 71 of the ~ Dated at Rockville', Maryland, this 13th dEy Federal Aviation Regu ations (14 CFR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION of August,1997. r Part 71) removes Class D airspace at For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Glenview,IL This airspace is remov'ed Federal Aviation Administration b lohn C. Ho7 e* due to the closing of the Air Traffic l 14 CFR Part 71 Secretaryof the Cornmission. Control Tc wer at Glenview CCAF, 1 Glenview,IL The intended effect of this (Alrapece Docket No. 97-AGL-12). IFR Doc. 97-21879 Filed 8-18-97; 8:45 aml action is to provide an accurate description of controlled airspace for Establishment of Class E Airspace-p sumo coos 7 eSewu Glenview,IL Ely' MN Y-1 4 The FAA has determined that this AGENCY: Federal Aviation 1 regulation only involves an establishe' d Administration (FAA). DOT. ' hd I S, s t ,v 3 --}}