General comment. The link with the congestion income distribution methodology developed pursuant to Article 73 of the Commission Regulation (EU) No 2015/1222 of 24 July 2015 establishing a guideline on capacity allocation and congestion management (hereafter “Regulation 2015/1222”) should be made clearer in the proposal (e.g. highlighting in the whereas section or in each relevant article where the FCA CIDM follows and/or complements the CACM CIDM specifically, as the current simple reference in the whereas section stating that the requirements of the CACM CIDM apply is not enough.
General comment. 1 Division of this specification into subsections is for convenience and clarity. Such division does not relieve the Contractor from the responsibility of ensuring that each trade or subtrade is fully familiar with the extent of their work or the work of other Sections which may have an impact on their work. Each Section or Division may contain more or less than the work of any trade. .2 Contractor shall ensure that all the subtrades are fully familiar with the conditions set forth in Part C, General Conditions of the Contract and in Part A, General Instructions.
General comment. The NRC review team has only previously reviewed Article 20, Nuclear Regulatory Agreement, the Data Collection Trespass Law, and specific legislative provisions that were submitted to show authorization to implement specific requirements for the 274b. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. § 2014(e)(2), as amended, (AEA) Agreement (274b. Agreement) for Wyoming’s uranium recovery program. Some of the legislation in the draft application has not been previously reviewed and creates uncertainty regarding how this legislation relates to the implementation of Wyoming’s uranium recovery program. Many of the Articles in the draft application refer to “mining,” and it is unclear if these provisions apply to the uranium and thorium milling program. The Articles also frequently use the term “permits” and do not use the term “licenses.” It is understood that Wyoming regulates mining activities within the State. It will be necessary for Wyoming to distinguish within the Articles which provisions apply to the uranium and thorium milling program and which provisions apply to the regulation of mining. Additionally, within the provisions that apply to the uranium and thorium milling program, please use the term “licensing.” Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations do not use the term “permits” within its regulations. The NRC review team would like to schedule a meeting to discuss the interactions between these various legislative provisions in more detail. The following are our specific concerns on Article 1, General Provisions; Article 4, Land Quality; and Article 20, The Nuclear Regulatory Agreement. Comment stands, pending review of the crosswalk or other similar document Wyoming provides to address this comment.
General comment. The Agreement prevents development of Compact water, impacts Colorado=s ability to use water, allows Federal control of the appropriation of water, forecloses high elevation storage reservoirs in the Gunnison Basin, and has negative impact on Front Range=s ability to make transmountain diversions. Response: The United States holds absolute water rights for storage and direct flow for the Aspinall Unit obtained through the legal avenues under Colorado law. At issue is the voluntary subordination of a fixed amount of the United States= water storage rights. In 1963 the United States agreed to subordinate up to 60,000 acre-feet of its storage rights to upstream, in-basin users to prevent the Aspinall Unit=s sizeable water rights from effectively cutting off the ability of upstream, in-basin junior water users to appropriate water. Thus the subordination actually facilitates Colorado=s development of Compact water and in no way allows Federal control of the State process for appropriation of water. Concerning transmountain diversions to the Front Range and high elevation storage in the Gunnison Basin, the United States, as a matter of principle, does not object to these in the Gunnison or any other basin; but the subordination of the federal water rights to upstream, in-basin users does not relate to these issues. The Agreement does not preclude other water sources from being developed or purchased for transmountain diversions.
General comment. The NEPA process should not be completed nor the Agreement executed until the appeal process In the Matter of the Application for Water Rights of the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Arapaho, in Gunnison County (Case No. 88CW178) is completed. Response: During the review period of the draft EA, Arapahoe County requested a stay or other injunctive relief from the Courts to prevent execution of the Agreement. This request was denied by the Courts. Reclamation will continue with the NEPA process and negotiation of the Agreement. General Comments: A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is/is not appropriate for this action. A full EIS should be/should not be completed or work on the Agreement stopped indefinitely.
General comment. This Agreement is a subordination agreement and should be limited as such, as HUD has done in the SNDA and Subordination Agreement for Operating Leases. There are many provisions regulating the activity of the operator and those provisions are either already in the Operator Regulatory Agreement or should be. Therefore, HUD should move all “regulatory agreement” appropriate provisions to the Operator or Master Tenant Regulatory Agreement and retain merely the necessary subordination and non-disturbance and attornment provisions, if applicable. Another suggestion is to move the necessary subordination, non- disturbance and attornment provisions to the Master Lease Rider so that sepearte, and conflicting agreements, are not introduced into the closing prospect. If HUD insists on having separate Subordination Agreements (or SNDA), we are concerned that tremendous efforts will be needed at each closing to make the Subordination Agreements consistent with both the Regulatory Agreements and the Master Lease Addendum. We understand HUD may feel the lender needs to sign the Subordination Agreement; however, we believe the Master Lease Addendum could be structure in a manner so that the Lender acknowledges the subordination provisions and a separate agreement can be eliminated. RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: (Space above this line for Recorder’s Use) [SUBORDINATION, NON-DISTURBANCE AND ATTORNMENT AGREEMENT] OR [SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT] (For Master Lease Transactions) NOTICE: THE SUBORDINATION PROVIDED FOR IN THIS AGREEMENT RESULTS IN YOUR LEASEHOLD ESTATE BECOMING SUBJECT TO AND OF LOWER PRIORITY THAN THE INTEREST CREATED BY SOME OTHER OR LATER INSTRUMENT. THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”), made as of this day of , 2 , by and among , a (“Borrower” or “Landlord”), as Landlord under the Master Xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx described, , a , as Master Xxxxxx under the said Master Xxxxx (the “Master Tenant”), , a (“Operator” ), as subtenant of Master Tenant under the Sublease hereinafter described, and , a holder of the Security Instrument hereinafter described. (“Lender”), the owner and
