Notices. Notice of license termination and site release for unrestricted use

9,456 words·~43 min read·/register/2005/08/29/05-17165·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 040-009015] Notice of License Termination and Release of Michigan Department of Natural Resources

(MDNR)Site in Bay City, MI for Unrestricted Release AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of license termination and site release for unrestricted use. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David W. Nelson, Materials Decommissioning Section, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, NRC, Washington, DC, 20555; telephone

(301)415-6626; fax

(301)415-5397; or e-mail at *dwn@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is providing notice that it has terminated license SUC-1581 for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources

(MDNR)(Licensee), and has released its Bay City, Michigan, Tobico Marsh State Game Area site for unrestricted use. The Licensee's request for an amendment to authorize decommissioning of its Bay City, Michigan site was previously noticed in the **Federal Register** on July 2, 2004 (69 FR 41855) with an opportunity to request a hearing. MDNR provided a final radiological status survey and performed an on-site and off-site dose analysis to demonstrate the site meets the license termination criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20. In addition, NRC staff conducted independent measurements of soils and surfaces at the site. The NRC staff has evaluated MDNR's request, has reviewed the results of the final radiological survey, and has determined that the site meets the unrestricted release dose criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402. The staff prepared a Safety Evaluation Report

(SER)to support its termination of the MDNR license. II. Further Information In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's “Rules of Practice,” details with respect to this action, including the SER, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession number for the termination letter and SER, “Release of Michigan Department of Natural Resources Bay City, Michigan, Tobico Marsh State Game Area Site and Termination of License (License No. SUC-1581)” is ADAMS No. ML052010626. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing a document located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* This document may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O-1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at NRC, Rockville, MD, this 23rd day of August, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Daniel M. Gillen, Deputy Director, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E5-4707 Filed 8-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-461] Amergen Energy Company, LLC.; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-62, issued to AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, for operation of the Clinton Power Station, Unit 1

(CPS)located in DeWitt County, Illinois. The proposed amendment would change Technical Specification

(TS)4.3, “Fuel Storage,” to reflect the increased fuel storage capacity in the spent fuel pool and the addition of fuel storage capacity in the fuel cask storage pool. A No Significant Hazards Consideration was previously published in the **Federal Register** on December 29, 2004 (69 FR 78051) regarding this amendment. However, the description of the use of the Fuel Building crane and the temporary crane has changed. Therefore, the No Significant Hazards Consideration has been revised. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not

(1)involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or

(2)create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or

(3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change involves revising CPS TS 4.3, “Fuel Storage,” to reflect the increased storage capacity of the spent fuel pool due to the installation of higher density storage racks and the addition of fuel storage capacity in the fuel cask storage pool. The method of handling fuel is not significantly changed since the same equipment and procedures will be used. During spent fuel rack removal and installation, all work in the spent fuel pool and cask storage pool area will be controlled and performed in strict accordance with specific written guidance. Any movement of fuel assemblies required to be performed to support the modification ( *e.g.* , removal and installation of racks) will be performed in the same manner as during normal refueling operations. Shipping cask movements will not be performed during the modification period. There is no change to the methods or equipment to be used in moving fuel casks. Expanding the spent fuel storage capacity does not have a significant impact on the frequency of occurrence for any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, this change will not significantly increase the probability of occurrence of any event previously analyzed. The consequences of the dropped spent fuel assembly in the spent fuel pool have been evaluated for the proposed change. The results show that the postulated drop of a spent fuel assembly striking the top of the spent fuel storage racks will not distort the racks sufficiently to impair their functionality. The minimum subcriticality margin ( *i.e.* , neutron multiplication factor

(keff)less than or equal to 0.95) will be maintained. The structural damage to the Fuel Building, spent fuel pool liner, and any fuel assembly resulting from a dropped fuel assembly striking the pool floor or another assembly located in the racks is primarily dependent on the mass of the failing object and drop height. Since these two parameters are not changed by the proposed modification, the postulated structural damage to these items remains unchanged. The radiological dose at the exclusion area boundary will not be increased since no changes are being made to in-core hold time or bumup as a result of the proposed amendment. The consequences of a loss of spent fuel pool cooling were evaluated and found to not involve a significant increase as a result of the proposed changes. The concern with this event is a reduction of spent fuel pool water inventory from bulk pool boiling resulting in uncovering fuel assemblies. This situation could lead to fuel failure and subsequent significant increase in offsite dose. Loss of spent fuel pool cooling at CPS is mitigated by ensuring that a sufficient time lapse exists between the loss of forced cooling and uncovering fuel. This period of time is compared against a reasonable period to reestablish cooling or supply an alternative water source. Evaluation of this event includes determination of the time to boil. This time period is much less than the onset of any significant increase in offsite dose, since once boiling begins it would have to continue unchecked until the pool surface was lowered to the point of exposing active fuel. The time to boil represents the onset of loss of pool water inventory and is commonly used as a gage for establishing the comparison of consequences before and after a reracking project. The heatup rate in the spent fuel pool is a nearly linear function of the fuel decay heat load. The fuel decay heat load will increase subsequent to the proposed changes because of the increase in the number of assemblies. The thermal hydraulic analysis determined that the minimum time to boil is more than three hours subsequent to complete loss of forced cooling and a minimum of 24 hours between loss of forced cooling and a drop of water level to within 10 feet of the top of the racks. In the unlikely event that all pool cooling is lost, sufficient time will still be available subsequent to the proposed changes for the operators to provide alternate means of cooling before the water shielding above the top of the racks falls below 10 feet. The consequences of a design basis seismic event are not increased. The consequences of this event were evaluated on the basis of subsequent fuel damage or compromise of the fuel storage or building configurations leading to radiological or criticality concerns. The new racks have been analyzed in their new configuration and were found to be safe during seismic motion. Fuel has been determined to remain intact and the storage racks maintain the fuel and fixed poison configurations subsequent to a seismic event. The structural capability of the pool and liner will not be exceeded under the appropriate combinations of dead weight, thermal, and seismic loads. The Fuel Building structure will remain intact during a seismic event and will continue to adequately support and protect the spent fuel storage racks, storage array, and pool moderator/coolant. A fuel cask drop accident was previously evaluated as described in the CPS Updated Safety Analysis Report

(USAR)Section 15.7.5. Administrative controls will be implemented to ensure that fuel will be removed from storage racks located within the cask storage pool prior to any fuel cask being moved in this area. The presence of any empty racks in this area will not adversely affect the previously evaluated cask drop scenarios, since any impacted empty racks will tend to absorb the kinetic energy of the dropped cask and thus reduce the impact load and corresponding damage. The thin walled rack cell material poses significantly less threat to puncturing the cask than impact to the floor of the pool area. Thus, the results of the previously evaluated cask drop accident remain unchanged. Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the consequences of a previously evaluated accident. In summary, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change involves revising CPS TS 4 .3, “Fuel Storage,” to reflect the increased storage capacity of the spent fuel pool as a result of the installation of higher density storage racks and addition of fuel storage capacity in the fuel cask storage pool. Due to the proposed changes, an accidental drop of a rack module during construction activity in the pool was considered as the only event that might represent a new or different kind of accident. A construction accident of a rack dropping onto stored spent fuel or the pool floor liner is not a postulated event due to the defense-in-depth approach to be taken. A new temporary crane, hoist, and rack lifting rig will be introduced to remove the existing racks and install the new racks. The temporary crane will be used to lift the racks from the operating deck and then lower them into the spent fuel pool. The temporary crane will then also be used to position the racks in their final location in the pool. The Fuel Building crane will only be used as an alternative method to initially introduce racks into the pool. The temporary lift items have been designed to meet the requirements of NUREG-0612, “Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants, Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-6,” Crane Manufacturer's Association of America

(CMAA)Specification #70, “Specifications for Top Running Bridge & Gantry Type Multiple Girder Electric Overhead Traveling Cranes,” and American National Standards Institute

(ANSI)Standard N14.6, “Standard for Special Lifting Devices for Shipping Containers Weighing 10000 Pounds (4500 kg) or More for Nuclear Materials.” A rack drop event is considered to be a “heavy load drop” over the pools. Racks will not be allowed to be lifted or to travel over any racks containing new or spent fuel assemblies, thus a rack drop onto fuel is precluded. A rack drop to the pool liner is also precluded since all of the lifting components either provide redundancy in load path ( *i.e.* , meet the definition of NUREG-0612 as a single failure proof design) or are designed to meet a safety factor of ten (10). The analysis of a rack dropping to the liner has been performed and shown to be acceptable. A drop of a spent lei rack onto the spent fuel pod liner, while unlikely, would not result in an uncontrollable loss of spent fuel pool water or lead to a catastrophic failure of the reinforced concrete slab. As noted above, the temporary crane (or the Fuel Building crane as an alternative) will be used to lower racks into the pool and place racks within their range of accessibility and to remove racks from the spent fuel pool. The temporary crane will be used to lift racks from the pool floor and move the racks horizontally with a limited height above the pool floor. All movements of heavy loads over the pool will comply with the applicable administrative controls and guidelines ( *i.e.* plant procedures, NUREG-0612, etc.). A rack drop would not alter the storage configuration or moderator/coolant presence. Therefore, the rack drop does not represent a new or different kind of accident . The proposed change does not alter the operating requirements of the plant or of the equipment credited in the mitigation of the design basis accidents. The proposed change does not affect any of the important parameters required to ensure safe fuel storage. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The function of the spent fuel pool and fuel cask storage pool is to store the fuel assemblies in a subcritical and coolable configuration through all environmental and abnormal loadings, such as an earthquake or fuel assembly drop. The new rack design must meet all applicable requirements for safe storage and be functionally compatible with the spent fuel pool and fuel cask storage pool. The mechanical, material, and structural designs of the new racks have been reviewed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the NRC Guidance entitled, “OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications,” provided as an enclosure to Generic Letter 78-11. The rack materials used are compatible with the spent fuel assemblies and the spent fuel pool environment. The fixed neutron absorber ( *i.e.* , Metamic) has been demonstrated to be acceptable for dry and wet storage applications on a generic basis. In addition, the NRC has approved Metamic for use in both wet and dry storage applications. The design of the new racks preserves the proper mar in of safety during abnormal loads such as a dropped assembly and tensile loads from stuck assembly. It has been shown that such loads will not invalidate the mechanical design and material selection to safely store fuel in a coolable and subcritical configuration. The methodology used in the criticality analysis of the expanded spent fuel pool meets the appropriate NRC guidelines and the ANSI standards. The margin of safety for subcriticality is maintained by having Q equal to or less than 0.95 under all normal storage, fuel handling, and accident conditions, including uncertainties. The criterion of having keff equal to or less than 0.95 during storage or fuel movement is the same as that used previously to establish criticality safety evaluation acceptance. Therefore, the accepted margin of safety remains the same. The thermal-hydraulic and cooling evaluation of the spent fuel pool demonstrated that the pool could be maintained below the specified thermal limits under the conditions of the maximum heat load and during all credible accident sequences and seismic events. The spent fuel pool temperature will not exceed 150° F during the worst single failure of a cooling pump. The maximum local water temperature in the hot channel will remain below the boiling point. The fuel will not undergo any significant heat up after an accidental drop of a fuel assembly on top of the rack blocking the flow path. A loss of cooling to the pool will allow sufficient time ( *i.e.* , 24 hours) for the operators to intervene and line up alternate cooling paths and the means of inventory make-up before the water shielding above the top of the racks falls below 10 feet. The thermal limits specified for the evaluations performed to support the proposed change are the same as those that were used in the previous evaluations. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O-1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 0-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.* If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:

(1)The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;

(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;

(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and

(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requester/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(I)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by:

(1)First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;

(2)courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;

(3)E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, *HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV;* or

(4)facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at

(301)415-1101, verification number is

(301)415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov.* A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Mr. Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60666, the attorney for the licensee. The Commission hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on an application for a license amendment falling within the scope of section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 10154. Under section 134 of the NWPA, the Commission, at the request of any party to the proceeding, must use hybrid hearing procedures with respect to “any matter which the Commission determines to be in controversy among the parties.” The hybrid procedures in section 134 provide for oral argument on matters in controversy, preceded by discovery under the Commission's rules and the designation, following argument of only those factual issues that involve a genuine and substantial dispute, together with any remaining questions of law, to be resolved in an adjudicatory hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings are to be held on only those issues found to meet the criteria of section 134 and set for hearing after oral argument. The Commission's rules implementing section 134 of the NWPA are found in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart K, “Hybrid Hearing Procedures for Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear Power Reactors.” Under those rules, any party to the proceeding may invoke the hybrid hearing procedures by filing with the presiding officer a written request for oral argument under 10 CFR 2.1109. To be timely, the request must be filed together with a request for hearing/petition to intervene, filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309. If it is determined a hearing will be held, the presiding officer must grant a timely request for oral argument. The presiding officer may grant an untimely request for oral argument only upon a showing of good cause by the requesting party for the failure to file on time and after providing the other parties an opportunity to respond to the untimely request. If the presiding officer grants a request for oral argument, any hearing held on the application must be conducted in accordance with the hybrid hearing procedures. In essence, those procedures limit the time available for discovery and require that an oral argument be held to determine whether any contentions must be resolved in an adjudicatory hearing. If no party to the proceeding timely requests oral argument, and if all untimely requests for oral argument are denied, then the usual procedures in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L apply. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated August 18, 2004, as supplemented May 13, June 14, and August 17, 2005, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of August, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Kahtan N. Jabbour, Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-4711 Filed 8-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030-35228] Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding a Proposed License Amendment for Endocyte Incorporated 1205 Kent Avenue Facility, West Lafayette, IN AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Bonano, Health Physicist, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532; telephone:

(630)829-9826; fax number:

(630)515-1259; e-mail: *gab1@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering issuing a license amendment to Material License No. 13-32212-01 issued to Endocyte Incorporated (the licensee), to authorize release of its 1205 Kent Avenue facility, West Lafayette, Indiana, for unrestricted use. This Environmental Assessment

(EA)is issued in support of this amendment in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on this EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this EA/FONSI. I. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The NRC staff has prepared this EA to support the Endocyte Incorporated May 26, 2005 (ML052340684) request to release its 1205 Kent Avenue, West Lafayette, Indiana facility for unrestricted use. Endocyte's 1205 Kent Avenue facility is one of two authorized facilities listed under Material License Number 13-32212-01. The licensee transferred all licensed material from the 1205 Kent Avenue facility to its 3000 Kent Avenue facility. Endocyte was granted a license on December 9, 1999, and initiated licensed activities in April 2000 at the 1205 Kent Avenue facility. The 3000 Kent Avenue facility was added to the license on April 4, 2005. Endocyte is authorized to use byproduct material for the research and development of medical products. Endocyte identified three isotopes, which are listed in the license, with half-lives greater than 120 days (hydrogen-3, carbon-14, technetium-99), which had been used at the 1205 Kent Avenue facility. The licensee conducted surveys of the facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the radiological condition of the building is consistent with criteria specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E for unrestricted use. No radiological remediation activities are required to complete the proposed action. Need for the Proposed Action The licensee is requesting this license amendment because it no longer plans to conduct NRC-licensed activities at the 1205 Kent Avenue location. The NRC is fulfilling its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act to make a decision on the proposed action for decommissioning that ensures that residual radioactivity is reduced to a level that is protective of the public health and safety and the environment. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff reviewed the information provided and surveys performed by Endocyte to demonstrate that the release of the 1205 Kent Avenue, West Lafayette, Indiana facility complies with radiological criterial for unrestricted use in 10 CFR 20.1402. Alternatives to the Proposed Action The only alternative to the proposed action of releasing the facility for unrestricted use is to take no action. Under the no-action alternative, the 1205 Kent Avenue facility would remain under an NRC license and would not be released for unrestricted use. Denial of the license amendment request would result in no change to current conditions at the facility. The no-action alternative is not acceptable because it is inconsistent with the NRC's Timeliness Rule, 10 CFR 30.36 “Expiration and Termination of Licenses and Decommissioning of Sites and Separate Buildings or Outdoor Areas,” which requires licensees who have ceased licensed activities to request termination of their radioactive materials license. This alternative also would impose an unnecessary regulatory burden and limit potential benefits from future uses of the facility. Conclusion The NRC staff concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release use specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. The staff found that the radiological environmental impacts from the proposed action are bounded by the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” (NUREG-1496). Additionally, no non-radiological or cumulative impacts were identified. Therefore, the NRC has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Agencies and Persons Consulted The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical habitats. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Likewise, the NRC has determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity that has potential to cause effect on historic properties. Therefore, consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is not required. The NRC consulted with the Indiana State Department of Health, Indoor and Radiologic Health Division. The Indiana State Department of Health was provided the draft EA for comment on August 1, 2005, and responded back on the same day. The State did not need any additional information, and agreed with the NRC's finding of No Significant Impact for the License/Facility. II. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the EA in support of the proposed license amendment to release the site for unrestricted use, the NRC has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Thus, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. Further Information A copy of this document will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records

(PARS)component of the NRC's document system. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The following references are available for inspection at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* (the Public Electronic Reading Room). ADAMS accession numbers are located in parentheses following the reference. 1. Leamon, Christopher P., Ph.D., Radiation Safety Officer, Endocyte Incorporated, letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 26, 2005 (ML052340684). 2. Decommissioning Report (Final Status Survey Report), 1205 Kent Avenue, West Lafayette, Indiana, May 26, 2005 (ML052340684). 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs,” NUREG-1748, August 2003. 4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities,” NUREG-1496, August 1994. 5. NRC, NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Volumes 1-3, September 2003. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)reference staff at

(800)397-4209,

(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Lisle, Illinois, this 22nd day of August, 2005. James L. Cameron, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, RIII. [FR Doc. E5-4709 Filed 8-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Notice of Public Meeting of the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards AGENCIES: Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)will host a meeting of the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS) on September, 27, 2005, in Rockville, Maryland. The purpose of ISCORS is to foster early resolution and coordination of regulatory issues associated with radiation standards. Agencies represented on ISCORS include the NRC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Transportation, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Representatives from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Office of Management and Budget, State Department, Illinois Bureau of Radiation Safety, and Pennsylvania Bureau of Radiation Protection may be observers at meetings. The objectives of ISCORS are to:

(1)Facilitate a consensus on allowable levels of radiation risk to the public and workers;

(2)promote consistent and scientifically sound risk assessment and risk management approaches in setting and implementing standards for occupational and public protection from ionizing radiation;

(3)promote completeness and coherence of Federal standards for radiation protection; and

(4)identify interagency radiation protection issues and coordinate their resolution. ISCORS meetings include presentations by the chairs of the subcommittees and discussions of current radiation protection issues. Committee meetings normally involve pre-decisional intra-governmental discussions and, as such, are normally not open for observation by members of the public or media. ISCORS has adopted the practice of opening one of its meetings each year to all interested members of the public. There will be time on the agenda for members of the public to provide comments. The final agenda for the September meeting will be posted on the ISCORS Web site, *http://www.iscors.org,* shortly before the meeting. Participants are encouraged to

(1)notify the contact below for pre-registration and

(2)allow sufficient time for security screening prior to accessing the meeting. DATES: The meeting will be held from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Tuesday, September 27, 2005. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the NRC auditorium, at Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Kyung Hee (Jessica) Shin, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone 301-415-8117; fax 301-415-5397; e-mail *KXS1@NRC.GOV.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Visitor parking around the NRC building is limited; however, the NRC auditorium is located adjacent to the White Flint Metro Station on the Red Line. Dated at Rockville, MD, this 23rd day of August, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Scott Flanders, Deputy Director, Environmental and Performance Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E5-4706 Filed 8-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Notice of Opportunity To Comment on Model Safety Evaluation on Elimination of Typical License Condition Requiring Reporting of Violations of Section 2.C of Operating License Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Request for comment. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)has prepared a model safety evaluation

(SE)relating to the elimination of the license condition involving reporting of violations of other requirements (typically in License Condition 2.C) in the operating license of some commercial nuclear power plants. The NRC staff has also prepared a model no significant hazards consideration

(NSHC)determination relating to this matter. The purpose of these models is to permit the NRC to efficiently process amendments that propose to delete the reporting requirement. Licensees of nuclear power reactors to which the models apply could then request amendments, confirming the applicability of the SE and NSHC determination to its reactors. The NRC staff is requesting comment on the model SE and model NSHC determination prior to announcing their availability for referencing in license amendment applications. DATES: The comment period expires 30 days from date of publication in the **Federal Register** . Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted either electronically or via U.S. mail. Submit written comments to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop T-6-D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand deliver comments to 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Comments may be submitted by electronic mail to *CLIIP@nrc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Reckley, Mail Stop: O-7D1, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-1323. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Regulatory Issue Summary 2000-06, “Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process for Adopting Standard Technical Specification Changes for Power Reactors,” was issued on March 20, 2000. The consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP) is intended to improve the efficiency of NRC licensing processes. The CLIIP includes an opportunity for the public to comment on a proposed change to operating licenses, including the Technical Specifications, after a preliminary assessment by the NRC staff and a finding that the change will likely be offered for adoption by licensees. This notice solicits comment on a proposed change that deletes a requirement for licensees to report violations of other requirements (typically in License Condition 2.C) of its facility's operating license. The CLIIP directs the NRC staff to evaluate any comments received for a proposed change and to either reconsider the change or announce the availability of the change for adoption by licensees. Licensees opting to apply for this proposed license amendment change are responsible for reviewing the staff's evaluation, referencing the applicable technical justifications, and providing any necessary plant-specific information. Each amendment application made in response to the notice of availability will be processed and noticed in accordance with applicable rules and NRC procedures. Applicability This proposal to eliminate the reporting of violations of specific requirements (typically in License Condition 2.C) of facility operating licenses is applicable to any licensee that has such a provision in its facility operating license. The NRC staff notes that many operating licenses do not contain the requirement because it was never added or was removed by a license amendment before issuance of this notice. The CLIIP also addresses similar requirements if they exist in the Administrative Section of Technical Specifications. The CLIIP does not address reporting requirements contained in operating licenses other than those specifically involving reports of violations of other requirements (typically in License Condition 2.C) of the facility operating license or requirements that restate the need to submit reports in accordance with 10 CFR 50.72, “Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors,” and 10 CFR 50.73, “Licensee event report system.” Public Notices This notice requests comments from interested members of the public within 30 days of the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . After evaluating the comments received as a result of this notice, the NRC staff will either reconsider the proposed change or announce the availability of the change in a subsequent notice (perhaps with some changes to the safety evaluation or the proposed NSHC determination as a result of public comments). If the NRC staff announces the availability of the change, licensees wishing to adopt the change must submit an application in accordance with applicable rules and other regulatory requirements. For each application, the NRC staff will publish a notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating licenses, a proposed NSHC determination, and a notice of opportunity for a hearing. The NRC staff will also publish a notice of issuance of an amendment for each plant that receives the requested change. Proposed Model Safety Evaluation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Consolidated Line Item Improvement, Elimination of License Condition Requiring Reports of Violations of License Condition [2.C] in Facility Operating License 1.0 Introduction By application dated [ ], [LICENSEE] (the licensee), requested an amendment to the Facility Operating License for [PLANT]. The proposed amendment would delete Section 2[X] of the Facility Operating License, which requires reporting of violations of the requirements in Section 2[C] of the Facility Operating License. 2.0 Regulatory Evaluation A section or condition was included in the facility operating licenses issued to some nuclear power plants requiring the licensee to make reports to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)regarding violations of other sections of the operating license (typically Section 2.C). A typical license condition reads as follows: Except as otherwise provided in this license and its appendices, the Licensee shall report any violations of the requirements contained in Section 2.C of this license in the following manner: initial notification shall be made within 24 hours to the NRC Operations Center via the Emergency Notification System with written followup within thirty days in accordance with the procedures described in 10 CFR 50.73 (Licensee event report system). In addition to the information provided to support licensing decisions, the NRC obtains information about plant operation, licensee programs, and other matters using a combination of inspections and reporting requirements. Routine or scheduled reports that are required to be submitted to the NRC are defined in the related regulations, specific license condition, technical specification, or an NRC-approved program document. The reporting of emergencies, unplanned events or conditions, and other special cases may also be addressed within such documents by the inclusion of reporting thresholds and are also the focus of the reporting requirements in 10 CFR 50.72, “Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors,” and 10 CFR 50.73, “Licensee event report system.” Changes to the reporting regulations in 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 became effective in January 2001 (see **Federal Register** notice on October 25, 2000 (65 FR 63769) and included extending the allowable reporting times for licensee event reports

(LERs)from 30 days to 60 days. [Optional: The Administrative Section of the Technical Specifications

(TS)for [PLANT] also includes a reporting requirement that duplicates the requirements in 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73, but which does not reflect subsequent changes in those regulations such as requiring LERs within 60 days instead of 30 days.] 3.0 Technical Evaluation Section 2.[X] of the Facility Operating License requires the licensee to report any violations of the requirements of Section 2[C] of the Facility Operating License and defines the method and allowable time periods for such reports. The reporting threshold ( *i.e.* , a violation) for some of the conditions included in Section 2.[C] of the Facility Operating License duplicates those defined in 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73. However, the requirements in the Facility Operating License may have different deadlines than those defined in the regulations (following a rule change in 2001). This difference in reporting requirements has led to variations in reporting since many facility operating licenses do not contain the subject condition. For those licensees with a 30-day reporting requirement in the Facility Operating License, the condition has decreased the benefits of the rulemaking. For those cases where the current Facility Operating License requirement to report violations is also reportable in accordance with the regulations defined in 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73, the NRC staff finds that the regulations adequately address this issue and the elimination of the duplicative requirement in the Facility Operating License is acceptable. Some of the conditions addressed in Section 2.[C] of the Facility Operating License may address the maintenance of particular programs, administrative requirements, or other matters where a violation of the requirement would not result in a report to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 50.72 or 10 CFR 50.73. In most cases, there are requirements for reports to the NRC related to these conditions in other regulations, the specific license condition or technical specification, or an NRC-approved program document. In other cases, there are reports to other agencies or news releases that would prompt a report to the NRC (in accordance with 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(xi)). The NRC staff also assessed violations of administrative requirements that could be reportable under the current License Condition but that may not have a dupicative requirement in a regulation or other regulatory requirement. The NRC staff finds that the requirements to report such problems within 24 hours with written reports to follow using the LER process is not needed. The NRC staff is confident that the information related to such violations that is actually important to the NRC's regulatory functions would come to light in a time frame comparable to the 60-day LER requirements. The information would become available to the appropriate NRC staff through the inspection program, updates to program documents, resultant licensing actions, public announcements, or some other reliable mechanism. The NRC staff finds that the elimination of Section 2.[X] of the Facility Operating License will not result in a loss of information to the NRC that would adversely affect either its goal to protect public health and safety or its ability to carry out its various other regulatory responsibilities. [Optional: The reporting requirement defined in TS [5.x.x] for [PLANT] requires a report to the NRC when [REPORT REQUIREMENT]. This requirement duplicates the requirements in 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73, but does not reflect subsequent changes in those regulations such as requiring LERs within 60 days instead of 30 days. The NRC staff finds the elimination of the TS requirement acceptable since the required reports are defined in an established NRC regulation that is also applicable to this licensee.] 4.0 State Consultation In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the [ ] State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments. 5.0 Environmental Consideration The amendment changes recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment. 6.0 Conclusion The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that

(1)there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner,

(2)such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and

(3)the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination *Description of Amendment Request:* The proposed amendment would delete Section 2.[X] of the Facility Operating License, which requires reporting of violations of the requirements in Section 2.[C] of the Facility Operating License. [The proposed amendment would also delete a reporting requirement in Technical Specifications that is duplicative of NRC regulations.] *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: 1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change involves the deletion of a reporting requirement. The change does not affect plant equipment or operating practices and therefore does not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change is administrative in that it deletes a reporting requirement. The change does not add new plant equipment, change existing plant equipment, or affect the operating practices of the facility. Therefore, the change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change deletes a reporting requirement. The change does not affect plant equipment or operating practices and therefore does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Based on the above, the NRC staff proposes that the change presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c). Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd of August, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. William D. Reckley, Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-4710 Filed 8-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request *Upon Written Request, Copies Available From:* U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filing and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549 *Extension:* Rule 30b1-5; SEC File No. 270-520; OMB Control No. 3235-0577. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these existing collections of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval. The title for the collection of information is “Rule 30b1-5 under the Investment Company Act of 1940, Quarterly Filing of Schedule of Portfolio Holdings of Registered Management Investment Companies.” Rule 30b1-5 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 requires registered management investment companies, other than small business investment companies registered on Form N-5, to file a quarterly report via the Commission's EDGAR system on Form N-Q, not more than sixty calendar days after the close of each first and third fiscal quarter, containing their complete portfolio holdings. The Commission estimates that there are 9,850 management investment companies and series that are governed by the rule. The Commission estimates that the annual burden associated with the rule is 1 hour per affected investment company or series. The total burden hours for rule 30b1-5 is 9,850 per year in the aggregate (9,850 responses × 1 hour per response). Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. The collection of information under rule 30b1-5 is mandatory. The information provided under rule 30b1-5 is not kept confidential. The Commission may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Written comments are invited on:

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F. Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Dated: August 22, 2005. Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary, [FR Doc. E5-4713 Filed 8-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of August 29, 2005: A Closed Meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 at 2 p.m. Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present. The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), and

(10)and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and

(10)permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting. Commissioner Atkins, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session. The subject matters of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 30, 2005, will be: Formal orders of investigations; Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; and an Adjudicatory matter. At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at

(202)551-5400. Dated: August 23, 2005. Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. 05-17165 Filed 8-24-05; 4:48 pm]

Connectionstraces to 14

Traces to 14 documents

CFR