Notices. Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

8,109 words·~37 min read·/register/2005/12/20/05-24323·

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

BILLING CODE 4310-HC-M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Investigation, Contra Costa County, CA AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) will prepare an EIS to evaluate expanding the existing Los Vaqueros Reservoir and alternatives to improve water supply reliability and water quality for Bay Area water users, particularly those receiving water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; and contribute to lower cost implementation of the CALFED Environmental Water Account (EWA).

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Contra Costa Water District will prepare an EIR on the proposed project concurrent with the EIS preparation. A joint EIS/EIR document will be prepared. Reclamation was directed in Public Law 108-7, (Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2003) to conduct a feasibility-level investigation of the potential expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir. DATES: Four scoping meetings will be held to solicit public input on the scope of the environmental document, alternatives, concerns and issues to be addressed in the EIS.

The scoping meeting dates are: • Tuesday, January 24, 2006, 1:30 to 3:30 p.m., Sacramento, CA. • Tuesday, January 24, 2006, 6 to 8 p.m. Antioch, CA. • Wednesday January 25, 2006, 6 to 8 p.m., Livermore, CA. • Thursday, January 26, 2006, 6 to 8 p.m., Concord, CA. Submit written comments on the scope of the environmental document to Reclamation at the address below by February 28, 2006. ADDRESSES: The scoping meeting locations are: • Sacramento—Department of Water Resources, the Bonderson Building, 901 P Street, Public Hearing Room first floor, Sacramento, CA 95814. • Antioch—Legion Hall, Veteran's Memorial Building 403 West 6th Street, Antioch, CA 94509. • Livermore—Martinelli Event Center, Agricultural Center, 3585 Greenville Road, Livermore, CA 94550. • Concord—Contra Costa Water District, 1331 Concord Ave., Concord, CA 94520.

Written comments on the scope of the environmental document should be sent to Ms. Patricia Roberson, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid Pacific Regional Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento CA 95825-1898; by e-mail at *proberson@mp.usbr.gov* ; or faxed to

(916)978-5094. Further information on the investigation, including the interim results, can be found at *http://www.usbr.gov/mp/vaqueros/.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Roberson, Reclamation Project Manager at the above address,

(916)978-5074; or Ms. Marguerite Naillon, Project Manager, Contra Costa Water District, P.O. Box H2O, Concord, CA 94524,

(925)688-8018. If you would like to be included on the EIS/EIR mailing list, please contact Jennifer Allen, CirclePoint, at

(415)227-1100 ext. 33 or *j.allen@circlepoint.com.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background One of the five potential surface storage projects described in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program's long-term plan is the expansion of the existing Los Vaqueros Reservoir, an existing 100,000-acre-foot off-stream surface storage facility, located in Contra Costa County, California. The existing facility is owned and operated by the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). The primary study area includes the Los Vaqueros Reservoir watershed and associated dam and reservoir facilities, which are situated in the coastal foothills west of the Delta and east of the Bay Area, the central and south Delta, and service areas of Bay Area water agencies that may be directly affected by the project. The Bay Area water agencies that may be directly affected include Contra Costa Water District, Alameda County Water District, Santa Clara Valley Water district, and Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District—Zone 7. Due to the potential influence on other programs and projects, an extended study area is defined to include the service area of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the Central Valley of California. Planning studies to date have focused on identifying water resources problems, needs, and opportunities in the primary study area, developing a set of planning objectives to help guide the remainder of the feasibility study, and formulating a set of initial alternatives. These elements of the study are summarized below. Problems, Needs, and Opportunities *Water Supply Reliability* . Deliveries of imported water to the Bay Area for drinking water supply are significantly reduced during dry years and critically dry years. Periods of multiple dry years can also occur, such as the droughts of 1928-1935 and 1976-1977, and most recently 1987-1992. These dry periods cause most local supplies, such as groundwater and locally stored runoff, to be depleted. At the same time, deliveries of imported water from the SWP and CVP are curtailed. Bay Area water agencies need to improve water supply reliability not only to reduce deficiencies during a drought, but also as an alternative supply in case of a catastrophic event or emergency in the Delta, such as a chemical spill or levee failure. *Environmental Opportunities.* The Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast and provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife. A variety of factors have contributed to the decline of fish species in the Delta, including the loss of habitat and water resources development. Water deliveries from the Delta have been curtailed in recent years to help protect threatened and endangered fish populations and their habitats. However, while pumping curtailments and other actions in the Delta have been beneficial to fish, they often have had adverse impacts on cities, farms, and businesses that depend on water supplies pumped from or through the Delta. Consequently, the Environmental Water Account

(EWA)was developed to provide water project operators with additional flexibility in meeting or exceeding fishery requirements in the Delta. *Water Quality.* Although State water quality standards have been maintained, the quality of water supplies from the Delta has generally declined because of salinity intrusion resulting from water resources development; polluted runoff from urban, agricultural, and other development; and changes to the physical environment. Because Bay Area water agencies typically blend water from various sources to attain a desired quality, water quality in the study area is a function of both water source and volume. Water providers in the study area use imported supplies from the Delta and local groundwater and surface water supplies. Planning Objectives The planning objectives identified below were developed based on the problems, needs, and opportunities in the study area. • Increase water supply reliability for water providers within the study area, principally to help meet municipal and industrial water demands during drought periods, with a focus on enlarging Los Vaqueros Reservoir. • Use an expanded Los Vaqueros Reservoir to develop replacement water supplies for the long-term EWA, if the cost of water provided from an expanded reservoir is found to be less than the cost of water for continued implementation of that program. • To the extent possible through pursuit of the water supply reliability and environmental water objectives, improve the quality of water deliveries to municipal and industrial customers in the study area. In addition to the study objectives, various planning constraints, principles, and criteria were identified and are being used to help guide the investigation. These criteria include the Contra Costa Water District's principles of participation. Initial Alternatives From the Planning Objectives, a number of water resources management measures were identified. The most effective of these measures were used to formulate a set of initial alternatives. The initial action alternatives, still under refinement, include the following elements: • Different ways to increase reservoir capacity: Raise the existing dam in-place or replace it completely with a new dam; • Different ways/points of connection to deliver water to Bay Area users via facilities of the State Water Project; • Different reservoir expansion sizing and operations geared to meet the project objectives: Water supply reliability, EWA needs, and/or water quality. Specific measures and combinations of measures in these initial alternatives will likely change in future studies and some may be combined with others or dropped from further consideration. Other measures and combinations of measures may emerge during the scoping process and warrant development into alternatives. In addition to the action alternatives, the No Action alternative will also be evaluated. Additional information on these initial alternatives is contained in the Los Vaqueros Expansion Investigation, California, Initial Alternatives Information Report at *http://www.usbr.gov/mp/vaqueros/.* Additional Information The environmental review will be conducted pursuant to NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and other applicable Federal law, to analyze the potential environmental impacts of implementing a range of feasible alternatives, including Los Vaqueros Reservoir expansion. Public input on the range of alternatives to be considered will be sought through the initial public scoping meetings. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from public disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety. Frank Michny, Regional Environmental Officer, Mid-Pacific Region. [FR Doc. E5-7541 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 731-TA-344, 391-A, 392-A and C, 393-A, 394-A, 396, and 399-A (Second Review)] Certain Bearings From China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Revised schedule for the subject investigations. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 9, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debra Baker (202-205-3180), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 12, 2005, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the subject investigations (70 FR 60556, October 18, 2005). Subsequently, the Commission received a request from an interested party to change the scheduled date for the public hearing. The Commission, therefore, is revising its schedule. The Commission's new schedule for the investigations is as follows: requests to appear at the hearing must be filed with the Secretary to the Commission not later than April 20, 2006; the prehearing conference will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on April 25, 2006; the prehearing staff report will be placed in the nonpublic record on April 7, 2006; the deadline for filing prehearing briefs is April 21, 2006; the hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on May 2, 2006; the deadline for filing posthearing briefs is May 11, 2006; the Commission will make its final release of information on June 6, 2006; and final party comments are due on June 8, 2006. For further information concerning these investigations see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: December 13, 2005. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E5-7511 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-696 (Second Review)] Pure Magnesium From China AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice of Commission determination to conduct a full five-year review concerning the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from China. SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with a full review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the review will be established and announced at a later date. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). EFFECTIVE DATE: December 5, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 5, 2005, the Commission determined that it should proceed to a full review in the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act. The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (70 FR 52122, September 1, 2005) was adequate but that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission also found that other circumstances warranted conducting a full review. 1 A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site. 1 Chairman Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Jennifer A. Hillman dissenting. Authority: This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.62 of the Commission's rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: December 14, 2005. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E5-7510 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-1090 (Final)] Superalloyed Degassed Chromium From Japan Determination On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigation, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports from Japan of superalloy degassed chromium, provided for in subheading 8112.21.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)). Background The Commission instituted this investigation effective March 4, 2005, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Eramet Marietta Inc., Marietta, OH, and the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union, Local 5-0639, Belpre, OH. The final phase of the investigation was scheduled by the Commission following notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of superalloy degassed chromium from Japan were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigation and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the **Federal Register** of September 7, 2005 (70 FR 53252). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on November 3, 2005, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission transmitted its determination in this investigation to the Secretary of Commerce on December 15, 2005. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3825 (December 2005), entitled *Superalloy Degassed Chromium from Japan: Investigation No. 731-TA-1090 (Final).* By order of the Commission. Issued: December 15, 2005. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E5-7553 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: NARA is giving public notice that the agency has submitted to OMB for approval the information collections described in this notice. The public is invited to comment on the proposed information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to OMB at the address below on or before January 19, 2006 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Desk Officer for NARA, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5167. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collections and supporting statements should be directed to Tamee Fechhelm at telephone number 301-837-1694 or fax number 301-837-3213. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. NARA published a notice of proposed collection for these information collections on September 29, 2005 (70 FR 56931 and 56932). No comments were received. NARA has submitted the described information collections to OMB for approval. In response to this notice, comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points:

(a)Whether the proposed information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NARA;

(b)the accuracy of NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collections;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of information technology; and

(e)whether small businesses are affected by this collection. In this notice, NARA is soliciting comments concerning the following information collections: 1. *Title:* Application for attendance at the Institute for the Editing of Historical Documents. *OMB number:* 3095-0012. *Agency form number:* None. *Type of review:* Regular. *Affected public:* Individuals, often already working on documentary editing projects, who wish to apply to attend the annual one-week Institute for the Editing of Historical Documents, an intensive seminar in all aspects of modern documentary editing techniques taught by visiting editors and specialists. *Estimated number of respondents:* 25. *Estimated time per response:* 1.5 hours. *Frequency of response:* On occasion, no more than annually (when respondent wishes to apply for attendance at the Institute). *Estimated total annual burden hours:* 37.5 hours. *Abstract:* The application is used by the NHPRC staff to establish the applicant's qualifications and to permit selection of those individuals best qualified to attend the Institute jointly sponsored by the NHPRC, the Wisconsin Historical Society, and the University of Wisconsin. Selected applicants forms are forwarded to the resident advisors of the Institute, who use them to determine what areas of instruction would be most useful to the applicants. You can also use NARA's Web site at *http://www.archives.gov/nhprc/forms/editing-application.pdf* to review and fill-in the application. 2. *Title:* National Historical Publications and Records Commission Grant Program. *OMB number:* 3095-0013. *Agency form number:* None. *Type of review:* Regular. *Affected public:* Nonprofit organizations and institutions, state and local government agencies, Federally acknowledged or state-recognized Native American tribes or groups, and individuals who apply for NHPRC grants for support of historical documentary editions, archival preservation and planning projects, and other records projects. *Estimated number of respondents:* 148 per year submit applications; approximately 100 grantees among the applicant respondents also submit semiannual narrative performance reports. *Estimated time per response:* 54 hours per application; 2 hours per narrative report. *Frequency of response:* On occasion for the application; semiannually for the narrative report. Currently, the NHPRC considers grant applications 2 times per year; respondents usually submit no more than one application per year. *Estimated total annual burden hours:* 8,392 hours. *Abstract:* The NHPRC is changing the way it provides information about its grant program. The previously all inclusive grant guidelines booklet is being replaced by a suite of announcements where the information will be specific to the grant opportunity named. The basic information collection remains the same. The grant proposal is used by the NHPRC staff, reviewers, and the Commission to determine if the applicant and proposed project are eligible for an NHPRC grant, and whether the proposed project is methodologically sound and suitable for support. The narrative report is used by the NHPRC staff to monitor the performance of grants. You can also use NARA's Web site at *http://www.archives.gov/nhprc/guidelines/index.html* to review the guidelines. The forms used to apply for a grant can be found at *http://www.archives.gov/nhprc/forms/.* Dated: December 7, 2005. L. Reynolds Cahoon, Senior Advisor on Electronic Records. [FR Doc. E5-7551 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Documents Containing Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirements: Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)Review AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). 1. *Type of submission, new, revision, or extension:* Revision. 2. *The title of the information collection:* 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, AP1000 Design Certification, Final Rule. 3. *The form number if applicable:* Not applicable. 4. *How often the collection is required:* Semi-annually. 5. *Who will be required or asked to report:* Applicant for a combined license. 6. *An estimate of the number of annual responses:* 2 (1 response plus 1 recordkeeper). 7. *The estimated number of annual respondents:* 1. 8. *An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* Approximately 39 additional burden hours (5 hours reporting plus 34 hours recordkeeping). 9. *An indication of whether section 3507(d), Public Law 104-13 applies:* It is applicable. 10. *Abstract:* The NRC is proposing to amend its regulations to certify the AP1000 standard plant design under subpart B of 10 CFR part 52. This action is necessary so that applicants or licensees intending to construct and operate an AP1000 design may do so by referencing the AP1000 design certification rule (DCR). This proposed DCR, as set out in Appendix D, is nearly identical to the AP600 DCR in Appendix C of the 10 CFR part 52. The information collection requirements for part 52 were based largely on the requirements for licensing nuclear facilities under 10 CFR part 50. The applicant for certification of the AP1000 design is Westinghouse Electric Company LLC. A copy of the supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance packages are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html.* The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer by February 21, 2006. John A. Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0151), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington DC 20503. Comments can also be e-mailed to *John_A._Asalone@omb.eop.gov* or submitted by telephone at

(202)395-4650. The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of December 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Office, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E5-7517 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-382] Entergy Operations, Inc.; Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3; Exemption 1.0 Background Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License No. NPF-38 which authorizes operation of Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3). The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect. The facility consists of one pressurized-water reactor located in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. 2.0 Request/Action Sections IV.F.2.b and c of Appendix E, to Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR) Part 50 require the licensee at each site to conduct an exercise of its onsite emergency plan and of its offsite emergency plans biennially with full or partial participation by each offsite authority having a role under the offsite plan. During such biennial exercises, the NRC evaluates onsite and the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)evaluates offsite emergency preparedness activities, including interaction with the various State and local emergency management agencies. The licensee successfully conducted a full-participation emergency preparedness exercise on May 21, 2003, and it was evaluated by the NRC and FEMA. The licensee had scheduled a plume exposure pathway exercise for December 7, 2005. However, due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the State of Louisiana was unable to support the exercise. Under the current regulations, the licensee would have had until December 31, 2005, to complete its next biennial full or partial-participation emergency preparedness exercises consisting of both onsite and offsite exercises. By letter dated October 24, 2005, the licensee requested an exemption from Section IV.F.2.c of Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50. Though not referenced in the licensee's request, the NRC staff has determined that an exemption from Section IV.F.2.b of Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 is also necessary, since the last full participation onsite exercise was completed on May 21, 2003. The licensee commits to conduct the next biennial full participation emergency preparedness exercise on June 28, 2006. Future onsite and offsite exercises will be scheduled biennially from the year 2005. 3.0 Discussion The Commission, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1), may grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 that are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. The Commission, however, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), special circumstances are present when application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v), special circumstances are present whenever the exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation. The underlying purposes for conducting a biennial exercise are to ensure that emergency organization personnel are familiar with their duties and to test the adequacy of emergency plans. In order to accommodate the scheduling of exercises, the NRC has allowed licensees to schedule the exercises at any time during the calendar biennium. Conducting the Waterford 3 exercise in calendar year 2006 places the exercise past the previously scheduled biennial calendar year of 2005. Since the last exercise conducted at Waterford 3 on May 21, 2003, Waterford 3 has conducted two emergency response team tabletops (site drills without state or parish participation) on August 8 and December 9, 2003, and Waterford 3 site-wide drills (which includes state and parish participation) on March 11, June 17, September 30, and December 2, 2004, and February 17, and August 4, 2005. The licensee also states: Emergency response team tabletops are conducted prior to each site-wide drill. The local parishes had limited participation (communication only) in each of the site-wide drills. The Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness also participated to a limited extent (communications only) in these drills. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality participated in all the site-wide drills by manning the Waterford 3 Emergency Operations Facility and the Emergency News Center. The NRC and FEMA did not participate in any of the tabletops or site-wide drills. Although these drills were not evaluated by NRC and FEMA, the results were critiqued by the drill participants, our emergency response organization, and the parish and state officials who participated in the drills. The drills were also evaluated by our Quality Assurance Department. An emergency preparedness medical drill at Ochsner Medical Center (Ochsner) took place on July 23, 2003, and FEMA evaluated a medical drill at Ochsner on August 6, 2003. Issues identified during all emergency preparedness drills and in the critiques that follow all the drills have been resolved or are being resolved under our corrective action program. The Waterford 3 emergency response, along with the parish and state emergency response, were further tested as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Many of the elements of the Waterford 3 emergency response were implemented in the preparation, response, and restoration efforts for Hurricane Katrina. This includes activation of the Waterford 3, parish and state emergency response organizations, evacuation and re-entry of the population, environmental sampling, and assisting Waterford 3 in the plans for restart of the unit. The NRC staff considers the intent of the regulatory requirement is met by having conducted these series of drills and the emergency response to Hurricane Katrina. The NRC staff considers that these measures are adequate to maintain an acceptable level of emergency preparedness during this period, satisfying the underlying purposes of the rule. Therefore, the special circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) are satisfied. In addition, the staff has concluded that the above drills and exercises provide adequate protection of the public health and safety and are consistent with the common defense and security. Only temporary relief from the regulation is provided by the requested exemption, since Waterford 3 will resume their normal biennial exercise schedule in 2007. The licensee has made a good faith effort to comply with the regulation. The exemption is being sought by the licensee in response to a request by the State of Louisiana to postpone the exercise. Louisiana was unable to support the original schedule for the exercise due to a series of severe weather events. FEMA, in its letter dated October 14, 2005, to the State of Louisiana, stated, “* * * we concur that the Waterford-3 Radiological Emergency Preparedness

(REP)Exercise currently scheduled for December 7, 2005, * * * should be postponed due to the effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the local infrastructure * * *.” The NRC staff, having considered the schedule and resource issues with those agencies that participate in and evaluate the offsite portion of the exercises, concludes that the licensee made a good faith effort to meet the requirements of the regulation. The NRC staff, therefore, concludes that the exemption request meets the special circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v) and should be granted. 4.0 Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Additionally, special circumstances are present, which make conducting the exercise impracticable in 2005, and which allow the underlying purposes of the regulation to be served with a postponement. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants Entergy Operations, Inc. an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Sections IV.F.2.b and c for Waterford 3. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (70 FR 73311). This exemption is effective upon issuance. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of December, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-7544 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281] Virginia Electric and Power Company, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Exemption 1.0 Background The Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37 that authorizes operation of the Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Surry). The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect. The facility consists of a two pressurized-water reactors located in Surry County, Virginia. 2.0 Request/Action Section IV.F.2.b of Appendix E, to Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR) Part 50, requires the licensee at each site to conduct an exercise of its onsite emergency plan biennially. Section IV.F.2.c of Appendix E, to 10 CFR Part 50, states that the offsite plans for each site shall be exercised biennially with full participation by each offsite authority having a role under the plan. During such biennial full participation exercises, the NRC staff evaluates the onsite emergency preparedness activities, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)evaluates the offsite emergency preparedness activities, including interaction with its various State and local emergency management agencies. The licensee successfully conducted a full participation exercise at Surry on July 15, 2003. The licensee had scheduled a full participation Radiological Emergency Preparedness Exercise for December 6, 2005. Because the Virginia Department of Emergency Management

(DEM)is currently constructing a new Emergency Operations Center

(EOC)and this EOC is not scheduled to be fully operational until January 2, 2006, the Virginia DEM requested approval from FEMA to delay the emergency exercise until February 7, 2006, in order to allow the Virginia DEM to test its new EOC during the exercise at Surry. By letter dated May 20, 2005, FEMA approved Virginia DEM's request to delay this exercise until the first week of February 2006. Under the current regulations, the licensee would have until December 31, 2005, to complete its next full participation exercise. The licensee plans to conduct a Federally observed full participation emergency exercise on February 7, 2006. Future full participation exercises will be scheduled biennially from the year 2005. By letter dated September 15, 2005, the licensee requested an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.b and c regarding the biennial exercise and participation of the offsite response organizations during a biennial emergency exercise at Surry. Subsequently, the NRC staff has determined that the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.b and c are applicable to the circumstances of the licensee's request and that an exemption from those requirements is appropriate. 3.0 Discussion Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1), the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. However, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), the Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), special circumstances are present when application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v), special circumstances are present whenever the exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation. The underlying purpose for conducting a biennial exercise is to ensure that emergency response organization personnel are familiar with their duties and to test the adequacy of emergency plans. In order to accommodate the scheduling of full participation exercises, the NRC staff has allowed licensees to schedule the exercises at any time during the calendar biennium. Conducting the full participation exercise at Surry in calendar year 2006 places the exercise past the previously scheduled biennial calendar year of 2005. Since the last full participation exercise conducted at Surry on July 15, 2003, the licensee conducted Full Scale Plume exercises on April 13, 2004, and December 6, 2005, and also performed an unannounced plume phase exercise on August 25, 2004. In addition, four training exercises were conducted. The NRC staff considers the intent of this requirement met by having conducted these series of exercises and drills. The NRC staff considers these measures to be adequate to maintain an acceptable level of emergency preparedness during this period, satisfying the underlying purpose of the rule. Therefore, the special circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) are satisfied. Only temporary relief from the regulation is provided by the requested exemption since Surry will resume its normal biennial exercise schedule in 2007. The licensee has made a good faith effort to comply with the regulation. The exemption is being sought by the licensee in response to a request by the Virginia DEM to postpone the exercise. The Virginia DEM requested this delay to allow for the completion of the new EOC, which is not scheduled for completion until January 2, 2006. In its letter dated May 20, 2005, FEMA stated that it supports the schedule change from December 6, 2005, to the first week of February 2006. The NRC staff, having considered the schedule and resource issues with those agencies that participate in and evaluate the offsite portion of the full participation exercises, concludes that the licensee made a good faith effort to meet the requirements of the regulation. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the exemption request meets the special circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v) and should be granted. 4.0 Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants the licensee an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.b and c for Surry, Units 1 and 2. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (70 FR 72666). This exemption is effective upon issuance. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of December 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Edwin M. Hackett, Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-7546 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-443] FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Seabrook Station Unit No. 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, for Facility Operating License No. NPF-86 issued to FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC (the licensee), for operation of Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 (Seabrook), located in Rockingham County, New Hampshire. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would extend the expiration date of the operating license for Seabrook from October 17, 2026, to March 15, 2030. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated March 28, 2005, as supplemented September 23, 2005. The Need for the Proposed Action The current operating licensed term for Seabrook ends on October 17, 2026. This is 40 years from the date of the zero-power operating license, which was issued on October 17, 1986. The amendment would extend the expiration date of the operating license from October 17, 2026, to March 15, 2030. The extended date for termination of the operating license would be 40 years after issuance of the full-power operating license which was issued on March 15, 1990. This would allow the licensee to recapture approximately 41 months of additional plant operation for the unit. This proposed amendment is not a request for license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that there are no significant environmental considerations involved with the proposed action. The extension of the operating licenses does not affect the design or operation of the plant, does not involve any modifications to the plant or any increase in the licensed power for the plant, and will not create any new or unreviewed environmental impacts that were not considered in the Final Environmental Statement

(FES)related to the operation of Seabrook, NUREG-0895, dated December 1982. The evaluations presented in the FES were of the environmental impacts of generating power at Seabrook and the basis for granting a 40-year operating license for Seabrook. The environmental impacts of the proposed action are based on the evaluations in the FES. It should be noted that the Seabrook license was amended on February 28, 2005, to allow an increase in maximum core power by 5.2% (from 3411 megawatts thermal

(MWt)to 3587 MWt). The environmental assessment of the power uprate was published in the **Federal Register** on February 14, 2005 (70 FR 7525). The FES which, in general, assesses various impacts associated with operation of the facility in terms of annual impacts, and balances these against the anticipated annual energy production benefits. The offsite exposure from releases during postulated accidents has been previously evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for Seabrook. The results are acceptable when compared with the criteria defined in 10 CFR Part 100, as documented in the Commission's Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0896, dated March 1983, and its nine supplements. As a result of this action there is no change in the types, frequency, or consequences of design-basis accidents. The NRC staff has concluded that the impacts associated with the addition of approximately 41 months to the license expiration date are not significantly different from the operating license duration assessed in the Seabrook FES. Therefore, the staff concluded that the FES sufficiently addresses the environmental impacts associated with a full 40-year operating period for Seabrook. The annual occupational exposure of workers at the plant, station employees and contractors, is reported in the Annual Operating Report submitted by the licensee. The lowest exposure value is for a year without a refueling outage, and the highest value is for a year with a refueling outage. In Section 5.9.3.1.1 of the FES, the average occupational exposure for a pressurized water reactor was reported as 440 person-rems. Therefore, the expected annual occupational exposure for the proposed extended period of operation does not change previous conclusions presented in the FES on occupational exposure. The offsite exposure from releases during routine operations has been previously evaluated in Section 5.9.3 of the FES. During the low-power license, the plant was restricted to no more than five percent of rated power for no longer than 0.75 effective full power hours, and the generation of radioactivity at the plant was significantly smaller than would have occurred if the plant were at full-power operation. Therefore, the addition of approximately 41 months of operation that the licensee has requested does not change previous conclusions presented in the FES on annual public doses. The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resource than those previously considered in the FES for Seabrook. Agencies and Persons Consulted On December 8, 2005, the staff consulted with the New Hampshire State official, Mr. Mike Nawoj, and the Massachusetts State official, Mr. James Muckerheid, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State officials had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated March 28, 2005 as supplemented September 23, 2005. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (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 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of December 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Darrell J. Roberts, Branch Chief, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-7515 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Sunshine Act; Notice of Meetings Agency Holding the Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dates: Weeks of December 19, 26, 2005, January 2, 9, 16, 23, 2006. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and Closed. Matters To Be Considered: Week of December 19, 2005 There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 19, 2005. Week of December 26, 2005—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 26, 2005. Week of January 2, 2006—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 2, 2006. Week of January 9, 2006—Tentative Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:30 a.m.—Briefing on International Research and Bilateral Agreements. (Contact: Roman Shaffer, 301-415-7606). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address: *http://www.nrc.gov.* Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:30 a.m.—Meeting with Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW). (Contact: John Larkins, 301-415-7360). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address: *http://www.nrc.gov* . Thursday, January 12, 2006 9:30 a.m.—Discussion of Security Issues (Closed—Ex. 1 & 2). Week of January 16, 2006—Tentative Thursday, January 19, 2006 1:30 p.m.—Discussion of Security Issues (Closed—Ex. 1 & 3). Week of January 23, 2006—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 23, 2006. * The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll,

(301)415-1662. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: *http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html* . The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, August Spector, at 301-415-7080, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at *aks@nrc.gov.* Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to *dkw@nrc.gov.* Dated: December 15, 2005. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 05-24323 Filed 12-16-05; 2:18 pm]

Connectionstraces to 7

Traces to 7 documents

U.S. Code

CFR

8 references not yet in our index