Notices. Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment

10,217 words·~46 min read·/register/2006/06/29/06-5827·

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

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the Office of Management and Budget

(a)Nuclear equipment and material subject to the requirements of a specific license,

(b)radioactive waste subject to the requirements of a specific license, and

(c)incidental radioactive material that is a contaminant of shipments of more than 100 kilograms of non-waste material using existing NRC general licenses. 6. *An estimate of the number of annual responses:* 1298. 7. *The estimated number of annual respondents:* 62. 8. *An estimate of the total number of hours need annually to complete the requirement or request:* 857 [478 reporting + 379 recordkeeping (0.66 hours per response)]. 9. *An indication of whether section 3507(d), Public Law 104-13 applies:* Not applicable. 10. *Abstract:* 10 CFR part 110 provides application, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for export and imports of nuclear material and equipment subject to the requirements of a specific license or a general license and exports of incidental radioactive material. The information collected and maintained pursuant to 10 CFR part 110 enables the NRC to authorize only imports and exports which are not inimical to U.S. common defense and security and which meet applicable statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements. A copy of the final 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 requests 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 listed below by July 31, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. OMB Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0036), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be submitted by telephone at

(202)395-3087. The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton,

(301)415-7233. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of June 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-10263 Filed 6-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the Office of Management and Budget

(a)the financial protection required of licensees and for the indemnification and limitation of liability of certain licensees and other persons pursuant to section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and

(b)the liability insurance required of uranium enrichment facility licensees pursuant to section 193 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. A copy of the final 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 requests 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 listed below by July 31, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. John A. Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0039), 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 22nd day of June, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E6-10264 Filed 6-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)Review; Comment Request 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). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. 1. *Type of submission, new, revision, or extension:* Revision. 2. *The title of the information collection:* 10 CFR part 150, “Exemptions and Continued Regulatory Authority in Agreement States and in Offshore Waters under Section 274.” 3. *The form number if applicable:* Not applicable. 4. *How often the collection is required:* 10 CFR 150.16(b), 150.17(c), and 150.19(c) require the submission of reports following specified events, such as the theft or unlawful diversion of licensed radioactive material. The source material inventory reports required under 10 CFR 150.17(b) must be submitted annually by certain licensees. 5. *Who is required or asked to report:* Agreement State licensees authorized to possess source or special nuclear material at certain types of facilities, or at any one time and location in greater than specified amounts. In addition, persons engaging in activities in non-Agreement States, in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction within Agreement States, or in offshore waters. 6. *An estimate of the number of responses:* 12. 7. *The estimated number of annual respondents:* 10. 8. *The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 35 hours. 9. *An indication of whether section 3507(d), Public Law 104-13 applies:* Not applicable. 10. *Abstract:* 10 CFR part 150 provides certain exemptions from NRC regulations for persons in Agreement States. Part 150 also defines activities in Agreement States and in offshore waters over which NRC regulatory authority continues, including certain information collection requirements. The information is needed to permit NRC to make reports to other governments and the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with international agreements. The information is also used to carry out NRC's safeguards and inspection programs. A copy of the final 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 requests 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 listed below by July 31, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. OMB Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0032), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be submitted by telephone at

(202)395-3087. The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of June 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-10266 Filed 6-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030-06839] Hawaii Agriculture Research Center, Kunia Substation, Kunia, HI: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Blair Spitzberg, Ph.D., Chief, Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76011. Telephone:

(817)860-8100; e-mail: *dbs@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering the issuance of an amendment to Material License No. 53-00515-01, as requested by the Hawaii Agriculture Research Center (the Licensee), to authorize release of the Kunia Substation at Kunia, Hawaii, for unrestricted use. The Licensee is authorized to possess radioactive material for conducting tracer studies in plants and soils and for laboratory analysis of samples. On December 2, 2005, the Licensee requested that NRC release the facility for unrestricted use. The Licensee conducted radiological surveys of the facility to demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria specified in Subpart E to 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment

(EA)in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 51 (10 CFR part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the **Federal Register** . II. Environmental Assessment *Identification of Proposed Action:* The proposed action is to remove the Kunia Substation from License Condition 10 as a location of use. Once the building is removed from the license, the licensee will be free to use the building in any manner without NRC restriction. *The Need for the Proposed Action:* The licensee no longer conducts licensed activities in this building and desires to release the building for unrestricted use. If the site is properly decommissioned, the licensee would then be in compliance with the Timeliness Rule requirements of 10 CFR 30.36, “Expiration and Termination of Licenses and Decommissioning of Sites and Separate Buildings or Outdoor Areas.” *Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:* The Kunia Substation is a 4,000 ft 2 (372 m 2 ) building that housed a 300 ft 2 (28 m 2 ) radiologically restricted area. The licensee used carbon-14, a long-lived low energy beta radiation emitter, at this location between 1975-1998. The licensee possessed a total of 11.5 millicuries (4.26E+8 becquerels) of carbon-14 for experiments. At the conclusion of these experiments, the contaminated soil and plant material were either radiologically sampled and free-released or shipped offsite for disposal. By letter dated December 2, 2005, the licensee requested amendment of its license to remove Kunia Substation as a location of use. Attached to the request was a report of a final status survey that was conducted during 2005. The survey included scan surveys for fixed/total contamination and swipe sampling for removable contamination. The response and operability of the instrumentation used were verified using carbon-14 check sources. Scan survey results were indistinguishable from background levels. Most swipe sample results were below the instrument's minimum detectable activity level of 17.3 disintegrations per minute (0.288 becquerels per minute) per swipe sample. The highest sample result was 24 disintegrations per minute per swipe (0.4 becquerels per minute per swipe). Regulation 10 CFR 20.1402, Radiological Criteria for Unrestricted Use, states in part that a site will be considered acceptable for unrestricted use if the residual radioactivity that is distinguishable from background radiation results in a total effective dose equivalent not to exceed 25 millirems (0.25 mSv) per year to an average member of the critical group. The NRC's NUREG-1757, Volume 1, Revision 1, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Table B.1 provides screening values for building surface contamination that are equivalent to 25 millirems (0.25 mSv) per year. The NRC-approved screening value for carbon-14 is 3.7E+6 disintegrations per minute (6.18E+4 becquerels)/100 cm 2 . Assuming a loose/removable contamination fraction of 10-percent, the removable surface contamination screening value is 3.7E+5 disintegrations per minute (6.18E+3 becquerels)/100 cm 2 . In summary, the licensee's final status survey results were well below the NRC-approved screening values. A second method to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402 is the use of dose modeling. The licensee conducted dose modeling to estimate potential doses to members of the public from carbon-14 radioactivity in soil. The licensee conservatively assumed that all 11.5 millicuries (4.26E+8 becquerels) of carbon-14 were dispersed into the area soil resulting in a soil activity of 26 picocuries (57.7 becquerels) per gram. Using Version 6.3 of the RESRAD modeling code with all default parameters, including the default carbon-14 activity of 100 picocuries (222 becquerels) per gram, the model calculated a peak dose of 132 millirems (1.32 mSv) per year. The peak dose occurs at 4.28 years. The licensee discontinued use of carbon-14 at Kunia Substation in 1998. Dose modeling further demonstrates that by the seventh year (2005), the annual dose drops to below 0.03 millirems (3E=4 mSV) per year. Through dose modeling of potential soil contamination, the licensee conservatively demonstrated that the annual total effective dose equivalent is currently less than the 25-millirem (0.25 mSv) regulatory limit. The NRC staff reviewed docket file records to identify any radiological or non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment. Records indicate that two plots of land located at the Kunia Substation were previously used for land application of radioactive material. In the first instance, an activity of approximately 10 millicuries (3.7E+8 becquerels) of a carbon-14 labeled compound was applied to a 3750 ft 2 (348 m 2 ) plot during 1984. This plot was decommissioned, and the NRC released the property from the license in May 1993. In the second instance, on two occasions (1979 and 1982), seeds treated with a carbon-14 compound were planted in a 1600 ft 2 (149 m 2 ) plot. This plot was also decommissioned, and the NRC released the property from the license in April 1996. No incidences involving spills or releases of radioactive material were documented to have occurred at Kunia Substation. *Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action:* The licensee seeks NRC approval of the amendment request. The alternatives to the proposed action are:

(1)The no-action alternative, or

(2)to deny the amendment request and require the licensee to take some alternate action. 1. *No-Action Alternative:* One alternative available to the NRC is to take no action by denying the amendment request. The no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with the NRC's Timeliness Rule (10 CFR 30.36) which requires licensees to decommission their facilities when licensed activities cease. 2. *Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2:* A second alternative is to deny the licensee's request in favor of alternate release criteria as allowed by § 20.1403 (criteria for restricted use) or § 20.1404 (alternate release criteria). However, the NRC's analysis of the final status survey data confirmed that the survey results and dose modeling meet the § 20.1402 radiological criteria for unrestricted use, which is the preferred alternative. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that the second alternative is not reasonable, and this alternative action is eliminated from further consideration. *Conclusion:* Based on its review, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental impacts associated with the proposed action do not warrant denial of the license amendment request. The staff finds that the proposed action will result in no significant environmental impacts. The staff has determined that approval of the license amendment is the appropriate alternative for selection. *Agencies and Persons Contacted:* The NRC staff did not consult with the Hawaii State Historic Preservation Officer or the local U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service because licensed activities being considered by this EA occurred only within the confines of the Kunia Substation. Other than the two land applications that were previously reviewed and released by the NRC, no other use or release of radioactive material outside of the building was identified. Accordingly, there were no identified impacts to the cultural resources, endangered species, or critical habitats. The Hawaii Department of Health was consulted about this EA. The State informed the NRC by letter dated May 30, 2006, that it had no objections to the draft EA or to the use of the EA for NRC decisionmaking. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the proposed license amendment to release Kunia Substation for unrestricted use. On the basis of this EA, NRC has concluded that no significant environmental impacts will result from the proposed action, and the license amendment does not warrant the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, 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 numbers for the documents related to this notice are: 1. Whalen, Stephanie, Hawaii Agriculture Research Center, Response to NRC Information Notice 96-47, October 31, 1996 (ML060890606). 2. NRC, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities,” NUREG-1496, July 1997 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). 3. NRC, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” NUREG-1757, Volume 1, Revision 1, September 2003 (ML053260027). 4. Whalen, Stephanie A., Hawaii Agriculture Research Center, License Amendment Request, December 2, 2005 (ML060120252). 5. Takata, Russell, S., Response to Request for Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment for Decommissioning of Kunia Substation at Hawaii Agriculture Research Center, May 30, 2006 (ML061630274). 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 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . These 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 Arlington, Texas this 16th day of June 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. D. Blair Spitzberg, Chief, Fuel Cycle & Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV. [FR Doc. E6-10265 Filed 6-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 70-0036] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to Issuance of Amendment No. 52 to Materials License No. SNM-00033, Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC Hematite Former Fuel Fabrication Facility Located in Festus, MO, Site (TAC No. L52641) AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy M. Snyder, Senior Project Manager, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, M.S. T7 E-18, Rockville, MD, 20852-2738. Telephone:

(301)415-8580; Fax number:

(301)415-5398; e-mail: *ams3@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering amending Nuclear Materials License Number SNM-00033 issued to Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC

(WEC)to authorize the dismantlement and demolition of Buildings 101, 110, 115, 120, 230, 231, 235, 240, 245, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 260, and 261 down to building slabs and foundations at grade at the WEC Hematite Former Fuel Fabrication Facility in Festus, Missouri. This consideration is being supported by this Environmental Assessment

(EA)and a separate Safety Evaluation Report (SER). In a letter dated October 5, 2004 (ML042860234), WEC submitted a request to NRC to amend Materials License Number SNM-00033 to obtain authorization to dismantle and demolish Buildings 101, 110, 115, 120, 230, 231, 235, 240, 245, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 260, and 261 down to building slabs and foundations at grade. In its request, WEC noted that it wants the flexibility to not demolish all the non-process buildings, if it later decides to keep these buildings for reuse. The licensee's October 5, 2004, license amendment request (ML051310063) was noticed in the **Federal Register** on November 16, 2004 (69 FR 67187). That **Federal Register** notice also provided an opportunity for a hearing on this licensing action, and no hearing requests were submitted. NRC has prepared this EA in support of its consideration of the amendment request and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. This EA evaluates the potential environmental impacts of WEC's request. Based on this EA, the staff has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. II. Environmental Assessment Background From the mid 1950s until 2001, the Hematite site was involved in production and manufacturing of nuclear fuel. The majority of the buildings were constructed during 1956 through 1974 with final construction in 1989. There are currently no fuel manufacturing activities at the site. Building 101 (Tile Barn) housed the former Emergency Operations Center during plant operations and was later used for the storage of both clean and contaminated equipment. Building 110 houses the security and some administrative office spaces. Building 115 housed the plant diesel emergency generator and fire pumps. Building 120 (Wood Barn) was used for storing both clean and contaminated equipment. Building 230 was used for the fuel assembly operations. The building surfaces have no known levels of contamination above the level for unrestricted use. Building 230 currently houses administrative offices. Building 231 was used as a warehouse to store shipping containers. Building 235 was used as a vault to store depleted, natural, and enriched uranium. Building 240 contained a laboratory and maintenance area, a recycle recovery area, and a waste incinerator. Past operations in this building also included the conversion of high enriched uranium using a wet conversion process and recovery. A portion of the building was used for recycle and recovery operations and high-enriched material operations. Another portion of the building was used for the incinerator and housed low-enriched powder operations, including ammonium diurinate and oxidation/reduction furnaces. Building 245 (Well House) was used for treating potable water by chlorination. Building 252 (South Vault) is a reinforced concrete structure with six bays and was used for storage of low-enriched uranium. Building 253 contains offices, various site utilities, a former uranium storage facility, former processing areas and decontamination facilities. Contained within Building 253 is Building 250, which was formerly a stand-alone structure. Building 250 became room 250-1, and in 1958, rooms 250-2 and 250-3 were added to Building 250. Building 250 was used for the storage of fuel feed stock. Nuclear fuel was manufactured in Buildings 254 (Pellet Plant) and 255 (Erbia Plant). Buildings 256-1 (Pellet Drying) was initially used for a warehouse space and later was used for pellet drying. Building 256-2 (Workhouse) was used as the main warehouse for shipping pellets and receiving supply. Building 260 was used for a conversion process. Building 261 was used for storage of unused limestone and contained a preheat furnace. Since there is known contamination under the process buildings and the licensee has not yet characterized the soil under the process and non-process buildings, the licensee will not be able to release the non-process buildings that it does not demolish under this proposed licensing action for unrestricted use. Furthermore, building foundation and subsurface soil removal are not covered under this proposed licensing action nor the current license. In accordance with a previously issued amendment to Materials License Number SNM-00033, the licensee has been performing limited decommissioning for the purpose of reducing residual radioactivity and other industrial contaminants from internal building equipment and components for the process buildings. WEC completed this work in March 2006. The NRC performed an EA, using NUREG-1748 as guidance, to evaluate these limited decommissioning activities. The EA and associated SER for limited decommissioning of the equipment and materials in the buildings, waste removal, and limited site characterization activities form the basis for NRC granting license amendment 42 to Materials License Number SNM-00033. In addition, WEC has produced an engineering evaluation/cost analysis and a work plan to comply with Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for the building demolition. These documents can be found on the Missouri Department of Natural Resources

(MDNR)Web site at *http://www.mdnr.mo.gov.* In addition, WEC has made these documents available at the Festus, Missouri Public Library. The radioactive contamination at WEC's Hematite, Missouri site consists of soils, and building and equipment surfaces contaminated with uranium, fission products, and by-product material from licensed operations that occurred from the mid 1950s until 2001. The groundwater is contaminated with uranium, technicium, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). At this point in time, only the VOCs in the groundwater have migrated offsite. Remediation of this groundwater contamination will be the subject of a separate NRC action that addresses subsurface remediation. As stated above, WEC submitted a request to NRC in 2004 for authorization to dismantle and demolish designated buildings at its site. By letters dated June 28, 2005 (ML051720051), December 23, 2005 (ML053330179), and March 2, 2006 (ML06540109), the NRC staff transmitted requests for additional information

(RAIs)related to the proposed building demolition and dismantlement. In letters dated July 22, 2005 (ML052140426), January 31, 2006 (ML060330438) and March 17, 2006 (ML060800265), WEC responded to the RAIs. NRC found these responses to the RAIs acceptable. Site Local and Physical Description The WEC Hematite site is located approximately 3/4 of a mile northeast of the unincorporated town of Hematite and approximately 35 miles south of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. The site is primarily surrounded by suburban and residential communities in Jefferson County, Missouri. Jefferson County is predominantly rural and characterized by rolling hills with many sizeable woodland tracts. The land area is classified as 51% forest, 33% agricultural, and approximately 16% urban, suburban, commercial, and unused or undeveloped. The primary land within a five-mile radius of the facility consists of deciduous forest, pasture and residential areas. Residential land use is centered in the communities of Festus/Crystal City to the northeast, Horine to the north, and Hillsboro to the northwest. Other land uses include row crop and urban/residential. Land use classifications are based on the National Land Cover Dataset. The plant facilities are located on a central site tract of approximately 10 to 20 acres. The entire site is approximately 220 acres. Much of the northern portion of the property is wooded. Surface water bodies on the site include the East Lake, located on the eastern end of the site, the Site Pond, located west of the site buildings, Joachim Creek along the southern site boundary, Northeast Site Creek and Site Creek. The Hematite facility is located on the north, northeast flank of the Precambrian age St. Francis Mountains uplift, which created the Ozark Dome. A full description of the site and its characteristics is provided in the WEC Environmental Report for Building Demolition at the Hematite Facility which was submitted in conjunction with the license amendment request for dismantlement and demolition of the buildings. The nearby community of Hematite has expressed interest in future development of the site. However, as of April 2006, no definite future plans have been developed for the site. Regulatory Requirements 10 CFR part 70, “Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material” applies to the decommissioning of the Hematite Former Fuel Fabrication Facility. Termination of licenses and decommissioning are addressed in § 70.38. However, this proposed action will not result in license termination. It will only address building demolition. Financial assurance requirements are found in § 70.25 and 70.38. Completeness and accuracy of the radiation safety records and information provided to NRC are addressed in § 70.9. Section 2.1205 discusses the public's opportunities to request hearings on licensing actions. 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, sets forth radiological criteria for license termination in § 20.1402, 20.1403, and 20.1404. The requirements for final status surveys are contained in § 20.1501(a); 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” and 10 CFR part 71, “Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material” (part 71 requires that licensees or applicants who transport licensed material, or who may offer such material to a carrier for transportation, must comply with the applicable requirements of the Department of Transportation that are found in 49 CFR parts 170 through 189). The Proposed Action The proposed action is to amend NRC Materials License Number SNM-00033 to allow the dismantlement and demolition of the buildings 101, 110, 115, 120, 230, 231, 235, 240, 245, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 260, and 261 down to building slabs and foundations at grade. No work will be performed on sub-grade soil, the building slabs/ foundations, or sub-grade structures and systems. WEC states in its application that the demolition of concrete buildings will be performed as determined by an engineering evaluation. WEC plans to perform an engineering evaluation of the demolition of the concrete masonry unit

(CMU)structures and concrete buildings, and use dismantlement and demolition techniques, such as cutting and shearing to demolish the buildings. Manual jack-hammers, equipment mounted jack-hammers (hoe ram), skid-steer loader, or shears will be used to remove/dismantle and to size reduce concrete or CMU structures. The CMU walls may also be brought down using pushover techniques. Steel reinforcement bars will be torch-cut, sheared, or saw-cut as required for dismantlement, leveling, or size reduction purposes. The only potential waste streams from the facility will result from the building dismantlement and demolition process. Wastes that are anticipated are:

(1)Debris;

(2)dust;

(3)rubble and

(4)water. Based on characterization data, WEC proposes to segregate and analyze the waste as required by the disposal facility site's waste acceptance criteria. WEC proposes that debris will be characterized, and will meet free release criteria for radiological and hazardous contamination, and will be shipped to an approved waste disposal facility for disposal. If the debris does not meet free release criteria, then it will be packaged accordingly and shipped to an approved waste disposal facility for disposal. Need for the Proposed Action The NRC regulations require licensees to begin timely decommissioning of their sites, or any separate buildings, that contain residual radioactivity, upon cessation of licensed operations, in accordance with § 70.38(d). The purpose of the proposed action is to reduce residual radioactivity at WEC's Hematite site. Additionally, although no definite future use plans have been developed for the site at this time, due to potential commercial value of the site property, the licensee plans to eventually return the land to unrestricted use in accordance with § 20.1402. The proposed licensing action is a step toward this goal. If this proposed licensing action is not granted, the licensee will not be able to fully address surface and subsurface contamination under buildings, which will prolong the overall cleanup of the site. The NRC is fulfilling its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, and the National Environmental Policy Act to make a decision on this proposed license amendment for building dismantlement and demolition that will ensure adequate protection of the public health, safety and the environment. Alternatives to the Proposed Action The proposed action is to decontaminate the buildings with dismantlement and demolition down to building slabs and foundations at grade. There are three alternatives to the proposed action of dismantlement and demolition of the buildings:

(1)To take no further action;

(2)to decontaminate the buildings without dismantlement and demolition; and

(3)to decontaminate the buildings with dismantlement and demolition to include removal of the slabs and foundations. Alternative one, the no-action alternative, is not consistent with § 70.38(d), requiring that decommissioning of special nuclear material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. The no-action alternative would keep radioactive material on site without disposal. The second alternative would involve maintaining the buildings on site due to known and potential subsurface soil contamination under the process building. This would provide negligible, if any, environmental benefit and would greatly reduce options for future unrestricted use of the site. Alternative 3 would result in exposing the subsurface contamination, that was contained under the buildings, to the open environment. Specifically, exposing the subsurface would expose workers and visitors to radiological and potential non-radiological hazards in the subsurface soil. As discussed earlier, the licensee has not yet fully evaluated the subsurface contamination under the buildings. Potentially contaminated materials could be released into the surrounding environment via effluents or airborne particles. Shipping the subsurface contaminated material off-site for disposal could also potentially expose workers and others to the material before, during, and after shipment to a waste disposal facility. The environmental impact could potentially put workers and the surrounding environment at risk, and therefore, is not an environmentally sound option at this time. Therefore, these alternatives are not considered to be reasonable and are not analyzed further in the EA. The licensee's proposed action is described in detail in the proposed building dismantlement and demolition license amendment application. This action is preferred over the alternative actions because the proposed action has little, if any, impact on the environment. Once the buildings are dismantled and demolished down to the slabs and foundations at grade, all radiological materials will be confined to either the slabs and foundations or the subsurface. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff has reviewed the license amendment request for the WEC facility in Hematite and examined the impacts of this license amendment request. Potential impacts include impacts to water resources ( *e.g.* , water may be used for dust control), impacts to air quality from dust emissions, temporary impacts to local traffic resulting from transporting the building debris offsite, beneficial local economic effects due to the creation of jobs to perform dismantlement and demolition, dose impacts, noise impacts from equipment operation, scenic quality impacts, and waste management impacts. There may be minor impacts to surface water resources at the Hematite facility as a result of water runoff that could occur during the building dismantlement and demolition process. According to the licensee's amendment request, the runoff, whether as a result of natural precipitation or from water used to control fugitive dust emission, will be managed by WEC Hematite erosion and sediment control management plan. Any discharge will be in compliance with Material License Number SNM-00033 and the WEC Hematite National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued and managed by the State of Missouri. There will be no significant surface and no subsurface soil disturbances as the buildings will be removed down to the grade and concrete slab level. There are no flood plains or wetlands present within the central site tract where the building demolition will take place. The central site tract soil consists primarily of relatively impermeable soil. WEC has committed to using best practices to manage all potential impacts during building dismantlement and demolition. Overall, it is anticipated that there will be no significant impact on surface water or groundwater. Additionally, the staff has determined that significant air quality, noise, land use, economic and off-site radiation exposure impacts are not expected. No significant air quality impacts are anticipated because of the contamination controls and dust suppression techniques that will be implemented by WEC during building dismantlement and demolition. WEC license amendment request describes the work to be performed and its strategy for controlling radiation diffuse emissions and discharge. WEC has committed to have procedures for performing building dismantlement and demolition that will include guidance for controlling emissions and run-off. The staff determined that no significant economic impact will result from the creation of jobs to perform dismantlement and demolition because the work should take a small amount of time to complete. The staff evaluated the temporary local traffic impacts resulting from transporting the building debris and wastes offsite due to the licensee's proposed request. WEC ceased fuel production operations at the Hematite Facility and has no future plans for operating the site as a nuclear fuel processing facility. WEC states that clean debris will be containerized, transported, and disposed of at a licensed facility. The risk to human health from the transportation of all radioactive material in the U.S. was evaluated in NUREG-0170, “Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Materials by Air and Other Modes.” The principal radiological environmental impact during normal transportation is minimal direct radiation exposure to transport workers and nearby persons from radioactive material in the package. The average annual individual dose from all radioactive material transportation in the U.S. was calculated as approximately 0.5 mrem per year, well below the § 20.1301 limit of 100 mrem per year for a member of the public. WEC estimates that 2 to 3 truck loads of demolition waste will leave the site per working day compared to an average daily traffic flow of approximately 2,570 vehicles per day (2002 data) on State Route P. The trucks will then travel on State Route A, a two-lane rural/suburban highway which connects to State Route P approximately 2 miles east of the site. State Route A enters the western edge of Festus, Missouri. Interstate 55, a major north-south freeway, is located approximately 3.5 miles east of the site and intersects with State Route A in Festus, Missouri. This four-lane interstate freeway connects to Interstate Highways 270, 44, and 70 in the St. Louis, Missouri area, approximately 35 miles north of the site. The annual average daily traffic count for I-55 near Festus was 35,347 vehicles per day (2002 data). There are no public transit systems, such as bus or light rail available in the immediate vicinity of the site. The trucks, once entering the above Interstate Highways, will then travel to their intended destinations. Based on the Environmental Report for Building Demolition at the Hematite Facility, the licensee states that it anticipates that debris from the dismantled buildings would likely be transported by truck to the Envirocare Facility in Clive, Utah or to the Radiological Assistance, Consulting and Engineering

(RACE)Facility in Memphis, Tennessee. The proposed transportation of waste from the building, dismantlement, and demolition is not anticipated to result in significant impacts. Monitoring The license amendment request submitted by WEC described the effluent/environmental monitoring that will take place during building dismantlement and demolition. This description included not only the routine effluent/environmental monitoring program that WEC presently has in place, but also that additional air monitoring (local demolition project-specific perimeter air monitors) shall be performed during the demolition activities. Work activities are not anticipated to result in radiation exposures to individual members of the public in excess of ten percent of the § 20.1301 limits. However, WEC's environmental monitoring program must implement the requirements of its Radioactive Materials License, Chapter 3, Radiation Protection, and Chapter 5, Environmental Protection. WEC has acknowledged that building demolition activities will require that building stack monitoring be terminated and has committed to shift compliance monitoring to air monitoring devices located around the site to assure that all pathways for release of radioactive material are monitored. WEC has updated its technical basis for its Environmental Monitoring Program to address building dismantlement and demolition activities. Moreover, WEC has stated it will modify and supplement approved environmental monitoring plans, policies, and procedures that support the license, before and during the proposed work, as necessary, to support building dismantlement and demolition. Perimeter monitors to measure air borne radiation levels are to be established as close to the demolition activities as possible and again at the boundary of the work area. Currently, three onsite remote air monitoring samples are collected continuously and the results are analyzed weekly. During the demolition activities, the licensee has committed to use a minimum of three area monitors. The locations for the air samplers will be chosen considering meteorological conditions relative to the dismantlement and demolition activities to ensure that maximum airborne concentrations are collected. The air sampling data will be used by WEC to demonstrate that any effluent from the proposed building dismantlement and demolition will be in accordance with 10 CFR part 20 requirements. Additionally, WEC has indicated in its application that it will evaluate the existing building characterization data and pre-demolition characterization data for each building it plans to dismantle and/or demolish prior to building demolition to verify the radiological conditions and controls that WEC incorporated in implementing building demolition procedures remain appropriate. On February 26, 2006, staff asked WEC additional questions regarding the radiological status of the buildings with respect to Nuclear Criticality Safety (NCS). Staff evaluated the data and determined that there is no NCS concern for the building demolition activities because the total residual mass of UO 2 in the buildings (i.e., 5 kg UO 2 ) is less than the favorable geometry mass limit in the license application (i.e., 16 kg UO 2 ). Also, NRC staff determined that the licensee is not required to have a criticality accident alarm system for building demolition because the conservative estimate of mass of U 235 in the buildings (i.e., 250 grams U 235 ) is less than the action limit in § 70.24 (i.e., 700 grams of U 235 ). Thus, NRC has reasonable assurance of NCS during building demolition activities. Work activities are not anticipated to result in radiation exposures to individual members of the public in excess of ten percent of the § 20.1301 limits. In addition, the staff agrees that the Environmental Monitoring plan is appropriate for the proposed activities and it is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to public health, safety, and the environment. Cumulative Impacts The NRC has evaluated whether cumulative environmental impacts could result from an incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions in the area. The proposed NRC approval of the License Amendment Request, when combined with known effects on resource areas at the site, including future further site remediation, are not anticipated to result in any cumulative impacts at the site. Mitigation Measures The license amendment request submitted by WEC contains mitigation measures to further ensure that the requested licensing action will not have any adverse environmental impact. WEC plans to implement procedural controls, such as the use of less aggressive dismantlement and demolition techniques, including cutting and shearing, to minimize the generation of fugitive emissions. Other engineering controls, including water sprays, will also be utilized to control fugitive emissions and visible dust, if needed. In addition, WEC has agreed to perform the mitigative measures that have been proposed by the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office

(SHPO)regarding the historical impact of the proposed action. WEC will provide erosion and sediment control, as necessary, in accordance with best management practices, regulatory guidance, and good engineering practices. This will include structural features, stabilization, and storm water management. The controls may be temporary or permanent. Agencies and Individuals Consulted The NRC staff prepared a draft EA and sent it to the Missouri SHPO, by letter dated November 4, 2004, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), by letter dated November 9, 2004. The Missouri SHPO, in its response letter dated January 4, 2005, noted that “In order for the project to move forward, it is acceptable to our office that Westinghouse and NRC proceed with the project, in accordance with the draft MOA (Memorandum of Agreement).” The FWS, in its response letter dated December 10, 2004, indicated that “our evaluation and search of existing information indicates no federally listed, proposed, or candidate species or critical habitat occurs on or near the project site. This fulfills your consultation requirements under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended”. The staff provided a draft of this EA to the MDNR for review. In its letter dated April 20, 2005, which commented on draft EA, the MDNR responded by stating it agreed with the proposed alternative, but made no other comments about the draft EA. However, this letter from the MDNR also mentions the MNDR's January 2005 letter to WEC. The MDNR's letter to WEC identified concerns related to monitoring and mitigation. Staff addressed environmental monitoring concerns through the RAI process, noted above and found WEC's responses acceptable. The staff then developed a Final Draft of this EA and provided it to MDNR for its review and comment by letter dated April 28, 2006 (ML061170223). By letter dated, May 11, 2006, MDNR concurred with the conclusions in the Final Draft of this EA (ML061170282). Conclusion NRC has prepared this EA in support of the proposed license amendment to approve the building demolition and dismantlement of site buildings down to building slabs and foundations at grade at the Hematite Facility in Festus, MO. On the basis of the EA, NRC has concluded that the environmental impacts from the proposed action are not expected to be significant and has determined that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)is not needed for the proposed action. Approval of the license amendment will not cause significant impacts on the health and safety of the public or on the environment due to mitigation measures that WEC is committing to use. The NRC staff has concluded that radiological exposures to workers will be low and well within the limits specified in 10 CFR part 20. Dismantlement and demolition of the buildings, as proposed by the amendment request, will result in an overall reduction of radioactive material at the WEC Hematite which will reduce the long term potential for release of radiological contamination to the environment. No significant radiologically contaminated effluents are expected during building dismantlement and demolition. No significant effluent releases of radiological material or other releases are expected. List of Preparers This Environmental Assessment was prepared entirely by the following NRC staff: Amy Snyder, Senior Project Manager, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), Decommissioning Issues. Alicia Mullins, Environmental Project Managers, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, NMSS, Environmental Issues. Sources Used 1. NRC Materials License No. SNM-00033. 2. WEC's October 5, 2004, license amendment request was noticed in the **Federal Register** on November 16, 2004 (69 FR 67187). This **Federal Register** notice also provided an opportunity for a hearing on this licensing action (See ADAMS Accession No. ML043000467). 3. The application for the license amendment and supporting documentation are available for review at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Public Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* (See ADAMS Accession No. ML042860234, ML042880279, and ML050250347). 4. NUREG-0170, 1977. Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. 5. NUREG-0586, 1988. Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. 6. NUREG-1496, 1977. Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, July. 7. NUREG-1748, 2003. Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, August. 8. REGULATORY GUIDE-1.86, 1974. Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, June. 9. NRC letter to Missouri Historic Preservation Office, to Allison Dubbert from Amir Kouhestani, dated November 4, 2004 (ML043070004). 10. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services letter to Amir Kouhestani, dated November 11, 2004 (ML043520384). 11. WEC, January 4, 2005. “Demolition Permit Application for Demolition of the Buildings”, Jefferson County Building Commission, Hillsboro, Missouri. 12. State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources, letter to Amir Kouhestani from Mark A. Miles, dated January 4, 2005 (ML050130140). 13. Asbestos Abatement Registration Form for WEC filed with the Missouri Department of Public Health. 14. State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources, letter to Amir Kouhestani from Ben L. Moore, dated January 18, 2005, (ML050310161). 15. State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources, letter to Henry A. Sepp, dated January 18, 2005 (ML050310182). 16. NRC Draft EA, letter to Honorable Doyle Childers, dated March 2, 2005. 17. State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources, letter to Daniel Gillen from Doyle Childers, dated April 20, 2005. 18. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Services, letter to Amir Kouhestani from Charles M. Scott, dated December 10, 2004 (ML043520384). 19. NRC, RAI letters to WEC, dated June 28, 2005 (ML051720051), December 23, 2005 (ML053330179), and March 2, 2006 (ML060540109). 20. WEC, Response to RAI letters to NRC, dated July 22, 2005 (ML052140426), January 31, 2006 [ML060330438], and March 17, 2006 (ML060800265). 21. WEC, Submittal of Technical Report to NRC, DO-05-001, Environmental Report for Hematite Site Decommissioning, dated August 31, 2005 (ML052580255). 22. NRC, Final Draft EA letter to State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources, to Ben Moore, from Amy M. Snyder, letter dated April 28, 2006 (ML061170223). 23. State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources, letter to Amy M. Snyder from Ben L. Moore, dated May 11, 2006 (ML061560372). III. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of this EA, NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts and the license amendment does not warrant the preparation of an EIS. Accordingly, it has been determined that a FONSI is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, 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. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room

(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 14th day of June 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Andrew Persinko, Acting Deputy Director, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6-10267 Filed 6-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): Notice Regarding the Initiation of the 2006 Annual GSP Product and Country Eligibility Practices Review and Change in Deadlines for Filing Certain Petitions AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice and solicitation for public petition. SUMMARY: This notice announces that the Office of the United States Trade Representative

(USTR)will receive petitions in 2006 to modify the list of products that are eligible for duty-free treatment under the GSP program, and to modify the GSP status of certain GSP beneficiary developing countries because of country practices. This notice further determines that the deadline for submission of product petitions, other than those requesting competitive need limitation

(CNL)waivers, and country practice petitions for the 2006 Annual GSP Product and Country Eligibility Practices Review is 5 p.m., July 20, 2006. The deadline for submission of product petitions requesting CNL waivers is 5 p.m., November 17, 2006. The list of product petitions and country practice petitions accepted for review will be announced in the **Federal Register** at later dates. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact the GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 1724 F Street, NW., Room F-220, Washington, DC 20508. The telephone number is

(202)395-6971, the facsimile number is

(202)395-9481, and the e-mail address is *FR0618@USTR.GOV.* Public versions of all documents relating to this Review will be available for examination approximately 30 days after the pertinent due date, by appointment, in the USTR public reading room, 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC. Availability of documents may be ascertained, and appointments may be made from 9:30 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, by calling

(202)395-6186. 2006 Annual GSP Review The GSP regulations (15 CFR part 2007) provide the schedule of dates for conducting an annual review, unless otherwise specified by **Federal Register** notice. Notice is hereby given that, in order to be considered in the 2006 Annual GSP Product and Country Eligibility Practices Review, all petitions to modify the list of articles eligible for duty-free treatment under GSP or to review the GSP status of any beneficiary developing country, with the exception of petitions requesting CNL waivers, must be received by the GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee no later than 5 p.m. on July 20, 2006. Petitions requesting CNL waivers must be received by the GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee no later than 5 p.m. on November 17, 2006 in order to be considered in the 2006 Annual Review. Petitions submitted after the respective deadlines will not be considered for review. Interested parties, including foreign governments, may submit petitions to:

(1)Designate additional articles as eligible for GSP benefits, including to designate articles as eligible for GSP benefits only for countries designated as least-developed beneficiary developing countries, or only for countries designated as beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA);

(2)withdraw, suspend or limit the application of duty-free treatment accorded under the GSP with respect to any article, either for all beneficiary developing countries, least-developed beneficiary developing countries or beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries, or for any of these countries individually;

(3)waive the “competitive need limitations” for individual beneficiary developing countries with respect to specific GSP-eligible articles (these limits do not apply to either least-developed beneficiary developing countries or beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries); and

(4)otherwise modify GSP coverage. As specified in 15 CFR 2007.1, all product petitions must include a detailed description of the product and the subheading of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under which the product is classified. Product petitions requesting CNL waivers for GSP-eligible articles from beneficiary developing countries that exceed the CNLs in 2006 must be filed in the 2006 Annual Review. In order to allow petitioners an opportunity to review additional 2006 export data, these petitions may be filed after June 30, 2006, but must be received on or before the November 17, 2006, deadline described above in order to be considered in the 2006 Annual Review. Copies will be made available for public inspection after the November 17, 2006, deadline. Any person may also submit petitions to review the designation of any beneficiary developing country, including any least-developed beneficiary developing country, with respect to any of the designation criteria listed in sections 502(b) or 502(c) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2462(b) and (c)) (petitions to review the designation of beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries are considered in the Annual Review of the AGOA, a separate administrative process not governed by the GSP regulations). Such petitions must comply with the requirements of 15 CFR 2007.0(b). Requirements for Submissions All such submissions must conform to the GSP regulations set forth at 15 CFR part 2007, except as modified below. These regulations are reprinted in “A Guide to the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)” (May 2006) (“GSP Guidebook”), available at *http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Development/Preference_Programs/GSP/asset_upload_file890_8359.pdf.* Any person or party making a submission is strongly advised to review the GSP regulations. Submissions that do not provide the information required by sections 2007.0 and 2007.1 of the GSP regulations will not be accepted for review, except upon a detailed showing in the submission that the petitioner made a good faith effort to obtain the information required. Petitions with respect to waivers of the “competitive need limitations” must meet the information requirements for product addition requests in section 2007.1(c) of the GSP regulations. A model petition format is available from the GSP Subcommittee and is included in the GSP Guidebook. Petitioners are requested to use this model petition format so as to ensure that all information requirements are met. Furthermore, interested parties submitting petitions that request action with respect to specific products should list on the first page of the petition the following information after typing “2006 Annual GSP Review”:

(1)The requested action;

(2)the HTSUS subheading in which the product is classified; and

(3)if applicable, the beneficiary developing country. Petitions and requests must be submitted, in English, to the Chairman of the GSP Subcommittee, Trade Policy Staff Committee. Submissions in response to this notice will be available for public inspection by appointment with the staff of the USTR Public Reading Room, except for information granted “business confidential” status pursuant to 15 CFR 2003.6. If the submission contains business confidential information, a non-confidential version of the submission must also be submitted that indicates where confidential information was redacted by inserting asterisks where material was deleted. In addition, the confidential submission must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” in large, bold letters at the top and bottom of each and every page of the document. The public version that does not contain business confidential information must also be clearly marked in large, bold letters at the top and bottom of each and every page (either “PUBLIC VERSION” or “NON-CONFIDENTIAL”). Documents that are submitted without any marking might not be accepted or will be considered public documents. In order to facilitate prompt consideration of submissions, USTR requires electronic mail (e-mail) submissions in response to this notice. Hand-delivered submissions will not be accepted. E-mail submissions should be single copy transmissions in English with the total submission including attachments not to exceed 30 pages in 12-point type and 3 megabytes as a digital file attached to an e-mail transmission. Submissions should use the following e-mail subject line: “2006 Annual GSP Review-Petition.” Documents must be submitted as either WordPerfect (“.WPD”), MSWord (“.DOC”), or text (“.TXT”) file. Documents cannot be submitted as electronic image files or contain imbedded images (for example, “.JPG”, “.TIF”, “.PDF”, “.BMP”, or “.GIF”) as these type files are generally excessively large. E-mail submissions containing such files will not be accepted. Supporting documentation submitted as spreadsheets are acceptable as Quattro Pro or Excel, pre-formatted for printing on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper. To the extent possible, any data attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files. E-mail submissions should not include separate cover letters or messages in the message area of the e-mail; information that might appear in any cover letter should be included directly in the attached file containing the submission itself, including identifying information on the sender, including sender's e-mail address. The electronic mail address for these submissions is *FR0618@USTR.GOV.* For any document containing business confidential information submitted as an electronic attached file to an e-mail transmission, in addition to the proper marking at the top and bottom of each page as previously specified, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC-”, and the file name of the public version should begin with the characters “P-”. The “P-” or “BC-” should be followed by the name of the person or party (government, company, union, association, etc.) submitting the petition. Documents not submitted in accordance with the GSP regulations as modified by these instructions will not be considered in this review. Marideth Sandler, Executive Director GSP, Chairman, GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee. [FR Doc. 06-5827 Filed 6-28-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 8

Traces to 8 documents

CFR