Fed. Reg. Notices — Notice

BILLING CODE 4410-36-M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. NRTL3-92] TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc., Application for Expansion of Recognition AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the application of TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.,

(TUV)for expansion of its recognition to use additional test standards, and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant this request for expansion. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of this application. DATES: You must submit information or comments, or any request for extension of the time to comment, by the following dates: • *Hard copy:* postmarked or sent by August 8, 2006. • *Electronic transmission or facsimile:* sent by August 8, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit information or comments to this notice—identified by docket number NRTL3-92—by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • OSHA Web site: *http://ecomments.osha.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments on OSHA's Web page. • *Fax:* If your written comments are 10 pages or fewer, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at

(202)693-1648. • *Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery and courier service:* Submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. NRTL3-92, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-2350. (OSHA's TTY number is

(877)889-5627). OSHA Docket Office hours of operation are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., EST. *Instructions:* All comments received will be posted without change to *http://dockets.osha.gov* , including any personal information provided. OSHA cautions you about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dockets.osha.gov* . Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the OSHA Web page and for assistance in using the Web page to locate docket submissions. *Extension of Comment Period:* Submit requests for extensions concerning this notice to the Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210. Or, fax to

(202)693-1644. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210, or phone

(202)693-2110. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of Application The Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA)hereby gives notice that TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.,

(TUV)has applied for expansion of its current recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). TUV's expansion request covers the use of additional test standards. OSHA's current scope of recognition for TUV may be found in the following informational Web page: *http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/tuv.html* . OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization has met the legal requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products “properly certified” 1 by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification. 1 Properly certified means, in part, that the product is labeled or marked with the NRTL's “registered” certification mark (i.e., the mark the NRTL uses for its NRTL work) and that the product certification falls within the scope of recognition of the NRTL. The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition or for expansion or renewal of this recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the **Federal Register** in processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application and provides its preliminary finding and, in the second notice, the Agency provides its final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that scope. We maintain an informational Web page for each NRTL, which details its scope of recognition. These pages can be accessed from our Web site at *http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html* . The most recent notice published by OSHA specifically related to TUV's recognition granted an expansion of its NRTL scope, which became effective on June 20, 2003 (68 FR 37030). The current address of the TUV facility already recognized by OSHA is: TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc., 12 Commerce Road, Newtown, CT 06470. General Background on the Application TUV has submitted an application, dated December 20, 2004 (see Exhibit 32-1) to expand its recognition to include 5 additional test standards. TUV then amended its application through follow-up requests to add 4 more test standards to its request (see Exhibit 32-2). The NRTL Program staff has determined that each of these nine standards is an “appropriate test standard” within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c). However, one of the standards is already in TUV's scope. Therefore, OSHA would approve eight test standards for the expansion. Following review of the application, OSHA deferred action on this notice pending resolution by the NRTL of certain findings from our on-site visit of the NRTL. These findings have been satisfactorily resolved, permitting this notice to be processed. This notice has also been delayed through no fault of the NRTL. TUV seeks recognition for testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the following test standards: UL 943 Ground-Fault Circuit-Interrupters UL 991 Tests for Safety-Related Controls Employing Solid-State Devices UL 1047 Isolated Power Systems Equipment UL 1363 Relocatable Power Taps UL 1662 Electric Chain Saws UL 1664 Immersion-Detection Circuit-Interrupters UL 1741 Inverters, Converters, Controllers and Interconnection System Equipment for Use With Distributed Energy Resources UL 1863 Communications-Circuit Accessories The designations and titles of the above test standards were current at the time of the preparation of this notice. OSHA's recognition of TUV, or any NRTL, for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials (i.e., products) for which OSHA standards require third party testing and certification before use in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any product(s) for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, an NRTL's scope of recognition does not include that product(s). Many UL test standards also are approved as American National Standards by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). However, for convenience, we use the designation of the standards developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under our procedures, any NRTL recognized for an ANSI-approved test standard may use either the latest proprietary version of the test standard or the latest ANSI version of that standard. You may contact ANSI to find out whether or not a test standard is currently ANSI-approved. Preliminary Finding on the Application TUV has submitted an acceptable request for expansion of its recognition as an NRTL. In connection with this request, NRTL Program assessment staff evaluated information pertinent to the request during an on-site visit of the NRTL and recommended that TUV's recognition be expanded to include the additional test standards (see Exhibit 32-3). Our review of the application file, the staff's recommendation, and other pertinent documents indicate that TUV can meet the requirements, as prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7, for the expansion for the eight additional test standards listed above. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of the application. OSHA welcomes public comments, in sufficient detail, as to whether TUV has met the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory. Your comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Should you need more time to comment, you must request it in writing, including reasons for the request. OSHA must receive your written request for extension at the address provided above no later than the last date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 30 days, unless the requester justifies a longer period. We may deny a request for extension if it is not adequately justified. You may obtain or review copies of TUV's requests, the staff's recommendation, and all submitted comments, as received, by contacting the Docket Office, Room N2625, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. Docket No. NRTL3-92 contains all materials in the record concerning TUV's application. The NRTL Program staff will review all timely comments and, after resolution of issues raised by these comments, will recommend whether to grant TUV's expansion request. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the expansion and, in making this decision, may undertake other proceedings that are prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR Section 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the **Federal Register** . Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of June, 2006. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-11676 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-271-LR; ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR] Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) July 18, 2006. Before Administrative Judges: Alex S. Karlin, Chairman, Dr. Richard E. Wardwell, Dr. Thomas S. Elleman. Order (Setting Oral Argument Schedule and Inviting Written Limited Appearance Statements) On June 20, 2006, the Board issued an order tentatively scheduling oral argument in this proceeding on Tuesday, August 1, 2006, and Wednesday, August 2, 2006. That order indicated that the time and location of the oral argument would be set forth in a subsequent order. The Board hereby orders and confirms that it will hear oral argument from representatives of the petitioners, the applicant, and the NRC Staff, 1 commencing at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, August 1, 2006, in the multi-purpose room at Brattleboro Union High School, located at 131 Fairground Road in Brattleboro, Vermont. As necessary, oral argument will continue and recommence at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, August 2, 2006. The Board plans to adjourn each day no later than 6 p.m. 1 The four petitioners are the Vermont Department of Public Service; the Massachusetts Attorney General; the New England Coalition (NEC); and the Town of Marlboro, Vermont. The applicant consists of two entities, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, L.L.C., and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. The petitioners, applicant, and the NRC Staff are sometimes collectively referred to as the “participants.” The oral argument will proceed as follows. First, we will hear a short opening statement, limited to ten minutes, from each participant. Second, the Board will hear argument on the individual contentions listed below. 2 Except where otherwise specified, for each listed contention the petitioner will have a total of twenty minutes, the applicant will have fifteen minutes, and the NRC Staff will have ten minutes. Five minutes of a petitioner's time will be reserved for rebuttal unless, at the outset of argument on that contention, the petitioner chooses an alternative allocation (up to a maximum of ten minutes rebuttal). All time periods include the time for responding to questions from the Board. For those contentions not listed below, no oral argument is necessary in order for the Board to reach its decision. 2 The participants are encouraged to enter into stipulations that will serve to reduce or eliminate issues or contentions. In formulating their arguments, participants should keep in mind that the Board will have read their pleadings and should focus solely on the critical points in controversy as those issues have emerged in the pleadings. The main purpose of the oral argument is to allow the Board to clarify its understanding of legal and factual points to assist it in deciding the issues presented by the pleadings. Oral arguments will be conducted in accordance with the following schedule: 1. Call to order, introductory remarks. 2. Opening statement by each participant. 3. State of Massachusetts Contention 1. For this contention the petitioner will have a total of thirty minutes, the applicant will have twenty minutes, and the NRC Staff will have twenty minutes. 4. State of Vermont Contention 2. For this contention the petitioner will have a total of twenty-five minutes, the applicant will have twenty minutes, and the NRC Staff will have ten minutes. 5. State of Vermont Contention 1. 6. State of Vermont Contention 3. 7. NEC Contention 1. 8. NEC Contention 2. 9. NEC Contention 3. 10. NEC Contention 4. 11. NEC Contention 5. 12. NEC Contention 6. 3 3 The Board will not hear oral argument from any participant on the contention proffered by the Town of Marlboro. However the Town of Marlboro may want to use some of the ten minutes allocated for its opening statement to address the issue as to whether the town is an “interested * * * local governmental body” within the meaning of 10 CFR 2.315(c). 13. Adjourn. Given that the purpose of this proceeding is to evaluate the admissibility of the petitioners' contentions and the legal issues presented in the participants' pleadings, oral argument will only be heard from the participants. Members of the public are welcome to attend and observe this proceeding. As this is an adjudicatory proceeding, the Board intends to conduct an orderly hearing and signs, banners, posters, and displays are prohibited in accordance with NRC policy. *See* Procedures for Providing Security Support for NRC Public Meetings/Hearings, 66 FR 31,719 (June 12, 2001). All interested persons should arrive early and allow sufficient time to pass through security screening. Oral limited appearance statements in accord with 10 CFR 2.315(a) will not be heard on August 1 and 2, 2006. If contentions are admitted after the oral argument is complete, then oral limited appearance statements may be heard at a later date. In the interim, interested individuals may submit written limited appearance statements related to the issues in this proceeding. Such written statements may be submitted at any time and should be sent either by

(1)mail to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, with a copy to the Chairman of this Licensing Board at Mail Stop T-3F23, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001;

(2)e-mail to the Office of the Secretary at *hearingdocket@nrc.gov* , with a copy to the Board Chairman (c/o Marcia Carpentier, *mxc7@nrc.gov* ); or

(3)fax to the Office of the Secretary at 301-415-1101 (facsimile verification number: 301-415-1966), with a copy to the Board Chairman at 301-415-5599 (facsimile verification number: 301-415-7550). It is so *ordered.* 4 Copies of this order were sent this date by Internet e-mail transmission to counsel or a representative for

(1)applicant Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, L.L.C., and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.;

(2)petitioners Town of Marlboro, Vermont, the Massachusetts Attorney General, the Vermont Department of Public Service, and the New England Coalition; and

(3)the NRC staff. For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. 4 Dated: July 18, 2006 in Rockville, Maryland. Alex S. Karlin, Administrative Judge. [FR Doc. E6-11675 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-483] Union Electric Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-30, issued to Union Electric Company (the licensee), for operation of the Callaway Plant, Unit 1, located in Callaway County, Missouri. The proposed amendment would

(1)delete the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor from Technical Specification

(TS)3.4.15, “RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Leakage Detection Instrumentation,” and

(2)revise existing conditions, required actions, completion times, and surveillance requirements in TS 3.4.15 to account for the monitor being deleted. The licensee submitted this amendment request in its application dated June 29, 2006. This application revised the licensee's application dated August 26, 2005, for which a notice of consideration of issuance of an amendment to facility operating license and opportunity for a hearing was published in the **Federal Register** on February 28, 2006 (71 FR 10079). Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not

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

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

(3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

(1)The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. *Response:* No. The proposed change has been evaluated and determined to not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not make hardware changes and does not alter the configuration of any plant system, structure, or component (SSC). The proposed change only removes the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor as an option for meeting the OPERABILITY requirements for TS 3.4.15. The TS will continue to require diverse means of leakage detection equipment, thus ensuring that [RCS] leakage due to cracks would continue to be identified prior to propagating to the point of a pipe break and the plant shutdown accordingly. Therefore, the consequences of an accident [previously evaluated] are not increased.

(2)The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. *Response:* No. The proposed change does not involve the use or installation of new equipment and the currently installed equipment will not be operated in a new or different manner. No new or different system interactions are created and no new processes are introduced. The proposed changes will not introduce any new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the design and licensing bases [for the Callaway Plant]. The proposed change does not affect any SSC associated with an accident initiator. Based on this evaluation, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

(3)The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. *Response:* No. The proposed change does not alter any Reactor Coolant System

(RCS)leakage detection components. The proposed change only removes the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor as an option for meeting the OPERABILITY requirements for TS 3.4.15. This change is required since the level of radioactivity in the Callaway reactor coolant has become much lower than what was assumed in the FSAR [(Final Safety Analysis Report) when the plant was licensed] and the gaseous channel [(monitor)] can no longer promptly detect a small RCS leak under normal [operating] conditions. The proposed amendment continues to require diverse means of [RCS] leakage detection equipment with [the] capability to promptly detect RCS leakage. Although not required by TS, additional diverse means of leakage detection capability are available as described in the FSAR Section 5.2.5. Early detection of [RCS] leakage, as the potential indicator of a crack(s) in the RCS pressure boundary, will thus continue to be in place so that such a condition is known and appropriate actions taken well before any such crack would propagate to a more severe condition. Based on this evaluation, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.* If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(301)415-1101, verification number is

(301)415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov.* A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037, attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated June 29, 2006, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jack Donohew, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-11674 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-482] Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-42, issued to Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (the licensee), for operation of the Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS), located in Coffey County, Kansas. The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification 5.5.9, “Steam Generator

(SG)Program,” by changing the “Refueling Outage 14” to “Refueling Outage 15” in two places. This change would extend the provisions for SG tube repair criteria and inspections that were approved for Refueling Outage 14, and the subsequent operating cycle, in Amendment No. 162 issued April 28, 2005, to Refueling Outage 15, and the subsequent operating cycle. This was proposed in the licensee's application dated June 30, 2006. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not

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

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

(3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

(1)Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The previously analyzed accidents are initiated by the failure of plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed change that alters the steam generator inspection criteria do[es] not have a detrimental impact on the integrity of any plant structure, system, or component that initiates an analyzed event. The proposed change will not alter the operation of, or otherwise increase the failure probability of any plant equipment that initiates an analyzed accident. Of the applicable accidents previously evaluated, the limiting transients with consideration to the proposed changes to the steam generator tube inspection criteria, are the steam generator tube rupture

(SGTR)event and the steam line break

(SLB)accident. During the SGTR event, the required structural integrity margins of the steam generator tubes will be maintained by the presence of the steam generator tubesheet. Steam generator tubes are hydraulically expanded in the tubesheet area. Tube rupture in tubes with cracks in the tubesheet is precluded by the constraint provided by the tubesheet. This constraint results from the hydraulic expansion process, thermal expansion mismatch between the tube and tubesheet and from the differential pressure between the primary and secondary side. Based on this design, the structural margins against burst, discussed in [Nuclear Energy Institute] NEI 97-06, Revision 2, and Regulatory Guide

(RG)1.121, “Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR [Pressurized-Water Reactor] Steam Generator Tubes,” are maintained for both normal and postulated accident conditions. The proposed change does not affect other systems, structures, components or operational features. Therefore, the proposed changes result in no significant increase in the probability of the occurrence of a[n] SGTR accident. At normal operating pressures, leakage from primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) below the proposed limited inspection depth is limited by both the tube-to-tubesheet crevice and the limited crack opening permitted by the tubesheet constraint. Consequently, negligible normal operating leakage is expected from cracks within the tubesheet region. The consequences of an SGTR event are affected by the primary-to-secondary leakage flow during the event. Primary-to-secondary leakage flow through a postulated broken tube is not affected by the proposed change since the tubesheet enhances the tube integrity in the region of the hydraulic expansion by precluding tube deformation beyond its initial hydraulically expanded outside diameter. The probability of a[n] SLB is unaffected by the potential failure of a steam generator tube as this failure is not an initiator for a[n] SLB. The consequences of a[n] SLB are also not significantly affected by the proposed change. During a[n] SLB accident, the reduction in pressure above the tubesheet on the shell side of the steam generator creates an axially uniformly distributed load on the tubesheet due to the reactor coolant system pressure on the underside of the tubesheet. The resulting bending action constrains the tubes in the tubesheet thereby restricting primary-to-secondary leakage below the midplane. Primary-to-secondary leakage from tube degradation in the tubesheet area during the limiting accident ( *i.e.* , a[n] SLB) is limited by flow restrictions resulting from the crack and tube-to-tubesheet contact pressures that provide a restricted leakage path above the indications and also limit the degree of potential crack face opening as compared to free span indications. The primary-to-secondary leak rate during postulated SLB accident conditions would be expected to be less than that during normal operation for indications near the bottom of the tubesheet ( *i.e.* , including indications in the tube-end welds). This conclusion is based on the observation that while the driving pressure causing leakage increases by approximately a factor of two, the flow resistance associated with an increase in the tube-to-tubesheet contact pressure, during a[n] SLB, increases by approximately a factor of 6. While such a leakage decrease is logically expected, the postulated accident leak rate could be conservatively bounded by twice the normal operating leak rate if the increase in contact pressure is ignored. Since normal operating leakage is limited to less than 0.104 gpm (150 gpd) per TS 3.4.13, “RCS Operational LEAKAGE,” the associated accident condition leak rate, assuming all leakage to be from lower tubesheet indications, would be bounded by 0.208 gpm, twice the normal operational leakage. This value is well within the assumed accident leakage rate of 1.0 gpm discussed in WCGS Updated Safety Analysis Report, Table 15.1-3, “Parameters Used in Evaluating the Radiological Consequences of a Main Steam Line Break.” Hence it is reasonable to omit any consideration of inspection of the tube, tube-end weld, bulges/overexpansions or other anomalies below 17 inches from the top of the hot leg tubesheet. Therefore, the consequences of a[n] SLB accident remain unaffected. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

(2)Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change does not introduce any new equipment, create [any] new failure modes for existing equipment, or create any new limiting single failures. Plant operation will not be altered, and all safety functions will continue to perform as previously assumed in accident analyses. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

(3)Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The proposed changes maintain the required structural margins of the steam generator tubes for both normal and accident conditions. Nuclear Energy Institute

(NEI)97-06, “Steam Generator Program Guidelines,” and RG 1.121, “Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam Generator Tubes,” are used as the bases in the development of the limited hot leg tubesheet inspection depth methodology for determining that steam generator tube integrity considerations are maintained within acceptable limits. RG 1.121 describes a method acceptable to the NRC for meeting General Design Criteria

(GDC)14, “Reactor coolant pressure boundary,” GDC 15, “Reactor coolant system design,” GDC 31, “Fracture prevention of reactor coolant pressure boundary,” and GDC 32, “Inspection of reactor coolant pressure boundary,” by reducing the probability and consequences of a[n] SGTR. RG 1.121 concludes that by determining the limiting safe conditions for tube wall degradation the probability and consequences of a[n] SGTR are reduced. This RG uses safety factors on loads for tube burst that are consistent with the requirements of Section III of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME)Code. For axially oriented cracking located within the tubesheet, tube burst is precluded due to the presence of the tubesheet. For circumferentially oriented cracking, Westinghouse letter LTR-CDME-05-82-P, “Limited Inspection of the Steam Generator Tube Portion Within the Tubesheet at Wolf Creek Generating Station,” defines a length of degradation free expanded tubing that provides the necessary resistance to tube pullout due to the pressure induced forces, with applicable safety factors applied. Application of the limited hot leg tubesheet inspection depth criteria will preclude unacceptable primary-to-secondary leakage during all plant conditions. The methodology for determining leakage provides for large margins between calculated and actual leakage values in the proposed limited hot leg tubesheet inspection depth criteria. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in any margin to safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.* If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(301)415-1101, verification number is

(301)415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037, attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated June 30, 2006, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jack Donohew, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-11672 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-482] Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-42, issued to Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (the licensee), for operation of the Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS), located in Coffey County, Kansas. The proposed amendment would

(1)delete the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor from Technical Specification

(TS)3.4.15, “RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Leakage Detection Instrumentation,” and

(2)revise existing conditions, required actions, completion times, and surveillance requirements in TS 3.4.15 to account for the monitor being deleted. The licensee submitted this amendment request in its application dated June 26, 2006. This application revised the licensee's application dated August 26, 2005, for which a notice of consideration of issuance of an amendment to facility operating license and opportunity for a hearing was published in the **Federal Register** on October 25, 2005 (70 FR 61663). Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not

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

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

(3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

(1)The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. *Response:* No. The proposed change has been evaluated and determined to not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not make hardware changes and does not alter the configuration of any plant system, structure, or component (SSC). The proposed change only removes the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor as an option for meeting the OPERABILITY requirements for TS 3.4.15. The TS will continue to require diverse means of leakage detection equipment, thus ensuring that [RCS] leakage due to cracks would continue to be identified prior to propagating to the point of a pipe break and the plant shutdown accordingly. Therefore, the consequences of an accident [previously evaluated] are not increased.

(2)The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. *Response:* No. The proposed change does not involve the use or installation of new equipment and the currently installed equipment will not be operated in a new or different manner. No new or different system interactions are created and no new processes are introduced. The proposed changes will not introduce any new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the design and licensing bases [for WCGS]. The proposed change does not affect any SSC associated with an accident initiator. Based on this evaluation, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

(3)The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. *Response:* No. The proposed change does not alter any Reactor Coolant System

(RCS)leakage detection components. The proposed change only removes the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor as an option for meeting the OPERABILITY requirements for TS 3.4.15. This change is required since the level of radioactivity in the WCGS reactor coolant has become much lower than what was assumed in the USAR [(Updated Safety Analysis Report) when the plant was licensed] and the gaseous channel [(monitor)] can no longer promptly detect a small RCS leak under normal [operating] conditions. The proposed amendment continues to require diverse means of [RCS] leakage detection equipment with [the] capability to promptly detect RCS leakage. Although not required by TS, additional diverse means of leakage detection capability are available as described in the Updated Safety Analysis Report Section 5.2.5. Early detection of [RCS] leakage, as the potential indicator of a crack(s) in the RCS pressure boundary, will thus continue to be in place so that such a condition is known and appropriate actions taken well before any such crack would propagate to a more severe condition. Based on this evaluation, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.* If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(301)415-1101, verification number is

(301)415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov.* A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037, attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated June 26, 2006, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jack Donohew, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-11673 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Notice Agency Holding the Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dates: Weeks of July 24, 31, August 7, 14, 21, 28, 2006. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and Closed. Matters To Be Considered Week of July 24, 2006 Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:50 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative) a. Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC, unpublished April 27, 2006 Memorandum and Order (accepting the intervenor's and NRC Staff's Joint Stipulation regarding two admitted environmental contentions) (Tentative). b. David Geisen, LBP-06-13 (May 19, 2006) (Tentative). c. Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Early Site Permit for Clinton ESP), System Energy Resources, Inc. (Early Site Permit for Grand Gulf ESP) (Tentative). d. Florida Power & Light Co., et al., Docket Nos. 50-250-LT, et al., International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers' “Petition to File Motion to Intervene and Protest Out-of-Time” and “Motion for Hearing and Right to Intervene and Protest” (Tentative). Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Office of International Programs

(OIP)Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting) (Contact: Karen Henderson, 301-415-0202). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Equal Employment Opportunity

(EEO)Programs. (Public Meeting) (Contact: Barbara Williams, 301-415-7388). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* Week of July 31, 2006—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of July 31, 2006. Week of August 7, 2006—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of August 7, 2006. Week of August 14, 2006—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of August 14, 2006. Week of August 21, 2006—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of August 21, 2006. Week of August 28, 2006—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of August 28, 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 meting 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, Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at *DLC@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: July 19, 2006. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-6443 Filed 7-20-06; 12:54 pm]

Notices. Notice