Notices. Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for license amendment

17,957 words·~82 min read·/register/2006/10/10/06-8597

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

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030-06652] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 47-00260-02, for the Unrestricted Release of Building B-747 and an Associated Storage Shed Located at the Union Carbide Corporation Site in South Charleston, WV AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for license amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Betsy Ullrich, Senior Health Physicist, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road,

(610)337-5040; fax number

(610)337-5269; or by e-mail: *exu@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 47-00260-02. This license is held by Union Carbide Corporation (the Licensee), located at 3200 Kanawha Turnpike in South Charleston, West Virginia. Issuance of the amendment would authorize release of Building B-747 and an associated storage shed (together identified herein as the Facility) at the South Charleston site for unrestricted use. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated August 3, 2006. 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 would approve the Licensee's August 3, 3006, license amendment request, resulting in release of the Facility for unrestricted use. License No. 47-00260-02 was issued on August 15, 1956, pursuant to 10 CFR part 30, and has been amended periodically since that time. This license authorized the Licensee to use unsealed hydrogen-3 (tritium) and carbon-14, and various sealed sources, for purposes of conducting research and development activities on laboratory bench tops and in hoods. The Facility is situated on 600 acres and is surrounded by multiple buildings containing office space and laboratories. The Facility is located in a commercial area. Use of licensed materials occurred throughout the Facility, an area totaling 1,536 square feet. In 2001, the Licensee ceased licensed activities within the Facility and initiated a survey and decontamination of the Facility. Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of the Facility, the Licensee determined that only routine decontamination activities, in accordance with their NRC-approved, operating radiation safety procedures, were required. The Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC because worker cleanup activities and procedures are consistent with those approved for routine operations. The Licensee conducted surveys of the Facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the criteria in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities in the Facility and seeks the unrestricted use of the Facility. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows that such activities involved use of the following unsealed radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days: tritium and carbon-14. Prior to performing the final status survey, the Licensee conducted decontamination activities, as necessary, in the areas of the Facility affected by these radionuclides. The Licensee conducted a final status survey on July 27, 2006. The final status survey report was attached to the Licensee's amendment request dated August 3, 2006. The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Volume 2. The Licensee used the radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), developed there by the NRC, which comply with the dose criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These DCGLs define the maximum amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, and materials, and in soils, that will satisfy the NRC requirements in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. The Licensee's final status survey results were below these DCGLs and are in compliance with the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC thus finds that the Licensee's final status survey results are acceptable. Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). The staff finds there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material at the Facility. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the final status survey report to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment surrounding the Facility. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified. The NRC has identified no other radiological or non-radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts. The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility for unrestricted use is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Although the Licensee will continue to perform licensed activities at other areas of the South Charleston site, the Licensee must ensure that this decommissioned area does not become recontaminated. Before the license can be terminated, the Licensee will be required to show that its entire site, including previously-released areas, complies with the radiological criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the Facility and concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey data confirmed that the Facility meets the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, denying the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this EA to the State of West Virginia for review on August 28, 2006. On September 15, 2006, the State of West Virginia Radiological Health program responded by electronic mail. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for license 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 documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers. 1. Letters dated August 3, 2006 [ML062220617], June 19, 2006 [ML061720331], and January 27, 2006 [ML060320507]. 2. Facsimile dated January 31, 2006 [ML060320519]. 3. NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance.” 4. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination.” 5. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 6. NUREG-1496, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities.” 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 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 29th day of September 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. E6-16647 Filed 10-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations I. Background Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from September 15, 2006, to September 28, 2006. The last biweekly notice was published on September 26, 2006 (71 FR 56189). Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 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. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below. 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. 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. 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, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing 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 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for a 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 01F21, 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 within 60 days, 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 requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth 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/requestor 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/requestor 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/requestor 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, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, 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. 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 attorney for the licensee. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii). For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1

(800)397-4209,

(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, *et al.* , Docket No. 50-346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Ottawa County, Ohio *Date of amendment request:* May 30, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise technical specification

(TS)Definitions 1.14, “LEAKAGE”, and 1.16, “PRESSURE BOUNDARY LEAKAGE”; revise TS 3/4.6.2, “Reactor Coolant System Operational Leakage”; add a new TS 3/4.4.5, “Steam Generator

(SG)Tube Integrity;” add a new TS 6.8.4.g, “Steam Generator

(SG)Program;” and add a new TS 6.9.1.12, “Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report”; as well as administrative and editorial changes. These changes are consistent with the NRC-approved Revision 4 to TS Task Force

(TSTF)Standard TS change traveler, TSTF-449, “Steam Generator Tube Integrity.” The proposed changes are necessary in order to implement the guidance for the industry initiative on Nuclear Energy Institute

(NEI)97-06, “Steam Generator Program Guidelines.” The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the **Federal Register** on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10298), on possible amendments concerning TSTF-449, including a model safety evaluation and model no significant hazards consideration

(NSHC)determination, using the consolidated line item improvement process. The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models for referencing in license amendment applications in the **Federal Register** on May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24126). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the following NSHC determination in its application dated May 30, 2006. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of NSHC is presented below: Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change requires a SG Program that includes performance criteria that will provide reasonable assurance that the SG tubing will retain integrity over the full range of operating conditions (including startup, operation in the power range, hot standby, cooldown and all anticipated transients included in the design specification). The SG performance criteria are based on tube structural integrity, accident induced leakage, and operational LEAKAGE. A[n] SGTR [SG tube rupture] event is one of the design basis accidents that are analyzed as part of a plant's licensing basis. In the analysis of a[n] SGTR event, a bounding primary to secondary LEAKAGE rate equal to the operational LEAKAGE rate limits in the licensing basis plus the LEAKAGE rate associated with a double-ended rupture of a single tube is assumed. For other design basis accidents such as [an] MSLB [main steam line break], rod ejection, and reactor coolant pump locked rotor[,] the tubes are assumed to retain their structural integrity (i.e., they are assumed not to rupture). These analyses typically assume that primary to secondary LEAKAGE for all SGs is 1 gallon per minute or increases to 1 gallon per minute as a result of accident induced stresses. The accident induced leakage criterion introduced by the proposed changes accounts for tubes that may leak during design basis accidents. The accident induced leakage criterion limits this leakage to no more than the value assumed in the accident analysis. The SG performance criteria proposed change[s] to the TS[s] to identify the standards against which tube integrity is to be measured. Meeting the performance criteria provides reasonable assurance that the SG tubing will remain capable of fulfilling its specific safety function of maintaining reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity throughout each operating cycle and in the unlikely event of a design basis accident. The performance criteria are only a part of the SG Program required by the proposed change[s] to the TS[s]. The program, defined by NEI 97-06, Steam Generator Program Guidelines, includes a framework that incorporates a balance of prevention, inspection, evaluation, repair, and leakage monitoring. The proposed changes do not, therefore, significantly increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The consequences of design basis accidents are, in part, functions of the DOSE EQUIVALENT 1[I]-131 in the primary coolant and the primary to secondary LEAKAGE rates resulting from an accident. Therefore, limits are included in the plant technical specifications for operational leakage and for DOSE EQUIVALENT 1[I]-131 in primary coolant to ensure the plant is operated within its analyzed condition. The typical analysis of the limiting design basis accident assumes that primary to secondary leak rate after the accident is 1 gallon per minute with no more than [500 gallons per day or 720 gallons per day] in any one SG, and that the reactor coolant activity levels of DOSE EQUIVALENT 1[I]-131 are at the TS values before the accident. The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs, their method of operation, or primary coolant chemistry controls. The proposed approach updates the current TSs and enhances the requirements for SG inspections. The proposed change does not adversely impact any other previously evaluated design basis accident and is an improvement over the current TSs. Therefore, the proposed change does not affect the consequences of a[n] SGTR accident and the probability of such an accident is reduced. In addition, the proposed changes do not affect the consequences of an MSLB, rod ejection, or a reactor coolant pump locked rotor event, or other previously evaluated accident. Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated The proposed performance based requirements are an improvement over the requirements imposed by the current technical specifications. Implementation of the proposed SG Program will not introduce any adverse changes to the plant design basis or postulated accidents resulting from potential tube degradation. The result of the implementation of the SG Program will be an enhancement of SG tube performance. Primary to secondary LEAKAGE that may be experienced during all plant conditions will be monitored to ensure it remains within current accident analysis assumptions. The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs, their method of operation, or primary or secondary coolant chemistry controls. In addition, the proposed change does not impact any other plant system or component. The change enhances SG inspection requirements. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the [a] Margin of Safety The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface between the primary and secondary systems such that residual heat can be removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes isolate the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant from the secondary system. In summary, the safety function of an SG is maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes. Steam generator tube integrity is a function of the design, environment, and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed change does not affect tube design or operating environment. The proposed change is expected to result in an improvement in the tube integrity by implementing the SG Program to manage SG tube inspection, assessment, repair, and plugging. The requirements established by the SG Program are consistent with those in the applicable design codes and standards and are an improvement over the requirements in the current TSs. For the above reasons, the margin of safety is not changed and overall plant safety will be enhanced by the proposed change to the TS. The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-18, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308. *NRC Branch Chief:* Daniel S. Collins. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket No. 50-259 , Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama *Date of amendment request:* September 22, 2006 (TS-431). *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment supplements a June 28, 2004, request to increase the licensed thermal power from 3293 megawatt thermal

(MWt)to 3952 MWt, an approximate 20 percent increase in thermal power. This supplement requests interim approval of an increase in licensed thermal power from 3293 MWt to 3458 MWt with an attendant 30-psi increase in reactor pressure. This represents an approximate 5 percent increase above the original licensed thermal power

(OLTP)of 3293 MWt. An interim approval would provide for operation at 105 percent power until such time as certain steam dryer analyses can be completed. The NRC staff's review of the remainder of the June 2004 application would resume upon receipt of the satisfactorily completed steam dryer analyses. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* 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 probability (frequency of occurrence) of Design Basis Accidents occurring is not affected by the increased power level, because BFN Unit 1 continues to comply with the regulatory and design basis criteria established for plant equipment. An evaluation of the Boiling Water Reactor probabilistic risk assessments concludes that the calculated core damage frequency does not significantly change due to operation at 105% OLTP. Scram setpoints (equipment settings that initiate automatic plant shutdowns) are established such that there is no significant increase in scram frequency due to operation at 105% OLTP. No new challenges to safety-related equipment result from operation at 105% OLTP. The probability of Design Basis Accidents occurring is not affected by taking credit for containment overpressure in ensuring adequate NPSH [Net Positive Suction Head] for the BFN Unit 1 low pressure ECCS pumps. NRC Bulletin 96-03 requested that BWR [Boiling-Water Reactors] owners implement appropriate measures to minimize the potential clogging of the Emergency Core Cooling System

(ECCS)suppression chamber strainers by potential debris generated by a LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident]. TVA installed new, high-capacity passive strainers on BFN Unit 1 of the same design as BFN Units 2 and 3. In addition, TVA's proposed resolution of NRC Bulletin 96-03 for BFN Unit 1 takes credit for containment overpressure to maintain adequate ECCS pump Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH). Containment pressure will increase following a pipe break occurring inside containment. Crediting containment overpressure in the analysis of the consequences of the Loss of Coolant Accident

(LOCA)does not affect the precursors for the LOCA, nor does it affect the precursors for any other accident or transient analyzed in Chapter 14 of the BFN Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Therefore, there is no increase in the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The changes in consequences of hypothetical accidents, which would occur from 102% of the stretch power uprate reactor thermal power compared to those previously evaluated, are in all cases insignificant. The stretch power uprate accident evaluations do not exceed any of their NRC-approved acceptance limits. The spectrum of hypothetical accidents and transients has been investigated, and are shown to meet the plant's currently licensed regulatory criteria. In the area of core design, for example, the fuel operating limits such as Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (MAPLHGR) and Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) are still met, and fuel reload analyses will show plant transients meet the criteria accepted by the NRC. Challenges to fuel (ECCS performance) are evaluated, and shown to continue to meet the criteria of 10 CFR 50.46. Challenges to the containment have been evaluated at the increased power level, and the containment and its associated cooling systems continue to meet the design and licensing criteria. Radiological release events (accidents) have been evaluated at the increased power level, and shown to be less than the limits of 10 CFR 50.67. The radiological consequences of the design basis accident are not increased by taking credit for the post-LOCA suppression chamber airspace pressure. The containment will continue to function as designed. This proposed change only takes credit for containment pressure that would exist following a LOCA. Crediting this pressure in ensuring adequate ECCS NPSH will not result in an increase in containment leakage assumed in any analysis. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in a significant increase in consequences or a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

(2)Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. Equipment that could be affected by operation at 105% OLTP has been evaluated. No new operating mode, safety-related equipment lineup, accident scenario or equipment failure mode was identified. The full spectrum of accident considerations has been evaluated and no new or different kind of accident has been identified. Operation at 105% OLTP uses developed technology, and applies it within the capabilities of existing plant safety related equipment in accordance with the regulatory criteria, including NRC approved codes, standards and methods. No new power dependent accidents have been identified. The BFN Unit 1 TS [Technical Specifications] require revision to implement operation at 105% OLTP. All revisions have been assessed, and it has been determined that the proposed change will not introduce a different accident than that previously evaluated. The proposed use of the post-LOCA suppression chamber airspace pressure in the calculation of NPSH for the ECCS pumps does not introduce any new modes of plant operation or make physical changes to plant systems. Rather, the post-LOCA suppression chamber airspace pressure is a consequence of the conditions that would exist in the containment following a large pipe break inside containment. The proposed amendment does not introduce new equipment which could create a new or different kind of accident. No new external threats, release pathways, or equipment failure modes are created. Therefore, the change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

(3)Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The calculated loads on all affected structures, systems and components will remain within their design allowables for all design basis event categories. No NRC acceptance criterion is exceeded. Because the BFN Unit 1 configuration and reactions to transients and hypothetical accidents does not result in exceeding the presently approved NRC acceptance limits, operation at 105% OLTP does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The post-LOCA suppression chamber airspace pressure is a byproduct of the conditions that will exist in the containment after a line break inside containment. Conservative analyses have been performed that demonstrate that sufficient post-accident suppression chamber airspace pressure will be available to meet the NPSH requirements for the low pressure ECCS pumps. By enabling credit of these conditions for the low pressure ECCS pumps, adequate NPSH margin will be ensured, and accordingly, the ECCS pumps will meet their performance requirements. Therefore, the credit for containment overpressure 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. *Attorney for licensee:* General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. *NRC Branch Chief:* L. Raghavan. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these actions was published in the **Federal Register** as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see

(1)the applications for amendment,

(2)the amendment, and

(3)the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1

(800)397-4209,

(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey *Date of application for amendment:* December 2, 2005. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Technical Specifications

(TSs)to increase the allowable as-found main steam safety valve code safety function lift setpoint tolerance from ±1% to ±3%. *Date of Issuance:* September 13, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of Issuance to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 261. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-16:* The amendment revised the TSs. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: January 17, 2006 (71 FR 2588). The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 13, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland *Date of application for amendments:* June 7, 2005, as supplemented on May 12, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revise the Technical Specifications

(TSs)to eliminate the use of the defined term Core Alterations. The amendments incorporate the changes reflected in TS Task Force

(TSTF)Travelers 471-T (TSTF-471-T), “Eliminate use of term CORE ALTERATIONS in ACTIONS and Notes,” and TSTF-51-A, “Revise containment requirements during handling irradiated fuel and core alterations.” In addition, the amendments revise TS 3.9.2, “Nuclear Instrumentation,” by replacing “Core Alterations” with “positive reactivity additions” in the Required Action for an inoperable source range monitor during refueling operations. The limiting conditions for operation in TS 3.9.4, “Shutdown Cooling

(SDC)and Coolant Recirculation—High Water Level,” are also revised by replacing “core alterations” with “movement of fuel assemblies within containment.” *Date of issuance:* September 21, 2006 *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 279 and 256. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69:* Amendments revised the Licenses and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: July 5, 2005 (70 FR 38716). The May 12, 2006, letter provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of these amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 21, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina *Date of application for amendment:* March 3, 2005, as supplemented by letter dated July 6, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises the requirements of Technical Specification

(TS)5.6.5, “Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).” *Date of issuance:* September 20, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.* 209. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23.* Amendment revises the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: May 24, 2005 (70 FR 29787). The supplemental letter provided clarifying information that was within the scope of the initial notice and did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 20, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina *Date of application for amendment:* August 20, 2004, as supplemented by letters dated June 22, 2005, June 26, 2006, and September 18, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises Table 3.3.1-1, Functions 3, 14, 17.a., 20, and the footnote related to Function 20. *Date of issuance:* September 22, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.* 210. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23.* Amendment revises the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: November 23, 2004 (69 FR 68182). The letters dated June 22, 2005, June 26, 2006, and September 18, 2006, provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 22, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut *Date of application for amendment:* May 27, 2004, as supplemented September 27, 2004, October 20, 2004, March 23, 2005, January 30, 2006 and May 25, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised the Technical Specifications

(TSs)to incorporate a full-scope application of an alternate source term methodology in accordance with 10 CFR 50.67. *Date of issuance:* September 15, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 232. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-49:* The amendment revised the TSs. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: September 14, 2004 (69 FR 55468). The supplements contained clarifying information only, and did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination or expand the scope of the initial **Federal Register** notice. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 15, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut *Date of application for amendment:* September 13, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated June 13 and August 14, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised the Technical Specification

(TS)surveillance requirements for the recirculation spray system. *Date of issuance:* September 20, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to entering Mode 1 following refueling outage 3R11. *Amendment No.:* 233. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-49:* The amendment revised the TSs. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: October 25, 2005 (70 FR 61657). The supplements dated June 13 and August 14, 2006, provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination or expand the application beyond the scope of the original **Federal Register** notice. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 20, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Power Company LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina *Date of application for amendments:* June 29, 2005, as supplemented May 1, 2006, and September 8, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments requested authorization to revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report and the emergency operating procedures to allow an additional operator action to manually start one containment air return fan in the air return system in response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bulletin 2003-01, “Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Sump Recirculation at Pressurized-Water Reactors,” June 6, 2003. *Date of issuance:* September 25, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 231 and 227. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52:* Amendments revised the licenses. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: October 25, 2005 (70 FR 61657). The supplement dated May 1, 2006, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 25, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Power Company LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina *Date of application for amendments:* July 25, 2005, as supplemented July 28, 2005, and August 1, 2005. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications temperature limit for the standby nuclear service water pond from 91.5 °F to 95 °F. *Date of issuance:* September 25, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance September 25, 2006. *Amendment Nos.:* 232 and 228. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52:* Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: August 4, 2005 (70 FR 44946). The supplements dated July 28, 2005, and August 1, 2005, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 25, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Power Company LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina *Date of application for amendments:* September 13, 2005, as supplemented March 20, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications

(TSs)to correct a nonconservative TS associated with spent fuel storage in the spent fuel pool. The licensee identified the nonconservative TS while comparing results from spent fuel pool criticality codes. *Date of issuance:* September 27, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance September 27, 2006. *Amendment Nos.:* 233 and 229. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52:* Amendments revised the license and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: November 21, 2005 (70 FR 70104). The supplement dated March 20, 2006, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina *Date of application for amendments:* June 29, 2005, as supplemented May 1, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments requested authorization to revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report and the emergency operating procedures to allow an additional operator action to manually start one containment air return fan in the air return system in response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bulletin 2003-01, “Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Sump Recirculation at Pressurized-Water Reactors,” June 6, 2003. *Date of issuance:* September 25, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 234 and 216. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:* Amendments revised the licenses. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: October 25, 2005 (70 FR 61657). The supplement dated May 1, 2006, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 25, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas *Date of application for amendment:* June 29, 2005, as supplemented by letter dated May 18, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* By letter dated June 29, 2005, Entergy Operations, Inc., the licensee for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2), requested a license amendment to relocate the shutdown cooling

(SDC)open permissive interlock

(OPI)license condition from the operating license to the licensee's technical requirements manual. The license condition to maintain OPI operability was previously accepted by the NRC staff in a letter to the licensee, dated March 30, 2005, and incorporated into ANO-2's operating license. The OPI prevents the two SDC suction isolation valves from opening above a selected set point to separate the high-pressure reactor coolant system from the low-pressure SDC system. *Date of issuance:* September 13, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 267. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6:* Amendment revised the Facility Operating License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: December 6, 2005 (70 FR 72671). The supplement dated May 18, 2006, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 13, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts *Date of application for amendment:* December 14, 2004, revised by letter dated August 30, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The Technical Specification amendment relocates structural integrity requirements to the Final Safety Analysis Report. *Date of issuance:* September 14, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 224. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-35:* The amendment revised the License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: March 1, 2005 (70 FR 9991). The licensee originally requested for additional TS relocations in their submittal dated December 14, 2004. The NRC staff found these unacceptable. Therefore, the licensee revised the original application by letter dated August 30, 2006, reducing the scope of the application as originally noticed. Hence, there is no change to the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 14, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts *Date of application for amendment:* June 2, 2005, supplemented by letter dated June 14, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised the Technical Specification

(TS)reactor coolant system leakage detection instrumentation requirements and actions. *Date of issuance:* September 20, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 225. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-35:* The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: May 23, 2006 (71 FR 29676). The supplement dated June 14, 2006, provided additional information that did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 20, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2, Beaver County, Pennsylvania *Date of application for amendment:* April 11, 2005, as supplemented December 2, 2005, and January 27, April 14, August 16, and September 1, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised the scope of the steam generator tubesheet inspections and subsequent repair using the F* inspection methodology. *Date of issuance:* September 27, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No:* 160. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-73:* The amendment revised the License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: June 7, 2005 (70 FR 33214). The supplements dated December 2, 2005, and January 27, April 14, August 16, and September 1, 2006, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's issuance of Amendment No. 158 to Facility Operating License NPF-73 for BVPS-2, regarding steam generator tube integrity (Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF)Item 449) on September 7, 2006, resulted in renumbering and rewording the requirements as originally proposed by the licensee to fit the TSTF-449 format, but did not change the scope of the application. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and 2), Beaver County, Pennsylvania *Date of application for amendments:* November 7, 2005, as supplemented April 25, June 1, and August 3, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments include changes to the definition of leakage, changes to the primary-to-secondary leakage requirements, changes to the steam generator

(SG)tube surveillance program (SG tube integrity), and changes to the SG reporting requirements. *Date of issuance:* September 7, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 90 days for BVPS-1 and prior to entry into Mode 4 following the fall 2006 refueling outage for BVPS-2. *Amendment Nos.:* 276 and 158. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73:* Amendments revised the Technical Specifications and Licenses. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: December 20, 2005 (70 FR 75491). The supplements dated April 25, June 1, and August 3, 2006, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 7, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and 2), Beaver County, Pennsylvania *Date of application for amendments:* February 17, 2005, as supplemented May 12 and August 22, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications

(TSs)3.7.7.1 (BVPS-1), “Control Room Emergency Habitability Systems,” and 3.7.7 (BVPS-2), “Control Room Emergency Air Cleanup and Pressurization System,” by dividing these TSs into two specifications, addressing control room emergency ventilation and control room air cooling functions separately. The amendments also improved consistency with the Standard TSs and improved consistency between the units. *Date of issuance:* September 25, 2006 *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 277 and 159 *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73:* Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: April 26, 2005 (70 FR 21458). The supplements dated May 12 and August 22, 2006, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 25, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket No. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 and 2), Luzerne County, Pennsylvania *Date of application for amendments:* February 1, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revise the Technical Specification

(TS)testing frequency for the Surveillance Requirements in TS 3.1.4, “Control Rod Scram Times,” based on the TS Task Force

(TSTF)change traveler TSTF-222, Revision 1. *Date of issuance:* September 12, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 237 and 214. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22:* The amendments revised the License and TSs. *Date of initial notice in Federal Register:* May 9, 2006 (71 FR 27001). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 12, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service Authority, Docket 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina *Date of application for amendment:* June 30, 2005, as supplemented July 21, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Technical Specifications to permit the use of a best estimate methodology in performing loss-of-coolant accident analyses. *Date of issuance:* September 7, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days. *Amendment No.* 176. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12:* Amendment revises the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in Federal Register:* October 11, 2005 (70 FR 59087). The supplemental letter provided clarifying information that was within the scope of the initial notice and did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 7, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received No. Southern California Edison Company, *et al.* , Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, California *Date of application for amendments:* November 30, 2005, as supplemented by letter dated May 30, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The proposed amendments revised the Technical Specification

(TS)requirements related to steam generator tube integrity, based on the NRC-approved Revision 4 to TS Task Force (TSTF)-449, “Steam Generator Tube Integrity.” Date of issuance: September 19, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 2—204; Unit 3—196. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15:* The amendments revised the TSs. *Date of initial notice in Federal Register:* February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7812). The May 30, 2006, supplemental letter provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 19, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-259 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama *Date of application for amendment:* March 9, 2004 (TS-434) as supplemented on November 15, 2004, and March 7, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment reduced the Allowable Value used for Reactor Vessel Water Level—Low, Level 3, for several instrument functions. *Date of issuance:* September 18, 2006. *Effective date:* September 18, 2006. *Amendment No.:* 258. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-33:* Amendment revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in Federal Register:* April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19575). The supplements dated November 15, 2004, and March 7, 2006, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 18, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-259, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama *Date of application for amendments:* November 3, 2003, as supplemented May 6, 2004, and August 1, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The amendment revised Technical Specification

(TS)Table 3.3.1.1 -1, Reactor Protection system Instrumentation, Function 7.b. *Date of issuance:* September 19, 2006. *Effective date:* Date of issuance, to be issued within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 259. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-33:* Amendment revised the TSs. *Date of initial notice in Federal Register:* April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19575). The supplements dated May 6, 2004, and August 1, 2006, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 19, 2006. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, Alabama *Date of application for amendments:* August 16, 2004, as supplemented by letters dated March 11, 2005, November 4, 2005, and April 14, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* To extend the channel calibration frequency requirements for instrumentation in the high-pressure coolant injection, reactor core isolation cooling, and reactor water core isolation cooling systems. *Date of issuance:* September 21, 2006. *Effective date:* Date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 260, 297 and 255. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68:* Amendments revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: May 23, 2006 (71 FR 29680). The supplemental letters provided clarifying information that did not expand the scope of the original application or change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 21, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-259, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama *Date of application for amendment:* July 9, 2004 (TS 436). *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised Technical Specification

(TS)Surveillance Requirement 3.6.1.3.10 to increase the allowed main steam isolation valve

(MSIV)leak rate from 11.5 standard cubic feet per hour

(scfh)per valve to 100 scfh for individual MSIVs with a 150 scfh combined leakage for all four main steam lines. *Date of issuance:* September 27, 2006. *Effective date:* Date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 261. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-33:* Amendment revised the TSs. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: May 23, 2006 (71 FR 29680). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee *Date of application for amendments:* August 14, 2004, as supplemented on April 11, 2005, and July 11, 2006 (TS-02-01). *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revise Technical Specifications

(TSs)relating to the reactor protection system and engineered safety features instrumentation. The Trip Setpoint column of TS Tables 2.2-1 and 3.3-4 will be renamed Nominal Trip Setpoint; inequality signs in TS Tables 2.2-1 and 3.3-4 will be removed; the trip setpoint and allowable value for the Intermediate Range Neutron Flux P-6 permissive will be revised; Minimum Channels Operable in TS Table 3.3-3 will be revised; editorial changes will be made to TS Table 3.3-4 to replace ± signs with inequalities; and a correction will be made to an alarm/trip setpoint in TS Table 3.3-6. *Date of issuance:* September 13, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 45 days. *Amendment Nos.* 310 and 299. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79:* Amendments revised the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: October 12, 2004 (69 FR 60688). The supplemental letters provided clarifying information that was within the scope of the initial notice and did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 13, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee *Date of application for amendments:* September 30, 2004, as supplemented on May 25, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revise the technical specifications to relocate the requirements for the emergency diesel generator start loss of power instrumentation and associated actions in the engineering safety features tables to a new limiting condition for operation (LCO). In addition, an upper allowable value limit has been added to the voltage sensors for loss of voltage and degraded voltage consistent with Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF)Item, TSTF-365, along with a lower allowable value limit for the degraded voltage diesel generator start and load shed timer. The auxiliary feedwater loss of power start setpoints and allowable values have been relocated to this new LCO. *Date of issuance:* September 14, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 45 days. *Amendment Nos.* 311 and 300. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79:* Amendments revised the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: January 18, 2005 (70 FR 2900). The supplemental letter provided clarifying information that was within the scope of the initial notice and did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 14, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County, Missouri *Date of application for amendment:* June 29, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises Technical Specification

(TS)3.4.15, “RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Leakage Detection Instrumentation.” The TS changes delete the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor from TS 3.4.15 and revise the existing conditions, required actions, completion times, and surveillance requirements in TS 3.4.15 to account for the monitor being deleted. The June 29, 2006, letter superceded the license amendment request in the August 26, 2005, letter to authorize changes to the Final Safety Analysis Report. *Date of issuance:* September 26, 2006. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 175. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-30:* The amendment revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: July 24, 2006 (71 FR 41843). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 26, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas *Date of amendment request:* June 26, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises Technical Specification

(TS)3.4.15, “RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Leakage Detection Instrumentation.” The TS changes delete the monitor from TS 3.4.15 and revise the existing conditions, required actions, completion times, and surveillance requirements in TS 3.4.15 to account for the monitor being deleted. The June 26, 2006, letter superceded the license amendment request in the August 26, 2005, letter to authorize changes to the Updated Safety Analysis Report. *Date of issuance:* September 26, 2006. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 166. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-42.* The amendment revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in Federal Register:* July 24, 2006 (71 FR 41848). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 26, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of October 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-16560 Filed 10-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Solicitation of Public Comments on the Implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Request for public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC is soliciting comments from members of the public, licensees, and interest groups related to the implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP). An electronic version of the survey questions may be obtained from *http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/rop2006survey.pdf.* This solicitation will provide insights into the self-assessment process and a summary of the feedback will be included in the annual ROP self-assessment report to the Commission. DATES: The comment period expires on December 1, 2006. The NRC will consider comments received after this date if it is practical to do so, but is only able to ensure consideration of comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Completed questionnaires and/or comments may be e-mailed to *nrcrep@nrc.gov* or sent to Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Office of Administration (Mail Stop T-6D59), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. If you choose to send your response using email, please include appropriate contact information so the NRC can follow-up on the comments. Comments may also be hand-delivered to Mr. Lesar at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.* From this site, the public can access the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. For more information, contact the NRC's Public Document Room

(PDR)reference staff at 301-415-4737 or 800-397-4209, or by e-mail at *pdr@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bart Fu, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (Mail Stop: OWFN 7H2), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001. Mr. Fu can also be reached by telephone at 301-415-2467 or by e-mail at *ZBF@NRC.GOV.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Program Overview The mission of the NRC is to license and regulate the Nation's civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the environment. This mission is accomplished through the following activities: • License nuclear facilities and the possession, use, and disposal of nuclear materials. • Develop and implement requirements governing licensed activities. • Inspect and enforce licensee activities to ensure compliance with these requirements and the law. While the NRC's responsibility is to monitor and regulate licensees' performance, the primary responsibility for safe operation and handling of nuclear materials rests with each licensee. As the nuclear industry in the United States has matured, the NRC and its licensees have learned much about how to safely operate nuclear facilities and handle nuclear materials. In April 2000, the NRC began to implement more effective and efficient inspection, assessment, and enforcement approaches, which apply insights from these years of regulatory oversight and nuclear facility operation. Key elements of the Reactor Oversight Process

(ROP)include NRC inspection procedures, plant performance indicators, a significance determination process, and an assessment program that incorporates various risk-informed thresholds to help determine the level of NRC oversight and enforcement. Since ROP development began in 1998, the NRC has frequently communicated with the public by various initiatives: conducted public meetings in the vicinity of each licensed commercial nuclear power plant, issued FRNs to solicit feedback on the ROP, published press releases about the new process, conducted multiple public workshops, placed pertinent background information in the NRC's Public Document Room, and established an NRC Web site containing easily accessible information about the ROP and licensee performance. NRC Public Stakeholder Comments The NRC continues to be interested in receiving feedback from members of the public, various public stakeholders, and industry groups on their insights regarding the calendar year 2006 implementation of the ROP. In particular, the NRC is seeking responses to the questions listed below, which will provide important information that the NRC can use in ongoing program improvement. A summary of the feedback obtained will be provided to the Commission and included in the annual ROP self-assessment report. This solicitation of public comments has been issued each year since ROP implementation in 2000. Although written responses are encouraged, there are specific choices to best describe your experience to enable us to more objectively determine your level of satisfaction. Questions In responding to these questions, please consider your experiences using the NRC oversight process. Shade in the circle that most applies to your experiences as follows:

(1)Strongly Agree

(2)Agree

(3)Neutral

(4)Disagree

(5)Strongly Disagree If there are experiences that are rated as unsatisfactory, or if you have specific thoughts or concerns, please elaborate in the “Comments” section that follows the question and offer your opinion for possible improvements. If there are experiences or opinions that you would like to express that cannot be directly captured by the questions, document that in the last question of the survey. Questions Related to Specific Reactor Oversight

(ROP)Program Areas (As appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions for improvement.)

(1)The Performance Indicator Program provides useful insights to help ensure plant safety. EN10OC06.000 *Comments:*

(2)Appropriate overlap exists between the Performance Indicator Program and the Inspection Program. EN10OC06.000 *Comments:*

(3)NEI 99-02, “Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline” provides clear guidance regarding Performance Indicators. EN10OC06.000 *Comments:*

(4)The Performance Indicator Program, including the Mitigating Systems Performance Index, can effectively identify performance outliers based on risk-informed, objective, and predictable indicators. EN10OC06.000 *Comments:*

(5)The Inspection Program adequately covers areas important to safety, and is effective in identifying and ensuring the prompt correction of any performance deficiencies. EN10OC06.000 *Comments:*

(6)The information contained in inspection reports is relevant, useful, and written in plain English. EN10OC06.000 *Comments:*

(7)The Significance Determination Process yields an appropriate and consistent regulatory response across all ROP cornerstones. EN10OC06.000 *Comments:*

(8)The NRC takes appropriate actions to address performance issues for those plants outside of the Licensee Response Column of the Action Matrix. EN10OC06.000 *Comments:*

(9)The information contained in assessment reports is relevant, useful, and written in plain English. EN10OC06.000 *Comments:* Questions Related to the Efficacy of the Overall ROP (As appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions for improvement.)

(10)The ROP oversight activities are predictable ( *i.e.* , controlled by the process) and reasonably objective ( *i.e.* , based on supported facts, rather than relying on subjective judgement). EN10OC06.000 *Comments:*

(11)The ROP is risk-informed, in that the NRC's actions and outcomes are appropriately graduated on the basis of increased significance. EN10OC06.000 *Comments:*

(12)The ROP is understandable and the processes, procedures and products are clear and written in plain English. EN10OC06.000 *Comments:*

(13)The ROP provides adequate regulatory assurance, when combined with other NRC regulatory processes, that plants are being operated and maintained safely. EN10OC06.000 *Comments:*

(14)The ROP safety culture enhancements help identify licensee safety culture weaknesses and focus licensee and NRC attention appropriately. EN10OC06.000 *Comments:*

(15)The ROP is effective, efficient, realistic, and timely. EN10OC06.000 *Comments:*

(16)The ROP ensures openness in the regulatory process. EN10OC06.000 *Comments:*

(17)The public has been afforded adequate opportunity to participate in the ROP and to provide inputs and comments. EN10OC06.000 *Comments:*

(18)The NRC has been responsive to public inputs and comments on the ROP. EN10OC06.000 *Comments:*

(19)The NRC has implemented the ROP as defined by program documents. EN10OC06.000 *Comments:*

(20)The ROP minimizes unintended consequences. EN10OC06.000 *Comments:*

(21)You would support a change in frequency of the ROP external survey from annually to every other year, consistent with the internal survey, as proposed in SECY-06-0074. EN10OC06.000 *Comments:* Please provide any additional information or comments related to the Reactor Oversight Process. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of October, 2006. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Stuart A. Richards, Division of Inspection & Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-16641 Filed 10-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE [Docket No. WTO/DS-267] WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States Subsidies to Upland Cotton AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative

(USTR)is providing notice that Brazil has requested the establishment of a dispute settlement panel under the *Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization* (“WTO Agreement”). That request may be found at *http://www.wto.org* contained in a document designated as WT/DS267/30. USTR invites written comments from the public concerning the issues raised in this dispute. DATES: Although the USTR will accept any comments received during the course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be submitted on or before November 1, 2006, to be assured of timely consideration by USTR. ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted

(i)Wlectronically, to *FR0630@ustr.gov,* Attn: “United States—Subsidies on Upland Cotton” in the subject line, or

(ii)by fax, to Sandy McKinzy (Attn: United States—Subsidies on Upland Cotton) at 202-395-3640, with a confirmation copy sent electronically to the e-mail address above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Behnaz L. Kibria, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC,

(202)395-9589. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If a dispute settlement panel is established, such panel, which would hold its meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, may issue a report on its findings and recommendations within 90 days after referral of the matter to it. Major Issues Raised by Brazil In its panel request, Brazil alleges that the United States has not fully complied with the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body from the original dispute. The recommendations and rulings stem from the panel and Appellate Body reports which may be found at *http://www.wto.org* designated as WT/DS267/R and WT/DS267/AB/R, respectively. Specifically, Brazil alleges that “the United States has failed to take appropriate steps to remove the adverse effects or withdraw the subsidies found to cause adverse effects.” According to Brazil, “[t]he United States” failure to take these steps results in U.S. subsidies for upland cotton causing serious prejudice to the interests of Brazil, within the meaning of Articles 5(c) and 6.3 of the [ *Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (‘SCM Agreeement’* ).” Brazil contends that the U.S. subsidies at issue are “the U.S. marketing loan, counter-cyclical and Step 2 payment programs under the [Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (‘FSRI Act’)] of 2002, as amended, taken alone and/or considered together, as well as payments made under these programs. * * *” Noting the repeal of the Step 2 program effective August 1, 2006, Brazil contends, in the alternative, that the U.S. subsidies at issue are “the U.S. marketing loan and counter-cyclical payment programs under the FSRI Act of 2002, as amended, as well as payments made under these programs. * * *” Brazil also claims that “the United States threatens to cause serious prejudice to the interests of Brazil, within the meaning of Articles 5(c) and 6.3 of the SCM Agreement, and footnote 13 thereto,” in the sense of threat of significant price suppression “in the world market for upland cotton in marketing years 2006 and until the expiry of [the marketing loan and counter-cyclical payment] programs.” In addition, Brazil presents claims relating to the “prohibited [export credit guarantee program (“ECG”)] related export subsidies.” Brazil alleges that the United States has taken “no action” with respect to guarantees provided prior to July 1, 2005, the deadline for implementation, under the three programs at issue in the original dispute—GSM-102, GSM-103, and the Supplier Credit Guarantee Program (“SCGP”). Brazil also alleges that, with respect to GSM-102, the SCGP, and guarantees provided thereunder after the date for implementation, the U.S. measures taken to comply are inconsistent with Articles 10.1 and 8 of the *Agreement on Agriculture,* Articles 1, 3.1(a), and 3.2 of the *SCM Agreement,* and item

(j)to the Illustrative List of Export subsidies in Annex I to the *SCM Agreement.* Public Comment: Requirements for Submissions Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons submitting comments may either send one copy by fax to Sandy McKinzy at

(202)395-3640, or transmit a copy electronically to *FR0630@ustr.gov.eop,* with “United States—Subsidies on Upland Cotton” in the subject line. For documents sent by fax, USTR requests that the submitter provide a confirmation copy to the electronic mail address listed above. USTR encourages the submission of documents in Adobe PDF format, as attachments to an electronic mail. Interested persons who make submissions by electronic mail should not provide separate cover letters; information that might appear in a cover letter should be included in the submission itself. Similarly, to the extent possible, any attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files. A person requesting that information contained in a comment submitted by that person be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such and the submission must be marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page of the submission. Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitting person believes that information or advice may qualify as such, the submitting person—

(1)Must clearly so designate the information or advice;

(2)Must clearly mark the material as “SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE”at the top and bottom of each page of the cover page and each succeeding page; and

(3)Is encouraged to provide a non-confidential summary of the information or advice. Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a file on this dispute settlement proceeding, accessible to the public, in the USTR Reading Room, which is located at 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public file will include non-confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to the dispute; if a dispute settlement panel is convened or in the event of an appeal from such a panel, the U.S. submissions, the submissions, or non-confidential summaries of submissions, received from other participants in the dispute; the report of the panel and; if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body. An appointment to review the public file may be made by calling the USTR Reading Room at

(202)395-6186. The USTR Reading Room is open to the public from 9:30 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Daniel E. Brinza, Assistant United States Trade Representative, for Monitoring and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E6-16682 Filed 10-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190-W7-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE [Docket No. WTO/DS-343] WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States—Antidumping Measures on Shrimp From Thailand AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) is providing notice that on September 15, 2006, Thailand requested the establishment of a panel under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (“WTO Agreement”). That request may be found at *http://www.wto.org* contained in a document designated as WT/DS343/7. USTR invites written comments from the public concerning the issues raised in this dispute. DATES: Although USTR will accept any comments received during the course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be submitted on or before November 30, 2006 to be assured of timely consideration by USTR. ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted

(i)Electronically, to *FR0619@ustr.eop.gov* , Attn: “Thailand Shrimp Zeroing/Bond Dispute (DS343)” in the subject line, or

(ii)by fax, to Sandy McKinzy at

(202)395-3640. For documents sent by fax, USTR requests that the submitter provide a confirmation copy to the electronic mail address listed above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elissa Alben, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508,

(202)395-9622. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 127(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)) requires that notice and opportunity for comment be provided after the United States submits or receives a request for the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel. Consistent with this obligation, USTR is providing notice that a dispute settlement panel has been requested pursuant to the WTO *Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes* (“DSU”). The panel will hold its meetings in Geneva, Switzerland. Major Issues Raised by Thailand On August 4, 2004, the Department of Commerce published in the **Federal Register** notice of its affirmative preliminary less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) determination in an investigation concerning certain frozen and canned warm water shrimp from Thailand (69 FR 47,100). On December 23, 2004, the Department of Commerce published notice of its affirmative final LTFV determination (69 FR 76,918), and on February 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce published an amended final LTFV determination, along with an antidumping duty order, covering only certain frozen warm water shrimp from Thailand (70 FR 5145). The latter notice contains the final margins of LTFV sales, as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. In its request for the establishment of a panel, Thailand alleges that the United States used “the practice known as `zeroing' to calculate dumping margins for each investigated Thai exporter” and that “[t]he effect of the use of this practice was ‘artificially’ to create margins of dumping where none would otherwise have been found or, at a minimum, to inflate margins of dumping and hence to impose inaccurate definitive antidumping measures on imports of shrimp from Thailand,” in violation of Articles 2.4.2, 2.1, 2.4, and 9.3 of the AD Agreement. In addition, Thailand alleges that the United States has imposed on importers of shrimp from Thailand a requirement to maintain a continuous entry bond in the amount of the applicable anti-dumping duty margin multiplied by the value of imports of shrimp imported by the importer in the preceding year, and that the imposition of the continuous bond requirement on importers of shrimp from Thailand “constitutes specific action against dumping” not in accordance with Article 18.1 of the AD Agreement. Thailand also states that the imposition of the continuous bond requirement on importers of shrimp from Thailand is inconsistent with GATT Article IV:2 and Note 1, paragraphs 2 and 3 to *Ad Article VI* of the GATT, as well as Articles 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3 of the AD Agreement, that it “constitutes a restriction on importation prohibited under Article XI:1” or alternately is inconsistent with Article I:1 or Article II:1(a) and

(b)of the GATT, and that by applying the continuous bond requirement to shrimp from Thailand and five other countries, the United States fails to administer its customs laws, regulations, and administrative rulings in a uniform, impartial, or reasonable manner, in violation of GATT Article X:3(a). Thailand also states that the continuous bond requirement is not justified under Article XX(d) of the GATT, in particular because it is not necessary to secure compliance with U.S. laws and regulations and has been applied in a manner constituting arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination and a disguised restriction on international trade. Public Comment: Requirements for Submissions Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons may submit their comments either

(i)Electronically, to *FR0619@ustr.eop.gov* , Attn: “Thailand Shrimp Zeroing/Bond Dispute (DS343)” in the subject line, or

(ii)by fax to Sandy McKinzy at

(202)395-3640. For documents sent by fax, USTR requests that the submitter provide a confirmation copy to the electronic mail address listed above. USTR encourages the submission of documents in Adobe PDF format, as attachments to an electronic mail. Interested persons who make submissions by electronic mail should not provide separate cover letters; information that might appear in a cover letter should be included in the submission itself. Similarly, to the extent possible, any attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files. A person requesting that information contained in a comment submitted by that person be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such and the submission must be marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page. Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information or advice may qualify as such, the submitter—

(1)Must clearly so designate the information or advice;

(2)Must clearly mark the material as “SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and

(3)Is encouraged to provide a non-confidential summary of the information or advice. Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a file on this dispute settlement proceeding, accessible to the public, in the USTR Reading Room, which is located at 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public file will include non-confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to the dispute; if a dispute settlement panel is convened or in the event of an appeal from such a panel, the U.S. submissions, the submissions, or non-confidential summaries of submissions, received from other participants in the dispute; the report of the panel and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body. An appointment to review the public file (Docket No. WT/DS-343, Thailand Shrimp Zeroing/Bond Dispute) may be made by calling the USTR Reading Room at

(USTR)is providing notice that on September 15, 2006, in accordance with the *Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization* (“WTO Agreement”), the United States requested the establishment of a dispute settlement panel regarding China's treatment of imported motor vehicle parts, components, and accessories (“auto parts”). That request may be found at *http://www.wto.org* contained in a document designated as WT/DS340/8. USTR invites written comments from the public concerning the issues raised in this dispute. DATES: Although USTR will accept any comments received during the course of the dispute, comments should be submitted on or before November 30, 2006 to be assured of timely consideration by USTR. ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted

(i)Electronically, to *FR0615@ustr.eop.gov* , with “China Auto Parts (DS340)” in the subject line, or

(ii)by fax, to Sandy McKinzy at

(202)395-3640, with a confirmation copy sent electronically to the electronic mail address above, in accordance with the requirements for submission set out below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Kelleher, Associate General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508,

(202)395-3858. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 127(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA)(19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)), USTR is providing notice that the United States has requested the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel pursuant to the WTO *Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes* (“DSU”). Such panel, which would hold its meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, would be expected to issue a report on its findings and recommendations within nine months after it is established. Major Issues Raised by the United States China's regulations on imported auto parts appear to penalize manufacturers for using imported auto parts in the manufacture of vehicles in China. Although China bound its tariffs for auto parts at rates significantly lower than its tariff bindings for complete vehicles, China assesses a charge on imported auto parts equal to the tariff on complete vehicles, if the imported parts are incorporated into a vehicle that contains imported parts in excess of specified thresholds. USTR believes that China's regulations are inconsistent with China's obligations under:

(1)Article III:2 of the *General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994* (“GATT 1994”), by imposing a charge on imported auto parts but not on domestic auto parts, and otherwise applying internal charges so as to afford protection to domestic production;

(2)Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, by treating imported auto parts less favorably than like domestic auto parts by imposing additional administrative burdens and additional charges upon manufacturers that use imported parts in excess of specified thresholds, thereby affecting the internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution, or use of imported auto parts;

(3)Article III:5 of the GATT 1994, by requiring that a specified amount or proportion of the auto parts assembled into a complete motor vehicle be supplied from domestic sources, and otherwise applying internal quantitative regulations so as to afford protection to domestic production;

(4)Article 2.1 and paragraphs 1(a) and 2(a) of Annex 1 of the *Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures* (“TRIMs Agreement”), by requiring motor vehicle manufacturers in China to purchase or use domestic auto parts in order to obtain advantages such as the avoidance of administrative burdens and the payment of additional charges and by imposing restrictions which generally restrict the importation by a manufacturer of auto parts used in or related to its local production;

(5)Article II:1(a) and

(b)of the GATT 1994, by according imported auto parts less favorable treatment than that provided for in its Schedule of Concessions and Commitments annexed to the GATT 1994 and imposing charges in excess of those set forth and provided therein; USTR also considers that China's regulations are inconsistent with China's obligations under: Article 3 of the *Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures* , Article XI of the GATT 1994, and Parts I.1.2 and I.1.7 of the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China, including paragraphs 93 and 203 of the Working Party Report. Public Comment: Requirements for Submissions Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in the dispute. Comments should be submitted

(i)Electronically, to *FR0615@ustr.eop.gov* , with “China Auto Parts (DS340)” in the subject line, or

(ii)by fax, to Sandy McKinzy at

(202)395-3640, with a confirmation copy sent electronically to the electronic mail address above. USTR encourages the submission of documents in Adobe PDF format as attachments to an electronic mail. Interested persons who make submissions by electronic mail should not provide separate cover letters; information that might appear in a cover letter should be included in the submission itself. Similarly, to the extent possible, any attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files. Comments must be in English. A person requesting that information contained in a comment submitted by that person be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the commenter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such and “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” must be marked at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page. Persons who submit confidential business information are encouraged to also provide a non-confidential summary of the information. Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information or advice may qualify as such, the submitter—

(1)Must clearly so designate the information or advice;

(2)Must clearly mark the material as “SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and

(3)Is encouraged to provide a non-confidential summary of the information or advice. Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a file on this dispute settlement proceeding, accessible to the public, in the USTR Reading Room, which is located at 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public file will include non-confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to the dispute; if a dispute settlement panel is convened or in the event of an appeal from such a panel, the U.S. submissions, the submissions, or non-confidential summaries of submissions, received from other participants in the dispute; the report of the panel and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body. The USTR Reading Room is open to the public, by appointment only, from 10 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. An appointment to review the public file (Docket WTO/DS-340, China Auto Parts Dispute) may be made by calling the USTR Reading Room at

(202)395-6186. Daniel E. Brinza, Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E6-16694 Filed 10-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190-W7-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. *Extension:* Form N-6; SEC File No. 270-446; OMB Control No. 3235-0503. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these existing collections of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval. The title for the collection of information is “Form N-6 (17 CFR 239.17c and 274.11d) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a *et seq.* ) and under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 *et seq.* ) registration statement of separate accounts organized as unit investment trusts that offer variable life insurance policies.” Form N-6 is the form used by insurance company separate accounts organized as unit investment trusts that offer variable life insurance contracts to register as investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and/or to register their securities under the Securities Act of 1933. The primary purpose of the registration process is to provide disclosure of financial and other information to investors and potential investors for the purpose of evaluating an investment in a security. Form N-6 also permits separate accounts organized as unit investment trusts that offer variable life insurance contracts to provide investors with a prospectus containing information required in a registration statement prior to the sale or at the time of confirmation of delivery of securities. The form also may be used by the Commission in its regulatory review, inspection, and policy-making roles. The Commission estimates that there are approximately 241 separate accounts registered as unit investment trusts and offering variable life insurance policies that file registration statements on Form N-6. The Commission estimates that there are 32 initial registration statements on Form N-6 filed annually. The Commission estimates that approximately 641 registration statements (609 post-effective amendments plus 32 initial registration statements) are filed on Form N-6 annually. The Commission estimates that the hour burden for preparing and filing a post-effective amendment on Form N-6 is 67.5 hours. The total annual hour burden for preparing and filing post-effective amendments is 41,107.5 hours (609 post-effective amendments annually times 67.5 hours per amendment). The estimated hour burden for preparing and filing an initial registration statement on Form N-6 is 770.25 hours. The estimated annual hour burden for preparing and filing initial registration statements is 24,648 hours (32 initial registration statements annually times 770.25 hours per registration statement). The frequency of response is annual. The total annual hour burden for Form N-6, therefore, is estimated to be 65,755.5 hours (41,107.5 hours for post-effective amendments plus 24,648 hours for initial registration statements). The information collection requirements imposed by Form N-6 are mandatory. Responses to the collection of information will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Written comments are invited on:

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia, 22312; or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov.* Dated: September 29, 2006. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-16624 Filed 10-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. *Extension:* Rule 206(3)-2; SEC File No. 270-216; OMB Control No. 3235-0243. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval. Rule 206(3)-2, (17 CFR 275.206(3)-2) which is entitled “Agency Cross Transactions for Advisory Clients,” permits investment advisers to comply with section 206(3) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80b-6(3)) by obtaining a client's blanket consent to enter into agency cross transactions ( *i.e.* , a transaction in which an adviser acts as a broker to both the advisory client and the opposite party to the transaction), provided that certain disclosures are made to the client. Rule 206(3)-2 applies to all registered investment advisers. In relying on the rule, investment advisers must provide certain disclosures to their clients. Advisory clients can use the disclosures to monitor agency cross transactions that affect their advisory account. The Commission also uses the information required by Rule 206(3)-2 in connection with its investment adviser inspection program to ensure that advisers are in compliance with the rule. Without the information collected under the rule, advisory clients would not have information necessary for monitoring their adviser's handling of their accounts and the Commission would be less efficient and effective in its inspection program. The information requirements of the rule consist of the following:

(1)Prior to obtaining the client's consent appropriate disclosure must be made to the client as to the practice of, and the conflicts of interest involved in, agency cross transactions;

(2)at or before the completion of any such transaction the client must be furnished with a written confirmation containing specified information and offering to furnish upon request certain additional information; and

(3)at least annually, the client must be furnished with a written statement or summary as to the total number of transactions during the period covered by the consent and the total amount of commissions received by the adviser or its affiliated broker-dealer attributable to such transactions. The Commission estimates that approximately 693 respondents use the rule annually, necessitating about 32 responses per respondent each year, for a total of 22,176 responses. Each response requires an estimated 0.5 hours, for a total of 11,088 hours. The estimated average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or representative survey or study of the cost of Commission rules and forms. This collection of information is found at (17 CFR 275.206(3)-2) and is necessary in order for the investment adviser to obtain the benefits of Rule 206(3)-2. The collection of information requirements under the rule is mandatory. Information subject to the disclosure requirements of Rule 206(3)-2 does not require submission to the Commission; and, accordingly, the disclosure pursuant to the rule is not kept confidential. Commission-registered investment advisers are required to maintain and preserve certain information required under Rule 206(3)-2 for five

(5)years. The long-term retention of these records is necessary for the Commission's inspection program to ascertain compliance with the Advisers Act. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Written comments are invited on:

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

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

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

Connectionstraces to 15

Traces to 15 documents

CFR