Notices. Notice of public meeting
18,074 words·~82 min read·
/register/2007/09/06/07-4335·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management Meeting of the California Desert Advisory Council AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, in accordance with Public Laws 92-463 and 94-579, that the California Desert District Advisory Council to the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, will participate in a field tour of BLM-administered public lands on Friday, September 28, 2007 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and meet in formal session on Saturday, September 29 from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the BLM Needles Field Office located at 1303 S.
Highway 95, Needles, CA. The Council and interested members of the public will depart for the field tour at 8 a.m. from the lobby of the Avi Resort, 10000 Aha Macav Parkway, Laughlin, NV. The public is welcome to participate in the tour but should plan on providing their own transportation, lunch, and beverage. Agenda topics for the formal session on Saturday will include updates by Council members and reports from the BLM District Manager and five field office managers. Additional agenda topics are being developed.
Once finalized, the field tour and meeting agendas will be published in a news release prior to the meeting and posted on the BLM California state Web site at *http://www.blm.gov/ca/news/rac.html.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All Desert District Advisory Council meetings are open to the public. Public comment for items not on the agenda will be scheduled at the beginning of the meeting Saturday morning. Time for public comment may be made available by the Council Chairman during the presentation of various agenda items, and is scheduled at the end of the meeting for topics not on the agenda.
While the Saturday meeting is tentatively scheduled from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., the meeting could conclude prior to 3:00 p.m. should the Council conclude its presentations and discussions. Therefore, members of the public interested in a particular agenda item or discussion should schedule their arrival accordingly. Written comments may be filed in advance of the meeting for the California Desert District Advisory Council, c/o Bureau of Land Management, External Affairs, 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, California 92553.
Written comments also are accepted at the time of the meeting and, if copies are provided to the recorder, will be incorporated into the minutes. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Razo, BLM California Desert District External Affairs
(951)697-5217. Dated: August 27, 2007. Steven J. Borchard, District Manager. [FR Doc. E7-17580 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-40-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [CA-190-07-1610] Notice of Intent To Prepare a Resource Management Plan for the Clear Creek Management Area, California, and Associated Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)Field Office, Hollister, California, intends to prepare a Resource Management Plan
(RMP)with an associated Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)for the Clear Creek Management Area (CCMA); and by this notice announces public scoping meetings. The RMP will replace the existing planning decisions for the CCMA contained in the 1984 Hollister RMP and the associated CCMA RMP Amendments (1986, 1995, 2006). DATES: Written comments and resource information should be submitted within 30 calendar days of the last scheduled public scoping meeting. The BLM will announce public scoping meetings to identify relevant issues through local news media, newsletters, and the BLM Web site *http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/hollister/CCMA_RMP.html* at least 15 days prior to the first meeting. The BLM will provide additional opportunities for public participation upon publication of the Draft RMP/EIS. ADDRESSES: You may submit written scoping comments by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: cahormp@ca.blm.gov.* • *Fax:*
(831)630-5055. • *Mail:* Hollister Field Office, 20 Hamilton Court, Hollister, CA 95023. Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined at the Hollister Field Office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For further information and/or to have your name added to our mailing list, contact Sky Murphy, Telephone
(831)630-5039; e-mail *Sky_Murphy@blm.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document provides notice that the BLM Field Office, Hollister, California intends to prepare a RMP with an associated EIS for the Clear Creek Management Area and announces public scoping meetings. The planning area is located in southern San Benito and western Fresno counties. This planning activity encompasses approximately 63,000 acres of public land. The plan will fulfill the needs and obligations set forth by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and BLM management policies. The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and national needs and concerns. The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis and EIS alternatives. These issues also guide the planning process. You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria in writing to the BLM at any public scoping meeting, or you may submit them to the BLM using one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above. To be most helpful, you should submit formal scoping comments within 30 days after the last public meeting. The minutes and list of attendees for each scoping meeting will be available to the public and open for 30 days after the meeting to any participant who wishes to clarify the views he or she expressed. Preliminary issues and management concerns have been identified by BLM personnel, other agencies, and in meetings with individuals and user groups. They represent the BLM's knowledge to date regarding the existing issues and concerns with current land management. The major issues that will be addressed in this planning effort include: impacts to public safety and human health from naturally-occurring asbestos and past mining activities; designation and management of special management areas; ecosystem management and desired conditions; wildland and prescribed fire management; livestock grazing; motorized and non-motorized recreation management; lands available for disposal or of interest for acquisition; and potential for energy development. Issues identified through public scoping will be placed in one of three categories: 1. Issues to be resolved in the plan; 2. Issues to be resolved through policy or administrative action; or 3. Issues beyond the scope of this plan. The BLM will provide an explanation in the EIS as to why we placed an issue in category two or three. In addition to these major issues, a number of management questions and concerns will be addressed in the RMP. The public is encouraged to help identify these questions and concerns during the 90-day scoping period. Preliminary planning criteria include: 1. The RMP will be developed in compliance with FLPMA, all other applicable laws, regulations, executive orders, and BLM supplemental program guidance. 2. The planning process will include an EIS that will comply with NEPA standards. 3. Economic and social baselines and consequences will be developed in coordination with local and county governments. 4. Initiate government to government consultation, including Tribal interests. 5. Consider the extent to which the revised plan reduces airborne asbestos emissions and minimizes asbestos exposure and addresses public health impact of the Hazardous Asbestos Area. (Ref; Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)Atlas Asbestos Mine Superfund Site Record of Decision (ROD), February 1991, Appendix 2, pg. 14). 6. Consider the extent to which the revised plan reduces accelerated erosion and offsite transport of asbestos fibers on vehicles and clothes due to off-highway vehicle use. (Ref; EPA Atlas Superfund Site ROD, Appendix 2, pg. 14). 7. All new data collected will have information about the data (metadata) stored in a data base. All metadata will meet the Federal Geographic Data Committee
(FGDC)standards. 8. The RMP/EIS will incorporate by reference the *Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management.* 9. The RMP will result in determinations as required by special program and resource specific guidance detailed in Appendix C of the BLM's Planning Handbook (H-1601-1). 10. Decisions in the RMP will strive to be compatible with the existing plans and policies of adjacent local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies as long as the decisions are in conformance with legal mandates on management of public lands. 11. Resource allocations must be reasonable and achievable within available technological and budgetary constraints. The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the RMP in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in the planning process: rangeland management, minerals and geology, outdoor recreation, archaeology, botany, wildlife and fisheries, lands and realty, hydrology, soils, and sociology and economics. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Dated: August 27, 2007. Rick Cooper, Hollister Field Office Manager. [FR Doc. E7-17599 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-40-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the General Management Plan, Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia AGENCY: Department of the Interior, National Park Service. ACTION: Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the General Management Plan, Harpers Ferry National Historical Park. SUMMARY: Pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(C), the National Park Service
(NPS)announces the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the General Management Plan, Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the General Management Plan analyzes the impacts of a no-action and two action alternatives. The official responsible for this decision is the NPS Regional Director, National Capital Region. DATES: The NPS will undertake a 60-day public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the General Management Plan following publication by the Environmental Protection Agency of the Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. ADDRESSES: Information will be available for public review in the office of the Superintendent, P.O. Box 65, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia 25425, by telephone at
(304)535-6748, and at the following locations: Office of the Chief of Planning, National Capital Region, National Park Service, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW., Washington, DC 20242,
(202)619-7277; Office of Public Affairs, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240,
(202)208-6843; and Bolivar Harpers Ferry Public Library, 152 Polk Street, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia 25425,
(304)535-2301. Copies of the document may also be accessed via internet connection to the park Web site at *http://www.nps.gov/hafe* or directly through the NPS PEPC (Planning, Environment, and Public Comment) Web site at *http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/parkHome.cfm?parkId=187.* Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marsha Wassel, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia at
(304)535-6748. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, describes the existing conditions and trends of park management and serves as a basis for comparison in evaluating the other alternatives. Alternative 2, the NPS preferred alternative, was developed during the “Choosing By Advantages” process in which the planning team identifies and compares the relative advantages of each alternative according to a set of factors. This process also establishes the relationship between the advantages and costs of each alternative. This information is used to combine the best attributes of the preliminary alternatives into the preferred alternative giving the NPS the greatest overall benefit for the most reasonable cost. Alternative 2 takes a traditional approach in which each location within the park is managed to reflect the most significant historic period or era associated with it. An enlarged contact station on Cavalier Heights would be developed. Management activities would focus on the preservation of the resources as well as the presentation of the interpretive themes appropriate to each location. Outlying portions of the park would be connected by an auto tour and round-the-park trail system. The existing transportation system would also be expanded to include more of the park. African-American history would be elevated in prominence on Camp Hill and NPS staff would work with partners to promote protection of and visitation to sites throughout the local area. A public/private partnership would be cultivated to rehabilitate and manage the historic Shipley School. Alternative 3 would provide increased connections with private businesses and public/private organizations to help utilize, maintain and interpret historic structures while bringing additional life and excitement to Lower Town. A joint NPS/state tourism entrance complex would be developed. This alternative would provide enhanced visitor services ensuring visitor needs were met not only in the park but in the surrounding counties. Historic structures would be preserved and interpreted. Some structures would be leased to non-NPS entities to ensure upkeep and lessen the financial burden on the park. A new headquarters building would be developed somewhere in the Harpers Ferry vicinity. An enlarged transportation system would be operated in partnership with Main Street Harpers Ferry. A public/private partnership would be developed to rehabilitate and manage the historic Shipley School. Dated: August 13, 2007. Joseph M. Lawler, Regional Director, National Capital Region. [FR Doc. E7-17595 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-JT-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the General Management Plan, Monocacy National Battlefield, Maryland AGENCY: Department of the Interior, National Park Service. ACTION: Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the General Management Plan, Monocacy National Battlefield, Maryland. SUMMARY: Pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(C), the National Park Service
(NPS)announces the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the General Management Plan, Monocacy National Battlefield, Maryland. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the General Management Plan analyzes the impacts of a no-action and three action alternatives. Alternative 4 is the NPS' preferred alternative. The official responsible for this decision is the Regional Director, National Capital Region, National Park Service. DATES: The NPS will undertake a 60-day public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the General Management Plan following publication by the Environmental Protection Agency of the Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. ADDRESSES: Information will be available for public review in the Office of the Superintendent, Monocacy National Battlefield, at 4801 Urbana Pike, Frederick, Maryland 21701, by telephone at
(301)662-6980 and at the following locations: Chief of Planning, National Capital Region, National Park Service, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW., Washington, DC 20242,
(202)619-7277; Office of Public Affairs, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240,
(202)208-6843; Urbana Regional Library, 9020 Amelung Street, Frederick, Maryland 21704; and the C. Burr Artz Public Library, 110 East Patrick Street, Frederick, Maryland 21701. Copies of the document may also be accessed via Internet at *http://www.nps.gov/mono* or through the NPS PEPC (Planning, Environment and Public Comment) Web site at: *http://parkplanning.nps.gov/parkHome.cfm?parkId=192.* Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Trail, Superintendent, Monocacy National Battlefield at 4801 Urbana Pike, Frederick, Maryland 21701, and by telephone at
(301)662-6980. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The no-action alternative describes the existing conditions and trends of park management and serves as a basis for comparison in evaluating the other alternatives. Alternative 2 focuses narrowly on the story of the Battle of Monocacy, explaining troop movements, how the landscape affected the battle, and conveying an understanding of the participants. It is highly dependent upon the visitors getting out into the landscape with restored historic structures providing reference points but not being the interpretive focal point. It includes an alternative transportation system operated by a commercial entity if market conditions allow. Visitor services would be provided at the visitor center, at the Gambrill Mill, and within a rehabilitated stone house on the Thomas Farm. An existing trail from the Gambrill Mill would be extended to the site of Wallace's headquarters, a major feature of the battlefield currently not open to visitors. A small parking area and restrooms would be provided at the latter site. Administration and maintenance facilities for Monocacy National Battlefield would move into rented space outside the boundary. The Thomas House would be rehabilitated under the Historic Leasing Program. Safer access to the 14th New Jersey Monument and a designated commemorative zone for possible new monuments would be created. A deck would be constructed over Interstate Highway 270 (I-270) to connect the Thomas and Worthington farms visually and physically with continuous landscape. The deck, featuring automobile access, would only be constructed if wholly or partly covered as mitigation for impacts resulting from the widening of I-270 currently being proposed under a Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Maryland State Highway Administration and the Federal Highway Administration. Alternative 3 would expand the story of the battle, not only explaining the troop movements but describing the impact of the battle and the Civil War on Frederick and the surrounding countryside. It would focus more on the human story than Alternative 2 with exhibits in the restored Best and Worthington houses as well as the stone house on the Thomas Farm. Parking at each site would be developed. No alternative transportation system would be available in Alternative 3. Visitors would access the site via personal automobile. Visitor services would be provided at the visitor center, at the Gambrill Mill, and within a rehabilitated stone house on the Thomas Farm. The maintenance facility would remain in the current structure while administration offices would be in a rehabilitated Thomas House. A new, safer entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be created across Maryland Highway 355 with access under the existing bridge. The Lewis farmstead would be accessed by trail from the Worthington parking area along Baker Road. No deck would be constructed over I-270. Monocacy National Battlefield would institute a policy of no new monuments. Alternative 4, the NPS preferred alternative, was developed with the aid of a process called “Choosing By Advantages” in which the planning team identifies and compares the relative advantages of each alternative according to a set of factors. This process also establishes the relationship between the advantages and costs of each alternative. This information is used to combine the best attributes of the preliminary alternatives into the preferred alternative giving the NPS the greatest overall benefit for the most reasonable cost. Alternative 4 would provide visitor services at the visitor center, the Gambrill Mill, and the stone house on the Thomas Farm. In addition, exhibits would be provided at the secondary house on the Best Farm and at the Worthington House. Parking at each location would be developed. There would be no alternative transportation system. Visitors would access the site via personal automobile. The maintenance facility would remain in its current structure. An existing trail from the Gambrill Mill would be extended to the site of Wallace's headquarters, a major feature of the battlefield currently not open to visitors. Administration offices would be in the rehabilitated Thomas House. Safer access to the 14th New Jersey Monument and a designated commemorative zone for possible new monuments would be developed. Instead of a deck across I-270 connecting the Worthington and Thomas farmsteads, a small pedestrian deck would be created to allow visitors to cross between the two sites. Dated: August 13, 2007. Joseph M. Lawler, Regional Director, National Capital Region. [FR Doc. E7-17594 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-57-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service National Mall & Memorial Parks; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Plan for the National Mall AGENCY: Department of the Interior, National Park Service. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Plan for the National Mall. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Park Service
(NPS)will be preparing an Environmental Impact Statement and Plan for the National Mall to develop a long term vision plan for the use and management of the National Mall, which has been defined by Congress as a “substantially completed work of civic art,” and for Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Park. In the January 16, 2007 **Federal Register** (72 FR 1763), the NPS announced it was developing this plan. The NPS was already holding public meetings and engaging with other government agencies. The NPS has since determined it will proceed to producing an Environmental Impact Statement as part of the planning process. DATES: Information related to public involvement opportunities will be provided at the following park Web site: *http://www.nps.gov/nationalmallplan.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Project Executive Susan Spain, who may be contacted at National Mall & Memorial Parks, 900 Ohio Drive, SW., Washington, DC 20024, by telephone at
(202)245-4692, or by e-mail at *susan_spain@nps.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The planning effort will include compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and other laws and requirements. The National Mall Plan will differ from an NPS General Management Plan in that it will cover a longer-term time frame and is not a plan for the entirety of the National Mall & Memorial Parks. National Mall & Memorial Parks includes many national park units throughout the Nation's Capital and this plan will address only the National Mall, which is comprised of West Potomac Park, the Washington Monument and the Mall, and the related Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Park. A map of the study area is available at *http://www.nps.gov/nationalmallplan.* In cooperation with the agencies with jurisdiction over properties adjoining the National Mall, attention will also be given to cumulative impacts outside its boundaries that affect the integrity of the National Mall. The Environmental Impact Statement and Plan for the National Mall will address visitor use issues such as civic space, events management, national celebrations, education, programs and recreation; and will identify types, locations, and character of needed visitor facilities and services, which could include food service, seating, lighting, restrooms, recreation, signage (orientation/way finding/education), and crowd management. The Environmental Impact Statement and Plan for the National Mall could also identify desired site improvements, such as floral displays, water features, and other embellishments that are not commemorative in nature. Additional issues may be defined or added throughout planning. Public involvement and civic engagement will continue to be key components in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement and Plan for the National Mall. As a result of the decision to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement, there will be public scoping meetings and opportunities on a range of alternatives and other topics, concurrent with publication of several reports and newsletters addressing public comment and a draft range of alternatives. The thousands of comments already received by the NPS are also being considered in this process along with the information provided by cooperating agencies and others. Dated: August 16, 2007. Joseph M. Lawler, Regional Director, National Capital Region. [FR Doc. E7-17593 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-39-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2007-0020] Standard on Manlifts; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB)Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Request for public comment. SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified in its Standard on Manlifts (29 CFR 1910.68(e)). DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by November 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: *Electronically:* You may submit comments and attachments electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments. *Facsimile:* If your comments, including attachments, are not longer than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202)693-1648. *Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:* When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2007-0020, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., EST. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2007-0020). All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* . For further information on submitting comments see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled “Supplementary Information.” *Docket:* To read or download comments or other material in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* or the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. All documents in the docket (including this **Federal Register** notice) are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-2222. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 *et seq.* ) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657). The Standard specifies two paperwork requirements. The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirement as well as how they use it. The purpose of the requirements is to reduce employees' risk of death or serious injury by ensuring that manlifts are in safe operating condition. *Periodic Inspections and Records (paragraph (e)).* This provision requires that each manlift be inspected at least once every 30 days. The manlift inspection is to cover at least the following items: Steps; step fastenings; rails; rail supports and fastenings; rollers and slides; belt and belt tension; handholds and fastenings; floor landings; guardrails; lubrication; limit switches; warning signs and lights; illumination; drive pulley; bottom
(boot)pulley and clearance; pulley supports; motor; driving mechanism; brake; electrical switches; vibration and misalignment; and any “skip” on the up or down run when mounting a step (indicating worn gears). A certification record of the inspection must be made upon completion of the inspection. The record must contain the date of the inspection, the signature of the person who performed the inspection, and the serial number or other identifier of the inspected manlift. *Disclosure of Inspection Certification Records.* Employers are to maintain the certification record and make it available to OSHA compliance officers. This record provides assurance to employers, employees, and compliance officers that manlifts were inspected as required by the Standard. The inspections are made to keep equipment in safe operating condition, thereby preventing manlift failure while carrying employees to elevated worksites. These records also provide the most efficient means for the compliance officers to determine that an employer is complying with the Standard. II. Special Issues for Comment OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues: • Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful; • The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and • Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques. III. Proposed Actions OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Standard on Manlifts (29 CFR 1910.68(e)). The Agency is requesting to retain its current burden hour total of 37,801 associated with this Standard. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Title:* Standard on Manlifts (29 CFR 1910.68(e)). *OMB Number:* 1218-0226. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 3,000. *Frequency:* On occasion; Monthly. *Average Time Per Response:* Varies from 2 minutes (.03 hour) for an employer to disclose the inspection certification record to 1 hour to inspect a manlift. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 37,801. *Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance):* $0. IV. Public Participation—Submission of Comments on This Notice and Internet Access to Comments and Submissions You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1)Electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal;
(2)by facsimile (FAX); or
(3)by hard copy. All comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0020). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled “Addresses”). The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them to your comments. Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at
(202)693-2350 (TTY
(877)889-5627). Comments and submissions are posted without change at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through this Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site to submit comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's “User Tips” link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket submissions. V. Authority and Signature Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 *et seq.* ) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008). Signed at Washington, DC, on August 21, 2007. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E7-17569 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-461] Amergen Energy Company, LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (the licensee) to withdraw its November 16, 2006, application for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-62 for the Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1, located in DeWitt County, Illinois. The proposed amendment would have revised the facility technical specifications
(TSs)pertaining to TS 3.6.5.1, “Drywell,” surveillance requirement, 3.6.5.1.3, to delay the performance of the next drywell bypass leakage rate test from the current requirement of November 23, 2008, to prior to startup from the Clinton Unit 1, refueling outage 12 (C1R12), projected for January 2010; and TS 5.5.13, “Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,” to delay the performance of the next primary containment Type A integrated leak rate test from the current requirement of no later than November 23, 2008, to prior to startup from the C1R12 refueling outage. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the **Federal Register** on January 30, 2007 (72 FR 4306). However, by letter dated April 30, 2007, the licensee withdrew the proposed change. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated November 16, 2006, and the licensee's letter dated April 30, 2007, which withdrew the application for license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of August, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Stephen P. Sands, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-17600 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311] PSEG Nuclear LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of PSEG Nuclear LLC (the licensee) to withdraw its application dated August 4, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated March 8, 2007, for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. 50-272 and 50-311 for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Salem County, New Jersey. The proposed amendment would have revised Technical Specification 3/4.9.3, “Decay Time,” to allow the movement of irradiated fuel in the reactor pressure vessel to commence at 24 hours after shutdown or at the decay time calculated using the licensee's spent fuel pool integrated decay heat management program, whichever is later. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the **Federal Register** on December 19, 2006 (71 FR 75999). However, by letter dated August 13, 2007, the licensee withdrew the proposed change. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated August 4, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated March 8, 2007, and the licensee's letter dated August 13, 2007, which withdrew the application for license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of August 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Richard B. Ennis, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-17606 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2007-02: Changes to Generic Aging Lesson Learned
(GALL)Report Aging Management Program
(AMP)XI.E6, “Electrical Cable Connections Not Subject to 10 CFR 50.49 Environmental Qualification Requirements” Solicitation of Public Comment AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is soliciting public comment on its Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2007-02 (LR-ISG) for changes to its Generic Aging Lesson Learned
(GALL)Report Aging Management Program
(AMP)XI.E6, “Electrical Cable Connections Not Subject to 10 CFR 50.49 Environmental Qualification Requirements.” This LR-ISG clarifies and recommends a one-time inspection to ensure that either aging of metallic cable connections is not occurring or an existing preventive maintenance program is effective, such that a periodic inspection is not needed. The NRC staff issues LR-ISGs to facilitate timely implementation of the license renewal rule and to review activities associated with an LRA. Upon receiving public comments, the NRC staff will evaluate the comments and make a determination to incorporate the comments, as appropriate. Once the NRC staff completes the LR-ISG, it will issue the LR-ISG for NRC and industry use. The NRC staff will also incorporate the approved LR-ISG into the next revision of the license renewal guidance documents. DATES: Comments may be submitted by October 22, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted to: Chief, Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Comments should be delivered to: 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, Room T-6D59, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Persons may also provide comments via e-mail at *NRCREP@NRC.GOV.* The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. These documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at *http: //www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at *pdr@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Linh Tran, Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone 301-415-4103 or by e-mail at *Int@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Attachment 1 to this **Federal Register** notice, entitled *Staff Position and Rationale for the Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2007-02: Changes to Generic Aging Lesson Learned
(GALL)Report* *Aging Management Program
(AMP)XI.E6, “Electrical Cable Connections Not Subject to 10 CFR 50.49 Environmental Qualification Requirements,”* contains the NRC staff's rationale for publishing the proposed LR-ISG-2007-02. Attachment 2 to this **Federal Register** notice, entitled Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2007-02: Changes to Generic Aging Lesson Learned
(GALL)Report Aging Management Program
(AMP)XI.E6, “Electrical Cable Connections Not Subject to 10 CFR 50.49 Environmental Qualification Requirements,” contains the proposed revisions to GALL AMP XI.E6. The NRC staff is issuing this notice to solicit public comments on the proposed LR-ISG-2007-02. After the NRC staff considers any public comments, it will make a determination regarding issuance of the proposed LR-ISG. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 29th day of August, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pao-Tsin Kuo, Director, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Attachment 1—Staff Position and Rationale for the Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2007-02: Changes to Generic Aging Lesson Learned
(GALL)Report Aging Management Program
(AMP)XI.E6, “Electrical Cable Connections Not Subject to 10 CFR 50.49 Environmental Qualification Requirements” Staff Position The staff is proposing to revise GALL AMP XI.E6 to recommend a one-time inspection for electrical cable connections not subject to 10 CFR 50.49 environmental qualification requirement instead of the period inspection as currently stated in GALL AMP XI.E6. The staff determined that this one-time inspection, on representative sample basis, is adequate to ensure that either aging of metallic cable connections is not occurring and/or existing preventive maintenance program is effective such that a periodic inspection program is not needed. Rationale In reviewing the industry's documents and comments, the staff determined that although the current GALL AMP XI.E6 was based on technical bases of Electric Power Research Institute documents, Sandia National Laboratories Report, SAND 96-0344, and thermography data, few operating experiences related to failed connection due to aging had been identified. Most of the operating experience related to failed connection are due to human errors or maintenance practices. The operating experience cannot support a periodic inspection as currently recommended in GALL AMP XI.E6. However, because there have been a limited number of age related failures of cable connections, a one-time inspection of the metallic portion of electrical cable connections is warranted. On this basis, the staff is revising GALL AMP XI.E6 to clarify and recommend a one-time inspection, on a representative sampling basis, to ensure that either aging of metallic cable connections is not occurring or an existing preventive maintenance program is effective, such that a periodic inspection is not needed. Attachment 2—Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2007-02: Changes to Generic Aging Lesson Learned
(GALL)Report Aging Management Program
(AMP)XI.E6, “Electrical Cable Connections Not Subject to 10 CFR 50.49 Environmental Qualification Requirements” Introduction Consistent with the requirements specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 54, Section 54.4(a), electrical cable connections support safety-related and non-safety-related functions in that the failure of the electrical cable connections precludes a function from being accomplished (10 CFR 54.4(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3)). Electrical cable connections exposed to appreciable ohmic or ambient heating during operation may experience loosening caused by repeated cycling of connected loads or of the ambient temperature environment. Different materials used in various cable system components can produce situations where stresses between these components change with repeated thermal cycling. For example, under loaded conditions, ohmic heating may raise the temperature of a compression terminal and cable conductor well above the ambient temperature, thereby causing thermal expansion of both components. Thermal expansion coefficients of different materials may alter mechanical stresses between the components so that the termination may be impacted. When the current is reduced, the affected components cool and contract. Repeated cycling in this fashion can cause loosening of the termination, and may lead to high electrical resistance or eventual separation of compression-type terminations. Threaded connectors may loosen if subjected to significant thermally induced stress and cycling. Because of the potential loosening of bolted cable connections, the staff included, in its updated license renewal guidance documents, AMP XI.E6, “Electrical Cable Connections Not Subject to 10 CFR 50.49 Environmental Qualification Requirements,” to manage the potential aging of electrical cable connections not subject to 10 CFR 50.49 environmental qualification requirements. Background and Discussion The staff included AMP XI.E6, “Electrical Cable Connections Not Subject to 10 CFR 50.49 Environmental Qualification Requirements,” in Chapter XI of GALL Report, Revision 1, dated September 2005. By letter dated September 5, 2006, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML062770105), Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI)submitted a white paper regarding GALL AMP XI.E6 (ADAMS Accession No. ML062770111) . NEI stated that there was not enough operating experience to support a conclusion that cable connections are a significant aging concern and that the recommended program elements of GALL AMP XI.E6 duplicate aging management activities already defined and accepted in other AMPs. NEI also stated that the expanded scope of the program includes all voltage ranges regardless of the amount of evidence from operating experience. In addition, NEI identified wording in GALL AMP XI.E6 that included connections in active components. NEI asked the staff to review its white paper to eliminate GALL AMP XI.E6 or minimize its scope and redundancy so that the plant would not be burdened with activities that have no actual aging management benefit. On November 30, 2006, the staff met with NEI representatives to discuss the white paper. In a letter dated March 16, 2007, (ADAMS Accession No. ML070400349), the staff provided responses to each of the industry's concerns identified in the white paper. By letter dated May 25, 2007, (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML071590175 and ML071590182), NEI submitted comments on the staff's responses. In reviewing the industry's white paper and comments, the staff determined that although GALL AMP XI.E6 was based on the technical bases of Electric Power Research Institute documents, and Sandia National Laboratories Report, SAND 96-0344, little operating experience related to failed connections due to aging had been identified. Most of the operating experience related to failed connections were due to human errors or maintenance practices. The operating experience cannot support the periodic inspection recommended in AMP XI.E6 in GALL Report, Revision 1, dated September 2005. However, because there have been a limited number of age related failures of cable connections, a one-time inspection of the metallic portion of electrical cable connections is warranted. On this basis, the staff is revising GALL AMP XI.E6 to clarify and recommend a one-time inspection, on a representative sampling, to ensure that either aging of metallic cable connections is not occurring or an existing preventive maintenance program is effective, such that a periodic inspection is not required. Proposed Action The staff is proposing to revise GALL AMP XI.E6 to recommend a one-time inspection prior to the period of extended operation for electrical cable connections not subject to 10 CFR 50.49 EQ requirement instead of the periodic inspection currently stated in GALL AMP XI.E6. The staff determined that this one-time inspection, on a representative sample basis, is adequate to ensure that either aging of metallic cable connections is not occurring and/or the existing preventive maintenance program is effective so that a periodic inspection program is not required. The one-time inspection verifies that loosening and/or high resistance of cable connections due to thermal cycling, ohmic heating, electrical transients, vibration, chemical contamination, corrosion, and oxidation are not happening and periodic inspections are not required. The one-time inspection should include testing of a representative sample of the electrical cable connection population subject to an aging effect. The sample should include each type of electrical cable connection. The following factors shall be considered for sampling: voltage level (medium and low voltage), circuit loading (high load), and location (high temperature, high humidity, vibration, etc.). The technical basis for the sample selection should be documented. The one-time inspection will confirm that there are no aging effects that require management during the period of extended operation. The applicant will take corrective actions when acceptance criteria are not met. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to sample expansion, increased inspection frequency, and replacement or repair of the affected cable connection components. When an applicant performs periodic preventive maintenance that includes inspection and testing of cable connections, the applicant can credit this maintenance activity toward GALL AMP XI.E6. The applicant may also revise its preventive maintenance procedures to cover the inspection of cable connections to take credit for GALL AMP XI.E6. Attached is the proposed revision to GALL AMP XI.E6. Although this proposed revision does not convey a change in the regulations or how they are being interpreted, it is being provided to facilitate preparation of future submittals in support of applications for license renewal. This LR-ISG provides a clarification of existing guidance with no additional requirements. Attachment—XI.E6 Electrical Cable Connections Not Subject to 10 CFR 50.49 Environmental Qualification Requirements (Revised) Program Description Cable connections are used to connect cable conductors to other cable conductors or electrical devices. Connections associated with cables within the scope of license renewal are part of this program. The most common types of connections used in nuclear power plants are splices (butt or bolted), crimp-type ring lugs, connectors, and terminal blocks. Most connections involve insulating material and metallic parts. This aging management program
(AMP)focuses on the metallic parts of the electrical cable connections. This program provides a one-time inspection, on a sampling basis, to confirm the absence of age-related degradation of cable connections due to thermal cycling, ohmic heating, electrical transients, vibration, chemical contamination, corrosion, and oxidation. Generic Aging Lesson Learned
(GALL)XI.E1, “Electrical Cables and Connections Not Subject to 10 CFR 50.49 Environmental Qualification Requirements,” manages the aging of insulating material but not the metallic parts of the electrical connections. GALL XI.E1 is based on only a visual inspection of accessible cables and connections. Visual inspection may not be sufficient to detect the aging effects from thermal cycling, ohmic heating, electrical transients, vibration, chemical contamination, corrosion, and oxidation on the metallic parts of cable connections. Electrical cable connections exposed to appreciable ohmic or ambient heating during operation may experience loosening caused by repeated cycling of connected loads or of the ambient temperature environment. Different materials used in various cable system components can produce situations where stresses between these components change with repeated thermal cycling. For example, under loaded conditions, ohmic heating may raise the temperature of a compression terminal and cable conductor well above the ambient temperature, thereby causing thermal expansion of both components. Thermal expansion coefficients of different materials may alter mechanical stresses between the components so that the termination may be impacted. When the current is reduced, the affected components cool and contract. Repeated cycling in this fashion can cause loosening of the termination, and may lead to high electrical resistance or eventual separation of compression-type terminations. Threaded connectors may loosen if subjected to significant thermally induced stress and cycling. Cable connections within the scope of license renewal should be tested at least once prior to the period of extended operation to provide an indication of the integrity of the cable connections. The specific type of test to be performed and is to be a proven test for detecting loose connections, such as thermography, contact resistance testing, or another appropriate test justified in the application. This program, as described, can be thought of as a sampling program. The following factors shall be considered for sampling: voltage level (medium and low voltage), circuit loading (high loading), and location (high temperature, high humidity, vibration, etc.). The technical basis for the sample selections should be documented. If an unacceptable condition or situation is identified in the selected sample, corrective action program will be used to evaluate the condition and determine appropriate corrective action. SAND 96-0344, “Aging Management Guidelines for Electrical Cable and Terminations,” indicated loose terminations were identified by several plants. The major concern is that the failures of a deteriorated cable system (cables, connections including fuse holders, and penetrations) that could prevent it from performing its intended function. This program is not applicable to cable connections in harsh environments since they are already addressed by the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49. Even though cable connections may not be exposed to harsh environments, loosening or high resistance of connection is a concern due to aging mechanisms discussed above. Evaluation and Technical Basis 1. Scope of Program: External connections terminating at an active or passive device are in the scope of this program. Wiring connections internal to an active assembly are considered a part of the active assembly and therefore are not within the scope of this program. This program does not include high-voltage (>35 kV) switchyard connections. The cable connections covered under the EQ program are not included in the scope of this program. 2. Preventive Actions: No actions are taken as part of this program to prevent or mitigate aging degradation. 3. Parameters Monitored/Inspected: This program will focus on the metallic parts of the connection. The monitoring includes loosening of bolted connections or high resistance of cable connections due to thermal cycling, ohmic heating, electrical transients, vibration, chemical contamination, corrosion, and oxidation. A representative sample of electrical cable connections is tested. The following factors shall be considered for sampling: voltage level (medium and low voltage), circuit loading (high load), and location (high temperature, high humidity, vibration, etc.). The technical basis for the sample selection is to be documented. 4. Detection of Aging Effects: A representative sample of electrical connections within the scope of license renewal will be tested at least once prior to the period of extended operation to confirm that there are no aging effects requiring management during the period of extended operation. Testing may include thermography, contact resistance testing, or other appropriate testing methods without removing the connection insulation such as heat shrink tape, sleeving, insulating boots, etc. The one-time inspection provides additional confirmation to support industry operating experience that shows electrical connections have not experienced a high degree of failures, and that existing installation and maintenance practices are effective. 5. Monitoring and Trending: Trending actions are not included as part of this program because it is a one-time inspection program. 6. Acceptance Criteria: The acceptance criteria for each test are to be defined for the specific type of test performed and the specific type of cable connections tested. 7. Corrective Actions: If test acceptance criteria are not met, the corrective action program will be used to perform an evaluation that will consider the extent of the condition, the indications of aging effect, and changes to the one-time inspection program. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to sample expansion, increase inspection frequency, and replacement or repair of the affected cable connection components. As discussed in the appendix to this report, the staff finds the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, acceptable to address the corrective actions. 8. Confirmation Process: As discussed in the appendix to this report, the staff finds the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, acceptable to address the confirmation process. 9. Administrative Controls: As discussed in the appendix to this report, the staff finds the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, acceptable to address the administrative controls. 10. Operating Experience: Electrical cable connections exposed to appreciable ohmic or ambient heating during operation may experience loosening caused by repeated cycling of connected loads or of the ambient temperature environment. There have been limited number of age related failures of cable connections reported. This one-time inspection confirms the absence of aging degradation of metallic cable connections. References EPRI TR-109619, *Guideline for the Management of Adverse Localized Equipment Environments,* Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, June 1999. IEEE Std. P1205-2000, *IEEE Guide for Assessing, Monitoring and Mitigating Aging Effects on Class 1E Equipment Used in Nuclear Power Generating Stations.* NUREG/CR-5643, *Insights Gained From Aging Research,* U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 1992. SAND96-0344, *Aging Management Guideline for Commercial Nuclear Power Plants—Electrical Cable and Terminations,* prepared by Sandia National Laboratories for the U.S. Department of Energy, September 1996. EPRI TR-104213, *Bolted Joint Maintenance & Application Guide,* Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, December 1995. Staff's Response to the NEI White Paper on Generic Aging Lessons Learned
(GALL)Report Aging Management Program
(AMP)XI.E6, “Electrical Cable Connections Not Subject to 10 CFR 50.49 Environmental Qualification Requirements,” dated March 16, 2007 (ADAMS Accession Number ML070400349) [FR Doc. E7-17616 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Notice of Availability of Model Application Concerning Technical Specification Improvement To Revise Moderator Temperature Coefficient
(MTC)Surveillance for Startup Test Activity Reduction
(STAR)Program (WCAP-16011) AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Availability. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)has prepared a model safety evaluation
(SE)and model license amendment request
(LAR)relating to the modification of technical specification
(TS)moderator temperature coefficient
(MTC)surveillance requirements
(SR)associated with implementation of WCAP-16011-P-A, “Startup Test Activity Reduction
(STAR)Program.” The NRC staff has also prepared a model no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC)determination relating to this matter. The purpose of these models are to permit the NRC to efficiently process amendments that propose to modify TS MTC surveillance requirements for implementing the STAR Program. Licensees of nuclear power reactors to which the models apply could then request amendments, confirming the applicability of the SE and NSHC determination to their reactors. DATES: The NRC staff issued a **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 41360, July 27, 2007) which provided a model SE, model application, and model NSHC related to modification of TS MTC surveillance requirements. Similarly, the NRC staff herein provides a revised model SE, model LAR, and model NSHC incorporating changes based upon the public comments received. The NRC staff can most efficiently consider applications based upon the model LAR, which references the model SE, if the LAR is submitted within one year of this **Federal Register** Notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Kobetz, Mail Stop: O-12H2, Technical Specifications Branch, Division of Inspection & Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-1932. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Regulatory Issue Summary 2000-06, “Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process for Adopting Standard Technical Specification Changes for Power Reactors,” was issued on March 20, 2000. The consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP) is intended to improve the efficiency of NRC licensing processes by processing proposed changes to the standard technical specifications
(STS)in a manner that supports subsequent license amendment applications. The CLIIP includes an opportunity for the public to comment on proposed changes to the STS following a preliminary assessment by the NRC staff and finding that the change will likely be offered for adoption by licensees. The CLIIP directs the NRC staff to evaluate any comments received for a proposed change to the STS and to either reconsider the change or to proceed with announcing the availability of the change for proposed adoption by licensees. Those licensees opting to apply for the subject change to technical specifications are responsible for reviewing the staff's evaluation, referencing the applicable technical justifications, and providing any necessary plant-specific information. Each amendment application made in response to the notice of availability will be processed and noticed in accordance with applicable rules and NRC procedures. This notice involves the modification of TS MTC surveillance requirements for implementing the STAR Program. This change was proposed for incorporation into the standard technical specifications by the owners groups participants in the Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)and is designated TSTF-486, Revision 2. TSTF-486, Revision 2, can be viewed on the NRC's Web page at *http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/techspecs.html.* Applicability This proposal to modify TS MTC surveillance requirements for implementing the STAR Program, as proposed in TSTF-486, Revision 2, is applicable to Combustion Engineering
(CE)design plants. To efficiently process the incoming license amendment applications, the staff requests that each licensee applying for the changes proposed in TSTF-486, Revision 2, include TS Bases for the proposed TS consistent with the TS Bases proposed in TSTF-486, Revision 2. The staff is requesting that the TS Bases be included with the proposed license amendments in this case because the changes to the TS and the changes to the associated TS Bases form an integral change to a plant's licensing basis. To ensure that the overall change, including the TS Bases, includes appropriate regulatory controls, the staff plans to condition the issuance of each license amendment on the licensee's incorporation of the changes into the TS Bases document and that the licensee control changes to the TS Bases in accordance with the licensees TS Bases Control Program. The CLIIP does not prevent licensees from requesting an alternative approach or proposing the changes without the requested TS Bases. However, deviations from the approach recommended in this notice may require additional review by the NRC staff and may increase the time and resources needed for the review. Significant variations from the approach, or inclusion of additional changes to the license, will result in staff rejection of the submittal. Instead, licensees desiring significant variations and/or additional changes should submit a LAR that does not request to adopt TSTF-486, Revision 2, under CLIIP. Public Notices The staff issued a **Federal Register** Notice (72 FR 41360, July 27, 2007) that requested public comment on the NRC's pending action to approve modification of TS MTC surveillance requirements for implementing the STAR Program, as proposed in TSTF-486, Revision 2. The TSTF-486, Revision 2, can be viewed on the NRC's Web page at *http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/techspecs.html.* TSTF-486, Revision 2, may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records are accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site, (the Electronic Reading Room) at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* In response to the notice soliciting comments from interested members of the public about modifying TS MTC surveillance requirements, the staff received one set of comments (from the TSTF Owners Groups, representing licensees). The specific comments are provided and discussed below: 1. *Comment:* The Summary states that the NRC staff has prepared a model SE, model LAR, and a model NSHC. However, the last sentence of the section requests comments only on the model SE and model NSHC. Comments should also be requested on the model license amendment request as well. *Response:* The staff agrees with the comment, and has accepted and addressed comments to the model license amendment below. 2. *Comment:* Model SE, section 2.1, Proposed Change, eighth bullet. This bullet describes changes to digital SR 3.1.3.2 (in STS NUREG-1432), not analog SR 3.1.3.2 as stated. *Response:* The staff agrees with the comment, and the model SE, section 2.1, Proposed Change, is corrected in the notice of availability. 3. *Comment:* Model SE, section 7.0, References, Reference 4. Change “Tevision” to “Revision.” *Response:* The staff agrees with the comment, and the model SE, section 7.0 References, Reference 4 is corrected in the notice of availability. 4. *Comment:* Model Application, the third paragraph omits Attachment 5, which is shown in the list of Attachments below the signature. *Response:* The staff agrees with the comment, and Attachment 5 is now added in the third paragraph of the model application. 5. *Comment:* Model Application. The model Application states, “I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that I am authorized by [LICENSEE] to make this request and that the foregoing is true and correct.” This statement is not consistent with the recommended statement given in RIS 2001-18, “Requirements for Oath or Affirmation.” RIS 2001-18 recommends the statement, “I declare [or certify, verify, state] under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.” Note that RIS 2001-18 states that this statement must be used verbatim. We recommend that the model Application be revised to be consistent with RIS 2001-18. *Response:* The staff agrees with the comment, and the model Application is revised to be consistent with RIS 2001-18. 6. *Comment:* Model Application Attachment 4, the regulatory commitment states “[LICENSEE] will establish the Technical Specification Bases for TS [3.1.3] as adopted with the applicable license amendment.” This statement is incorrect as the Bases changes included for information with the license amendment request are not “adopted” with the license amendment. Bases changes are made under licensee control under the Technical Specification Bases Control Program as stated in the model Safety Evaluation. We recommend revising the commitment to state “[LICENSEE] will implement Technical Specification Bases for TS [3.1.3] consistent with those shown in the license amendment.” *Response:* The staff agrees with the comment that the commitments paragraph needs to be reworded. The paragraph now reads, “[LICENSEE] will establish Technical Specification Bases for TS [3.1.3] consistent with those shown in the license amendment.” 7. *Comment:* Model NSHC, to be consistent with 10 CFR 50.91(a), the title of Criterion 2 should be revised to add the word “Accident” before “Previously Evaluated.” Specifically, it should state, “The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously Evaluated.” *Response:* The staff agrees with the comment, and the model NSHC is corrected in the notice of availability. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of August, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Timothy J. Kobetz, Chief, Technical Specifications Branch, Division of Inspection and Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Model Safety Evaluation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Consolidated Line Item Improvement, Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Change TSTF-486, Revision 2, Modification of Technical Specification Moderator Temperature Coefficient Surveillance Requirements Associated With Implementation of the Startup Test Activity Reduction
(STAR)Program 1.0 Introduction By letter dated June 3, 2005, (Reference 1) the Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF), a joint owners group activity, submitted TSTF-486, “Revise MTC Surveillance for Startup Test Activity Reduction
(STAR)Program (WCAP-16011),” Revision 0, for NRC review. By letter dated February 20, 2007, (Reference 2) the TSTF submitted TSTF-486, Revision 1, for NRC review. By letter dated March 10, 2007, (Reference 3) the TSTF submitted TSTF-486, Revision 2, for NRC review. TSTF-486 is proposing to change NUREG 1432, “Standard Technical Specifications Combustion Engineering Plants,” (CE STS) Revision 3.1 (Reference 4), to generically implement moderator temperature coefficient
(MTC)surveillance requirement changes associated with implementation of WCAP-16011-P-A, “Startup Test Activity Reduction
(STAR)Program,” (Reference 5). WCAP-16011-P-A describes methods to reduce the time required for startup testing. To this end, WCAP-16011-P-A proposes methods to eliminate the control element assembly
(CEA)worth and isothermal temperature coefficient
(ITC)measurements at hot zero power (HZP). The measured ITC is used to calculate the HZP MTC. WCAP-16011-P-A includes a method to substitute the measured verification of MTC at HZP with an alternate MTC verification consisting of the predicted (calculated) MTC and measured critical boron concentration
(CBC)at HZP. When this alternate MTC verification is utilized, WCAP-16011-P-A adds the requirement for the early in cycle MTC measurement to verify MTC is not more negative than allowed is also used to verify MTC is not more positive than allowed. WCAP-16011-P-A adds an ITC measurement at intermediate to hot full power
(HFP)and applicability requirements for core design, fabrication, refueling, startup testing, and CEA lifetime viability requirements. WCAP-16011-P-A methods can only be applied to cores that are well characterized by an existing database. WCAP-16011-P-A is only applicable to the particular plants that participated in its development, as indicated in the document. TSTF-486 will provide standardized wording in the CE STS for plants implementing the WCAP-16011-P-A alternate MTC verification at startup. 2.0 Regulatory Evaluation In 10 CFR 50.36, the Commission established its regulatory requirements related to the content of TS. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36, TS are required to include items in the following five specific categories related to station operation:
(1)Safety limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting control settings;
(2)limiting conditions for operation (LCOs);
(3)surveillance requirements (SRs);
(4)design features; and
(5)administrative controls. The regulations do not specify the particular requirements to be included in a plant's TS and do not explicitly prescribe specific post-refueling startup testing. However, the genesis for post-refueling startup testing can be traced to the pre-operational testing required to be specified in the Final Safety Analysis Report by 10 CFR 50.34. Additionally, 10 CFR 50.36 specifies SRs relating to test, calibration, or inspection to assure that the necessary quality of systems and components is maintained, that facility operation will be within safety limits, and that the limiting conditions for operation will be met. Additionally, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, “General Design Criteria”
(GDC)apply, in that the GDC establish the necessary design, fabrication, construction, testing, and performance requirements for structures, systems, and components important to safety. Additionally, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, “Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants” apply, in that Criterion III “Design Control” requires that “ * * * measures shall provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of design, such as by the performance of design reviews, by the use of alternate or simplified calculational methods, or by the performance of a suitable testing program.” Specifically, MTC is a parameter controlled in the licensee's TS, including surveillance requirements. As a value in the TS, MTC and the applicable SRs are subject to regulatory oversight. 2.1 Proposed Change TSTF-486 would make the following changes to the CE STS contained in NUREG-1432. □ The proposed change revises the MTC (Analog) Surveillance Requirement
(SR)3.1.3.1, Surveillance, to indicate the MTC upper limit is specified in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR). □ The proposed change revises the MTC (Analog) SR 3.1.3.1, Frequency, to add a requirement to verify MTC is within the upper limit within seven
(7)effective full power days
(EFPD)of reaching 40 EFPD of core burnup. This verification would only be required if the MTC determined prior to entering Mode 1 is determined using an adjusted, predicted MTC. □ The proposed change revises MTC (Analog) surveillance requirement
(SR)3.1.3.2, Note, to indicate the MTC lower limit is specified in the COLR. □ The proposed change revises MTC (Analog) SR 3.1.3.2, Frequency, to replace the phrase ‘effective full power days’ with the acronym ‘EFPD.’ □ The proposed change revises MTC (Digital) SR 3.1.3.1, Surveillance, to indicate the MTC upper limit is specified in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR). □ The proposed change revises MTC (Digital) SR 3.1.3.1, Frequency, to add a requirement to verify MTC is within the upper limit within seven
(7)EFPD of reaching 40 EFPD of core burnup. This verification would only be required if the MTC determined prior to entering Mode 1 is determined using an adjusted predicted MTC. □ The proposed change revises MTC (Digital) SR 3.1.3.2, Surveillance, and accompanying Note to indicate the MTC lower limit is specified in the COLR. □ The proposed change revises MTC (Digital) SR 3.1.3.2, Frequency, to replace the phrase ‘effective full power days’ with the acronym ‘EFPD.’ TSTF-486 includes changes to the CE STS Bases B 3.1.3 contained in NUREG-1432. □ Deletes the last sentence of the second paragraph of the Background section. (Analog) (Digital) □ Modifies the first sentence of the first paragraph in the LCO section to state that the COLR contains both positive and negative MTC limits. Modifies the third sentence of the first paragraph in the LCO section to state the purpose of the positive MTC limit in the COLR. (Analog) (Digital). □ Inserts a new paragraph in the LCO section, between the existing first and second paragraphs, into the LCO section to explain the positive MTC limits contained in CE STS LCO 3.1.3. (Analog) (Digital). □ Modifies the current second paragraph in the LCO section to include a discussion of how MTC may be controlled using CEA position and boron concentration. (Analog) (Digital). □ Modifies the Surveillance Requirements section by adding a Reviewer Note describing the use of the Alternate MTC verification method contained in WCAP-16011-P-A. (Analog) (Digital). □ Modifies the first paragraph of the Surveillance Requirements section, breaking it into three paragraphs. The new first paragraph consists of the first and second sentences and precedes the Reviewer's Note; the text is otherwise unchanged. The new second paragraph is the third sentence of the current first paragraph; the text is otherwise unchanged. The new third paragraph is the remainder of the current first paragraph, it is modified to state the MTC verification must occur within seven
(7)effective full power days of reaching 40 effective full power days and that the MTC limits are in the COLR. (Analog) (Digital). □ The existing second paragraph of the Surveillance Requirements section becomes the fourth paragraph and is modified to state the end of cycle MTC limit is specified in the COLR. (Analog) (Digital). □ The References section is modified to add, in brackets, WCAP-16011-P-A. (Analog) (Digital). 3.0 Technical Evaluation As stated previously, WCAP-16011-P-A describes methods to reduce the time required for startup testing. The NRC approved WCAP-16011-P-A on January 14, 2005, for referencing in license applications to the extent specified and under the limitations stated in the topical report and NRC evaluation. CE STS SR 3.1.3.1 (Analog) and SR 3.1.3.1 (Digital) are being revised to add a frequency that is required by WCAP-16011-P-A when the alternate MTC verification method is used to verify MTC is within the upper limit during startup testing. That frequency coincides with the SR 3.1.3.2 verification that MTC is within the lower limit at 40 EFPD. This frequency is consistent with WCAP-16011-P-A and therefore acceptable. CE STS SR 3.1.3.1 (Analog), and SR 3.1.3.1 (Digital) are also being revised to state the upper MTC limit is in the COLR. Currently, the location of the upper limit is not specified in either Analog or Digital CE STS SR. CE STS 3.1.3 (Analog) LCO states, “The MTC shall be maintained within the limits specified in the COLR. The maximum positive limit shall be that specified in Figure 3.1.3-1.” Figure 3.1.3-1 is contained in the CE STS. CE STS 3.1.3 (Digital) LCO states, “The MTC shall be maintained within the limits specified in the COLR, and a maximum positive limit as specified below:” Two equations then follow for determining the maximum positive limit. The use of the plural in the LCO statements indicate the STS expect there to be upper and lower limits in the COLR, of which the upper limit would be bounded by the value in the TS. Therefore, specifying in the SR that the upper limit be within the COLR limit is consistent with the CE STS. The specific wording is also consistent with current phrasing in the CE STS. Therefore, this change is acceptable. CE STS SR 3.1.3.2 (Digital) is also being revised to state the lower MTC limit is in the COLR. Currently, the location of the lower limit is specified in the Note. This change makes the CE STS SR 3.1.3.2 (Digital) consistent with the analog equivalent. The specific wording is also consistent with current phrasing in the CE STS. Therefore, this change is acceptable. The first sentence of the Note in CE STS SR 3.1.3.2 (Analog) and SR 3.1.3.2 (Digital) is being revised from, “If the MTC is more negative than the COLR limit * * *” to “If the MTC is more negative than the limit specified in the COLR * * *” SR 3.1.3.2 (Digital) is being revised from “Verify MTC is within the lower limit.” to “Verify MTC is within the lower limit specified in the COLR.” In all instances the MTC lower limit is specified in the COLR. The revised wording is consistent with other CE STS references to the COLR. Therefore, this change is acceptable. The revision to the CE STS Bases for B 3.1.3 (Analog) and B 3.1.3 (Digital) Background section is removing an incorrect statement in the CE STS that was identified during the staff's review associated with Reference 1. The TSTF has agreed to remove the sentence as part of TSTF-486 Revision 2. Therefore, this change is acceptable. The modification of the first paragraph in the CE STS Bases for B 3.1.3 (Analog) and B 3.1.3 (Digital) LCO section is intended to identify the location of the upper and lower MTC limits. This change is consistent with the proposed changes to CE STS described above and therefore acceptable. The addition of a new second paragraph in the CE STS Bases for B 3.1.3 (Analog) and B 3.1.3 (Digital) LCO section is intended to describe the purpose of the limits and reinforce that the upper MTC limit in the COLR must be bounded by that in the TS. This change is consistent with the proposed changes to CE STS described above and therefore acceptable. The modification to the current second paragraph in the LCO section adds a discussion of how MTC may be controlled using CEA position and boron concentration. While staff acknowledges that the combination of CEA position and boron concentration can be used to control MTC, the staff believes it is an incomplete discussion that ignores the effects of temperature, pressure, and power level. However, there is no intention that the STS Basis become a tutorial. Therefore, while the discussion is incomplete it is not detrimental to safety and the change is acceptable. The Reviewer's Note added to the Surveillance Requirements section describes the restrictions on the use of the Alternate MTC surveillance. The Reviewer's Note is consistent with WCAP-16011-P-A and therefore acceptable. The current first paragraph of the Surveillance Requirements section is being modified by breaking it into three paragraphs. □ The new first paragraph consists of the first and second sentences and precedes the Reviewer Note, the text is otherwise unchanged. This is an editorial change and acceptable. □ The new second paragraph is the third sentence of the current first paragraph, the text is otherwise unchanged. Making the sentence a separate paragraph is an editorial change and acceptable. □ The new third paragraph is the remainder of the current first paragraph; it is modified to state the MTC verification must occur within seven
(7)effective full power days of reaching 40 effective full power days and that the MTC limits are in the COLR. These changes are editorial and acceptable. Moving the existing second paragraph of the Surveillance Requirements section to become the fourth paragraph and modifying it to state the end of cycle MTC limit is specified in the COLR are editorial changes. These changes are acceptable. Adding WCAP-16011-P-A, in brackets, to the References section is appropriate. The brackets indicate WCAP-16011-P-A is an optional reference. It would only be included on plants that have implemented the Alternate MTC surveillance. This change is acceptable. 3.1 Summary TSTF-486 would provide standardized wording in the CE STS for plants implementing the WCAP-16011-P-A alternate MTC verification at startup. The changes to NUREG-1432 proposed by TSTF-486 have been reviewed for consistency with the current NUREG-1432 and WCAP-16011-P-A. The proposed changes have been found to be consistent with NUREG-1432 and WCAP-16011-P-A, therefore the proposed changes are acceptable. 4.0 State Consultation In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the [ ] State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had [(1) No comments or
(2)the following comments—with subsequent disposition by the staff]. 5.0 Environmental Consideration The amendments change a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and change surveillance requirements. [For licensees adding a TS Bases Control Program: The amendment also changes record keeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements.] The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts and no significant change in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards considerations, and there has been no public comment on the finding [FR ]. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) [and (c)(10)]. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments. 6.0 Conclusion The Commission has concluded, on the basis of the considerations discussed above, that
(1)There is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner,
(2)such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and
(3)the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. 7.0 References 1. Letter from the Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF), a joint owners group activity, re: “TSTF-486, “Revise MTC Surveillance for Startup Test Activity Reduction
(STAR)Program (WCAP-16011),” “dated June 3, 2005. (ADAMS ML051580191). 2. Letter from the Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF), a joint owners group activity, re: “Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding TSTF-486, Revision 0, “Revise MTC Surveillance for Startup Test Activity Reduction
(STAR)Program (WCAP-16011),” and Submittal of Revision 1,” dated February 20, 2007. (ADAMS ML070510667) 3. Letter from the Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF), a joint owners group activity, re: “TSTF-486, Revision 2, “Revise MTC Surveillance for Startup Test Activity Reduction
(STAR)Program (WCAP-16011),” dated March 10, 2007. (ADAMS ML071300267). 4. NUREG 1432, “Standard Technical Specifications Combustion Engineering Plants,” Revision 3.1. (ADAMS ML062510040 and ML062510042). 5. WCAP-16011-P-A, “Startup Test Activity Reduction Program,” dated February 2005. (ADAMS ML050660127). The following example of an application was prepared by the NRC staff to facilitate use of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP). The model provides the expected level of detail and content for an application to revise technical specifications regarding moderator temperature coefficient surveillance for Startup Test Activity Reduction
(STAR)program using CLIIP. Licensees remain responsible for ensuring that their actual application fulfills their administrative requirements as well as Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555. SUBJECT: PLANT NAME DOCKET NO. 50-APPLICATION FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REGARDING MODERATOR TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT
(MTC)SURVEILLANCE FOR STARTUP TEST ACTIVITY REDUCTION
(STAR)PROGRAM USING THE CONSOLIDATED LINE ITEM IMPROVEMENT PROCESS Gentleman: In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.90 [LICENSEE] is submitting a request for an amendment to the technical specifications
(TS)for [PLANT NAME, UNIT NOS.]. The proposed amendment would modify TS requirements for moderator temperature coefficient
(MTC)surveillance requirements
(SR)associated with implementation of WCAP-16011-P-A, “Startup Test Activity Reduction
(STAR)Program.” Attachment 1 provides a description of the proposed change, the requested confirmation of applicability, and plant-specific verifications. Attachment 2 provides the existing TS pages marked up to show the proposed change. Attachment 3 provides revised (clean) TS pages. Attachment 4 provides a summary of the regulatory commitments made in this submittal. Attachment 5 provides the proposed changes to Technical Specification Bases pages. [LICENSEE] requests approval of the proposed License Amendment by [DATE], with the amendment being implemented [BY DATE OR WITHIN X DAYS]. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91, a copy of this application, with attachments, is being provided to the designated [STATE] Official. I declare [or clarify, verify, state] under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. (Note that request may be notarized in lieu of using this oath or affirmation statement). If you should have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact [NAME, TELEPHONE NUMBER] Sincerely, [Name, Title] Attachments: 1. Description and Assessment 2. Proposed Technical Specification Changes 3. Revised Technical Specification Pages 4. Regulatory Commitments 5. Proposed Technical Specification Bases Changes cc: NRC Project Manager; NRC Regional Office; NRC Resident Inspector; State Contact. ATTACHMENT 1—Description and Assessment 1.0 Description The proposed amendment would modify TS requirements for moderator temperature coefficient
(MTC)surveillance requirements
(SR)associated with implementation of WCAP-16011-P-A, “Startup Test Activity Reduction
(STAR)Program.” The changes are consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)approved Industry/Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)STS change TSTF-486 Revision 2. The **Federal Register** notice published on [DATE] announced the availability of this TS improvement through the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). 2.0 Assessment 2.1 Applicability of Published Safety Evaluation [LICENSEE] has reviewed the safety evaluation dated [DATE] as part of the CLIIP. This review included a review of the NRC staff's evaluation, as well as the supporting information provided to support TSTF-486 Revision 2. [LICENSEE] has concluded that the justifications presented in the TSTF proposal and the safety evaluation prepared by the NRC staff are applicable to [PLANT, UNIT NOS.] and justify this amendment for the incorporation of the changes to the [PLANT] TS. 2.2 Optional Changes and Variations [LICENSEE] is not proposing any variations or deviations from the TS changes described in the modified TSTF-486 Revision 2 and the NRC staff's model safety evaluation dated [DATE]. 3.0 Regulatory Analysis 3.1 No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination [LICENSEE] has reviewed the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination (NSHCD) published in the **Federal Register** as part of the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] has concluded that the proposed NSHCD presented in the **Federal Register** notice is applicable to [PLANT] and is hereby incorporated by reference to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(a). 3.2 Verification and Commitments As discussed in the notice of availability published in the **Federal Register** on [DATE] for this TS improvement, the [LICENSEE] verifies the applicability of TSTF-486 to [PLANT], and commits to establishing Technical Specification Bases for TS [3.1.3] as proposed in TSTF-486, Revision 2. The proposed TSTF-486 change revises SR 3.1.3.1 in the digital and analog Combustion Engineering STS (NUREG-1432) by adding a second Frequency. This second Frequency requires verifying that MTC is within the upper limit each fuel cycle within 7 EFPD after reaching 40 EFPD of core burnup, but only when the MTC determined prior to entering MODE 1 is verified using predicted MTC as adjusted for actual RCS boron concentration. The Frequency is consistent with the existing MODE 1 MTC Surveillance Frequency. The Bases are revised to describe the new requirements and to clarify the analytical basis of the MTC utilizing the suggested changes in WCAP-16011-P. The Bases modifications clarify the relationship between the MTC limits specified in the Core Operating Limits Report
(COLR)and the maximum positive MTC value specified in the LCO. 4.0 Environmental Evaluation [LICENSEE] has reviewed the environmental evaluation included in the model safety evaluation dated [DATE] as part of the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] has concluded that the staff's findings presented in that evaluation are applicable to [PLANT] and the evaluation is hereby incorporated by reference for this application. Attachment 2—Proposed Technical Specification Changes (Mark-Up) Attachment 3—Proposed Technical Specification Pages Attachment 4—List of Regulatory Commitments The following table identifies those actions committed to by [LICENSEE] in this document. Any other statements in this submittal are provided for information purposes and are not considered to be regulatory commitments. Please direct questions regarding these commitments to [CONTACT NAME]. Regulatory commitments Due date/event [LICENSEE] will establish Technical Specification Bases for TS [3.1.3] consistent with those shown in the license amendment [Complete, implemented with amendment OR within X days of implementation of amendment]. Attachment 5—Proposed Changes to Technical Specification Bases Pages Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination *Description of Amendment Request:* [Plant Name] requests adoption of an approved change to the standard technical specifications
(STS)for Combustion Engineering
(CE)Plants (NUREG-1432) and plant specific technical specifications (TS), to allow modification of TS moderator temperature coefficient
(MTC)surveillance requirements
(SR)associated with implementation of WCAP-16011-P-A, “Startup Test Activity Reduction
(STAR)Program,” dated February 2005.” The changes are consistent with NRC approved Industry/Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)STS Traveler, TSTF-486, Revision 2, “Revise MTC Surveillance for Startup Test Activity Reduction
(STAR)Program (WCAP-16011).” WCAP-16011-P-A describes methods to reduce the time required for startup testing. To this end, WCAP-16011-P-A proposes methods to eliminate the control element assembly
(CEA)worth and isothermal temperature coefficient
(ITC)measurements at hot zero power (HZP). The measured ITC is then used to calculate the HZP MTC. WCAP-16011-P-A includes a method to substitute the measured verification of MTC at HZP with an alternate MTC verification consisting of the predicted (calculated) MTC and measured critical boron concentration
(CBC)at HZP. When this alternate MTC verification is utilized, WCAP-16011-P-A adds the requirement for the early in cycle MTC measurement to verify MTC is not more negative than allowed is also used to verify MTC is not more positive than allowed. WCAP-16011-P-A adds an ITC measurement at intermediate to hot full power
(HFP)and applicability requirements for core design, fabrication, refueling, startup testing, and CEA lifetime viability requirements. WCAP-16011-P-A methods can only be applied to cores that are well characterized by an existing database. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change generically implements MTC SR changes associated with implementation of WCAP-16011-P-A, STAR Program. WCAP-16011-P-A describes methods to reduce the time required for startup testing. The consequences of an accident after adopting TSTF-486 are no different than the consequences of an accident prior to adoption. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously analyzed. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety TSTF-486 provides the means and standardized wording for CE STS plants implementing the previously approved WCAP-16011-P-A alternate MTC verification at startup. MTC is a parameter controlled in the licensee's TS, including surveillance requirements. As stated previously WCAP-16011-P-A describes methods to reduce the time required for startup testing. The changes to NUREG-1432 proposed by TSTF-486 have been reviewed for and found to be consistent with the current NUREG-1432 and WCAP-16011-P-A, and therefore the proposed changes are acceptable and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not involve a significant hazards consideration. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of August, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Timothy J. Kobetz, Section Chief, Technical Specifications Branch, Division of Inspection & Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-17601 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): Notice Regarding the Acceptance of Product and Country Practice Petitions for the 2007 Annual Review AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative
(USTR)received petitions in connection with the 2007 GSP Annual Review to modify the list of products that are eligible for duty-free treatment under the GSP program and to modify the GSP status of certain GSP beneficiary developing countries because of country practices. This notice announces the product petitions, other than those requesting competitive need limitation
(CNL)waivers, and country practice petitions that are accepted for further review in the 2007 GSP Annual Review. This notice also sets forth the schedule for comment and public hearings on these petitions, for requesting participation in the hearings, and for submitting pre-hearing and post-hearing briefs. The list of accepted petitions is available at: *http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Development/Preference_Programs/GSP/Section_Index.html* [2007 Annual review]. Petitions for CNL waivers are due November 16, 2007 ( *see* 72 FR 28,527), and a review of those petitions will be conducted thereafter. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact the GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 1724 F Street, NW., Room F-220, Washington, DC 20508. The telephone number is
(202)395-6971. DATES: The GSP regulations (15 CFR part 2007) provide the schedule of dates for conducting an annual review unless otherwise specified in a **Federal Register** notice. The current schedule follows. Notification of any other changes will be given in the **Federal Register** . September 21, 2007: Due date for submission of pre-hearing briefs and requests to appear at the GSP Subcommittee Public Hearing that include the name, address, telephone, fax, e-mail address and organization of witnesses for accepted product petitions. October 3, 2007: GSP Subcommittee Public Hearing on all product petitions accepted for the 2007 GSP Annual Review in Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508, beginning at 9:30 a.m. October 4, 2007: GSP Subcommittee Public Hearing, for all country practice petitions accepted for the 2007 GSP Annual Review in Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508, beginning at 9:30 a.m. October 19, 2007: Due date for submission of post-hearing briefs. January 2007: USITC scheduled to publish report on products of cases 2007-01 to 2007-11 in the 2007 GSP Annual Review. Comments on the USITC report on these products are due 10 days after USITC date of publication. June 30, 2007: Modifications to the list of articles eligible for duty-free treatment under the GSP resulting from the 2007 Annual Review will be announced on or about June 30, 2007, in the **Federal Register** , and any changes will take effect on the effective date announced. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The GSP provides for the duty-free importation of designated articles when imported from designated beneficiary developing countries. The GSP is authorized by title V of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461, *et seq.* ), as amended (the “1974 Act”), and is implemented in accordance with Executive Order 11888 of November 24, 1975, as modified by subsequent Executive Orders and Presidential Proclamations. A. Petitions Requesting Modifications of Product Eligibility In a **Federal Register** notice dated May 21, 2007, USTR announced that the deadline for the filing of product petitions, other than those requesting waivers of “competitive need limitations” (CNLs), and country practice petitions for the 2007 GSP Annual Review was June 22, 2007 (72 FR 28527). The product petitions received have requested changes in the list of GSP-eligible products by adding new products and by removing duty-free treatment for products from specific GSP-eligible countries. The interagency GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee
(TPSC)has reviewed the product petitions, and the TPSC has decided to accept for review the product petitions listed in “List of Petitions Accepted in the 2007 GSP Annual Review” posted on the USTR Web site. That list sets forth, for each type of change requested: the case number, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading number, a brief description of the product (see the HTSUS for an authoritative description available on the USITC Web site ( *http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/* ) and the petitioner for each petition included in this review). Acceptance of a petition for review does not indicate any opinion with respect to the disposition on the merits of the petition. Acceptance indicates only that the listed petitions have been found eligible for review by the TPSC and that such review will take place. B. Petitions for Review Regarding Country Practices Pursuant to 15 CFR 2007.0(b), the GSP Subcommittee of the TPSC has recommended, and the TPSC has accepted or continued the review of several country practice petitions (see “List of Petitions Accepted in the 2007 GSP Annual Review” posted on the USTR Web site). Acceptance of a petition for review does not indicate any opinion with respect to the disposition on the merits of the petition. Acceptance indicates only that the petition has been found eligible for review by the TPSC and that such review will take place. Opportunities for Public Comment and Inspection of Comments The GSP Subcommittee of the TPSC invites comments in support of or in opposition to any petition that has been accepted thus far for the 2007 GSP Annual Review. Submissions should comply with 15 CFR part 2007, except as modified below. All submissions should identify the subject article(s) in terms of the case number and eight digit HTSUS subheading number, if applicable, as shown in the “List of Petitions Accepted in the 2007 GSP Annual Review” available at: *http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Development/Preference_Programs/GSP/Section_Index.html* [2007 Annual Review]. Requirements for Submissions In order to facilitate prompt processing of submissions, USTR requires electronic e-mail submissions in response to this notice. Hand-delivered submissions will not be accepted. These submissions should be single-copy transmissions in English, with the total submission not to exceed 30 single-spaced standard letter-size pages in 12-point type and three megabytes as sent as a digital file attached to an e-mail transmission. E-mail submissions should use the following subject line: “2007 GSP Annual Review” followed by the Case Number and, if a product petition, the eight-digit HTSUS subheading number found in the “List of Petitions Accepted in the 2007 GSP Annual Review” on the USTR Web site (for example, 2007-05 7202.99.20) and, as appropriate “Written Comments”, “Notice of Intent to Testify”, “Pre-hearing brief”, “Post-hearing brief” or “Comments on USITC Advice”. (For example, an e-mail subject line might read “2007-05 7202.99.20 Written Comments”.) Documents must be submitted in English in one of the following formats: WordPerfect (.WPD), Adobe (.PDF), MSWord (.DOC), or text (.TXT) files. Documents cannot be submitted as electronic image files or contain embedded images, e.g., “.JPG”, “.TIF”, “.BMP”, or “.GIF”. Supporting documentation submitted as spreadsheets are acceptable as Excel files, formatted for printing on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper. To the extent possible, any data attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files. If the submission contains business confidential information, a non-confidential version of the submission must also be submitted that indicates where confidential information was redacted by inserting asterisks where material was deleted. In addition, the confidential submission must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of each page of the document. The non-confidential version must also be clearly marked at the top and bottom of each page (either “PUBLIC VERSION” or “NON-CONFIDENTIAL”). Documents that are submitted without any marking might not be accepted or will be considered public documents. For any document containing business confidential information submitted as an electronic attached file to an e-mail transmission, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC-”, and the file name of the public version should begin with the characters “P-”. The “P-” or “BC-” should be followed by the name of the party (government, company, union, association, etc.) which is making the submission. E-mail submissions should not include separate cover letters or messages in the message area of the e-mail; information that might appear in any cover letter should be included directly in the attached file containing the submission itself, including the sender's name, organization name, address, telephone number and e-mail address. The e-mail address for these submissions is *FR0711@USTR.EOP.GOV.* Documents not submitted in accordance with these instructions might not be considered in this review. If unable to provide submissions by e-mail, please contact the GSP Subcommittee to arrange for an alternative method of transmission. Public versions of all documents relating to this review will be available for review approximately two weeks after the relevant due date by appointment in the USTR public reading room, 1724 F Street NW., Washington, DC. Appointments may be made from 9:30 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, by calling
(202)395-6186. Notice of Public Hearing A hearing will be held by the GSP Subcommittee of the TPSC on October 3, 2007, for product petitions accepted for the 2007 GSP Annual Review (i.e., for product petitions other than those requesting CNL waivers) beginning at 9:30 a.m. at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F St., NW., Washington, DC 20508. A second hearing will be held by the GSP Subcommittee of the TPSC on October 5, 2007 for country practice petitions in the 2007 GSP Annual Review. The hearings will be open to the public and a transcript of the hearings will be made available for public inspection or can be purchased from the reporting company. No electronic media coverage will be allowed. All interested parties wishing to make an oral presentation at the hearing must submit, following the above “Requirements for Submissions”, the name, address, telephone number, and facsimile number and email address, if available, of the witness(es) representing their organization to Marideth Sandler, Executive Director of the GSP Program by 5 p.m., September 21, 2007. Requests to present oral testimony in connection with the public hearing must be accompanied by a written brief or statement, in English, and also must be received by 5 p.m., September 21, 2007. Oral testimony before the GSP Subcommittee will be limited to five-minute presentations that summarize or supplement information contained in briefs or statements submitted for the record. Post-hearing briefs or statements will be accepted if they conform with the regulations cited above and are submitted, in English, by 5 p.m., October 19, 2007. Parties not wishing to appear at the public hearing may submit pre-hearing briefs or statements, in English, by 5 p.m., September 21, 2007, and post-hearing written briefs or statements, in English, by 5 p.m., October 19, 2007. In accordance with sections 503(d)(1)(A) of the 1974 Act and the authority delegated by the President, pursuant to section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the U.S. Trade Representative has requested that the USITC provide its advice on the probable economic effect on U.S. industries producing like or directly competitive articles and on consumers of the elimination of U.S. import duties for all GSP beneficiary countries or, where applicable, the probable economic effect on U.S. industries producing like or directly competitive articles and on consumers of the removal from eligibility for duty-free status under GSP for such article from the specified countries, with respect to the articles that are specified in the “List of Petitions Accepted in the 2007 GSP Annual Review.” Comments by interested persons on the USITC Report prepared as part of the product review other than those requesting CNL waivers should be submitted by 5 p.m., 10 days after the date of USITC publication of its report. Marideth Sandler, Executive Director, Generalized System of Preferences
(GSP)Program, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. [FR Doc. E7-17614 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190-W7-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of Brazil, the Czech Republic, and Pakistan: Request for Public Comment AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Request for written submissions from the public. SUMMARY: Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Trade Act) (19 U.S.C. 2242), requires the United States Trade Representative
(USTR)to identify countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection. (Section 182 is commonly referred to as the “Special 301” provisions of the Trade Act.) In addition, the USTR is required to determine which of these countries should be identified as Priority Foreign Countries. Acts, policies or practices that are the basis of a country's identification as a Priority Foreign Country are normally the subject of an investigation under the section 301 provisions of the Trade Act. On April 27, 2007, USTR announced the results of the 2007 Special 301 Review and stated that Out-of-Cycle Reviews of Brazil, the Czech Republic, and Pakistan would be conducted this year. Pursuant to these Out-of-Cycle Reviews, USTR requests written submissions from the public concerning acts, policies, and practices regarding the adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property protection and enforcement in Brazil, the Czech Republic, and Pakistan. DATES: Submissions must be received on or before *10 a.m. on Monday, October 15, 2007.* ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to *Jennifer Choe Groves,* Director for Intellectual Property and Innovation and Chair of the Special 301 Committee, Office of the United States Trade Representative, and sent
(i)Electronically, to *FR0606@ustr.eop.gov* (please note, “FR0606” consists of the *numbers* “zero-six-zero-six,”) with “Brazil, Czech Republic, Pakistan Out-of-Cycle Review” in the subject line, or
(ii)by fax, to
(202)395-9458, with a confirmation copy sent electronically to the E-mail address above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *Jennifer Choe Groves,* Director for Intellectual Property and Innovation and Chair of the Special 301 Committee, Office of the United States Trade Representative at
(202)395-4510. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 182 of the Trade Act, USTR must identify those countries that deny adequate and effective protection for intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection. Those countries that have the most onerous or egregious acts, policies, or practices and whose acts, policies or practices have the greatest adverse impact (actual or potential) on relevant U.S. products are to be identified as Priority Foreign Countries. Acts, policies or practices that are the basis of a country's designation as a Priority Foreign Country are normally the subject of an investigation under the section 301 provisions of the Trade Act. USTR may not identify a country as a Priority Foreign Country if it is entering into good faith negotiations, or making significant progress in bilateral or multilateral negotiations, to provide adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights. On April 27, 2007, USTR announced the results of the 2007 Special 301 Review and stated that Out-of-Cycle Review of Brazil, the Czech Republic, and Pakistan would be conducted this year. Pursuant to these Out-of-Cycle Reviews, USTR requests written submissions from the public concerning acts, policies, and practices regarding the adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property protection and enforcement in Brazil, the Czech Republic, and Pakistan. *Requirements for comments:* Comments should include a description of experiences with respect to Brazil, the Czech Republic, or Pakistan in the field of intellectual property rights and the effect of the acts, policies, and practices of Brazil, the Czech Republic, or Pakistan on U.S. industry. Comments should be as detailed as possible and should provide all necessary information for assessing the effect of any acts, policies, and practices of Brazil, the Czech Republic, or Pakistan. Any comments that include quantitative loss claims should be accompanied by the methodology used in calculating such estimated losses. Comments must be in English. No submissions will be accepted via postal service mail. Documents should be submitted as either WordPerfect, MS Word, .pdf, or text (.TXT) files. Supporting documentation submitted as spreadsheets are acceptable as Quattro Pro or Excel files. All comments and supporting documentation by USTR will be made available to the public through electronic or other means. A submitter requesting that information contained in a comment 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. A non-confidential version of the comment must also be provided. For any document containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC-”, and the file name of the public version should begin with the character “P-”. The “P-” or “BC-” should be followed by the name of the submitter. Submissions should not include separate cover letters; information that might appear in a cover letter should be included in the submission itself. 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. DATES: Submissions must be received on or before *10 a.m. on Monday, October 15, 2007.* All comments should be addressed to *Jennifer Choe Groves* , Director for Intellectual Property and Innovation and Chair of the Special 301 Committee, Office of the United States Trade Representative, and sent
(i)Electronically, to *FR0606@ustr.eop.gov* (please note, “FR0606” consists of the *numbers* “zero-six-zero-six,” with “Brazil, Czech Republic, Pakistan Out-of-Cycle Review” in the subject line, or
(ii)by fax, to
(202)395-9458, with a confirmation copy sent electronically to the e-mail address above. *Public inspection of submissions:*
(1)Within one business day of receipt, non-confidential submissions will be placed in a public file open for inspection at the USTR reading room, Office of the United States Trade Representative, Annex Building, 1724 F Street, NW., Room 1, Washington, DC. An appointment to review the file must be scheduled at least 48 hours in advance and may be made by calling Jacqueline Caldwell at
(202)395-6186. The USTR reading room is open to the public from 10 a.m. to noon and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Christopher S. Wilson, Acting Assistant USTR for Intellectual Property and Innovation. [FR Doc. 07-4335 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 16
Traces to 16 documents
U.S. Code
- Cooperation of agencies; reports; availability of information; recommendations; international and national coordination of efforts§ 4332
- Federal agency responsibilities§ 3506
- Congressional statement of findings and declaration of purpose and policy§ 651
- Inspections, investigations, and recordkeeping§ 657
- Authority to extend preferences§ 2461
- Identification of countries that deny adequate protection, or market access, for intellectual property rights§ 2242
CFR
- Manlifts.§ 1910.68
- Environmental qualification of electric equipment important to safety for nuclear power plants.§ 50.49
- Scope.§ 54.4
- Notice for public comment; State consultation.§ 50.91
- Technical specifications.§ 50.36
- Contents of applications; technical information.§ 50.34
- Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or otherwise not requiring environmental review.§ 51.22
- Application for amendment of license, construction permit, or early site permit.§ 50.90
- Requests for reviews.§ 2007.0
3 references not yet in our index
- 10 CFR 50
- 10 CFR 20
- 15 CFR 2007
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of public meeting
Cite10 CFR 50
Cite10 CFR 20
Cite15 CFR 2007
Cites 19 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources