Rules and Regulations. Notice of availability and finding of no significant impact
25,531 words·~116 min read·
/register/2007/10/22/07-5177A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 7570-02-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-458] Entergy Operations, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Entergy Operations, Inc., (the licensee) to withdraw its September 13, 2007, application for a proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-47 for the River Bend Station, Unit 1, located in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana.
The proposed amendment would have revised the facility Technical Specifications and the operating license. The proposed change would have added a License Condition 2.C to the Facility Operating License NPF-47 that allows River Bend Station, Unit 1, Technical Specifications surveillance intervals to be extended on a one-time basis for the 14th Fuel Cycle to account for the effects of a delayed refueling outage. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the **Federal Register** on October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57354).
However, by letter dated October 3, 2007, the licensee withdrew the proposed change. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated September 13, 2007, and the licensee's letter dated October 3, 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 System (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 15th day of October 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Bhalchandra Vaidya, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-20738 Filed 10-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 40-9027] Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Cabot Corporation Proposed Decommissioning Plan for Site in Reading, PA AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability and finding of no significant impact. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is issuing a final Environmental Assessment
(EA)for Cabot Corporation (Cabot or the licensee) Decommissioning Plan (DP), dated August 21, 2006, which requested authorization to commence decommissioning activities to achieve unrestricted release of a site in Reading, Pennsylvania. The final EA makes a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the proposed action, and is being issued as part of the NRC's decision-making process on whether to issue an amendment to license SMC-1562, pursuant to Title 10 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 40, “Domestic Licensing of Source Material Licenses.” The proposed DP specifies installation of a riprap erosion barrier on the site slope. The site is owned by the City of Reading and is located in a large redevelopment area. Tentative City plans are for industrial activities in a new structure to be built on top of the slope, adjacent to the Cabot site. The site itself will not be developed. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theodore Smith, Project Manager, Reactor Decommissioning Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Mail Stop T8-F5, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone:
(301)415-6721; e-mail: *tbs1@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Cabot Corporation (Cabot) holds U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)Source Materials License SMC-1562, allowing the storage of radioactive materials at Cabot's Reading, Pennsylvania, site. Former ore processing in the 1960s at the facility generated waste slag contaminated with uranium and thorium. A smaller amount of debris from facility decontamination was added to the site in the late 1970s. In the 1980s, Cabot began onsite decommissioning activities at the main processing building at its Reading site, and began preparing for decommissioning activities at Reading site slag pile by conducting site characterization, determining slag leach rate constants, taking surface gamma measurements, and performing radiological analysis of surface and subsurface samples. Contaminated areas of the main building area were remediated in a series of cleanup actions in the early 1990s. Cabot originally submitted the decommissioning plan
(DP)in 1998 and has revised it several times to address various NRC concerns. On August 21, 2006, Cabot submitted Revision 4 of its proposed DP which proposes installation of a riprap erosion barrier at the site. The NRC has prepared an environmental assessment
(EA)in support of this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. If approved, the license amendment incorporating the DP would be issued following publication of this Notice. II. EA Summary The Proposed Action Cabot requested approval of its DP, which would allow it to conduct decommissioning activities at the site. If approved and properly implemented, the DP would eventually lead to the termination of its NRC source materials license. In its DP, Cabot proposed to place a riprap erosion cover on the slag pile's slope and provided analysis to demonstrate that the site will be acceptable for license termination under unrestricted release. Need for the Proposed Action The purpose of this action is to decommission an NRC-licensed site, allowing for its unrestricted use and termination of the source material license. This action is required by 10 CFR 40.42, “Expiration and Termination of Licenses and Decommissioning of Sites and Separate Buildings or Outdoor Areas.” Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff concluded that the proposed decommissioning activities will not result in a significant impact to the environment. No significant impacts to the site ecology are anticipated because of the proposed action. The proposed action will not adversely affect Federal or State-listed threatened or endangered species, or regional historic and cultural resources. The proposed action can be viewed as a continuation of impacts and can be evaluated based on the previous impacts from past operations. In making this determination, the staff considered impacts to such areas as public and occupational health, transportation, socioeconomics, ecology, water quality, and the effects of natural phenomena. Further details regarding the staff's environmental evaluation of the proposed action are set forth in the EA (ML072390296) Agencies and Persons Consulted The staff completed consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS)for consideration under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and with the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO)for consideration under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In addition the staff provided the draft EA to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) officials for comment. An addendum to the final EA sets forth the PADEP comments and the NRC's responses, and provides a history of operations at the site. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The final EA supports the proposed action to issue a license amendment approving Cabot's DP for the Reading site. On the basis of this EA, NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted. Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are: Documents ADAMS Accession Nos. Licensee Decommissioning Plan ML062360159, ML062360164, ML062640081, ML062210261. PADEP consultation ML070880408, ML072390482. SHPO consultation ML070430115, ML071240260, ML071450487, ML072220371. FWS consultation ML06026123 , ML060730519. Environmental Assessment ML072390323, ML072390296. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of October 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Andrew Persinko, Branch Chief, Reactor Decommissioning Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E7-20746 Filed 10-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-382] Entergy Operations, Inc.; Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is considering issuance of exemptions from Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR) Part 50, Section 50.46 and Appendix K, for Facility Operating License No. NPF-38, issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the licensee), for operation of the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3), located in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, section 50.46 and Appendix K to allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO TM fuel rod cladding as the allowable fuel rod cladding material. The proposed action is in accordance with Entergy's application dated April 24, 2007. The Need for the Proposed Action The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 50, section 50.46 and Appendix K, make no provision for use of fuel rod clad in a material other than Zircaloy or ZIRLO TM . Optimized ZIRLO TM has a lower tin content than either Zircaloy or ZIRLO TM ; therefore, use of Optimized ZIRLO TM fuel rod clad calls for an exemption from 10 CFR part 50, section 50.46 and Appendix K. For cladding with a lower tin content, corrosive resistance has been found to improve, as indicated by available industry data from the American Nuclear Society, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Electric Power Research Institute, and Westinghouse Electric Corporation. The optimum tin level provides a reduced corrosion rate while maintaining the benefits of mechanical strength and resistance to accelerated corrosion from abnormal chemistry conditions. In addition, fuel rod internal pressures (resulting from increased fuel duty, use of integral fuel burnable absorbers and corrosion/temperature feedback effects) have become more limiting with respect to fuel rod design criteria. Reducing the associated corrosion buildup, and thus, minimizing temperature feedback effects, provides additional margin to fuel rod internal pressure design criteria. The NRC previously granted a similar exemption in July 2004 for Waterford 3 for use of Optimized ZIRLO TM in four lead-test assemblies. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the proposed exemptions would continue to satisfy the underlying purpose of 10 CFR part 50, sections 50.46 and Appendix K, and will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and would not affect facility radiation levels or facility radiological effluents. The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the amendment to the regulation. The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site. There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent released off site. There is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the “no-action” alternative are similar. Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for Waterford 3, dated September 1981. Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on August 17, 2007, the staff consulted with the Louisiana State official, Ms. Nan Calhoun of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated April 24, 2007. 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 O1F21, 1555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of September 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nageswaran Kalyanam, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-20731 Filed 10-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030-31988] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Termination of Byproduct Materials License No. 04-29022-01 and Unrestricted Release of the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Facility in La Jolla, California AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of environmental assessment and finding of no Significant impact for license amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack E. Whitten, Chief, Nuclear Materials Safety Branch B, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Arlington, Texas 76011; telephone
(817)860-8197; fax number
(817)860-8263; or by e-mail: *jew1@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Byproduct Material License No. 04-29022-01. This license is held by the United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Southwest Fisheries Science Center (the Licensee). Issuance of the amendment would authorize release of the La Jolla Facility (the Facility) for unrestricted use and termination of the NRC license. The licensee requested this action in a letter dated February 27, 2007. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA)in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the **Federal Register** . II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would approve the Licensee's February 27, 2007, license amendment request, resulting in release of the Facility for unrestricted use and termination of its NRC materials license. License No. 04-29022-01 was issued on January 23, 1991, pursuant to 10 CFR part 30, and has been amended periodically since that time. The license authorized the Licensee to use unsealed byproduct material for laboratory tracer studies. The license allowed the Licensee to use radioactive material at both the Southwest Fisheries Science Center and on any NOAA research ship (or any other ship with an agreement with NOAA) at temporary jobsites at sea. The Southwest Fisheries Science Center is located in a commercial area. Within the Facility, use of licensed materials was confined to one room in the building. During 2005, the Licensee ceased licensed activities and initiated a survey and decontamination of the Facility. The license also required the Licensee to certify the decontamination of every research ship upon completion of each research project using radioactive material. Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of the Facility, the Licensee determined that only routine decontamination activities, in accordance with their radiation safety procedures, were required. The Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC. The Licensee conducted surveys of the Facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release and license termination. Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities at the Facility and seeks the unrestricted use of its Facility and the termination of its NRC materials license. Termination of its license would end the Licensee's obligation to pay annual license fees to the NRC. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows that such activities involved the use of one radionuclide with a half-life of greater than 120 days: carbon-14. Prior to performing the final status survey, the Licensee conducted decontamination activities, as necessary, in the areas of the Facility affected by these radionuclides. The Licensee conducted a final status survey during January 2007. This survey covered the remaining room (D-229) where radioactive material had been used and stored. The final status survey report was attached to the Licensee's amendment request dated February 27, 2007. The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Volume 2. The Licensee elected to use a fraction of the radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), developed by the NRC, which comply with the dose criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These DCGLs define the maximum amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, and materials and in soils that will satisfy the NRC requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. The Licensee's final status survey results were below these DCGLs, and are thus acceptable. Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). Further, no incidents were recorded involving spills or releases of radioactive material at the Facility. Accordingly, there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material at the Facility. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the final status survey report to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment surrounding the Facility. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified. The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility for unrestricted use and the termination of the NRC materials license is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC has found no other activities in the area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts. Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the Facility and concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action Alternatives to the proposed action discussed below are:
(1)The no-action alternative; or
(2)require the Licensee to take some alternate action. 1. *No-action Alternative:* As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff could leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. Additionally, this denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered. 2. *Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2:* A second alternative to the proposed action would be to deny the Licensee's request and instead apply alternate release criteria pursuant to either 10 CFR 20.1403 (criteria for license termination under restricted release) or 10 CFR 20.1404 (alternate criteria for license termination). However, the NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey data confirmed that the Facility meets the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. Accordingly, the NRC finds that choosing this second alternative to the proposed action is not reasonable, and this alternative is eliminated from further consideration. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this EA to the California Department of Health Services for review on August 22, 2007. No comments were received from the State of California. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers. 1. **Federal Register** Notice, Volume 65, No. 114, page 37186, dated Tuesday, June 13, 2000, “Use of Screening Values to Demonstrate Compliance With The Federal Rule on Radiological Criteria for License Termination”; 2. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination”; 3. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions”; 4. NUREG-1496, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities,” July 1997 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385); 5. NUREG-1757, Volume 1, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Revision 2, September 2006 (ML063000243); 6. NUREG-1757, Volume 2, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Revision 1, September 2006 (ML063000252); 7. Bartoo, Norm W., “NRC Radioactive Materials License #04-2902201” (Notification of Intent to Terminate License), January 11, 2007 (ML070390552); and 8. Fox, William W., “NRC Radioactive Materials License #04-29022-01” (Submission of Final Status Survey Report), February 27, 2007 (ML070710043). If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Region IV Office this 11th day of October 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jack E. Whitten, Chief, Nuclear Materials Safety Branch B, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV. [FR Doc. E7-20739 Filed 10-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-354] PSEG Nuclear, LLC; Hope Creek Generating Station Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment
(EA)as its evaluation of a request by the PSEG Nuclear, LLC
(PSEG)for license amendments to increase the maximum thermal power at Hope Creek Generating Station
(HCGS)from 3,339 megawatts-thermal
(MWt)to 3,840 MWt. The EA assesses environmental impacts up to a maximum thermal power level of 3,952 MWt, as the applicant's environmental report was based on that power level. As stated in the NRC staff's position paper dated February 8, 1996, on the Boiling-Water Reactor
(BWR)Extended Power Uprate
(EPU)Program, the NRC staff would prepare an environmental impact statement if it believes a power uprate would have a significant impact on the human environment. The NRC staff did not identify any significant impact from the information provided in the licensee's EPU application for HCGS or from the NRC staff's independent review; therefore, the NRC staff is documenting its environmental review in an EA. The draft EA and Finding of No Significant Impact are being published in the **Federal Register** with a 30-day public comment period. Environmental Assessment Plant Site and Environs HCGS is located on the southern part of Artificial Island, on the east bank of the Delaware River, in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. While called Artificial Island, the site is actually connected to the mainland of New Jersey by a strip of tideland, formed by hydraulic fill from dredging operations on the Delaware River by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The site is 15 miles south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, 18 miles south of Wilmington, Delaware, 30 miles southwest of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and 7.5 miles southwest of Salem, New Jersey. The station is located on a 300-acre site. The site is located in the southern region of the Delaware River Valley, which is defined as the area immediately adjacent to the Delaware River and extending from Trenton to Cape May Point, New Jersey, on the eastern side, and from Morrisville, Pennsylvania, to Lewes, Delaware, on the western side. This region is characterized by extensive tidal marshlands and low-lying meadowlands. Most land in this area is undeveloped. A great deal of land adjacent to the Delaware River, near the site, is public land, owned by the Federal and State governments. The main access to the plant is from a road constructed by PSEG. This road connects with Alloways Creek Neck Road, about 2.5 miles, east of the site. Access to the plant site and all activities thereon are under the control of PSEG. Identification of the Proposed Action HCGS is a single unit plant that employs a General Electric BWR that was designed to operate at a rated core thermal power of 3,339 MWt, at 100-percent steam flow, with a turbine-generated rating of approximately 1,139 megawatts-electric (MWe). In 1984, NRC issued operating license NPF-57 to HCGS, authorizing operation up to a maximum power level of 3,293 MWt. In 2001, NRC authorized a license amendment for a 1.4 percent power uprate from 3,293 MWt to 3,339 MWt and issued an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Increase in Allowable Thermal Power Level (NRC 2001). By letter dated September 18, 2006, PSEG proposed an amendment to the operating license for HCGS, to increase the maximum thermal power level by approximately 15 percent, from 3,339 MWt to 3,840 MWt. The change is considered an EPU because it would raise the reactor core power levels more than 7 percent above the originally licensed maximum power level. According to the licensee, the proposed action would involve installation of a higher efficiency turbine and an increase in the heat output of the reactor. This would increase turbine inlet flow requirements and increase the heat dissipated by the condenser to support increased turbine exhaust steam flow requirements. In the turbine portion of the heat cycle, increases in the turbine throttle pressure and steam flow would result in a small increase in the heat rejected to the cooling tower and the temperature of the water being discharged into the Delaware River. In addition, there would be an increase in the particulate air emission and an increase in the contaminants that are in the blowdown water discharge. The Need for the Proposed Action PSEG
(2005)evaluated the need for additional electrical generation capacity in its service area for the planning period of 2002-2011. Information provided by the North American Electric Reliability Council showed that, in order to meet projected demands, generating capacity must be increased by at least 2 percent per year for the Mid-Atlantic Area Council and the PJM Interconnection, LLC (PSEG 2005). Such demand increase would exceed PSEG's capacity to generate electricity for its customers. PSEG determined that a combination of increased power generation and purchase of power from the electrical grid would be needed to meet the projected demands. Increasing the generating capacity at HCGS was estimated to provide lower-cost power than can be purchased on the current and projected energy market. In addition, increasing nuclear generating capacity would lessen the need to depend on fossil fuel alternatives that are subject to unpredictable cost fluctuations and increasing environmental costs. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action At the time of issuance of the operating license for HCGS, the NRC staff noted that any activity authorized by the license would be encompassed by the overall action evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement
(FES)for the operation of HCGS that was issued by the NRC in December 1984 (NRC 1984). This EA summarizes the non-radiological and radiological impacts that may result from the proposed action. Non-Radiological Impacts Land Use Impacts The potential impacts associated with land use (including aesthetics and historic and archaeological resources) include impacts from construction and plant modifications at HCGS. While some plant components would be modified, most plant changes related to the proposed EPU would occur within existing structures, buildings, and fenced equipment yards housing major components within the developed part of the site. No new construction would occur, and no expansion of buildings, roads, parking lots, equipment storage areas, or transmission facilities would be required to support the proposed EPU (PSEG 2005). Existing parking lots, road access, offices, workshops, warehouses, and restrooms would be used during construction and plant modifications. Therefore, land use would not change at HCGS. In addition, there would be no land use changes along transmission lines (no new lines would be required for the proposed EPU), transmission corridors, switchyards, or substations. Because land use conditions would not change at HCGS and because any disturbance would occur within previously disturbed areas, there would be no impact to aesthetic resources and historic and archeological resources in the vicinity of HCGS (PSEG 2005). The Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)was promulgated to encourage and assist States and territories in developing management programs that preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, restore the resources of the coastal zone. A “coastal zone” is generally described as the coastal waters and the adjacent shore lands strongly influenced by each other. This includes islands, transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, beaches, and Great Lakes waters. Activities of Federal agencies that are reasonably likely to affect coastal zones shall be consistent with the approved coastal management program
(CMP)of the State or territory to the maximum extent practical. The CZMA provisions apply to all actions requiring Federal approval (new plant licenses, license renewals, materials licenses, and major amendments to existing licenses) that affect the coastal zone in a State or territory with a Federally approved CMP. On April 23, 2007, PSEG submitted an application requesting the State of New Jersey to perform the Federal consistency determination in accordance with CZMA. On July 3, 2007, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Land Use Regulation Program, acting under Section 307 of the Federal Coastal Management Act, agreed with the certification that the EPU is consistent with the approved New Jersey Coastal Management Program. The impacts of continued operation of HCGS under EPU conditions are bounded by the evaluation in the FES for operation (NRC 1984). Therefore, the potential impacts to land use, aesthetics, and historic and archaeological resources from the proposed EPU would not be significant. Cooling Tower Impacts HCGS has one natural draft cooling tower that is currently used to reduce the heat output to the environment. The potential impacts associated with cooling tower operation under the proposed EPU could affect aesthetics, salt drift deposition, noise, fogging or icing, wildlife, and particulate emissions. The proposed EPU would not result in significant changes to aesthetics such as cooling tower plume dimension at HCGS. Atmospheric emissions from the natural draft cooling tower consist primarily of waste heat and water vapor resulting in persistent cloudlike plumes. The size of the cooling tower plume depends on the meteorological conditions such as temperature, dew point, and relative humidity. For the proposed EPU, NRC does not anticipate any change in the dimension of the plume under equivalent meteorological conditions as evaluated in the FES. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no significant aesthetic impacts associated with HCGS cooling tower operation for the proposed action. Native, exotic, and agricultural plant productivity may be adversely affected by the increased salt concentration in the drift deposited directly on soils or directly on foliage. FES has indicated that the salt drift deposition must be above 90 lbs/acre/year before agriculture plant productivity would be reduced. PSEG has estimated that the proposed EPU would not significantly increase the rate of salt drift deposition from the increase in cooling tower operation. PSEG has estimated that the increase in salt drift deposition rate would be 9 percent to a maximum of 0.109 lbs/acre/year. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no significant salt drift deposition impacts associated with HCGS cooling tower operation for the proposed action. Because the HCGS cooling tower is natural draft, no increase in noise is expected. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no significant noise impacts associated with HCGS cooling tower operation for the proposed action. PSEG has indicated that there would be no significant increase in fogging or icing expected for the proposed EPU. Increased ground-level fogging and icing resulting from water droplets in the cooling tower drift may interfere with highway traffic. The 1984 FES evaluated the impacts of fogging and icing associated with the operation of the natural draft cooling tower at HCGS and found these impacts to be insignificant and inconsequential. The fact that the nearest agricultural or residential land is located several miles from the site further minimizes the potential for impact. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no significant fogging or icing impacts associated with HCGS cooling tower operation for the proposed action. The 1984 FES has stated that although some birds may collide with cooling tower, unpublished surveys at existing cooling towers indicated that the number would be relatively small. The proposed EPU would not increase the risk of wildlife colliding with cooling tower. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no significant wildlife impacts associated with HCGS cooling tower operation for the proposed action. The proposed EPU would increase the particulates emission rate from the HCGS cooling tower, from the current rate of 29.4 pounds per hour (lbs/hr) to an average rate of 35.6 lbs/hr (maximum 42.0 lbs/hr). Particulates (primarily salts) from the cooling tower have an aerodynamic particle size of less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The NJDEP has imposed a maximum hourly emission rate for particulates at 30 lbs/hr. Therefore, the projected particulate emission rate from the HCGS cooling tower, due to the proposed EPU, would exceed the NJDEP emission regulatory limit. On March 30, 2007, NJDEP issued a Public Notice and Draft Title V Air Operating Permit for the HCGS cooling tower, proposing to authorize a variance to the HCGS air operating permit with an hourly emission rate of 42 lbs/hr (NJDEP 2007a). On June 13, 2007, NJDEP issued the final Title V Air Operating Permit for HCGS allowing a 42 lbs/hr particulate emission rate for the proposed EPU. Since particulates from HCGS cooling tower consist primarily of salts with particle size of less than 10 microns, the FES evaluated the environmental impacts on air quality and found the impacts to be minor. Furthermore, a prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD)non-applicability analysis was submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)Region 2, by PSEG on March 4, 2004. Based on the information provided by PSEG, EPA concluded that the EPU project would not result in a significant increase in emissions and would not be subject to PSD review (NJDEP 2007a). In addition, NJDEP has stated that the Bureau of Technical Services reviewed the Air Quality Modeling for the proposed Hope Creek uprate project and determined that the project would meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the New Jersey Ambient Air Quality Standards. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no significant particulate emission impacts associated with HCGS cooling tower operation for the proposed action. Transmission Facility Impacts The potential impacts associated with transmission facilities include changes in transmission line right-of-way
(ROW)maintenance and electric shock hazards due to increased current. The proposed EPU would not require any physical modifications to the transmission lines. PSEG's transmission line ROW maintenance practices, including the management of vegetation growth, would not change. PSEG did not provide an estimate of the increase in the operating voltage due to the EPU. Based on experience from EPUs at other plants, the NRC staff concludes that the increase in the operating voltage would be negligible. Because the voltage would not change significantly, there would be no significant change in the potential for electric shock. Modifications to onsite transmission equipment are necessary to support the EPU; such changes include replacement of the high- and low-pressure turbines, and the replacement of the main transformer (PSEG 2005). No long-term environmental impacts from these replacements are anticipated. The proposed EPU would increase the current, which would affect the electromagnetic field. The National Electric Safety Code
(NESC)provides design criteria that limit hazards from steady-state currents. The NESC limits the short-circuit current to the ground to less than 5 milliamperes. There would be an increase in current passing through the transmission lines associated with the increased power level of the proposed EPU. The increased electrical current passing through the transmission lines would cause an increase in electromagnetic field strength. However, since the increase in power level is approximately 15 percent, the impact of exposure to electromagnetic fields from the offsite transmission lines would not be expected to increase significantly over the current impact. The transmission lines meet the applicable shock prevention provision of the NESC. Therefore, even with the slight increase in current attributable to the EPU, adequate protection is provided against hazards from electrical shock. The 1984 FES evaluated bird mortality resulting from collision with towers and conductors. The FES has estimated that only 0.07 percent of the mortality of waterfowls from causes other than hunting resulted from collision with towers and conductors at HCGS. Because the proposed EPU does not require physical modifications to the transmission line system, the additional impacts of bird mortality would be minimal. The impacts associated with transmission facilities for the proposed action would not change significantly relative to the impacts from current plant operation. There would be no physical modifications to the transmission lines, transmission line ROW maintenance practices would not change, there would be no changes to transmission line ROW or vertical ground clearances, and electric current passing through the transmission lines would increase only slightly. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes there would be no significant impacts associated with transmission facilities for the proposed action. Water Use Impacts Potential water use impacts from the proposed EPU include localized effects on the Delaware Estuary and changes to plant water supply. HCGS is located on the eastern shore of the Delaware Estuary. The estuary is approximately 2.5 miles wide, and the tidal flow past HCGS is approximately 259,000 million gallons per day
(MGD)(NRC 2001). The Delaware Estuary is the source of cooling water for the HCGS circulating water system, a closed-cycle system that utilizes a natural draft cooling tower. During normal plant operations, water usage at HCGS accounts for less than 0.03 percent of the average tidal flow of the Delaware Estuary (PSEG 2005). HCGS's service water system withdraws approximately 67 MGD from the Delaware Estuary for cooling and makeup water. When estuary water temperature is less than 70 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), two pumps operate to supply an average service water flow rate of approximately 37,000 gallon per minute (gpm). When estuary water temperature is greater than 70 °F, three pumps operate to supply an average service water flow rate of approximately 52,000 gpm (Najarian Associates 2004). Estuary water is delivered to the cooling tower basin and acts primarily as makeup water to the circulating water system—replacing 47 MGD that are returned to the estuary as cooling tower blowdown, and depending upon meteorological conditions and the circulating water flow rate, replacing approximately 10-13 MGD of cooling water that are lost through evaporation from the cooling tower. Approximately 7 MGD of the 67 MGD are used for intake screen wash water and strainer backwash. The circulating water system has an operating capacity of 11 million gallons; however, approximately 9 million gallons of water actually reside in the circulating water system at any given time. Water is re-circulated through the condensers at a rate of approximately 550,000 gpm (PSEG 2005). No changes to the HCGS circulating water or service water systems are expected due to the proposed EPU; therefore, the proposed EPU would not increase the amount of water withdrawn from or discharged to the Delaware Estuary. Consumptive use of surface water by HCGS is not expected to change substantively as a result of the proposed EPU and is regulated by the Delaware River Basin Commission
(DRBC)through a water use contract. The proposed EPU would likely result in a small increase in cooling tower blowdown temperature. To mitigate this temperature increase, PSEG has modified its cooling tower to improve its thermal performance, and as discussed in the following section, thermal discharge to the Delaware Estuary would remain within the regulatory limits set by the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permit granted to HCGS by NJDEP (PSEG 2005; NJDEP 2002). Two groundwater wells access the Raritan aquifer to provide domestic and process water to HCGS. The wells are permitted by NJDEP and are also regulated by DRBC. The proposed EPU would not increase the use of groundwater by HCGS or change the limits of groundwater use currently set by DRBC (PSEG 2005). As such, the conclusions in the 1984 FES regarding groundwater use at HCGS would remain valid for the proposed EPU. The proposed EPU would not increase the amount of surface water withdrawn from the Delaware Estuary and groundwater use at HCGS would not increase. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes the proposed EPU would have negligible water use impacts on the estuary. Discharge Impacts Potential impacts to a water body from power plant discharge include increased turbidity, scouring, erosion, sedimentation, contamination, and water temperature. Because the proposed EPU would not increase the amount of cooling tower blowdown discharged to the Delaware Estuary, turbidity, scouring, erosion, and sedimentation would not be expected to significantly impact the estuary. Additionally, the proposed EPU would not introduce any new contaminants to the Delaware Estuary and would not significantly increase any potential contaminants that are presently regulated by the station's NJPDES permit. The concentration of total dissolved solids
(TDS)in the cooling tower blowdown would increase due to the increased rate of evaporation; however, the amount of blowdown discharged to the estuary would decrease, and the concentration of TDS would remain within the station's NJPDES permit limits. Although the amount of water withdrawn from the Delaware Estuary would remain unchanged, the proposed EPU would result in a slight increase in the temperature of the cooling tower blowdown discharged to the estuary. The station's NJPDES permit imposes limits on the temperature of the blowdown and the amount of heat rejected to the estuary by the HCGS circulating water system. The NJDES permit specifies that the 24-hour average maximum blowdown temperature is limited to 97.1 °F, and heat rejection is limited to 662 million British thermal units per hour (MBTU/hr) from September 1 through May 31 and 534 MBTU/hr from June 1 through August 31. DRBC also imposes thermal regulations on HCGS through the NJPDES permit, specifying that the net temperature increase of the Delaware Estuary may not exceed 4 °F from September through May, and 1.5 °F from June through August or estuary water temperature may not exceed a maximum of 86 °F, whichever is less. These limitations apply to waters outside of the heat dissipation area, which extends 2,500 feet upstream and downstream of the discharge point and 1,500 feet offshore from the discharge point. The NJPDES permit provides an exception for occasional excess blowdown temperatures during extreme meteorological conditions (a coincident occurrence of a wet-bulb temperature above 76 °F and relative humidity below 60 percent); however, the net temperature limitations may never be exceeded (Najarian Associates 2004). The 1984 FES concluded that the station's shoreline discharge would not adversely affect the estuary because of its large tidal influence, which would dilute, mix, and rapidly dissipate the heated effluent (PSEG 2005). Hydrothermal modeling conducted for the proposed EPU determined that, even during extreme meteorological conditions, the post-EPU increase in cooling tower blowdown temperature would not exceed 91.7 °F, and the station would continue to comply with all applicable Delaware Estuary water quality standards set by the station's NJPDES permit and DRBC (Najarian Associates 2004). In addition to setting thermal discharge limits, the NJPDES permit also regulates all surface and wastewater discharges from the station. The NJPDES permit, effective March 1, 2003, regulates discharge from six outfalls at HCGS, including the cooling tower blowdown, low volume oily wastewater, stormwater, and sewage treatment; these discharges ultimately flow to the Delaware Estuary. As required by the NJPDES permit, in addition to temperature, cooling tower blowdown is monitored for flow, pH, chlorine produced oxidants (CPOs), total suspended solids, TDS, and total organic carbon. HCGS operates a dechlorination system that utilizes ammonium bisulfate to reduce CPOs in the blowdown. Furthermore, acute and chronic biological toxicity tests were routinely performed on cooling tower blowdown from 1998 through 2001 to comply with NJDEP non-toxicity regulations (PSEG 2005). The NJPDES permit sets monitoring, sampling, and reporting requirements for all HCGS discharges. A search of the NJDEP *Open Public Records Act Datamine* online database revealed no water quality violations for HCGS (NJDEP 2007). With the exception of increased blowdown temperature and TDS concentration, as discussed above, the proposed EPU would not be expected to alter the composition or volume of any other effluents, including stormwater drainage, oily water, and sewage treatment (PSEG 2005). Blowdown temperature and composition, and Delaware Estuary water temperatures would remain in compliance with the station's NJPDES permit, and the proposed EPU would not result in changes in any other effluents to the estuary. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed EPU would result in negligible impacts on the Delaware Estuary from HCGS discharge. Impacts on Aquatic Biota The potential impacts to aquatic biota from the proposed action are primarily due to operation of the cooling water system and to maintenance of transmission line ROWs. Cooling water withdrawal affects aquatic populations through impingement of larger individuals (e.g., fish, some crustaceans, turtles) on the intake trash bars and debris screens and entrainment of smaller organisms that pass through the screens into the cooling water system. The proposed action would not change the volume or rate of cooling water withdrawn. Most of the additional heat generated under the proposed EPU would be dissipated by the cooling tower, and PSEG proposes no changes to the cooling water system. Discharge of heated effluent alters natural thermal and current regimes and can induce thermal shock in aquatic organisms. The HCGS effluent would change under the proposed EPU. Because the volume of makeup water withdrawn from the estuary would remain unchanged and the volume of evaporative loss from the cooling tower would increase, the volume of the blowdown released as effluent, which is the difference between the water withdrawn and the water lost to evaporation, would decrease. The increased evaporation would leave behind more solids in the blowdown, so the concentration of TDS in the effluent would be an average of about 9 percent higher than under current operations (Najarian Associates 2004). The effluent would also be somewhat warmer, but modeling predicts that all present NJPDES permit conditions for the effluent would still be met (Najarian Associates 2004). PSEG proposes no new transmission line ROWs and no change in current maintenance procedures for transmission line ROWs under the proposed EPU, so this potential source of impact will not be considered further for aquatic resources. The potential receptors of the environmental stressors of impingement, entrainment, and heat shock are the aquatic communities in the Delaware Estuary near HCGS. Ecologists typically divide such communities into the following categories for convenience when considering ecological impacts of power plants: Microbes, phytoplankton, submerged aquatic vegetation, invertebrate zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, fish, and sometimes birds, reptiles (e.g., sea turtles), and marine mammals. Of these, effects of power plant operation have been consistently demonstrated only for fish. Unless otherwise noted, the following information on Delaware Estuary fish and blue crab ( *Callinectes sapidus* ) is from information summarized in the 2006 Salem NJPDES Permit Application (NJDEP 2006). Salem is an adjacent nuclear power plant that has conducted several large studies in support of permitting of its once-through cooling water system. About 200 species of fish have been reported from the Delaware Estuary. Some are resident, some are seasonal migrants, and some are occasional strays. In its NJPDES Permit Application, PSEG selected 11 species, one invertebrate and ten fish, as species representative of the aquatic community (Table 1). Table 1.—Species Representative of the Delaware Estuary Aquatic Community Near Artificial Island Common name Scientific name Comment Blue Crab *Callinectes sapidus* Swimming crab, abundant in the estuary. Recreational and commercial species. Alewife *Alosa pseudoharengus* Anadromous herring; abundant in the estuary. American Shad *Alosa sapidissima* Anadromous herring; abundant in the estuary. Recreational and commercial species. Atlantic Croaker *Micropogonias undulatus* Drum family. Delaware Estuary stock may be single population. Recreational and commercial species. Atlantic Menhaden *Brevoortia tyrannus* Herring. Larvae and juveniles use the estuary as a nursery. Commercial species. Atlantic Silverside *Menidia menidia* Resident in intertidal marsh creeks and shore zones. Bay Anchovy *Anchoa mitchelli* Common in the bay and tidal river zones. Blueback Herring *Alosa aestivalis* Anadromous herring; abundant in the estuary. Spot *Leiostomus xanthurus* Drum family. Juveniles use the estuary as a nursery. Recreational and commercial species. Striped Bass *Morone saxatilis* Anadromous temperate bass. Recreational and commercial species. Weakfish *Cynoscion regalis* Drum family. Larvae and juveniles use the estuary as nursery. Recreational and commercial species. White Perch *Morone americana* Temperate bass. Year-round residents anadromous within estuary. Recreational species. Source: NJDEP 2006. HCGS is located in the Delaware Estuary between the Delaware River upstream and the wide Delaware Bay downstream. Estuaries are drowned river valleys where fresh water from rivers mixes with the higher salinity water of the ocean and bays. In estuaries, salinity and water temperature may change with season, tides, and meteorological conditions. Typically, few species are resident in an estuary all of their lives, perhaps because surviving the wide variations in salinity and temperature poses physiological challenges to fish and invertebrates. The predominant resident fish species in the Delaware Estuary are hogchoker ( *Trinectes maculatus* ), white perch ( *Morone americana* ), bay anchovy ( *Anchoa mitchelli* ), Atlantic and tidewater silversides ( *Menidia menidia* and *M. peninsulae,* respectively), naked goby ( *Gobiosoma bosc* ), and mummichog ( *Fundulus heteroclitus* ). Resident fish species are represented by Atlantic silversides, bay anchovy, and white perch (Table 1). Atlantic silversides are relatively small common fish that inhabit intertidal creeks and shore zones. They mature in less than a year and seldom live beyond 2 years. Although there may be no discernable long-term trend in abundance in the Delaware Estuary, the short-term trend appears to be decreasing abundance. Bay anchovy may be the most abundant species in the estuary. This small fish overwinters in deep areas of the lower estuary and near-shore coastal zone. Though bay anchovies tend to stay in the lower part of the estuary, they stray as far north as Trenton. They tend to mature in the summer following their birth. Typically two spawning peaks occur, one in late May and one in mid-July, although some spawning occurs all summer. Most spawning occurs where salinity exceeds 20 parts per thousand (ppt), but some spawning may occur throughout the estuary. Although no long-term trend in abundance is evident, abundance since the mid-1990s appears to be declining. White perch are found throughout the brackish portions of the estuary. They are anadromous within the estuary (“semi-anadromous”), meaning that they undergo a seasonal migration from the deeper, more saline areas where they overwinter in fresh, shallow waters in the spring to spawn and then return to more brackish waters. They typically mature in 2 to 3 years. The abundance of white perch in the Delaware Estuary appears to be stable or increasing, possibly in response to long-term improvements in water quality. Adult blue crabs are resident macro-invertebrates in the Delaware Estuary, although their larvae are not. After mating in shallow brackish areas of the upper estuary in spring, adult females migrate to the mouth of the bay. The eggs, which are extruded and carried on the undersides of females, hatch typically in the warm (77-86 °F), high salinity (18-26 ppt) waters of the lower bay in summer. After hatching, the larvae pass through seven planktonic stages, called zoeae, and move offshore with near-shore surface currents. The first post-larval stage, called a megalops, uses wind-driven currents and tides to move inshore. They then metamorphose to the first crab stage and move up the estuary. Adult male crabs do not migrate from the upper estuary. Crabs typically mature when 1 or 2 years old. Between 1980 and 2004, blue crab abundance in the Delaware Estuary appears to have increased. Anadromous species live their adult lives at sea and migrate into fresh water to spawn. The most common anadromous fish species in the Delaware Estuary are alewife ( *Alosa pseudoharengus* ), American shad ( *A. sapidissima* ), blueback herring ( *A. aestivalis* ), and striped bass ( *Morone saxatilis* ), of which the first three are members of the herring family. The endangered shortnose sturgeon ( *Acipenser brevirostrum* ) is also anadromous. The ecology of the three herrings is similar, as is their appearance. All use the estuary as spawning and nursery habitat. All migrate to fresh water in the spring and are believed to return to their natal streams to spawn. The newly hatched larvae are planktonic and move downstream with the current. Juveniles remain in freshwater nursery areas throughout the summer and migrate to sea in the fall. They then remain at sea until maturity and migrate along the coast. Alewife have become more abundant since 1980, although the trend since 1990 is unclear. Abundance of American shad in the Delaware Estuary drastically declined in the early 1900s due to poor water quality, dam construction, over-fishing, and habitat destruction. American shad began to recover in the 1960s and 1980s and appears to be recovering still. No trends are evident in blueback herring abundance. Striped bass is a fairly large member of the temperate bass family, which also includes white perch. Adult striped bass, which may reach weights of over 100 pounds, migrate up the estuary to fresh and brackish waters in the spring to spawn and are believed to return to their natal rivers and streams for spawning. The newly hatched larvae are planktonic and move downstream with the current. Small juveniles use fresh and brackish areas as nurseries, and larger juveniles use the higher salinity waters of the lower estuary as feeding grounds. Adult striped bass live at sea and the lower estuary and migrate along the coast. Like American shad, the striped bass population in the Delaware Estuary declined prior to the 1980s but is now recovering. The most common marine species that use the estuary include weakfish ( *Cynoscion regalis* ), spot ( *Leiostomus xanthurus* ), Atlantic croaker ( *Micropogonias undulatus* ), bluefish ( *Pomatomus saltatrix* ), summer flounder ( *Paralichthys dentatas* ), and Atlantic menhaden ( *Brevoortia tyrannus* ). Four of these, weakfish, spot, Atlantic croaker, and Atlantic menhaden, are shown as representative in Table 1. Atlantic croaker, spot, and weakfish are members of the drum family. Adult Atlantic croaker inhabit the deep, open areas of the lower bay from late spring through mid-fall. They spawn from July through April along the continental shelf. Larval Atlantic croaker first move with the currents and later move to the shallow areas of the bay. Juveniles use the shallow areas and tidal creeks in fresh and brackish water as nurseries, but move into deeper water during colder periods. They mature at about 2 to 4 years of age. Abundance of Atlantic croaker in the Delaware Estuary has been increasing since the early 1990s. Spot spawn over the continental shelf from late September through April. Larvae live in the ocean then move to the Bay. The young juveniles move upstream into tidal creeks and tributaries with low salinity. Like Atlantic croaker, spot move into deeper water during colder periods. Spot mature at 1 to 3 years old. Abundance of spot appears to be negatively related to the abundance of Atlantic croaker and has been decreasing. Weakfish spawn in the mouth of Delaware Bay in mid-May through mid-September, and after hatching, the larvae move up into the estuary to nursery areas of lower salinity (3 to 15 ppt). In mid-to-late summer they move south to mesohaline nursery grounds, and as temperatures decline in fall, the juveniles move south from the nursery areas to the continental shelf and south. They mature at an age of 1 or 2 years. Abundance of weakfish in the Delaware Estuary appear to have increased from the 1970s to 1990s and then declined. Atlantic menhaden is a pelagic species that overwinters on the shelf, and large numbers overwinter off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The population moves north along the coast in the spring and south in the fall. The populations spawn all year, and peak spawning occurs off the Delaware Bay in spring and fall. The larvae move by wind-driven currents into estuarine nursery grounds, where they transform to juveniles and move upstream to oligohaline waters and then move out the estuary with falling temperatures. In the fall, they congregate into dense schools and move out of the estuary and south along the coast. Atlantic menhaden mature at about age two. No trend in abundance in the Delaware Estuary is apparent. While the identity of species potentially affected by entrainment, impingement, and heat shock may be inferred from ecological information about the Delaware Estuary, the species affected cannot be verified, and the numbers cannot be quantified because no environmental monitoring programs are conducted at the HCGS. Impinged organisms are most likely to die, and the fish-return system does not function continuously to minimize mortality. All organisms entrained at HCGS, which operates a cooling tower, are probably killed from exposure to heat, mechanical, pressure-related stresses, and possibly biocidal chemicals before being discharged to the estuary. The NRC staff found few data with which to assess impacts to aquatic organisms due to operation of HCGS. Under the proposed EPU, water withdrawal rates would not change from present conditions. Entrainment and impingement impacts may change over time due to changes in the aquatic populations even though HCGS's water withdrawal rate would not change from present conditions. Impacts due to impingement and entrainment losses are minimized because the closed-cycle cooling system at the plant minimizes the amount of cooling water withdrawn from and heated effluent returned to the estuary. The water quality of the effluent (e.g., temperature, toxicity, TDS concentrations) would continue to meet present NJPDES permit conditions for protection of aquatic life. The staff concludes that the proposed EPU would have no significant impact to aquatic biota. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(MSA)identifies the importance of habitat protection to healthy fisheries. Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH)is defined as those waters and substrata necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801, *et seq.* ). Designating EFH is an essential component in the development of Fishery Management Plans to minimize habitat loss or degradation of fishery stocks and to take actions to mitigate such damage. The consultation requirements of Section 305(b) of the MSA provide that Federal agencies consult with the Secretary of Commerce on all actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. An EFH assessment for the proposed EPU was sent to the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)under separate cover to initiate an EFH consultation. Impacts on Terrestrial Biota The potential impacts to terrestrial biota from the proposed action would be those from transmission line ROW maintenance. Under EPU conditions, PSEG does not plan to change transmission line maintenance or add new transmission lines. In addition, PSEG does not plan to conduct major refurbishment of significant land-disturbing activities in order to implement the proposed EPU. Because no changes are planned that have the potential to impact terrestrial biota, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed EPU would have no impacts to terrestrial biota associated with transmission line ROW maintenance. Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat In a letter dated December 8, 2006, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1969, as amended, the NRC requested from the NMFS a list of species and information on protected, proposed, and candidate species and critical habitat that are under their jurisdiction and may be in the vicinity of HCGS and its associated transmission lines. In response, NMFS issued a letter dated January 26, 2007, that provided information on the endangered shortnose sturgeon; Atlantic sturgeon ( *Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus* ), a candidate species for listing; and five species of endangered or threatened sea turtles: Loggerhead ( *Caretta caretta* ), Kemp's ridley ( *Lepidochelys kempii* ), leatherback ( *Dermochelys coriacea* ), green ( *Chelonia mydas* ), and hawksbill ( *Eretmochelys imbricata* ) turtles. The NRC staff investigated the effects of HCGS operation on these species and found that the primary concern for these endangered and threatened species is the risk of impingement or entrainment due to cooling water intake by the plant. The proposed EPU would not change the intake flow, and, therefore, would not increase in the risk of impingement and entrainment. To dissipate the additional heat created by the EPU, the temperature of the plant's cooling water discharge would be slightly elevated, but still within the NJPDES 24-hour average temperature limit of 97.1 °F. In addition, HCGS has had no takes of any of the endangered or threatened species listed above. Therefore, the NRC staff anticipates no effects related to the intake or discharge on threatened or endangered species under NMFS's jurisdiction, and on May 3, 2007, sent a letter to NMFS concluding the informal Section 7 consultation. Although an informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding bald eagles was initiated for the HCGS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisted bald eagles pursuant to the Endangered Species Act on July 9, 2007, and concluded the informal consultation. Socioeconomic Impacts The potential socioeconomic impacts due to the proposed EPU include changes in the payments in lieu of taxes for Lower Alloways Creek Township and Salem County and changes in the size of the workforce at HCGS. Nearly 70 percent of HCGS employees currently resides in Salem, Cumberland, and Gloucester Counties in New Jersey. The proposed EPU would not increase the size of the HCGS workforce, since proposed plant modifications and other planned activities would be handled by the current workforce or would be phased in during planned outages. Also, the proposed EPU would not increase the size of the HCGS workforce during future refueling outages. Therefore, the proposed EPU would not have any measurable effect on annual earnings and income in Salem, Cumberland, and Gloucester Counties nor would there be any increased demand for community services. According to the 2000 Census, Salem, Cumberland, and Gloucester County populations were about 20.4, 41.6, and 14.3 percent minority, respectively (USCB 2000). The percentages of minority populations residing in Salem and Gloucester Counties were well below the State minority population of 34.0 percent. In addition, the poverty rates for individuals living in Salem and Cumberland Counties were 9.5 and 15.0 percent, respectively, which were higher than the State's average of 8.5 percent (the Gloucester County poverty rate was 6.2 percent)(USCB 2000a). Even though these percentages are relatively high, the proposed EPU would not have any disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations, because no significant environmental impacts were identified during the analysis. The proposed EPU could affect the value of HCGS and the amount of monies paid to local jurisdictions, in-lieu-of-property tax payments, because the total amount of tax money to be distributed would increase as power generation increases and because the proposed EPU would increase HCGS's value, thus resulting in potentially larger payments to Lower Alloways Creek Township and Salem County. Also, because the proposed EPU would increase the economic viability of HCGS, the probability of early plant retirement would be reduced. Early plant retirement would have a negative impact on the local economy by reducing or eliminating payments to Lower Alloways Creek Township and Salem County and limiting employment opportunities in the region. Since the proposed EPU would not affect annual earnings and income in Salem County, nor demand for community services and due to the lack of significant environmental impacts on minority or low-income populations, there would be no significant socioeconomic or environmental justice impacts associated with the proposed EPU. Conversely, the proposed EPU could have a positive effect on the regional economy because of the potential increase in the payments in-lieu-of-taxes received by the Lower Alloways Creek Township and Salem County, due to the potential increase in the book value of HCGS and long-term viability of HCGS. Summary The proposed EPU would not result in a significant change in non-radiological impacts in the areas of land use, water use, waste discharges, cooling tower operation, terrestrial and aquatic biota, transmission facility operation, or socioeconomic factors. No other non-radiological impacts were identified or would be expected. Table 2 summarizes the non-radiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at HCGS. Table 2.—Summary of Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts Land Use No significant land use modifications; installed temporary office space to support EPU. Cooling Tower No significant aesthetic impact; no significant fogging or icing. Transmission Facilities No physical modifications to transmission lines or ROWs; lines meet shock safety requirements; small increase in electrical current would cause small increase in electromagnetic field around transmission lines. Water Use No configuration change to intake structure; no increase rate of withdrawal; slight increase in water consumption due to increased evaporation; no water use conflicts. Discharge Increase in water temperature and containment concentration discharged to Delaware River; would meet discharge limits in current NJPDES permit following EPU implementation. Aquatic Biota Entrainment and impingement losses may change over time due to changes in the aquatic population but are minimized because of the closed-cycle cooling system utilized at the plant. The water quality of the effluent would continue to meet NJPDES permit conditions for protection of aquatic life. EFH consultation ongoing. Terrestrial Biota No land disturbance or changes to transmission line ROW maintenance are expected; therefore, there would be no significant effects on terrestrial species or their habitat. Threatened and Endangered Species No significant impacts are expected on threatened or endangered species or their habitat. Informal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ongoing. Socioeconomic No change in the size of HCGS labor force required for plant operation and planned outages; proposed EPU could increase payments in-lieu-of-taxes to Lower Alloways Creek Township and Salem County as well as the book value of HCGS; there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Radiological Impacts The NRC staff evaluated radiological environmental impacts on waste streams, dose, accident analysis, and fuel cycle and transportation factors. Following is a general discussion of these issues and an evaluation of their environmental impacts. Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts HCGS uses waste treatment systems designed to collect, process, and dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that might contain radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner such that the discharges are in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR) Part 20, and Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. The licensee has indicated that operation at EPU conditions would not result in any changes in the operation or design of equipment in the radioactive waste solid waste, liquid waste, or gaseous waste management systems (GWMS). The safety and reliability of these systems would be unaffected by the power uprate. Neither the environmental monitoring of any of these waste streams nor the radiological monitoring requirements of the HCGS Technical Specifications and/or Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
(ODCM)would be affected by the EPU. Furthermore, the EPU would not introduce any new or different radiological release pathways, nor would it increase the probability of either an operator error or an equipment malfunction, that would result in an uncontrolled radioactive release (PSEG 2005). The EPU would produce a larger amount of fission and activation products; however, the waste treatment systems are designed to handle the additional source term. The specific effects on each of the radioactive waste management systems are evaluated below. Gaseous Radioactive Waste and Offsite Doses During normal operation, HCGS's GWMS processes and controls the release of gaseous radioactive effluents to the environment. The GWMS includes the off-gas system and various building ventilation systems. The radioactive release rate of the gaseous effluent is well monitored and administratively controlled by the HCGS ODCM (PSEG 2005). The single year highest annual releases of gaseous radioactive material, for the time period 2000-2004, were 6.30 Curies
(Ci)for noble gases in 2003, 0.0060 Ci for particulates in 2000, and 0.014 Ci for iodines in 2004 (PSEG 2005). The licensee has estimated that the amount of radioactive material released in gaseous effluents would increase in proportion to the increase in power level (15 percent) (PSEG 2005). Based on experience from EPUs at other plants, the NRC staff concludes that this is an acceptable estimate. The dose to a member of the public, including the additional gaseous radioactive material that would be released from the proposed EPU, is calculated to still be well within the radiation standards of 10 CFR Part 20 and the dose design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impact from the EPU would not be significant. Liquid Radioactive Waste and Offsite Doses During normal operation, HCGS's Liquid Waste Management System
(LWMS)processes and controls the release of liquid radioactive effluents to the environment, such that the doses to individuals offsite are maintained within the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. The LWMS is designed to process the waste and then recycles it within the plant as condensate, reprocesses it through the radioactive waste system for further purification, or discharges it to the environment as liquid radioactive waste effluent in accordance with facility procedures which comply with New Jersey and Federal regulations. The radioactive release rate of the liquid effluent is well monitored and administratively controlled by the HCGS ODCM (PSEG 2005). The single year highest annual releases of liquid radioactive material, for the time period 2000-2004, were 54,742,400 gallons (2.072E+8 liters) and 0.068 Ci of fission and activating products in 2003 (PSEG 2005). Even though the EPU would produce a larger amount of radioactive fission and activation products and a larger volume of liquid to be processed, the licensee expects the LWMS to remove all but a small amount of the increased radioactive material. The licensee has estimated that the volume of radioactive liquid effluents released to the environment and the amount of radioactive material in the liquid effluents would increase by 2.2 percent, due to the EPU. Based on experience from EPUs at other plants, the NRC staff concludes that this is an acceptable estimate. The dose to a member of the public, including the additional liquid radioactive material that would be released from the proposed EPU, is calculated to still be well within the radiation standards of 10 CFR part 20 and the dose design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impact from the EPU would not be significant. Solid Radioactive Waste and Offsite Doses During normal operation, HCGS's Solid Waste Management System
(SWMS)collects, processes, packages, and temporarily stores radioactive dry and wet solid wastes prior to shipment offsite and permanent disposal. The SWMS is designed to package the wet and dry types of radioactive solid waste for offsite shipment and burial, in accordance with the requirements of applicable NRC and Department of Transportation regulations, including 10 CFR part 61, 10 CFR part 71, and 49 CFR parts 170 through 178. This results in radiation exposures to a member of the public to be well within the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. The volume of solid radioactive waste generated varied from about 11.7 to almost 90.4 cubic meters per year for the time period 2000-2004; the largest volume generated was 90.4 cubic meters in 2002. The amount of solid radioactive material in the waste generated varied from 1 to almost 600 Ci per year during that same period. The largest amount of radioactive material generated in the solid waste was 591 Ci in 2001 (PSEG 2005). The EPU would produce a larger amount of radioactive fission and activation products, and treatment of this increase would require more frequent replacement or regeneration of SWMS filters and demineralizer resins. The licensee has estimated that the volume and radioactivity of solid radioactive waste would increase by approximately 14.7 percent from the average of the time period 2000-2004, due to the EPU (PSEG 2005). Based on experience from EPUs at other plants, the NRC staff concludes that this is an acceptable estimate. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impact from the increased volume of solid radwaste generated due to the EPU would not be significant. The licensee estimates that the EPU would require replacement of 10 percent more fuel assemblies at each refueling. This increase in the amount of spent fuel being generated would require an increase in the number of dry fuel storage casks used to store spent fuel. However, the current dry fuel storage facility at HCGS can accommodate the increase. Occupational Radiation Doses The proposed EPU would result in the production of more radioactive material and higher radiation dose rates in some areas at HCGS. PSEG's radiation protection staff will monitor these increased dose rates and make adjustments in shielding, access requirements, decontamination methods, and procedures as necessary to minimize the dose to workers. In addition, occupational dose to individual workers must be maintained within the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and as low as reasonably achievable. The licensee has estimated that after the implementation of EPU, the estimated annual average collective occupational dose would be in the range of 146 person-rem, representing a 16-percent increase of in-plant occupation exposure (PSEG 2005). According to the 2004 report on “Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities,” the highest HCGS occupational exposure is 240 person-rem in 2004, for the time period 2002-2004 (NUREG 2004). The dose to a member of HCGS personnel from the radiation exposures described above, increased by 20 percent, would still be well within the radiation standards of 10 CFR part 20. Based on experience from EPUs at other plants, the NRC staff concludes that these estimates are acceptable. Based on these estimates, the NRC staff concludes that the increase in occupational exposure would not be significant. Offsite Radiation Doses Offsite radiation dose consists of three components: Gaseous, liquid, and direct gamma radiation. As previously discussed under the Gaseous Radiological Wastes and Liquid Radiological Wastes sections, the estimated doses to a member of the public from gaseous and liquid effluents after the EPU is implemented would be within the dose design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. The final component of offsite dose is from direct gamma radiation dose from radioactive waste stored temporarily onsite, including spent fuel in dry cask storage, and radionuclides (mainly nitrogen-16) in the steam from the reactor passing through the turbine system. The high energy radiation from nitrogen-16 is scattered or reflected by the air above the site and represents an additional public radiation dose pathway known as “skyshine.” The licensee estimated that the offsite radiation dose from skyshine would increase linearly with the increase in power level from the EPU (15 percent); more nitrogen-16 is produced at the higher EPU power and less of the nitrogen-16 decays before it reaches the turbine system because of the higher rate of steam flow due to the EPU. The licensee's radiological environmental monitoring program measures radiation dose at the site boundary and in the area around the plant with an array of thermoluminescent dosimeters. The licensee estimated that the offsite radiation dose would increase to approximately 9.3 millirem (mrem), in proportion to the EPU power increase (15 percent) (PSEG 2005). Based on experience from EPUs at other plants, the NRC staff concludes that this is an acceptable estimate. EPA regulation 40 CFR part 190, and NRC regulation 10 CFR Part 20, limit the dose to any member of the public to 25 mrem per year to the whole body from the entire nuclear fuel cycle. The offsite dose from all sources, including radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents and direct radiation, would still be well within this limit after the EPU is implemented. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the increase in offsite radiation dose would not be significant. Postulated Accident Doses As a result of implementation of the proposed EPU, there would be an increase in the inventory of radionuclides in the reactor core; the core inventory of radionuclides would increase as power level increases. The concentration of radionuclides in the reactor coolant may also increase; however, this concentration is limited by the HCGS technical specifications. Therefore, the reactor coolant concentration of radionuclides would not be expected to increase significantly. Some of the radioactive waste streams and storage systems may also contain slightly higher quantities of radioactive material. The calculated doses from design basis postulated accidents for HCGS are currently well below the criteria of 10 CFR 50.67. The licensee has estimated that the radiological consequences of postulated accidents would increase approximately in proportion to the increase in power level from the EPU (15 percent). Based on experience from EPUs at other plants, the NRC staff concludes that this is an acceptable estimate. The calculated doses from design basis postulated accidents would still be well within the criteria of 10 CFR 50.67 after the increase due to the implementation of the EPU. These calculated doses are based on conservative assumptions for the purposes of safety analyses. Estimates of the radiological consequences of postulated accidents for the purposes of estimating environmental impact are made by the NRC using best estimate assumptions, which result in substantially lower dose estimates. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the increase in radiological consequences for postulated accidents due to the EPU would not be significant. Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts The environmental impacts of the fuel cycle and transportation of fuel and waste are described in Tables S-3 and S-4 of 10 CFR 51.51 and 10 CFR 51.52, respectively. An additional NRC generic EA (53 FR 30355, dated August 11, 1988, as corrected by 53 FR 32322, dated August 24, 1988) evaluated the applicability of Tables S-3 and S-4 to a higher burn-up fuel cycle and concluded that there would be no significant change in environmental impact from the parameters evaluated in Tables S-3 and S-4 for fuel cycles with uranium enrichments up to 5 weight percent uranium-235 and burn-ups less than 60,000 MW days per metric ton of uranium-235 (MWd/MTU). The proposed EPU would increase the power level to 3,840 MWt, which is approximately 1 percent above the reference power level of 3,800 MWt for Table S-4. The increased power level of 3,840 MWt corresponds to approximately 1,265 MWe, which is 26.5 percent above the reference power level of 1,000 MWe for Table S-3. Part of the increase is due to a more efficient turbine design; this increase in efficiency does not affect the impacts of the fuel cycle and transportation of waste. More fuel will be used in the reactor (more fuel assemblies will be replaced at each refueling outage), and that will potentially affect the impacts of the fuel cycle and transportation of waste. However, the fuel enrichment and burn-up rate criteria will still be met because fuel enrichment will be maintained no greater than 5 weight percent uranium-235, and the fuel burn-up rate will be maintained within 60 MWd/MTU. The NRC staff concludes that after adjusting for the effects of the more efficient turbine, the potential increases in the impact due to the uranium fuel cycle and the transportation of fuel and waste from the increased amount of fuel used would not be significant. Summary Based on the NRC staff review of licensee submission and the FES for operation, it is concluded that the proposed EPU would not significantly increase the consequences of accidents, would not result in a significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure, and would not result in significant additional fuel cycle environmental impacts. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there would be no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Table 3 summarizes the radiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at HCGS. Table 3.—Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts Gaseous Radiological Effluents Increased gaseous effluents (20 percent) would remain within NRC limits and dose design objectives. Liquid Radiological Effluents Increased liquid effluents (2.2 percent) would remain within NRC limits and dose design objectives. Solid Radioactive Waste Increased amount of solid radioactive waste generated (14.7 percent by volume & 20 percent by radioactivity) would remain bounded by evaluation in the FES. Occupational Radiation Doses Occupational dose would increase by roughly 16 percent. Doses would be maintained within NRC limits and as low as is reasonably achievable. Offsite Radiation Doses Radiation doses to members of the public would increase to approximately 9.3 mrem and continue to be well within NRC and EPA regulations. Postulated Accident Doses Calculated doses for postulated design-basis accidents would remain within NRC limits. Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts Fuel enrichment and burnup rate criteria would be met. Potential increases in the impact due to uranium fuel cycle and the transportation of fuel and waste would not be significant. Alternatives to Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered denial of the proposed EPU (i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in the current environmental impacts. However, if the proposed EPU were not approved, other agencies and electric power organizations may be required to pursue alternative means of providing electric generation capacity to offset the increased power demand forecasted for the PJM regional transmission territory. A reasonable alternative to the proposed EPU would be to purchase power from other generators in the PJM network. In 2003, generating capacity in PJM consisted primarily of fossil fuel-fired generators: Coal generated 36.2 percent of PJM capacity, oil 14.3 percent, and natural gas 6.8 percent. This indicates that purchased power in the PJM territory would likely be generated by a fossil-fuel-fired facility. Construction (if new generation is needed) and operation of a fossil fuel plant would create impacts in air quality, land use, and waste management significantly greater than those identified for the proposed EPU at HCGS. HCGS does not emit sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, or other atmospheric pollutants that are commonly associated with fossil fuel plants. Conservation programs such as demand-side management could feasibly replace the proposed EPU's additional power output. However, forecasted future energy demand in the PJM territory may exceed conservation savings and still require additional generating capacity. Furthermore, the proposed EPU does not involve environmental impacts that are significantly different from those originally identified in the 1984 HCGS FES for operation. Alternative Use of Resources This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the original FES for construction (AEC 1974). Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on July 24, 2007, the NRC staff consulted with the New Jersey State official, Mr. Jerry Humphreys, of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The state official stated that any comments would be provided during the 30-day public comment period. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the EA, the NRC concludes that the proposed action would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's application dated September 18, 2006, as supplemented on October 10, and October 20, 2006; February 14, February 16, February 28, March 13 (2 letters), March 22, March 30 (2 letters), April 13, April 18, April 30, May 10, May 18 (3 letters), May 24, June 22, and August 3, 2007. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* DATES: The comment period expires November 21, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is only able to assure consideration of comments received on or before November 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T-6D59, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Written comments may also be delivered to 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-6D59, Rockville, Maryland 20852 from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received will be electronically available at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room link, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* , on the NRC Web site or at the NRC's PDR located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. 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 at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-057 issued to PSEG Nuclear, LLC for the operation of Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit 1, located in Salem County, New Jersey. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John G. Lamb, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Mail Stop O-8B1A, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at
(301)415-3100, or by e-mail at *JGL1@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of October 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Harold K. Chernoff, Chief, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-20761 Filed 10-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Notice In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b. of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
(ACRS)will hold a meeting on November 1-3, 2007, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The date of this meeting was previously published in the **Federal Register** on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 (71 FR 66561). Thursday, November 1, 2007, Conference Room T-2b3, Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland *8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman* (Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting. *8:35 a.m.-10:30 a.m.: Extended Power Uprate Application for the Susquehanna Nuclear Power Plant* (Open/Closed)—The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and the Pennsylvania Power & Light Company regarding the Extended Power Uprate Application for the Susquehanna Nuclear Power Plant, and the associated NRC staff's Safety Evaluation. Note: A portion of this session may be closed to protect information that is proprietary to General Electric, AREVA, and their contractors pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b
(c)(4). ] *10:45 a.m.-11:45 a.m.: Meeting with Commissioner Peter B. Lyons* (Open)—The Committee will hold a discussion with Commissioner Lyons on items of mutual interest. *12:45 p.m.-2:45 p.m.: Vogtle Early Site Permit
(ESP)Application* (Open)—The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and Southern Nuclear Operating Company regarding Vogtle ESP application, and the associated NRC staff's Safety Evaluation Report with Open Items. *3 p.m.-4 p.m.: Staff's Implementation of the Lessons Learned from the Review of ESP Applications* (Open)—The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of the staff's implementation of the lessons learned from the review of ESP applications. *4:15 p.m.-6:15 p.m.: Assessment of the Robustness of New Nuclear Plants* (Room T-10E8) (Closed)—The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the assessment of the robustness of new nuclear plants. Note: This session will be closed to protect information classified as National Security information as well as safeguards information pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b
(1)and (3). ] *6:30 p.m.-7:15 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports* (Open)—The Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports. Friday, November 2, 2007, Conference Room T-2b3, Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland *8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman* (Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting. *8:35 a.m.-10:30 a.m.: Selected Chapters of the SER Associated with the ESBWR Design Certification* (Open/Closed)—The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and General Electric regarding selected chapters of the SER with Open Items associated with the ESBWR design certification. Note: A portion of this session may be closed to protect information that is proprietary to General Electric and their contractors pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b
(c)(4). ] *10:45 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: Future ACRS Activities/Report of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee* (Open)—The Committee will discuss the recommendations of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee regarding items proposed for consideration by the full Committee during future meetings. Also, it will hear a report of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee on matters related to the conduct of ACRS business, including anticipated workload and member assignments. *11:30 a.m.-11:45 a.m.: Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and Recommendations* (Open)—The Committee will discuss the responses from the NRC Executive Director for Operations to comments and recommendations included in recent ACRS reports and letters. *1 p.m.-3 p.m.: Draft ACRS Report on the NRC Safety Research Program* (Open)—The Committee will discuss the draft ACRS report on the NRC Safety Research Program. *3:15 p.m.-7 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports* (Open)—The Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports. Saturday, November 3, 2007, Conference Room T-2b3, Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland *8:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports* (Open)—The Committee will continue its discussion of proposed ACRS reports, as well as the draft ACRS report on the NRC Safety Research Program. *1:30 p.m.-2 p.m.: Miscellaneous* (Open)—The Committee will discuss matters related to the conduct of Committee activities and matters and specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings, as time and availability of information permit. Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54695). In accordance with those procedures, oral or written views may be presented by members of the public, including representatives of the nuclear industry. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the Cognizant ACRS staff named below five days before the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made to allow necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside for this purpose may be obtained by contacting the Cognizant ACRS staff prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with the Cognizant ACRS staff if such rescheduling would result in major inconvenience. In accordance with Subsection 10(d) Public Law 92-463, I have determined that it may be necessary to close portions of this meeting noted above to discuss and protect information classified as proprietary to General Electric, AREVA, and their contractors pursuant to 5 U.S.C 552b
(4)and National Security, as well as Safeguards information pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b
(1)and (3). Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, as well as the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting Mr. Giriga S. Shukla, Cognizant ACRS staff (301-415-8439), between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., (ET). ACRS meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at *pdr@nrc.gov* , or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly Available Records System
(PARS)component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* or *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ (ACRS & ACNW Mtg schedules/agendas* ). Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACRS meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m.-and 3:45 p.m., (ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed. *The ACRS meeting dates for Calendar Year 2008 are provided below:* ACRS Meeting No. Meeting dates — January 2008 (No Meeting). 549 February 7-9, 2008. 550 March 6-8, 2008. 551 April 3-5, 2008. 552 May 8-10, 2008. 553 June 4-6, 2008 (Wed—Fri). 554 July 9-11, 2008 (Wed—Fri). — August (No Meeting). 555 September 4-6, 2008. 556 October 2-4, 2008. 557 November 6-8, 2008. 558 December 4-6, 2008. Dated: *October 16, 2007* . Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-20773 Filed 10-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Withdrawal of Regulatory Guides AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Withdrawal of Regulatory Guides 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marquis P. Orr, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-6373 or e-mail *MPO1@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is withdrawing Regulatory Guide 9.1, “Regulatory Staff Position Statement on Antitrust Matters,” published December 1973; Regulatory Guide 9.2, “Information Needed by the NRC Staff in Connection with its Antitrust Review of Construction Permit Applications for Nuclear Power Plants,” initially published October 1974, and revised June 1976; and Regulatory Guide 9.3, “Information Needed by the AEC Regulatory Staff in Connection with its Antitrust Review of Operating License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants,” published October 1974. The NRC is withdrawing these three regulatory guides because they are no longer required. These three regulatory guides address the antitrust review conducted by the staff during the evaluation of new plant construction and operating license applications. The review was required by Section 105.c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Section 625 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-058) removed the NRC's authority to perform these antitrust reviews for applications submitted after the date of enactment of the law. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was passed by the U.S. Congress on July 29, 2005, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005. Consequently, the staff has determined that Regulatory Guides 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3 are no longer required. II. Further Information The withdrawal of Regulatory Guides 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3 does not, in and of itself, alter any prior or existing licensing commitments based on their use. The guidance provided in these regulatory guides is no longer applicable. Regulatory guides may be withdrawn when their guidance is superseded by congressional action or otherwise no longer provides useful information. Regulatory guides are available for inspection or downloading through the NRC's public Web site under “Regulatory Guides” in the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections.* Regulatory guides are also available for inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738. The PDR's mailing address is U.S. NRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR staff can be reached by telephone at 301-415-4737 or 800-397-4209, by fax at 301-415-3548, and by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Regulatory Guides are not copyrighted and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of October, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Michael R. Johnson, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. [FR Doc. E7-20730 Filed 10-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Withdrawal of Regulatory Guide AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Withdrawal of Regulatory Guide 9.4. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marquis P. Orr, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-6373 or e-mail *MPO1@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is withdrawing Regulatory Guide 9.4, “Suggested Format for Cash Flow Statements Submitted as Guarantees of Payment of Retrospective Premiums,” which was issued for comment in September 1978. Regulatory Guide 9.4 proposes a format for cash flow statements to be submitted by the licensee to demonstrate compliance with title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR), subpart 140.21, “Licensee guarantees of payment of deferred premiums.” The method described in Regulatory Guide 9.4 unnecessarily duplicates other financial and insurance verification documents submitted by the licensees to demonstrate compliance with other sections of 10 CFR part 140. Rather than submit separate cash flow and financial assurance statements, licensees may submit proof of sufficient insurance bonding through American Nuclear Insurers or similar insurance groups. This insurance bond meets the requirements of 10 CFR 140.21(a) and eliminates the need for a separate cash flow statement. II. Further Information Withdrawal of Regulatory Guide 9.4 does not, in and of itself, alter any prior or existing licensing commitments based on its use. The guidance provided in this regulatory guide is no longer necessary. Regulatory guides may be withdrawn when their guidance is superseded by congressional action, the methods or techniques described in the regulatory guide no longer describe a preferred approach, or the regulatory guide does not provide useful information. Regulatory guides are available for inspection or downloading through the NRC's public Web site under “Regulatory Guides” in the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections* . Regulatory guides are also available for inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738. The PDR's mailing address is U.S. NRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR staff can be reached by telephone at 301-415-4737 or 800-397-4209, by fax at 301-415-3548, and by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Regulatory guides are not copyrighted and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of October 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Michael R. Johnson, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. [FR Doc. E7-20742 Filed 10-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT SES Performance Review Board AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members of the OPM Performance Review Board. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Reinhold, Center for Human Capital Management Services, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415,
(202)606-1402. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4314(c)(1) through
(5)of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES performance review boards. The board reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, and considers recommendations to the appointing authority regarding the performance of the senior executive. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Linda M. Springer, Director. The following have been designated as members of the Performance Review Board of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management: Howard C. Weizmann, Deputy Director—Chair Patricia L. Hollis, Chief of Staff and Director of External Affairs Mark Reger, Chief Financial Officer Robert F. Danbeck, Managing Director, Retirement Systems Modernization Nancy H. Kichak, Associate Director, Strategic Human Resources Policy Division Kevin E. Mahoney, Associate Director, Human Capital Leadership and Merit System Accountability Division Kathy L. Dillaman, Associate Director, Federal Investigative Services Division Ronald C. Flom, Associate Director, Management Services Division and Chief Human Capital Officer Kerry B. McTigue, General Counsel Mark D. Reinhold, Deputy Associate Director for Human Capital Management Services—Executive Secretariat [FR Doc. E7-20636 Filed 10-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-45-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 39-2449; File No. 22-28859] Application and Opportunity for Hearing: Grupo Iusacell Celular, S.A. de C.V. October 15, 2007. The Securities and Exchange Commission gives notice that Grupo Iusacell Celular, S.A. de C.V. has filed an application under section 304(d) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939. Iusacell Celular asks the Commission to exempt from the certificate or opinion delivery requirements of section 314(d) of the 1939 Act certain provisions of indentures between Iusacell Celular, certain guarantors and Law Debenture Trust Company of New York, as trustee. The indentures relate to Senior Floating Rate First Lien Notes due 2011 and 10% Senior Subordinated Second Lien Notes due 2012. Section 304(d) of the 1939 Act, in part, authorizes the Commission to exempt conditionally or unconditionally any indenture from one or more provisions of the 1939 Act. The Commission may provide an exemption under Section 304(d) if it finds that the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the 1939 Act. Section 314(d) requires the obligor to furnish to the indenture trustee certificates or opinions of fair value from an engineer, appraiser or other expert upon any release of collateral from the lien of the indenture. The engineer, appraiser or other expert must opine that the proposed release will not impair the security under the indenture in contravention of the provisions of the indenture. The application requests an exemption from Section 314(d) for specified dispositions of collateral that are made in Iusacell Celular's and the guarantors' ordinary course of business. In its application, Iusacell Celular alleges that: 1. The indentures permit Iusacell Celular and the guarantors to dispose of collateral in the ordinary course of their business; 2. Iusacell Celular and the guarantors will deliver to the trustee annual consolidated financial statements audited by certified independent accountants; and 3. Iusacell Celular and the guarantors will deliver to the trustee a semi-annual certificate stating that all dispositions of collateral during the relevant six-month period occurred in Iusacell Celular's and the guarantors' ordinary course of business and that all of the proceeds were used as permitted by the indentures. Any interested persons should look to the application for a more detailed statement of the asserted matters of fact and law. The application is on file in the Commission's Public Reference Section, File Number 22-28859, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. The Commission also gives notice that any interested persons may request, in writing, that a hearing be held on this matter. Interested persons must submit those requests to the Commission no later than November 14, 2007. Interested persons must include the following in their request for a hearing on this matter: —The nature of that person's interest; —The reasons for the request; and —The issues of law or fact raised by the application that the interested person desires to refute or request a hearing on. The interested person should address this request for a hearing to: Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. At any time after November 14, 2007, the Commission may issue an order granting the application, unless the Commission orders a hearing. For the Commission, by the Division of Corporation Finance, pursuant to delegated authority. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-20782 Filed 10-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56662; File No. SR-ISE-2007-71] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fee Changes on a Retroactive Basis October 16, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on October 2, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to retroactively apply the fee reduction that was implemented on September 4, 2007 to the time period of July 1, 2007 to August 31, 2007 (“Retroactive Period”). The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Commission's Public Reference Room, at the Exchange, and at *www.ise.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for the proposed rule change, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose On September 4, 2007, the Exchange implemented a fee reduction to the Schedule of Fees with respect to Electronic Access Member (“EAM”) Trading Application Software Fees (“Software Fees”). 3 Consequently, the Software Fees are as follows: 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56379 (September 10, 2007), 72 FR 52591 (September 14, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-79) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of a proposed rule change relating to fee changes). • Equity EAMs are charged $250 for each of the first and second connections and $50 for each additional connection thereafter, regardless of whether the Equity EAM is connected via Financial Information eXchange (“FIX”) or Application Programming Interface (“API”). 4 4 ISE uses an open API, which members program to in order to develop applications that send trading commands and/or queries to and receive broadcasts and/or transactions from the trading system. FIX is an industry-wide messaging standard protocol. • Options EAMs that connect via API are charged $250 for each of the first five connections and $100 for each additional connection. • Options EAMs that connect via FIX are charged $250 for each of the first and second connections and $50 for each additional connection thereafter. In this filing, the Exchange proposes to retroactively apply the above-mentioned reduced fees during the Retroactive Period. The Exchange believes that retroactive application is appropriate for Equity EAMs because prior to July 1, 2007, Equity EAMs were charged a fee of $250 per month to connect to the ISE Stock Exchange, and fees on second and subsequent connections were waived, regardless of whether the Equity EAM connected via FIX or API. 5 The Exchange allowed this waiver to expire on June 30, 2007, at which time the fee to connect to the ISE Stock Exchange, on a monthly basis, became $250 per connection. Subsequent to the fee increase, the Exchange analyzed the impact of the fee increase on Equity EAMs and determined that the disparity between the increase in fees and the additional work required to assist the Equity EAMs in maintaining additional lines to the Exchange was not accurately correlated. Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to retroactively apply this reduction to the Schedule of Fees. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54897 (December 8, 2006), 71 FR 75593 (December 15, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-76) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of a proposed rule change relating to ISE Stock Exchange fees). The Exchange believes that retroactive application is appropriate for Options EAMs because originally Options EAMs were charged $250 per month for each of the first five CLICK terminals, and $100 per month for each additional terminal. However, under a now expired pilot program previously adopted by the Exchange, Options EAMs' fees associated with a second and any subsequent CLICK terminals were waived. As a result, Options EAMs were only charged a $250 per month to connect to the Exchange. Earlier this year, once all existing CLICK terminals were decommissioned, the Exchange submitted a fee filing that, among other things, proposed to remove all references to CLICK terminals from its fee schedule. 6 In doing so, and after conducting an internal analysis of the impact of fees to members, the Exchange notes that the CLICK Fee Filing actually raised the connection fees for Options EAMs, contrary to what the Exchange intended. Thus, this filing seeks to remedy the mistake the CLICK Fee Filing has caused during the Retroactive Period by retroactively applying this reduction to the Schedule of Fees during the Retroactive Period. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55960 (June 26, 2007), 72 FR 36531 (July 3, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-42) (the “CLICK fee filing”). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 7 which requires that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Ccomments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-ISE-2007-71 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-71. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-71 and should be submitted on or before November 13, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-20783 Filed 10-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56667; File No. SR-NFA-2007-04] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Futures Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Compliance Rule 2-4: Misuse of Trade Secrets and Proprietary Information October 17, 2007. Pursuant to section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-7 under the Exchange Act, 2 notice is hereby given that on August 20, 2007, National Futures Association (“NFA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by NFA. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. NFA also has filed the proposed rule change with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-7. NFA, on August 17, 2007, submitted the proposed rule change to the CFTC for approval and invoked the “ten-day” provision of section 17(j) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). 3 By letter dated September 5, 2007, the CFTC notified NFA of its determination not to review the proposed rule change. 4 3 7 U.S.C. 21(j). 4 *See* letter from Lawrence B. Patent, Deputy Director, CFTC, to Thomas W. Sexton, III, General Counsel, NFA (“Letter”). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Description of the Proposed Rule Change Text of Proposed Rule Changes Interpretive Notice NFA Compliance Rule 2-4: Misuse of Trade Secrets And Proprietary Information National Futures Association (“NFA”) Compliance Rule 2-4 provides that Members and Associates shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade in the conduct of their commodity futures business. Over the years, NFA's Board of Directors (“Board”) has provided guidance on certain issues to ensure that Members and Associates understand their responsibilities to observe just and equitable principles of trade and to act honestly, fairly, and in the best interests of customers. Compliance Rule 2-4 prohibits Members and Associates from knowingly obtaining or seeking to obtain another Member's or Associate's confidential information or trade secrets without that person's permission. It also prohibits Members and Associates from knowingly or recklessly misusing confidential information or trade secrets in their possession. Although that rule does not seek to regulate business disputes between Members or to extend beyond commodity futures activities, it does reach conduct that could potentially harm customers. Conduct that may violate Compliance Rule 2-4 includes: • Misusing customer information, such as misappropriating social security numbers or purposefully violating the firm's privacy statement; • Disclosing customer orders prior to execution (except as permitted by exchange rules); or • Obtaining or attempting to obtain information disclosing a CTA's historical trading positions without the CTA's permission. These are merely examples of conduct that could potentially harm customers. Any Member or Associate that knowingly obtains or seeks to obtain confidential information or trade secrets of another Member or Associate without that person's permission or that knowingly or recklessly misuses trade secrets and/or proprietary information in the conduct of its commodity futures business violates Compliance Rule 2-4. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NFA has prepared statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, burdens on competition, and comments received from members, participants, and others. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NFA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Section 15A(k) of the Exchange Act 5 makes NFA a national securities association for the limited purpose of regulating the activities of NFA members (“Members”) who are registered as brokers or dealers in security futures products under section 15(b)(11) of the Exchange Act. 6 The new interpretive notice applies to all Members, including those who are registered as security futures brokers or dealers under section 15(b)(11). 5 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(k). 6 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* (b)(11). NFA Compliance Rule 2-4 requires Members and Associates to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade in the conduct of their commodity futures business. The proposed notice makes clear that Members and Associates violate NFA Compliance Rule 2-4 if they knowingly obtain or seek to obtain another Member's or Associate's confidential information or trade secrets without that person's permission or knowingly or recklessly misuse confidential information or trade secrets in their possession when these activities may harm futures customers. It also clarifies that this prohibition is limited to a Member's commodity futures business and does not reach into areas beyond NFA's normal jurisdiction. The notice is narrowly drawn, focusing on behaviors that could harm customers. It gives three examples of behavior that violates the rule:
(1)Misusing customer information,
(2)disclosing customer orders, and
(3)obtaining or attempting to obtain confidential information disclosing a CTA's historical trading positions. 2. Statutory Basis The rule change is authorized by, and consistent with, Section 15A(k) of the Exchange Act. 7 This Section requires NFA to have rules that are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in connection with security futures products. The proposed rule change accomplishes this by prohibiting the misuse of nonpublic information. 7 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(k). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The rule change will not impose any burden on legitimate competition. It should, however, prevent Members from using illegitimate means to gain a competitive advantage when those means could harm customers. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others NFA did not publish the rule change to the membership for comment but did discuss it with NFA's FCM, IB, and CPO/CTA Advisory Committees, which generally supported it. NFA did not receive comment letters concerning the rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action NFA, on August 17, 2007, submitted the proposed Interpretive Notice entitled “NFA Compliance Rule 2-4: Misuse of Trade Secrets and Proprietary Information” to the CFTC for approval and invoked the “ten-day” provision of section 17(j) of the CEA. 8 The CFTC notified NFA of its determination not to review the proposed rule change. 9 The proposed rule change has become effective on September 5, 2007. 8 7 U.S.C. 21(j). 9 *See* Letter, *supra* note 4. Within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC, may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the proposed rule change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act. 10 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NFA-2007-04 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NFA-2007-04. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NFA. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NFA-2007-04 and should be submitted on or before November 13, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(75). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-20784 Filed 10-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Docket No. FAA-2007-29320] Operating Limitations at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, Notice of Meeting and Request for Information AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of scheduling reduction meeting and request for information. SUMMARY: The FAA will conduct a meeting to discuss flight restrictions at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport
(JFK)to reduce overscheduling and flight delays during peak hours of operation at that airport. This meeting is open to all scheduled air carriers, regardless of whether they currently provide scheduled service to JFK, and to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is the airport operator of JFK. Registration in advance of the meeting is requested. In addition, the FAA invites interested persons to submit written information on such schedule reductions. The FAA plans to issue its decision on scheduling limitations in a final order. DATES: *Scheduling reduction meeting.* The FAA will hold the scheduling reduction meeting on October 23-24, 2007, beginning at 9 a.m., and the meeting may continue, if necessary, until adjourned by the Administrator. *Written information:* Any written information on the subject of schedule reductions at JFK, including data and views, must be submitted by November 6, 2007. To the extent possible, the FAA will consider late-filled submissions in making its determination in its final order. ADDRESSES: *Scheduling reduction meeting.* The meeting will be held in the Bessie Coleman Room at the Orville Wright Building of the FAA, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC. *Written information.* You may submit written information, identified by docket number FAA-2007-29320, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for submitting your information or comments electronically. • *Fax:* Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 1-202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Send information or comments to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* Bring information or comments to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at the Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Instructions:* You must include the agency name and docket number FAA-2007-29320 for this notice at the beginning of the information that you submit. Note that the information received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided. Submissions to the docket that include trade secrets, confidential, commercial, or financial information, or sensitive security information will not be posted in the public docket. Such information will be placed in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and a note will be placed in the public docket to state that the agency has received such materials from the submitter. *Privacy:* We will post all comments we receive, without change, including any personal information you provide. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending or signing the comment. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). *Docket:* To read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time and follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. Alternatively, you may visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor of the Department of Transportation at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Registration:* To register for attendance, contact Gerry Shakley at the numbers provided in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerry Shakley, System Operations Services, Air Traffic Organization; telephone—(202) 267-9424; facsimile—(202) 267-7277; e-mail— *gerry.shakly@faa.gov.* Registration must occur on or before October 19, 2007. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Aviation Act (the Act) at 49 U.S.C. 41722, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to request air carriers to attend a meeting with the FAA Administrator to discuss flight schedule reductions at any severely congested airport during peak operating hours. Until relatively recently, the FAA managed congestion at JFK through the High Density Rule (HDR), 14 CFR part 93, subpart K, which limited aircraft operations at JFK during the five hours of peak transatlantic demands—3 p.m. through 7:59 p.m. local time. The HDR is an air traffic rule that establishes limited on the number of arrivals and departures that can occur from certain airports during specific, identified hours. The HDR limits flights in order to manage congestion and delays. Currently, only Washington's Reagan National Airport is regulated under the HDR. The HDR was formerly effective at Chicago O'Hare International Airport (O'Hare), New York's JFK New York's LaGuardia airport (LaGuardia), and Newark's Liberty International Airport (Newark). In 2000, Congress, under the aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21), called for the phase out of the HDR program at O'Hare, LaGuardia and JFK. 1 1 Newark has not been impacted by the HDR since the early days of its inception. The HDR was phased out at JFK as of January 1, 2007, permitting increased scheduling at JFK during the afternoon hours. 2 In addition, since the spring of 2006, JFK has evolved from its traditionally international role, as U.S. air carriers have significantly increased their domestic scheduled operations throughout the day. Most of the increase has come from the two largest operators at the airport, Delta airlines and JetBlue Airways. 2 Since the expiration of the HDR, the FAA reinstituted caps at O'Hare, by rule, and at LaGuardia, by FAA order. As a result of the increase in scheduled operations at JFK, demand exceeds the airport's capacity during some periods of the day. During the morning hours, JFK routinely incurs volume-related delays during the 7 a.m. through 9 a.m. hours. The afternoon and evening demand at JFK now exceeds the airport's optimal capacity until nearly 10 p.m., denying the airport a late-day period to recover from congestion-related delays. Traffic management initiates to accommodate the traffic are now routinely in use, even under the best operating conditions. In addition, the relatively pronounced arrival and departure banks that historically characterized JFK's operations are now supplanted by mixed arrivals and departures during peak hours. Although JFK has four runways, it is limited, at most, to a three-runway configuration due to the shared airspace in the New York area. JFK's maximum efficiency is achieved using either two arrival runways and one departure runway or two departure runways and one arrival runway. The recent mixing of arrivals and departures throughout the day reduces the benefit of optimizing the configuration of active runways to favor arrivals or departures, as appropriate, which is a practice that air traffic control personnel previously employed to tailor JFK's runway configuration to the historical transatlantic traffic flows. The increase in scheduled operations at JFK has had a profound effect on the delays that travelers have experienced there. During the first nine months of fiscal year 2007, the average daily operations at JFK increased 23% over the same period in the previous year. Travelers experienced an average twenty-six minutes of gate arrival delay per flight, which is an increase from the average eighteen-minute delay during the same period in fiscal year 2006. The number of arrival delays exceeding one hour has increased by 114%. The on-time arrival performance at JFK, which is defined as arrival at the gate within fifteen minutes of the scheduled time, declined from 70% in the first ten months of fiscal year 2006 to 61% over the same period in fiscal year 2007. During June and July 2007, JFK's on-time arrival performance averaged 59%. At the same time, air carriers continued to announce new flights for JFK during peak and off-peak hours. The increased congestion and delays at JFK have had impacts on other airports in the region and on the National Airspace System. Newark, LaGuardia and JFK have consistently been among the most delay-prone airports. While operations at LaGuardia and Newark have been relatively stable over the past year, JFK's operations have increased significantly, creating new challenges to accommodate demand safely and with minimal delay. The recently approved airspace redesign plan for the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia metropolitan area documents well the costs and far-reaching impacts of delays that originate from this area. Although airspace redesign will provide efficiency gains and congestion relief, it is neither an immediate nor complete solution. The FAA, working with the airport operator, carriers and other customer representatives, has begun to implement a number of short-term initiatives to improve the efficiency of airport operations and the air traffic control system, especially during periods of adverse weather when the effects of overscheduling are more pronounced. Moreover, airspace redesign will open additional arrival and departure routes in the New York area to reduce delays and congestion. These measures alone, however, are not expected to provide sufficient near-term gains to accommodate the peak hour schedules at JFK's current or forecast levels of demand. Several air carriers have indicated to the FAA their willingness to adjust their schedules during peak hours to improve on-time performance, reduce congestion, and reduce delay-related operational costs. These carriers cite the experience at O'Hare in 2004 when the FAA had a voluntary agreement to twice reduce schedules by American Airlines and United Airlines, the largest operators at that airport, but ultimately convened a scheduling reduction meeting under 49 U.S.C. 41722 so that other carriers did not simply backfill schedule reductions and negate congestion relief. The FAA finds merit in these arguments as we did in the case of O'Hare. Based on these and other factors, the Administrator has determined, pursuant to the Act, that JFK is a severely congested airport and that a scheduling reduction meeting is necessary in order to discuss flight reductions in an effort to reduce overscheduling and flight delays at JFK during peak operating hours. The Secretary of Transportation has also determined, pursuant to the Act, that a scheduling reduction meeting regarding flight reductions at JFK is necessary to meet a serious transportation need or to achieve an important public benefit. In light of these determinations, the FAA will conduct a scheduling reduction meeting pursuant to the Act. As dictated by statute, the scheduling reduction meeting will only address planned operations by domestic air carriers. With the exception of Canadian air carriers, which are treated as domestic air carriers by virtue of an agreement with Canada, the scheduled operations of foreign air carriers are managed under a process defined by the International Air Transport Association (IATA). The FAA has already initiated steps under the IATA process to manage the scheduled operations of foreign air carriers at JFK that are complementary to the scheduling reduction meeting. The FAA will convene the scheduling reduction meeting on October 23, 2007, beginning at 9 a.m., and will continue at least through the following day. The meeting may continue, if necessary, until adjourned by the Administrator. As provided in the Act, no later than forty-eight hours before convening the meeting, the FAA will identify on the FAA's Web site, *http://www.faa.gov,* the peak period of operation at JFK and the FAA's targets for flight operations during those periods. The FAA will transcribe the scheduling reduction meeting, including those sessions in which air carriers offer flight reductions to the FAA, as provided for by the procedures outlined below. The transcript and other documents related to the meeting will be available for inspection in Department of Transportation Docket FAA-2007-29320. In addition, any interested person may submit written information to the public docket no later than November 6, 2007. The docket may be accessed via the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or at the Docket Management Facility for the Department of Transportation. After conducting the scheduling reduction meeting and considering all submitted information, the FAA will publish its final order on delay reductions at JFK in the **Federal Register** . The order is expected to be effective through at least the summer 2008 scheduling season and may restrict service during peak hours by all carriers, including carriers that are not currently operating at JFK. Additionally, the FAA is considering appropriate measures to address charters and other unscheduled flights at JFK. Under the HDR, unscheduled operations were severely constrained during the afternoon hours at JFK. Specifically, only two unscheduled operations were permitted in each afternoon hour other than the 1700 hour (5 p.m.), when no unscheduled operations were permitted. Likewise, unscheduled operations at O'Hare have been restricted to four per hour since the imposition of Arrival Authorizations at that airport in 2004. To ensure that proper accommodations are afforded at the meeting, all scheduled carriers that wish to attend the scheduling reduction meeting should register for the meeting on or before October 19, 2007. Registration may be accomplished by contacting Gerry Shakley, System Operations Services, Air Traffic Organization; telephone—(202) 267-9424; facsimile—(202) 267-7277; e-mail— *gerry.shakley@faa.gov,* identifying the air carrier and its intention to attend the meeting, and identifying who will represent the air carrier at the meeting. The FAA is currently conducting modeling based on the August 30, 2007 published schedule information from the Official Airline Guide. We will review the planned schedules for summer 2008, which carriers were to provide by October 11, 2007 (72 FR 54317, September 24, 2007). The FAA's Air Traffic Organization will work with individual carriers to validate the schedule information to be used by the FAA during the course of the scheduling reduction meeting. Because the scheduling reduction meeting and all preparations for it are subject to the U.S. antitrust laws, the FAA has worked closely with the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, on procedures for conducting the meeting in a way that should facilitate legal compliance. As noted in this correspondence, communications among carriers regarding competitively sensitive information could result in a violation of the antitrust laws and lead to civil or criminal liability. Thus, the procedures outlined in the notice provide for a series of scheduling reduction sessions to be conducted separately by FAA staff with each air carrier attending the meeting. We may also meet with representatives of the airport operator. During those sessions any scheduled air carrier or the airport operator in attendance may provide other supplemental information to the FAA regarding the targeted schedule reductions at JFK. The FAA requests the cooperation of all participants at the meeting in adhering to the procedures outlined in the notice. The text of the FAA letter describing the planned procedures and the text of the Department of Justice letter assessing those procedures are as follows: September 21, 2007 Thomas O. Barnett, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Room 3109, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530-0001. Dear Mr. Barnett: We anticipate that the Secretary of Transportation will soon determine, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41722, 3 that it is necessary to convene a meeting of air carriers with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)to discuss flight reductions at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport
(JFK)in an effort to reduce overscheduling and flight delays during peak hours of operation. Because of severe congestion at that airport and the resulting delays and inconveniences to the traveling public, the Administrator intends to convene such a meeting in the immediate future. The purpose of this letter is to describe the format and procedures for the meeting and to ensure that, provided the meeting is conducted in accordance with this letter, the Department of Justice would not seek to challenge as a violation of the U.S. Antitrust laws any air carrier's attendance at or participation in the meeting or an air carrier's unilateral actions taken to comply with an Order of the Administrator issued as a result of the meeting. 3 [The text of a footnote quoting 49 U.S.C. 41722 is omitted her.] Meeting Procedures 1. *Notice to Air Carriers and Other Interested Parties* To assist the Administrator in formulating flight reduction targets, as contemplated by 49 U.S.C. 41722, and to identify the air carriers that will attend the meeting, the Administrator will send a letter notifying the JFK airport operator and each scheduled air carrier serving JFK of the meeting. The letter will describe the necessity for the meeting and will identify the periods during a representative business day that the Administrator considers severely congested. The letter also will establish either the date and time for the meeting or a period during which the meeting is expected to take place. It will designate a location in the Washington, DC area as the meeting's location. The letter will advise that the meeting and all preparations for it are subject to the antitrust laws and that communication among air carriers regarding competitively sensitive information, such as markets served, prices charged, and marketing plans, could result in a violation of the antitrust laws. Copies of the letter will be sent to the Antitrust Division, as well as to the Air Transport Association, Regional Airline Association, and Air Carrier Association of America. The FAA Air Traffic Organization
(ATO)will separately provide the JFK airport operator and each air carrier serving JFK with a summary showing the FAA's current information as to scheduled arrivals and departures at JFK (including code-share flights) for each air carrier during each 15 minute period from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. on a representative business day. The FAA's focus on these hours is for overall planning purposes only, and it does not necessarily reflect the peak hours of operation at JFK. A letter enclosed with this summary will request that each air carrier confirm the FAA's current information as to that air carrier's scheduled operations at JFK, respond as to whether the air carrier will attend the scheduling reduction meeting, and, if the air carrier will attend, identify its representative. The FAA also will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of the meeting that identifies the basis for the meeting, when and where the meeting will take place, and the manner in which the meeting will be conducted. The **Federal Register** notice will invite all scheduled air carriers to attend and will specify that a transcript of the meeting will be available for inspection in a public docket opened within three business days after the Administrator formally adjourns the scheduling reduction meeting. 2. *Establishment and Notice of Flight Reduction Targets* The Administrator shall establish flight reduction targets, based on the number of flight operations scheduled for a representative business day. As required by the statute, at least 48 hours prior to the meeting, the Administrator will publish notice of these targets on the FAA's Web site. The notice will specify the total number of reductions sought from the total number of flight operations conducted. The notice will not include carrier-specific limitations, targets, or suggested reductions. 3. *Conduct of the Meeting* The meeting will be conducted under the following procedures: a. The meeting will be chaired by the Administrator or by a delegate of the Administrator. b. The meeting will be open to attendance by the JFK airport operator and all scheduled air carriers, and the FAA will transcribe the meeting. c. Representatives of the Department of Justice will be invited to attend. d. At the beginning of the meeting, the FAA will announce that, pursuant to advice from the Department of Justice, no communication will be permitted by any air carrier representative in the presence of any representative of another air carrier regarding the subject of flight reductions at JFK or regarding any other competitively sensitive information, including but not limited to markets served, prices charged, and marketing plans. e. The Administrator will then distribute to the meeting's attendees a list of the number of flights, not specific as to air carrier, during each 15-minute period from 6 a.m. until 11 p.m. on a representative business day, and he will identify any periods that he considers severely congested, as well as general targets for flight reductions during those periods. This list will not include carrier-specific limitations, targets, or suggested reductions. f. Each air carrier serving JFK and attending the meeting will then be invited into a separate and confidential session with representatives of the ATO, at which the air carrier will be asked to offer flight reductions or schedule modifications. Only representatives of that air carrier and the U.S. government will be permitted to attend the offer sessions; however, the sessions will be transcribed. g. Any offer of flights reductions should specify the precise number of arrivals and departures, if any, the submitting air carrier is willing to remove from each of the severely congested periods identified by the Administrator, indicating whether the flight operation(s) would be cancelled or moved to another time period. The offer may not be explicitly contingent on specific flight reductions by other air carriers but may be conditioned on the Administrator's implementation of an overall reduction of specified numbers of flight operations toward the target during the periods in question. The offer may not contain information from the air carrier on markets served, prices charged, marketing plans or other competitively sensitive matters. h. After the completion of all such sessions, the ATO will:
(1)Review the offers made;
(2)revise, in light of the offers made, the list of the number of flights, not specific as to air carrier, during each 15-minute period from 6 a.m. until 11 p.m. on a representative business day; and
(3)consult with the Administrator. The Administrator will distribute to the meeting's attendees the carrier non-specific list of the number of flights on a representative business day, and he will identify any periods that he continues to consider severely congested and identify targets for flight reductions during those periods. i. At his discretion, the Administrator or his delegate may repeat steps
(f)through (h), and he may continue the schedule reduction meeting as he deems necessary. j. If the Administrator determines that identifying carrier-specific targets would facilitate voluntary flight reductions and schedule modifications, the Administrator may advise each air carrier separately and confidentially of flight reduction targets specific to that air carrier. No carrier-specific information will be provided to any air carrier other than information regarding that air carrier; however, the Administrator may make general assurances with respect to the overall proportionality of the flight reductions among the air carriers serving JFK. k. Following the Administrator's identification of further flight reduction targets, each air carrier attending the meeting that serves JFK will be invited to a separate and confidential session with representatives of the ATO, at which the air carrier will be given the opportunity to submit a new or revised offer of flight reductions or schedule modifications. l. At his discretion, the Administrator or his delegate may repeat steps
(j)and (k), and he may continue the schedule reduction meeting as he deems necessary. m. The Administrator may terminate the schedule reduction meeting at his discretion. 4. *Order of the Administrator Concerning Delays at JFK* The ATO will review the final offers of each air carrier attendee of the meeting and recommend a proposed flight reduction plan to the Administrator. After the Administrator's review and approval of the plan, the resulting schedule reductions, including carrier-specific limitations, will be published in the **Federal Register** as a final order of the Administrator. The final order of the Administrator will specify a method by which air carriers adversely affected by the order may be relieved of its effect. The order will also be subject to modification by the Administrator. Please advise if the procedures are acceptable to you. Sincerely, Kerry B. Long, Chief Counsel September 24, 2007 Kerry B. Long, Esq., Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Re: Proposed JFK Airport Delay Reduction Meeting Dear Mr. Long: This letter is written in response to your September 21, 2007 letter describing the planned format of a meeting of air carriers with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) to discuss flight reductions at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport (“JFK”). The meeting is being called because the Secretary of Transportation has determined, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41722, that the meeting is necessary to reduce flight delays during peak hours of operation. You seek assurances that, provided the meeting and related activities are conducted as described in your letter, the Department of Justice would not seek to challenge as a violation of the antitrust laws any air carrier's attendance at or participation in the meeting or any carrier's unilateral actions taken to comply with an Order of the Administrator issued as a result of the meeting. According to your letter, all carriers participating in the meeting will be advised that the meeting and all preparations for it are subject to the antitrust laws and that communications among carriers regarding competitively sensitive information, such as markets served, prices charged, and marketing plans, could result in a violation of the antitrust laws and lead to civil or criminal liability. At the beginning of the meeting, the Administrator (or his delegee) will announce that, pursuant to advice from the Department of Justice, no communication will be permitted by any air carrier representative in the presence of any representative of another air carrier regarding flight reductions at JFK or any other competitively sensitive subject, including but not limited to markets served, prices charged, and marketing plans. Prior to the meeting, the Administrator will establish flight reduction targets, based on the number of flight operations scheduled on a representative business day. The Administrator will publish notice of these targets on the FAA Web site at least 48 hours prior to the meeting, as required by statute. The notice will specify the total number of reductions to be sought from the total number of flight operations conducted. The notice will not include carrier-specific limitations, targets or suggested reductions. At the meeting, the Administrator will distribute a list of flights currently scheduled each 15-minute period from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., indicate any periods that he considers to be severely congested, and provide general targets for flight reductions during those periods, which will not identify which carriers flights are targeted to be moved or eliminated. Each carrier will then be invited into a separate, confidential discussion with the Administrator during which the carrier will be asked to offer specific flight reductions or scheduled, changes, which shall *not* be contingent on reductions offered by another carrier or carriers. After completion of the individual carrier sessions, the Administrator will revise the list of flights to reflect the individual discussions with the carriers. The carriers will again be given this list which will not identify flights by carrier. If the Administrator believes that severely congested time periods still exist, he may set revised targets and repeat the individual sessions with carriers. If the Administrator determines that identifying carrier-specific targets is necessary to facilitate voluntary flight reductions and schedule modifications, he may advise each carrier separately and confidentially of flight reduction targets specific to that carrier, which information will *not* be given to any other carrier or carriers. The Administrator may also make a general assurance with respect to the overall proportionality of the flight reductions being sought by the FAA from carriers serving JFK. The Administrator will develop and approve a proposed flight reduction plan and schedule reduction, which will be published in the **Federal Register** as a final order. Importantly, the procedures do not provide for any meetings among the carriers without the FAA present. The procedures will not allow any discussion or negotiation among carriers about flight reductions, prices charged, or markets served. During the course of the meetings, carriers will not be told schedule reductions or modifications other carriers are offering or being asked to offer. For these reasons, the Department is not presently inclined to initiate antitrust enforcement action against any carrier that participates in the FAA's flight reduction meeting and conducts itself in the manner described in your September 21 letter. This expresses the Department's current enforcement intention regarding the carriers' participation in the flight reductions meeting. The Department reserves the right to bring an enforcement action against any conduct that violated the antitrust laws. Yours sincerely, Thomas O. Barnett Issued in Washington, DC, on October 16, 2007. Kerry B. Long, Chief Counsel. [FR Doc. 07-5177 Filed 10-16-07; 4:31 pm]
Connectionstraces to 19
Traces to 19 documents
CFR
- Expiration and termination of licenses and decommissioning of sites and separate buildings or outdoor areas.§ 40.42
- Criteria for and identification of licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental assessments.§ 51.21
- Radiological criteria for unrestricted use.§ 20.1402
- Expiration and termination of licenses and decommissioning of sites and separate buildings or outdoor areas.§ 30.36
- Criteria for license termination under restricted conditions.§ 20.1403
- Alternate criteria for license termination.§ 20.1404
- Accident source term.§ 50.67
- Uranium fuel cycle environmental data—Table S-3.§ 51.51
- Environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste—Table S-4.§ 51.52
- Licensee guarantees of payment of deferred premiums.§ 140.21
- Delegation of authority to Director of Division of Trading and Markets.§ 200.30-3
U.S. Code
- Findings, purposes and policy§ 1801
- Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; composition; tenure; duties; compensation§ 2039
- Open meetings§ 552b
- Registration, responsibilities, and oversight of self-regulatory organizations§ 78s
- National securities exchanges§ 78f
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Registered futures associations§ 21
- Delay reduction actions§ 41722
13 references not yet in our index
- 10 CFR 51
- 10 CFR 50
- 10 CFR 30
- 10 CFR 20
- 10 CFR 61
- 10 CFR 71
- 40 CFR 190
- Pub. L. 92-463
- Pub. L. 109-058
- 10 CFR 140
- 17 CFR 240.19
- 15 USC 78
- 14 CFR 93
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Notice of availability and finding of no significant impact
Cite10 CFR 51
Cite10 CFR 50
Cite10 CFR 30
Cites 32 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources