Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-12-18 · FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION · Notices

Notices. Notice of Availability

41,395 words·~188 min read·/register/2007/12/18/07-6095

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

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Report No. 2843] Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding December 5, 2007. A Petition for Reconsideration has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking Proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of this document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.
(BCPI)(1-800-378-3160). Oppositions to this petition must be filed by January 2, 2008. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have expired. *Subject:* In the Matter of Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service (MB Docket No. 87-268). *Number of Petitions Filed:* 1. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-24483 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Sunshine Act; Notice of Agency Meeting Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, December 19, 2007, to consider the following matters: Summary Agenda: No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the discussion agenda. Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' meetings. Summary reports, status reports, and reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the Board of Directors. Memorandum and resolution re: Proposed Revisions to the FDIC's Minority and Women Outreach Program Contracting Regulation. Memorandum and resolution re: Conforming Amendments to the FDIC Rules and Regulations Due to the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006. Memorandum and resolution re: Amendments to Statement of Policy on Bank Merger Transactions. Memorandum and resolution re: Statement of Policy for section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. Discussion Agenda: Memorandum and resolution re: Proposed 2008 Corporate Operating Budget. Memorandum and resolution re: Claims and Large-Bank Modernization—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Memorandum and resolution re: Late Assessment Penalties Delegations and Amendments. The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC. The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees needing such assistance should call
(703)562-6067 (Voice or TTY), to make necessary arrangements. Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Ms. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at
(202)898-7122. Dated: December 12, 2007. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best Assistant Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-24462 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Sunshine Act; Notice of Agency Meeting Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, December 19, 2007, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in closed session, pursuant to section 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (9)(A)(ii), (9)(B), and
(10)of Title 5, United States Code, to consider matters relating to the Corporation's supervisory and corporate activities. The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC. Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Ms. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at
(202)898-7122. Dated: December 12, 2007. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-24463 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than January 2, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta** (David Tatum, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309: *1. Donald V. Watkins* , Miami Beach, Florida, and Donald V. Watkins, Jr., Birmingham, Alabama; to acquire voting shares of Alamerica BancCorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Alamerica Bank, both of Birmingham, Alabama. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 13, 2007. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E7-24480 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage *de novo* , or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 11, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago** (Burl Thornton, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414: *1. FBOP Corporation* , Oak Park, Illinois; to acquire up to 24.9 percent of the voting shares of PFF Bancorp, Inc., Rancho Cucamonga, California, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of PFF Bank and Trust, Pomona, California, and thereby engage in operating a savings association, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 13, 2007. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc.E7-24481 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [PBS-N01] Notice of Availability to Distribute a Record of Decision for the Construction of a New U.S. Commercial Port of Entry in Derby Line, Vermont AGENCY: Public Buildings Service, GSA. ACTION: Notice of Availability. SUMMARY: The General Services Administration (GSA), along with the Federal Highway Administration and the Vermont Agency of Transportation as cooperating agencies, announces its intent to distribute a Record of Decision
(ROD)prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)of 1969, as amended, 42 USC 4321—4347
(NEPA)that documents GSA’s efforts to assess the potential impacts of the construction of a new U.S. Commercial Port of Entry in Derby Line, Vermont (the “Proposed Action”). At the request of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the GSA is proposing to construct a new Commercial Port of Entry which meets their needs as well as the design requirements of GSA. The existing Port of Entry site and facilities are inefficient and are very difficult to maneuver through, especially for large trucks, resulting in extensive queuing and delays. Additionally, all building spaces are currently fully occupied and there is no swing or vacant space that could be utilized to house the additional requirements at this site. Due to the current layout, expansion of existing spaces is not possible. Due to organizational changes within CBP in the past few years, as well as changes in requirements and usage of the Port of Entry, the existing facility is outdated and no longer adequately meets its current or future requirements. The Proposed Action has been defined and includes:
(a)Identification of land requirements, including acquisition of adjoining land;
(b)demolition of existing government structures at the Port of Entry;
(c)construction of a main administration building and ancillary support buildings; and
(d)consequent potential alterations to Route I-91 and secondary roads. Studied alternatives have identified alternative locations for the components of the Port of Entry including the main administration and ancillary support buildings, the associated roadway network and parking. A No-Action alternative has also been studied and evaluates the consequences of not constructing the new facility. This alternative has been included to provide a basis for comparison to the action alternatives as required by NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1002.14(d)). DATES: January 17, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT David M. Drevinsky P.E., PMP, Regional Environmental Quality Advocate, U.S. General Services Administration, 10 Causeway Street, Room 975, Boston, MA 02222. Fax:
(617)565—5967. Phone:
(617)565—6596. E-mail: *david.drevinsky@gsa.gov* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Distribution: GSA will distribute 10 copies of the Record of Decision to the Haskell Free Library, 96 Caswell Avenue, Derby Line, Vermont, the Daily Memorial Library, 101 Jr. High Drive, Derby, Vermont and the Goodrich Memorial Library, 202 Main Street, Newport, Vermont. Dated: December 11, 2007. Glenn C. Rotondo, Assistant Regional Administrator, Public Buildings Service, New England Region. Record of Decision The U.S. General Services Administration has published a Final Environmental Impact Statement on the following project: *New U.S. Commercial Port of Entry Derby Line, Vermont* **Purpose and Need** The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the undersized and functionally obsolete Commercial Port of Entry at Derby Line with a new facility that meets the needs of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service (CBP), complies with the design requirements of GSA, and provides efficient and safe inspection and processing of vehicles and people at the border crossing. The proposed project is needed because the size and conditions of the existing buildings, as well as the overall site configuration, are substandard, preventing the agencies assigned to the port from adequately fulfilling their respective missions. This condition has become more noticeable in recent years due to the increase in commercial truck traffic and heightened security at the border following the terrorist attacks in 2001. The deficiencies with the existing facilities have led to extensive traffic delays for vehicles entering the U.S., frequently resulting in backups of over one mile on Highway 55 in Canada. The deficiencies fall into three broad categories: 1) building deficiencies, 2) overall site deficiencies, and 3) insufficient security. Alternatives The following alternatives were analyzed to determine which best satisfied the project's purpose and need: The No-Build Alternative Under the No-Build Alternative, operation of the Port of Entry would continue at its existing location using the existing facilities. With the exception of minor repairs and upgrades to existing buildings, no new construction or demolition would take place. No new inspection lanes or facilities would be built. The Selected Alternative The selected alternative (the Build Alternative) consists of a new facility on the existing property and requires the full or partial acquisition of several adjacent parcels. The Build Alternative was identified as GSA's preferred alternative in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and as the selected alternative in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, because it best satisfied the project's purpose and need with the least adverse environmental impact. Three alternatives—Alternatives 1, 2, and 3—were developed to locate the new port facilities within different configurations on the existing port site. However none of these alternatives were found to be feasible from a traffic engineering perspective, as described below. Alternatives Dismissed Alternative No. 1 would locate the Main Port Building to the east of the existing Port Building, generally in the undeveloped area situated between the northbound lanes of Route I-91 and the Caswell Avenue exit ramp. The primary inspection lanes/booths would be connected to the building's northwest corner and the Non-Commercial Secondary Inspection Building would be connected to the south. A combined Commercial Secondary Inspection and NII Building would be located to the west-southwest of the Main Port Building, immediately south of the existing non-commercial secondary inspection facilities. A new Agency Vehicle Storage Garage would be located south of the existing Commercial Secondary Inspection Building and west of the existing primary inspection lanes/booths. Finally, an outbound inspection lane/booth would be located in one of the northbound lanes of Route I-91, northeast of the Main Port Building. *Alternative No. 1 has the following negative aspects:* • Trucks would be required to back-up from the NII Building to access the Commercial Secondary Inspection Building's loading docks, although this movement would not impact through travel lanes; • A vacant commercial property on Maple Street would be displaced to accommodate the relocated Route I-91 southbound ramp, and a vacant commercial property on Herrick Road would be displaced to accommodate the relocated Route I-91 northbound exit ramp; • Secondary RPMs (SRPMs) would be located in a tight location, possibly complicating access and circulation; • The provision of an appropriate deceleration lane on Route I-91 Southbound at Exit 29 would be required; • Trucks may have difficulty accessing the parking area when exiting the NII building; • The truck exit lane from the primary inspection lanes/booths onto Route I-91 Southbound has tight clearances near the NII building, complicating circulation; • The proposed Route I-91 northbound geometry does not fulfill the requirements of a 40 mph design speed. Examples include the substandard length of the horizontal curve passing under Caswell Avenue, as well as its close proximity (inadequate separation) to the next horizontal curve immediately to its south; • Poor sight distance for Route I-91 northbound traffic to the nose of the proposed northbound off-ramp (approximately 400 feet); • The alternative does not include safety improvements to provide positive separation between opposing traffic on the northbound and southbound ramps to Caswell Avenue; • Parking facilities for the proposed Port fall within the clear zone of the proposed Route I-91 northbound lanes, and; • The length of the proposed northbound off-ramp would be substantially reduced from the existing condition. This is very problematic for two reasons: • The deceleration length for vehicles exiting the highway would be reduced by approximately 50 percent. • Local residents have complained of their inability to exit the highway due to queued vehicles on Route I-91 from the Canadian port. The proposed layout for this alternative would seriously exacerbate the existing problems. Because Alternative No. 1 does not meet the proposed project's goals, and because it is inadequate from a traffic engineering standpoint, it was eliminated from further consideration.Alternative No. 2 is similar to Alternative No. 1 in many respects, but with several clear differences. Under this alternative, the Main Port Building would be located in the same general area as in Alternative No. 1; however Alternative No. 2 reorients the Main Port Building and combined Commercial Secondary Inspection and NII Building to be parallel, thereby creating a straight line through the inspection area. The primary inspection lanes/booths would be connected to the Main Port Building's northwest corner and the Non-Commercial Secondary Inspection Building would be connected to the south. The Agency Vehicle Storage Garage would be located farther north under this alternative, which would provide additional truck parking and improves truck access to the Route I-91 southbound off-ramp to Caswell Avenue. *Alternative No. 2 has the following negative aspects:* • Local access to the Port of Entry would require the use of a turnout located north of the Port of Entry; • Trucks would be required to back-up from the NII Building to access the Commercial Secondary Inspection Building's loading docks, although this movement would not impact through travel lanes; • A vacant commercial property on Maple Street would be displaced to accommodate the relocated Route I-91 southbound ramp and a vacant commercial property on Herrick Road would be displaced to accommodate the relocated Route I-91 northbound ramp; • The horizontal alignment of Route I-91 Southbound near Exit ramp is a concern. The provision of appropriate acceleration and deceleration lanes would be needed; • Utilizing the truck parking area located near the Agency Vehicle Storage Garage would require trucks to back-up into the circulation area; • The proposed Route I-91 northbound geometry does not fulfill the requirements of a 40 mph design speed. Examples include the substandard length of the horizontal curve passing under Caswell Avenue (Curve A), as well as its close proximity (inadequate separation) to the next horizontal curve immediately to its south (Curve B); • Curve B is substandard in length and curvature, and; • The proposed Route I-91 northbound geometry consists of a “broken back” configuration, *i.e.* , two adjacent horizontal curves in the same direction (both to the left in this instance) with minimal separation. This is a poor design practice. Because Alternative No. 2 does not meet the proposed project's goals, and because it is inadequate from a traffic engineering standpoint, it was eliminated from further consideration. Unlike Alternative Nos. 1 and 2, Alternative No. 3 would retain the existing Route I-91 Southbound entrance/exit ramp, and the NII Building would be a separate structure from the Commercial Secondary Inspection Building. The Main Port Building would be located in the same general area as in the other two alternatives; however its orientation would not be parallel to the NII Building, which also would be located in the same general area as in the other two alternatives. The primary inspection lanes/booths would be connected to the Main Port Building's northwest corner and the Non-Commercial Secondary Inspection Building would be connected to the south. The Commercial Secondary Inspection Building would be located in the same general area as the existing broker building, and the Agency Vehicle Garage would be located immediately north, both along the site's western perimeter. *Alternative No. 3 has the following negative aspects:* • Southbound movements to and from Route I-91's Exit 29 would complicate circulation; • Trucks would be required to back-up from the NII Building to access the Commercial Secondary Inspection Building's loading docks; • Would result in a tight turning radius from the NII Building to Exit 29; • Would result in difficult truck maneuvering and parking when trucks leave the primary inspection lane/booth and are destined to the secondary inspection area; • Would result in a higher potential for pedestrian/motor vehicle circulation conflicts on the property; • Access to the Port of Entry from Herrick Road would require the use of a turnout located north of the Port of Entry; • Secondary RPMs would be located in a tight location, possibly complicating access and circulation. • The proposed Route I-91 northbound geometry does not fulfill the requirements of a 40 mph design speed. Examples include the substandard length of the horizontal curve passing under Caswell Avenue, as well as its close proximity (inadequate separation) to the next horizontal curve immediately to its south; • Poor sight distance for Route I-91 northbound traffic to the nose of the proposed northbound off-ramp (approximately 400 feet); • The alternative does not include safety improvements to provide positive separation between opposing traffic on the northbound and southbound ramps to Caswell Avenue; • Parking facilities for the proposed Port fall within the clear zone of the proposed Route I-91 northbound lanes; • The length of the proposed northbound off-ramp would be substantially reduced from the existing condition. This is very problematic for two reasons: • The deceleration length for vehicles exiting the highway would be reduced by approximately 50 percent. • Local residents have complained of their inability to exit the highway due to queued vehicles on Route I-91 from the Canadian port. The proposed layout for this alternative would seriously exacerbate the existing problems; • The proposed angular parking adjacent to Route I-91 for “Referrals” will pose a severe safety concern, and; • The Route I-91 southbound off-ramp geometry is poor and will result in poor vehicular flow exiting the Port. Because Alternative No. 3 does not meet the goals of the proposed project, and because it is inadequate from a traffic engineering standpoint, it was eliminated from further consideration. Due to the many problems associated with them and because another alternative exists that fully satisfies the project's purpose and need with less adverse impact, Alternative Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were dismissed from further consideration. **Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Project** The Build Alternative would have a small impact on the natural and social environment of the Derby Line region. The Build Alternative would require the full or partial acquisition of several adjacent properties. The Build Alternative would result in minor changes or impacts in traffic, noise, surface water runoff, and increased lighting. In each case, the changes would not be significant. As a final design for the facility is developed, GSA/CBP will evaluate traffic processing flow and wait times and, if necessary, identify appropriate idling reduction strategies. Such strategies may include development of signage at strategic locations and/or educational outreach to local industries whose drivers frequently use the border crossing. **Decision** GSA has decided to proceed with the design of the Build Alternative because it best meets the purpose and need of the proposed project, and would have positive impacts on inbound traffic compared to the No-Build Alternative. The traffic circulation patterns of the Build Alternative, with the installation of increased security and technology measures, would result in shorter vehicle queues and more effective and faster processing times for inbound vehicles. The separation of non-commercial traffic from commercial traffic would greatly reduce queuing that occurs with the No-Build Alternative when more than one truck is present for processing. The number of inbound booths for processing vehicular traffic would change from one commercial and four non-commercial lanes to one commercial, three non-commercial and one “dual-use” lane, with space reserved for the future addition of a second “dual-use” lane. The rearrangement of inspection lanes, as well as a general reconfiguration of the entire site, will result in the safer and more efficient processing of inbound vehicles. Traffic backups into Canada would be reduced with the new lane and site configurations. GSA selected the environmentally preferable alternative. The selected and environmentally preferable alternative best met the purpose and need for the project with the least impact to the natural and social environments, and best protects, preserves, and enhances the historic, cultural, and natural resources of the area. The following economic, technical, and GSA mission considerations were weighed in reaching the decision: The Build Alternative would adequately address the problem that the existing facility, although well maintained, does not meet GSA's or accessibility guidelines and provides only a small percentage of the total building square foot area required to meet the needs of the CBP and other agencies. It also addresses the problem that the existing Commercial Port of Entry suffers from a variety of basic deficiencies that hamper the CBP and other agencies in providing safe and efficient processing of vehicular and pedestrian traffic including: • Deficiencies in the main building (size, accessibility, structural, etc.) • Deficiencies in site circulation and layout • Deficiencies in processing of inbound commercial and non-commercial vehicles, especially in the lack of space to perform secondary inspections of large commercial vehicles • Deficiencies in processing outbound vehicular and pedestrian traffic • Lack of parking spaces • Lack of a designated delivery area • Deficiencies in exterior lighting • Deficiencies related to security measures (equipment, fencing, building setbacks, etc.) **Comments** The Draft EIS was issued on July 28, 2006, initiating a 45-day public comment period. A public hearing was held on August 29, 2006 to receive comments. Comments received on the DEIS were responded to in the Final EIS. The Final EIS was issued on July 6, 2007, initiating a 30-day comment period which ended on August 6, 2007. Letters were received from USEPA, USACOE, State Senator Vince Illuzzi, the Town of Derby Select Board, the Village of Derby Line Trustees and two private citizens. **Federal Agencies** *USEPA* *Comment:* The Environmental Protection Agency—New England Region
(EPA)has reviewed the U.S. General Services Administration's
(GSA)Final Environmental Impact Statement for a new U. S. Border Station and Commercial Port of Entry in Derby Line, Vermont. We continue to have no objections to the project as described. *Response:* GSA appreciates EPA's lack of objections to the project and their designation of the EIS as adequate. As a final design for the facility is developed, GSA/CBP will evaluate traffic processing flow and wait times and, if necessary, identify appropriate idling reduction strategies. *USACOE* *Comment 1:* During a February 2, 2006 on-site meeting and in an April 4, 2006 e-mail message with your consultant, The Louis Berger Group, they were informed that the proposed project will require a Department of the Army permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)and that the New England Division Highway Methodology will be followed. This process integrates the Corps of Engineers Section 404 process and the NEPA EIS process. To this date we have not received an application to perform the proposed work discussed in the Final EIS. For individual permits you must submit information that thoroughly and clearly documents the need for the fill, alternatives, and mitigation possibilities. Without this information, we could not issue a permit to place the fill. Additionally, in accordance with our regulations, no permit can be issued unless it complies with the Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guideline. These guidelines prohibit discharges where less environmentally damaging, practicable alternatives (LEDPA) exist. Although, the Final EIS has chosen a Build Alternative, the Corps has insufficient information at this time to select the LEDPA. Therefore, our comments on the Final EIS are relatively brief and relate to the information that would be required in the future to evaluate a Department of the Army permit application to construct the proposed project. *Response 1:* GSA recognizes that the Army Corps of Engineers will require additional information to evaluate the project. This information will be developed as the project advances through the design phase and will be furnished with the Department of the Army permit application. *Comment 2:* The document generally addresses the environmental impacts of the project and of the preferred alternative. We believe that additional narrative descriptions of the aquatic resources that would be impacted and the nature of the impacts should be provided in order to provide a complete understanding of the project and its' effects. This information will be required for our permit review. *Response 2:* As the project advances through the design phase, additional information will be developed that will be submitted with all permit applications. *Comment 3:* Summary Page S-2, Hydrology: The brief summary mentions that the wetlands on the site are Class Three wetlands, which are not subject to the Vermont Wetland Rules. However, there is no mention that a permit will be required by the Corps of Engineers. The project will involve the placement of fill into the streams and wetlands on the site and, therefore, require a Department of the Army permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The need for potential mitigation for the proposed impacts to the aquatic resources should be mentioned. *Response 3:* GSA recognizes that a permit from the Corps of Engineers will be required. As the design progresses to a point where it can support a permit application, the application will be submitted and mitigation measures will be discussed. *Comment 4:* Alternatives: Three alternatives were initially considered and eliminated from further considerations based primarily on engineering. It's likely that these alternatives would have similar waterway and wetland impacts as the Build Alternative. Was any consideration given to the elimination of these alternatives based on their impact to the aquatic resources? *Response 4:* GSA agrees that each of the eliminated alternatives would have similar waterway and wetland impacts as the Build Alternative. Because each initially failed from an engineering standpoint, no further consideration was given to them. *Comment 5:* Build Alternative: Figure 6 is difficult to read with the yellow and green shading of the proposed highway alignments. The dark lines used to show proposed alignments in Figures 3, 4 & 5 allow you to view existing conditions. *Response 5:* Comment noted. *Comment 6:* Chapter 3, Hydrology: There is a lack of a clear understanding that a Department of the Army permit under the CWA will be required for the proposed project. *Response 6:* GSA understands that a Department of the Army permit under the CWA will be required for the proposed project. An application for said permit will be submitted once the project's design advances to a point where sufficient detail is available to support the application. *Comment 7:* Pg. 3-5: The Corps of Engineers does not have a “programmatic” General Permit in Vermont. *Response 7:* Comment noted. *Comment 8:* Pg. 4-3: Surface Water—There is no discussion of the proposed project's impact to the two streams within the project area. The on-site stormwater system has the potential to impact the streams and wetlands. These potential impacts should be mentioned in this chapter. *Response 8:* As stated on Page 4-3, the existing facility has limited stormwater management measures in place; the proposed project will represent a substantial improvement over existing conditions. As a result, no significant impacts to surface water conditions are anticipated. *Comment 9:* Wetlands—Figure 17 indicates that about 1.786 acres of wetlands will be impacted. Yet, here about 2.1 acres of wetland will be impacted. Check these calculations. *Response 9:* Comment noted. Table 18 contains the correct information. *Comment 10:* Table 18—Approximately 1.02 acres of Wetland E will be filled. Yet in Figure 17 about 0.721 acre of Wetland E will be filled and about 1.022 acres of Wetland E will remain. Check these calculations. *Response 10:* Comment noted. Table 18 contains the correct information. **State Officials** *State Senator Vince Illuzzi* **Comment:** Enclosed are two letters, one from the Village of Derby Line and the other from the Town of Derby, expressing relatively serious concerns, based on available information, about the proposed construction of a new commercial I-91 Derby Line port of entry and border station. In addition to the concerns articulated in these two letters, I have heard from a number of area residents expressing similar concerns about the project. Please give serious consideration to addressing and resolving the issues raised by these two letters. I am also taking the liberty of sending copies of this letter with enclosures to Vermont's congressional delegation. This will enable our two U. S. Senators and our Congressman to more closely monitor the local issues and concerns. *Response:* GSA appreciates Senator Illuzzi's interest in the proposed project. GSA is in receipt of the letters from the Village of Derby Line and the Town of Derby and has provided responses to them (see below). **Local Officials** *Derby Select Board* *Comment 1:* We would like to address various concerns we have with the Final EIS for the proposed new commercial Port of Entry and Border Station, Route 1-91 Derby Line, Vermont. We do understand the need for a new Port of Entry and hope that it will have a minimal impact on the Town and Village during the entire process. *Response 1:* GSA appreciates the Town's interest in the proposed project and will continue to make every reasonable effort to minimize potential impacts to the Town and Village. *Comment 2:* The federal government will be taking significant portions of commercially zoned property. The remaining commercially zoned property will not be as valuable. The current and future effects of this land acquisition have not been considered as the value to the Town and Village is important for future economic development. *Response 2:* On the east side of Route I-91, the proposed project will potentially acquire a vacant commercial parcel as well as an amount of frontage along Herrick Road. The amount to be acquired is small relative to the total area that has been commercially re-zoned. It should be noted that Herrick Road would merely be shifted to the east; access to all commercial parcels would remain. Further, the decrease in traffic congestion on Route I-91 would make the area more attractive to potential investors. It should also be noted that the amount of land estimated to be acquired is based upon the project's conceptual design, as the project advances through the design process the amount of land to be acquired could change and possibly be reduced. *Comment 3:* The staffing increase has not been adequately answered either. We know the numbers have increased since 2001. What are those numbers? What are the current staffing levels? How many employees of Homeland Security? GSA? Section 1.2.2.1 mentions the increased staffing, but no numbers. *Response 3* : Staffing levels are an operational issue rather than an environmental issue. *Comment 4:* A greater concern is addressed in the Hazardous Cargo Plan of the EIS. The increasing numbers of trucks carrying hazardous materials going through the Port is worrisome. A truck that has a problem is allowed to stay at the Port in a restricted area for up to 48 hours. That is to (sic.) long for us to feel that the area residents are safe. The Town and Village should be notified immediately if this situation arises so that citizens can be notified and given the option to leave the area if they choose. *Response 4:* As a result of the Trade Act of 2002, *Advance Electronic Information* is required for all cargo types entering the U.S., including hazardous materials. The Advance Electronic Information system requires that manifests for all commercial loads coming into the U.S. be sent to CBP at least one hour prior to arrival at the Port of Entry. If the one hour pre-clearance is not submitted, the truck is refused entry and turned back to Canada. In addition, all hazardous materials being imported into the U.S. must make a formal entry through a certified Customs broker and filed with CBP. Also, all drivers importing into the U.S. must have a valid FAST (Free and Secure Trade) card from CBP, if they do not possess a FAST card the shipment will not be allowed to enter the U.S. and will be returned to Canada. Each of these programs gives CBP advance warning of any hazardous cargo that would be arriving at the Port. According to CBP operating procedures, if a truck (or any vehicle for that matter) arrived at the border with serious equipment issues constituting a hazardous situation, CBP would contact state and local authorities through 911 and would attempt to isolate the vehicle until emergency responders arrived at the scene to stabilize and remove the vehicle as soon as possible. Any truck that has a problem is not allowed to stay at the Port for up to 48 hours. CBP does not hold trucks at the Port at any time for reasons of unsafe operating conditions. *Comment 5:* The Town of Derby has a Solid Waste Plan which needs to be followed along with the Northeast Kingdom Solid Waste Management District, of which Derby is a member. *Response 5:* It is the policy of GSA to meet or exceed local regulations when it does not compromise the mission of the tenant agencies. To the extent possible, GSA will adhere to the Town's Solid Waste Plan and the regulations of the Northeast Kingdom Solid Waste Management District. *Comment 6:* The truck traffic on Caswell Avenue as mentioned in section 3.2.7 is too high. The Village has been trying for years to reduce the heavy truck traffic through the Village. During construction and after, what assurance do we have that more trucks will stay on the interstate highway system? *Response 6:* In order to reduce truck traffic on Caswell Avenue, the weight limits on Route I-91 would need authority to increase the weight limits on Route I-91; FHWA is the federal agency that regulates weight limits, which can only be done through Congressional action. Since this is an existing border station that must remain in operation for the duration of the construction process, the construction will be phased in such a way that the facility continues to effectively operate and perform its daily functions. Route I-91 would not be closed. *Comment 7:* The air quality issues have not been adequately addressed either. The increased truck traffic only increases poor air quality. When traffic is backed up in both directions for a mile or more each way, the air quality is going to be effected. Studies need to be done in this area, not Chittenden County. On hot summer days we have truck and vehicular traffic backed up idling for hours in the Port area. What is the air quality for our residents like then, especially the residents at Michaud Manor who are elderly and may have breathing problems already? *Response 7:* The proposed project will not result in increased truck traffic. It will provide more queuing space, which should help to alleviate traffic backups into Canada. Depending upon the CBP guidelines for vehicle processing in place at the time, it is possible that traffic backups could continue. During the project's design phase, additional traffic circulation modeling will be done to ascertain whether the proposed future 6th processing lane would be included as part of the project now. *Comment 8:* We hope that these issues will be considered and answers provided to the questions we have as well as the citizens we represent, prior to any final decisions being made. We would gladly invite you to come back to Derby/Derby Line and address the questions we still have. *Response 8* : GSA appreciates the Town's concerns and will continue to work with local officials to address these concerns as the project advances through the design process. **Trustees of the Village of Derby Line** *Comment 1:* We are writing this letter to address issues that we feel were not explained adequately in the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS)for the proposed new Port of Entry on 1-91 in Derby Line. We know that the existing building is too small and is outdated, but we think that some issues need to be either explained more fully or changed in some way. *Response 1:* GSA appreciates the interest of the Village of Derby Line in the proposed project and will endeavor to address any outstanding issues below. *Comment 2:* First, we are concerned about both air and noise pollution. In the past year, Customs and Border Protection has instituted new inspection procedures that make the time to clear a vehicle (especially a passenger vehicle) much more lengthy. This means that vehicles stay in line longer and backups are longer, which means that there are more exhaust fumes and noise. The Sound Level table that you have page 3-47 of the FEIS is no longer valid as it dates before the new procedures. We would like tosee a new table based on measurements done under the new conditions. In addition we would like to see new air quality data. *Response 2:* The proposed project will provide more queuing space, which should help to alleviate traffic backups into Canada. Depending upon the CBP guidelines for vehicle processing in place at the time, it is possible that traffic backups could ontinue. During the project's design phase, additional traffic circulation modeling will be done to ascertain whether the proposed future 6th processing lane would be included as part of the project now. *Comment 3:* Also, the EPA has issued an anti-idling policy which cuts down on air pollution and saves on fuel. We would like to see this policy enforced at the new facility. In connection with noise pollution, we trust that you will continue to maintain the line of trees on the west side of I-9l as a buffer, but we also would like to see more of a noise barrier put in place. This could be a vegetated berm or a wall. Both of these structures could reduce noise by up to 20 decibels or more, while the tree barrier reduces it by just 5 decibels. *Response 3:* As a final design for the facility is developed, GSA/CBP will evaluate traffic processing flow and wait times and, if necessary, identify appropriate idling reduction strategies. Such strategies may include development of signage at strategic locations and/or educational outreach to local industries whose drivers frequently use the border crossing. With regard to noise, because of the expected improvement to traffic flow, future noise levels will not approach the FHWA abatement criteria of 67 dBA. As such, mitigation measures would not be required. GSA will, however, continue to evaluate potential noise impacts as the project progresses and will work with the community to reach a mutually agreeable scenario. *Comment 4:* We are concerned about the number of trucks carrying hazardous materials though the I-91 port. Should there be a spill or explosion, the Village and its residents would be immediately affected. We would like to see a detailed hazmat plan that would be followed in the event of such an accident. In addition we would like to be informed of what extra safety precautions are taken for such cargo in the case that the truck has problems and must be held for 48 hours. *Response 4:* As a result of the Trade Act of 2002, *Advance Electronic Information* is required for all cargo types entering the U.S., including hazardous materials. The Advance Electronic Information system requires that manifests for all commercial loads coming into the U.S. be sent to CBP at least one hour prior to arrival at the Port of Entry. If the one hour pre- clearance is not submitted, the truck is refused entry and turned back to Canada. In addition, all hazardous materials being imported into the U.S. must make a formal entry through a certified Customs broker and filed with CBP. Also, all drivers importing into the U.S. must have a valid FAST (Free and Secure Trade) card from CBP, if they do not possess a FAST card the shipment will not be allowed to enter the U.S. and will be returned to Canada. Each of these programs gives CBP advance warning of any hazardous cargo that would be arriving at the Port. According to CBP operating procedures, if a truck (or any vehicle for that matter) arrived at the border with serious equipment issues constituting a hazardous situation, CBP would contact state and local authorities through 911 and would attempt to isolate the vehicle until emergency responders arrived at the scene to stabilize and remove the vehicle as soon as possible. Any truck that has a problem is not allowed to stay at the Port for up to 48 hours. CBP does not hold trucks at the Port at any time for reasons of unsafe operating conditions. *Comment 5:* The FEIS states that the Village is due no compensation for the commercial land that is being appropriated due to the fact that no one is using it at this time, and future possibilities cannot be taken into account. This is ludicrous; the reason that commercial entities have not established themselves on the property is due to the very event that we are studying. No one is going to start a business on land that may well be appropriated by the government for port of entry expansion. We feel that the Village should be considered for some type of compensation for lost tax revenue. *Response 5:* GSA will compensate individual property owners from whom land is acquired according to the fair market value of the land to be acquired. The fair market value considers a parcel's zoning and its future development potential and makes adjustments for it. The fact that Herrick Road would be shifted to the east, without cutting off access to any properties, should not discourage commercial entities from locating to the area. The laws and regulations that control land acquisition allow for direct compensation to the landowner whose property is taken, but prohibit payments to local governments for loss of tax revenue. *Comment 6:* We are concerned about the increased paved area and the amount of stormwater runoff that will ensue. The Village already has an inadequate stormwater system. To burden it with more runoff could lead to serious flooding on Main Street in the Village. The FEIS says that provisions have been made for a stormwater system at the port of entry. The Village would like to be able to see and review this plan. *Response 6:* The project site (the existing facility) sits at an elevation lower than the surrounding terrain; it is unlikely that any flooding would occur on Main Street, which is located over 2,000 feet to the west and at a higher elevation. As the project advances through the design process a detailed stormwater management plan will be developed. This plan will be shared with local officials. *Comment 7:* The unnamed brook that flows from the east under the highway has been a brook trout habitat. We trust that every precaution will be taken to keep it so. *Response 7:* During the project's design phase, all precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to the aforementioned brook. *Comment 8:* The FEIS states that economic benefits will accrue to the six counties nearest the proposed new port of entry mainly in the labor and supplies needed to build the new building. However, this will last only as long as it takes to finish construction—approximately 2 years. The Village will bear the brunt of the costs ( *i.e.* , loss of tax revenue, cost of infrastructure changes, etc.), and could lose jobs if plans to automate commercial entries eliminate customs brokers businesses. There should be some compensation for this. *Response 8:* As stated in the response to Comment 5, the laws and regulations that control land acquisition allow for direct compensation to the landowner whose property is taken, but prohibit payments to local governments for loss of tax revenue. During the design process, GSA will work with the Village to address the Village's concerns with regard to the cost of infrastructure changes. *Comment 9:* Our last concern is that construction of the new facility will cause 1-91 to close for periods of time, rerouting the traffic to Rt. 5 through the Village. Since this crossing is already overtaxed, and long lineups are creating both traffic safety problems and difficulties in accessing businesses on the west side of Main Street, additional traffic would be a disaster. We want assurance that this event will not happen, and that vehicles will be able to cross the border at 1-91 at all times for the duration of the project. *Response 9:* Since this is an existing border station that must remain in operation for the duration of the construction process, the construction will be phased in such a way that the facility continues to effectively operate and perform its daily functions. Route I-91 would not be closed. *Comment 10:* Finally, we want to be consulted and have input on the final plan before it is published. *Response 10:* It is the policy of GSA to meet or exceed local regulations when it does not compromise the mission of the tenant agencies. GSA will continue to solicit and welcome the coordination and cooperation of many entities from several local and state jurisdictions as the project advances. **Private Individuals** *Randall Bronson* *Comment 1:* I am writing you concerning the proposed upgrading and reconstruction of the I-91 Customs and Immigration facility in Derby Line. As a nephew of Royce and Joyce Wilson, owners of the Wilson property (last home on Maple Street) that directly borders land that will be used as part of this upgrading, I need to once again make my concerns noted and seek a solution to these concerns. I am taking this step on behalf of my aunt and uncle (Royce Wilson and Joyce Wilson), the owners of this property and also because I do not want undue stress placed upon my Uncle (Royce Wilson) if the Build Alternative, as it seems, is the choice. His health has been impacted over the past few years and any move forward to construct the Build Alternative will certainly be an impact to his quality of life. As a matter of fact, if any of construction proposals impact or impede on the Wilson property, they will significantly reduce his quality of life. Please note that my Uncle, Bernard Wilson, passed away in 2005, after the previous letter I sent you. *Response 1:* GSA appreciates Mr. Bronson's concerns and is sensitive to how the proposed project could affect Mr. Wilson's quality of life. *Comment 2:* As clarification to some of the history provided by some of the historians you quoted during the last printing of the Impact Study, the changes should be noted as follows: Elton Bennett farm and house used to exist between the I-91 South bound on-ramp and the current Customs Commercial Building. The house was moved towards Holland and located on the Jim Jacobs property during the construction of I-91. There used to be a hay barn located south of the Wilson House, by about. 100-200 feet, where the Brokers Building is located. This property was not owned by the Wilson's. The Cowle House was moved up Herrick Road to its present location. The Wilson's did not own any land south or east of their current property, nor did they farm any of the land. The Wilson residence did enjoy fresh spring water that was supplied by a spring located of a mile southeast of the residence. The connection to this well was severed during the construction of I-91. *Response 2:* Comment noted. *Comment 3:* First of all, I still believe the only option that will not impact the Wilson residence and property, is to not build. Not building will preserve the quality of the property and will have the least impact on the Royce and Joyce Wilson's ability to market the property and home in the future, if needed. *Response 3:* The No-Build Alternative has been rejected because it does not meet the project's purpose and need and is not in the best interest of the United States. *Comment 4:* The **BUILD ALTERNATIVE** will impact our homestead as follows: 1. The I-91 Southbound on-ramp will be unacceptably close to our property. 2. Loss of privacy will be realized and the closeness of the on-ramp could subject the property to invasion and unlawful trespass. 3. Noise level increases will be realized, even though you claim they won't. 4. The front door of the house will be within 75 to 100 feet of the on-ramp, taking away from the esthetic value of the house, not to mention public safety concerns. 5. This option will render the property unmarketable for residential or commercial sale because of the closeness to the I-91 ramp. No one will want to live that close to an on-ramp. 6. The stresses to Royce Wilson will be enormous as he has lived in this house and on this property for the majority of his life. *Response 4:* GSA acknowledges the concerns of Mr. Bronson and will work with him and other members of the community to reach mutually agreeable mitigation scenarios. *Comment 5:* In conclusion, as the concerned nephew of Royce and Joyce Wilson, I am advocating that I do not agree to the **BUILD ALTERNATIVE** . If GSA wishes to proceed with the **BUILD ALTERNATIVE** , the only option should be to negotiate monetary purchase of Royce and Joyce Wilson's homestead at current fair market value and not the value of the property post I-91 upgrade. The GSA purchase of their homestead could then be used as a buffer zone that could be used to allow for more privacy and. quality of life for remaining residents along Maple Street. *Response 5:* GSA is willing to work with Mr. Bronson to achieve a mutually agreeable solution. *John Bullis* *Comment 1:* In regards to the proposed changes to the 1-91 POE. I have the same concerns as many others regarding noise, lighting, air pollution's. *Response 1:* Comment noted. *Comment 2:* However I have another and that is the fact that there exists a drainage ditch between the properties of 83 and 125 Highland Avenue. This ditch is fed on it's West end by a culvert under Highland Avenue and empties on it's East end into a field that will contain the 1-91 Southbound ramp. While most of the time this ditch is dry, there are times when it is full. During heavy rain and Springtime melts. Also there is a large amount of underdrain located under the ground proposed for the on ramp (165 feet I believe maybe more). *Response 2:* Comment noted. As the project advances through the design process a detailed stormwater management plan will be developed. **Conclusion** GSA has reached its decision based upon information and analysis contained in the FEIS and outlined in this document. Based on these considerations, GSA has determined that the Build Alternative:
(1)best satisfies the project's Purpose and Need,
(2)poses the least impact to the natural and human environments,
(3)has been selected based on processes in compliance with NEPA and other applicable requirements, and
(4)may be advanced through detailed design and construction. [FR Doc. E7-24445 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-A8-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Secretary Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council; Notice of Meeting AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary is announcing a public meeting of the *Exxon Valdez* Oil Spill Public Advisory Committee. DATES: January 24, 2008, at 9 a.m. ADDRESSES: *Exxon Valdez* Oil Spill Trustee Council Office, 441 West 5th Avenue, Suite 500, Anchorage, Alaska. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Mutter, Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, 1689 “C” Street, Suite 119, Anchorage, Alaska, 99501,
(907)271-5011. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Public Advisory Committee was created by Paragraph V.A.4 of the Memorandum of Agreement and Consent Decree entered into by the United States of America and the State of Alaska on August 27, 1991, and approved by the United States District Court for the District of Alaska in settlement of *United States of America* v. *State of Alaska* , Civil Action No. A91-081 CV. The meeting agenda will include review of the draft fiscal year 2009 invitation for restoration project proposals. Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance. [FR Doc. E7-24502 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-RG-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Advisory Committee—Notice of Renewal AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Renewal of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Advisory Committee. SUMMARY: This notice is published in accordance with Section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-463). Notice is hereby given that the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture have renewed the Bureau of Land Management's Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Advisory Committee. The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretaries with respect to the preparation and implementation of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Management Plan. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Herrema, National Landscape Conservation System (WO-170), Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street, NW., Room 5618, Washington, DC 20240, telephone
(202)208-3516. Certification Statement I hereby certify that the renewal of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Advisory Committee is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the Secretary of the Interior's and the Secretary of Agriculture's responsibilities to manage the lands, resources, and facilities administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the Interior. [FR Doc. E7-24442 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Submitted for Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior. ACTION: Notice of extension of an information collection (1010-0112). SUMMARY: To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we are notifying the public that we have submitted to OMB an information collection request
(ICR)to renew approval of the paperwork requirements in Form MMS-131, Performance Measures Data. This notice also provides the public a second opportunity to comment on the paperwork burden of these regulatory requirements. DATE: Submit written comments by January 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments either by fax
(202)395-6566 or email ( *OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov* ) directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (1010-0112). Mail or hand carry a copy of your comments to the Department of the Interior; Minerals Management Service; Attention: Cheryl Blundon; Mail Stop 4024; 381 Elden Street; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817. If you wish to e-mail your comments to MMS, the address is: *rules.comments@mms.gov* . Reference Information Collection 1010-0112 in your subject line and mark your message for return receipt. Include your name and return address in your message text. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Blundon, Regulations and Standards Branch,
(703)787-1607. You may also contact Cheryl Blundon to obtain a copy, at no cost, of the form that requires the subject collection of information. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title/Form:* Form MMS-131, Performance Measures Data. *OMB Control Number:* 1010-0112. *Abstract:* The Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS)Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 *et seq.* ), as amended, requires the Secretary of the Interior to preserve, protect, and develop OCS oil, gas, and sulphur resources; make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; balance orderly energy resource development with protection of the human, marine, and coastal environments; ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and preserve and maintain free enterprise competition. These responsibilities are among those delegated to MMS. The MMS generally issues regulations to ensure that operations in the OCS will meet statutory requirements; provide for safety and protect the environment; and result in diligent exploration, development, and production of OCS leases. In 1991 MMS began promoting, on a voluntary basis, the implementation of a comprehensive Safety and Environmental Management Program
(SEMP)for the offshore oil and gas industry as a complement to current regulatory efforts to protect people and the environment during OCS oil and gas exploration and production activities. From the beginning, MMS, the industry as a whole, and individual companies realized that at some point they would want to know the effect of SEMP on safety and environmental management of the OCS. The natural consequence of this interest was the establishment of performance measures. We are requesting OMB approval for a routine renewal of Form MMS-131, Performance Measures Data. The responses to this collection of information are voluntary, although we consider the information to be critical for assessing the effects of the OCS Safety and Environmental Management Program. We can better focus our regulatory and research programs on areas where the performance measures indicate that operators are having difficulty meeting MMS expectations. We are more effective in leveraging resources by redirecting research efforts, promoting appropriate regulatory initiatives, and shifting inspection program emphasis. The performance measures give us valuable quantitative information to use in judging the reasonableness of company requests for alternative compliance or departures under 30 CFR 250.141 and 250.142. We also use the information collected to work with industry representatives to identify and request “pacesetter” companies make presentations at periodic workshops. Knowing how the offshore operators as a group are doing, and where their own company ranks, provides company management with information to focus their continuous improvement efforts. This leads to more cost-effective prevention actions and, therefore, better cost containment. This information also provides offshore operators and organizations with a credible data source to demonstrate to those outside the industry how well the industry and individual companies are doing. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked, and the collection of information involves no proprietary information. We intend to release data collected on Form MMS-131 only in a summary format that is not company-specific. We will protect the information according to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 2). *Frequency:* The frequency is annual, with responses due during the 1 st quarter of the calendar year. *Estimated Number and Description of Respondents:* Approximately 130 Federal OCS oil and gas or sulphur lessees and we expect a 27 percent response rate. *Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden:* We estimate the public reporting burden averages 8 hours per response. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the information. The total annual hour burden is estimated to be 280 hours. *Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden:* We have identified no “non-hour cost” burden associated with Form MMS-131. *Public Disclosure Statement:* The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond. *Comments:* Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ) requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to:
(a)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful;
(b)evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(c)enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. To comply with the public consultation process, on June 1, 2007, we published a **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 30624) announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day comment period. In addition, § 250.199 provides the OMB control numbers for the information collection requirements imposed by the 30 CFR Part 250 regulations and forms; specifies that the public may comment at any time on these collections of information; and provides the address to which they should send comments. This information is also contained in the PRA statement on Form MMS-131. We have received no comments in response to these efforts. If you wish to comment in response to this notice, send your comments directly to the offices listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments by January 17, 2008. *Public Comment Policy:* Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. *MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer:* Arlene Bajusz
(202)208-7744. Dated: October 10, 2007. E.P. Danenberger, Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs. [FR Doc. E7-24493 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service Extension of Post-Sale Evaluation Period for Central Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 205 AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior. ACTION: Notice to Extend Post-Sale Evaluation Period for Central Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 205. SUMMARY: This notice extends by 45 days, the post-sale evaluation period for Central Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 205. The Minerals Management Service
(MMS)will complete evaluating all the bids received in this sale by February 15, 2008. This action is necessary due to the unusually high number of bids received in this lease sale. DATES: The post-sale evaluation period ends on January 1, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Marin, Regional Supervisor, Resource Evaluation, Gulf of Mexico Region, telephone 504-736-2710. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Central Gulf of Mexico Sale 205, held October 3, 2007, we received 1428 bids on 723 tracts, 616 tracts of which passed to a second phase requiring additional detailed evaluations. The aggressive bidding activity is due, in part, to the high number of quality prospects on recently expired unexplored tracts in newly established deepwater hydrocarbon plays and to the cost saving technological advances related to hydrocarbon exploration and development in the Gulf of Mexico's deepwater environment. The unusually high number of bids received on a large number of tracts, and the high volume of exclusively reprocessed data identified on Sale 205, significantly increases the workload for reviewing the adequacy of bids. Consequently, MMS is unable to conduct and complete the bid review process within the 90 days, i.e., by January 1, 2008. Under the provisions of § 256.47
(e)(2), MMS is extending the bid evaluation period until February 15, 2008. Dated: November 26, 2007. Lars Herbst, Regional Director, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. [FR Doc. E7-24501 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337-TA-620] In the Matter of: Certain Low Antimony Phosphoric Acid; Notice of Investigation AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a complaint and motion for temporary relief were filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on November 8, 2007, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of ICL Performance Products, LP of St. Louis, Missouri. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain low antimony phosphoric acid by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,989,509. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and cease and desist orders. The motion for temporary relief requests that the Commission issue a temporary exclusion order and temporary cease and desist orders prohibiting the importation into and sale within the United States after importation of certain low antimony phosphoric acid that infringes claims 1-3 or 20 of U.S. Patent No. 5,989,509 during the course of the Commission's investigation. ADDRESSES: The complaint and motion for temporary relief, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at *http://www.usitc.gov.* The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rett Snotherly, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone
(202)205-2599. Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2007). The authority for provisional acceptance of the motion for temporary relief is contained in section 210.58 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.58 (2007). *Scope of Investigation:* Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on December 11, 2007, *ordered that* —
(1)Pursuant to subsection
(b)of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain low antimony phosphoric acid by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-3 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 5,989,509, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2)Pursuant to section 210.58 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.58, the motion for temporary relief under subsection
(e)of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which was filed with the complaint, is provisionally accepted and referred to the presiding administrative law judge for investigation;
(3)For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a)The complainant is—ICL Performance Products, LP, 622 Emerson Road, Suite 500, St. Louis, Missouri 63141.
(b)The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint and motion for temporary relief are to be served: Maruzen Chemicals Co., Ltd., Maruzen Doshomachi Building, 1-4-7, Doshomachi, Chuo-Ku, Osaka 541-0045 Japan. Rasa Industries, Ltd., Yaesu Dai Building, 1-1-1, Kyobashi, Chuo-Ku, Tokyo 104-0031 Japan.
(c)The Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation, is Rett Snotherly, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3)For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Carl C. Charneski is designated as the presiding administrative law judge. Responses to the complaint, the motion for temporary relief, and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with sections 210.13 and 210.59 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13 and 210.59. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d), 210.13(a), and 210.59, such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 10 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint, the motion for temporary relief, and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint, motion for temporary relief and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown. Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint, in the motion for temporary relief, and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent. By order of the Commission. Issued: December 12, 2007. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E7-24482 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment Standards Administration Proposed Extension of the Approval of Information Collection Requirements ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment Standards Administration is soliciting comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection: Notice of Recurrences (CA-2a). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before February 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Mr. Steven Andoseh, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone
(202)693-0373, fax
(202)693-1451, *E-mail andoseh.steven@dol.gov.* Please use only one method of transmission for comments (mail, fax, or E-mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. *Background:* The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs administers the Federal Employees' Compensation Act,(5 U.S.C. 8101, *et seq.* ), which provides for continuation of pay or compensation for work related injuries or disease that result from Federal Employment. Regulation 20 CFR 10.104 designates form CA-2a as the form to be used to request information from claimants with previously accepted injuries who claim a recurrence of disability, and from their supervisors. The form requests information relating to the specific circumstances leading up to the recurrence as well as information about their employment and earnings. The information provided is used by OWCP claims examiners to determine whether a claimant has suffered a recurrence of disability related to an accepted injury and, if so, the appropriate benefits payable. This information collection is currently approved for use through July 31, 2008. II. *Review Focus:* The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. III. *Current Actions:* The Department of Labor seeks the approval for the extension of this currently approved information collection in order to ensure the accurate payment of benefits to current and former Federal employees with recurring work-related injuries. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Agency:* Employment Standards Administration. *Title:* Notice of Recurrences. *OMB Number:* 1215-0167. *Agency Number:* CA-2a. *Affected Public:* Individuals or Households. *Total Respondents:* 680. *Total Annual responses:* 680. *Average Time per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 340. *Frequency:* Once Per Recurrence. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $0. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* $299.00. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: December 13, 2007. Hazel Bell, Acting Chief, Branch of Management Review and Internal Control, Division of Financial Management, Office of Management, Administration and Planning Employment Standards Administration. [FR Doc. E7-24488 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CH-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Workforce Investment Act; Native American Employment and Training Council AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor. ACTION: Notice of Meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10 (a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA)(Public Law 92-463), as amended, and section 166 (h)(4) of the Workforce Investment Act
(WIA)[29 U.S.C. 2911(h)(4)], notice is hereby given of the next meeting of the Native American Employment and Training Council (NAETC), as constituted under WIA. *Time and Date:* The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. Eastern Standard Time
(EST)on Tuesday, January 8, 2008, and continue until 4:45 p.m. that day. The meeting will reconvene at 9 a.m. EST on Wednesday, January 9, 2008, and adjourn at approximately 4:45 p.m. on that day. The period from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on January 9, 2008, will be reserved for participation and presentations by members of the public. *Place:* All sessions will be held at the United States Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3437-A, B, and C, Washington, DC 20210. *Status:* The meeting will be open to the public. Members of the public not present may submit a written statement on or before December 28, 2007, to be included in the record of the meeting. Statements are to be submitted to Mr. Craig Lewis, Designated Federal Official (DFO), U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-4209, Washington, DC 20210. Members of the public not present may also participate in the public comment period by conference call. The number to call is
(888)790-3107 and the participant pass code is: 6858974. A conference monitor will facilitate calls to the meeting. Members of the public who will be in attendance should call Mr. Craig Lewis at
(202)693-3384 at least two business days before the meeting so a representative can be scheduled to clear entrance to the facility. Persons who need special accommodations should contact Mr. Craig Lewis at
(202)693-3384 at least two business days before the meeting. *Matters To Be Considered:* The formal agenda will focus on the following topics:
(1)U.S. Department of Labor Update;
(2)The Employment and Training Administration's Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development Initiative;
(3)Indian and Native American Program Update;
(4)Program Year 2006 Performance;
(5)Fiscal Year 09 Funding;
(6)Solicitation for Grant Application Update;
(7)Technical Assistance Process;
(8)Two Year Planning Guidance;
(9)Workgroup Reports; and
(10)Council Recommendations. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Craig Lewis, DFO, Indian and Native American Programs, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-4206, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. *Telephone:*
(202)693-3384 (VOICE) (this is not a toll-free number). Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of December, 2007. Emily Stover DeRocco, Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration. [FR Doc. E7-24487 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Meetings of Humanities Panel AGENCY: The National Endowment for the Humanities. ACTION: Notice of Meetings. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, as amended), notice is hereby given that the following meetings of Humanities Panels will be held at the Old Post Office, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather C. Gottry, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Endowment for the Humanities, Washington, DC 20506; telephone
(202)606-8322. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter may be obtained by contacting the Endowment's TDD terminal on
(202)606-8282. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed meetings are for the purpose of panel review, discussion, evaluation and recommendation on applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including discussion of information given in confidence to the agency by the grant applicants. Because the proposed meetings will consider information that is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential and/or information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, pursuant to authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined that these meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to subsections (c)(4), and
(6)of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code. 1. *Date:* January 7, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. *Room:* 421. *Program:* This meeting will review applications for Television Projects: Planning, Scripting, and Production Grants, submitted to the Division of Public Programs, at the November 5, 2007 deadline. 2. *Date:* January 14, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. *Room:* 421. *Program:* This meeting will review applications for Television Projects: Planning, Scripting, and Production Grants, submitted to the Division of Public Programs, at the November 5, 2007 deadline. 3. *Date:* January 15, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Room:* Library of Congress, Jefferson Building, Room 113. *Program:* This meeting will review applications for Kluge Fellowships, submitted to the Division of Research Programs, at the July 15, 2007 deadline. 4. *Date:* January 16, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. *Room:* 421. *Program:* This meeting will review applications for Television Projects: Planning, Scripting, and Production Grants, submitted to the Division of Public Programs, at the November 5, 2007 deadline. 5. *Date:* January 17, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Room:* Library of Congress, Jefferson Building, Room 113. *Program:* This meeting will review applications for Kluge Fellowships, submitted to the Division of Research Programs, at the July 15, 2007 deadline. 6. *Date:* January 21, 2008. *Time:* 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Room:* Brettenham House (South Entrance), 5 Lancaster Place, London, England WC2E 7EN. *Program:* This meeting will review applications for JISC/NEH Transatlantic Digitization Collaboration Grants, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access, at the November 29, 2007 deadline. 7. *Date:* January 23, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. *Room:* 421. *Program:* This meeting will review applications for Television Projects: Planning, Scripting, and Production Grants, submitted to the Division of Public Programs, at the November 5, 2007 deadline. 8. *Date:* January 31, 2008. *Time:* 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. *Room:* 415. *Program:* This meeting, which will be by teleconference, will review applications for Digital Humanities Initiative, submitted to the Office of Challenge Grants, at the November 1, 2007 deadline. 9. *Date:* January 31, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Room:* Room 315. *Program:* This meeting will review applications for The Americas in Collaborative Research, submitted to the Division of Research Programs, at the November 1, 2007 deadline. Heather C. Gottry, Acting Advisory Committee, Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-24441 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7536-01-P NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Appointments of Individuals To Serve as Members of Performance Review Boards 5 U.S.C. 4314 (c)(4) requires that the appointments of individuals to serve as members of performance review boards be published in the **Federal Register** . Therefore, in compliance with this requirement, notice is hereby given that the individuals whose names and position titles appear below have been appointed to serve as members of performance review boards in the National Labor Relations Board for the rating year beginning October 1, 2006 and ending September 30, 2007. Name and Title William B. Cowen—Solicitor David B. Parker—Deputy Executive Secretary Gary W. Shinners—Deputy Chief Counsel to Board Member John H. Ferguson—Associate General Counsel, Enforcement Litigation Gloria Joseph—Director of Administration Barry J. Kearney—Associate General Counsel, Advice Dated: Washington, DC, December 13, 2007. By Direction of the Board. Lester A. Heltzer, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-24453 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7545-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC seeks to combine two information collections previously approved under OMB clearance numbers 3150-0003 and 3150-0057. Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted: 1. *The title of the information collection:* “DOE/NRC Forms 741 and 740M (Nuclear Material Transaction Report and Concise Note) and Associated Instructions (NUREG/BR-0006)” 2. *Current OMB approval number:* 3150-0003. 3. *How often the collection is required:* Form 741 is submitted when specified events occur (nuclear material or source material transfers, receipts, or inventory changes). Form 740M is submitted as necessary to inform the United States (U.S.) or the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA)of any qualifying statement or exception to any of the data contained in any of the other reporting forms required under the U.S./IAEA Safeguards Agreement. 4. *Who is required or asked to report:* Persons licensed to possess specified quantities of special nuclear material or source material, any licensee who imports or exports source material, and licensees of facilities on the U.S. eligible list who have been notified in writing by the Commission that they are subject to Part 75. 5. *The number of annual respondents:* DOE/NRC Form 741 = 398. DOE/NRC Form 740M = 15. 6. *The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 45,926. 7. *Abstract:* NRC is required to collect nuclear material transaction information for domestic safeguards use and to make it available to the IAEA. Licensees use Form 741 to make inventory and accounting reports for certain source or special nuclear material, or for transfer or receipt of 1 kilogram or more of source material. Licensees use Form 740M to inform the U.S. or the IAEA of any qualifying statement or exception to any of the data contained in any of the other reporting forms required under the U.S./IAEA Safeguards Agreement. These forms enable NRC to collect, retrieve, analyze, and submit the data to IAEA to fulfill its reporting responsibilities. Submit, by February 19, 2008, comments that address the following questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html* . The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Margaret A. Janney (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7245, or by Internet electronic mail to *INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of December 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gregory Trussell, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E7-24473 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 52-011] Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Notice of Extension of Comment Period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit
(ESP)at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) is extending the public comment period for NUREG-1872, Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS)for an Early Site Permit
(ESP)at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site until Friday, December 28, 2007. The site is located on the southwest side of the Savannah River in eastern Burke County, Georgia. A notice of availability of the draft environmental impact statement for an early site permit
(ESP)at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site was published in the **Federal Register** on September 14, 2007, (72 FR 52586). The public comment period on the draft environmental impact statement was to have ended on November 28, 2007. A request for an extension of the comment period due to intermittent unavailability of the DEIS and associated reference materials through the NRC public webpage during the comment period was received by the NRC. Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 51.73, the comment period has been extended by 30 days to December 28, 2007. The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that the comment period for NUREG-1872, “Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS)for an Early Site Permit
(ESP)at the Vogtle ESP Site,” has been extended to Friday, December 28, 2007. NUREG-1872, “Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS)for an Early Site Permit
(ESP)at the Vogtle ESP Site,” is available for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, or from the Publicly Available Records
(PARS)component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), and has also been placed directly on the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov* . ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Website at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* , the Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR). The ADAMS accession number for Volume I of the DEIS is ML072410045 and Volume II of the DEIS is ML072410049. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . In addition, the Burke County Library, 130 Highway 24 South, Waynesboro, Georgia, has agreed to make the DEIS available for public inspection. Members of the public may send written comments on the DEIS for the Vogtle ESP to the Chief, Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** Notice. Comments may also be delivered to Room T-6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., during Federal workdays. To be considered, written comments should be postmarked by December 28, 2007. Electronic comments may be sent by the Internet to the NRC at *VOGTLE_EIS@nrc.gov* . Electronic submissions should be sent no later than December 28, 2007. Comments will be available electronically and accessible through the NRC's PERR link at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Notich, Project Manager, Environmental Projects Branch 1, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,
(301)415-3053 or by e-mail at *mdn@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of December, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nilesh C. Chokshi, Acting Director, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Office of New Reactors. [FR Doc. E7-24472 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations I. Background Pursuant to section 189a.
(2)of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from November 22, 2007, to December 5, 2007. The last biweekly notice was published on December 4, 2007 (72 FR 68206). Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not
(1)involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or
(2)create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.* If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:
(1)The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;
(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;
(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and
(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in August 28, 2007, (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least five
(5)days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at *HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV,* or by calling
(301)415-1677, to request
(1)a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or
(2)creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer TM to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer TM is free and is available at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.* Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.* Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format
(PDF)in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.* A filing is considered complete at the time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* or by calling the NRC technical help line, which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The help line number is
(800)397-4209 or locally,
(301)415-4737. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by:
(1)First-class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or
(2)courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at *http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp* , unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission. For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1
(800)397-4209,
(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station, Unit No.1 (CPS), DeWitt County, Illinois *Date of amendment request:* September 27, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify technical specification
(TS)by relocating references to specific American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM)standards for fuel oil testing to licensee-controlled documents. In the referenced letter, AmerGen (the licensee) previously received approval for a change to the Unit No. 1, CPS TS that added the water and sediment content test as alternative criteria to the “clear and bright” acceptance test for new fuel oil. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes relocate the specific ASTM standard references from the Administrative Controls Section of TS to a licensee-controlled document. Requirements to perform testing in accordance with applicable ASTM standards are retained in the TS as are requirements to perform surveillances of both new and stored diesel fuel oil. Future changes to the licensee-controlled document will be evaluated pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, “Changes, tests and experiments,” to ensure that such changes do not result in more than a minimal increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. In addition, the “clear and bright” test used to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil for use prior to addition to storage tanks has been expanded to recognize more rigorous testing of water and sediment content. Relocating the specific ASTM standard references from the TS to a licensee-controlled document and allowing a water and sediment content test to be performed to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil will not affect nor degrade the ability of the emergency diesel generators
(DGs)to perform their specified safety function. Fuel oil quality will continue to meet ASTM requirements. The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, and components
(SSCs)to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types and amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures. Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes relocate the specific ASTM standard references from the Administrative Controls Section of TS to a licensee-controlled document. In addition, the “clear and bright” test used to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil for use prior to addition to storage tanks has been expanded to allow a water and sediment content test to be performed to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The requirements retained in the TS continue to require testing of the diesel fuel oil to ensure the proper functioning of the DGs. Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes relocate the specific ASTM standard references from the Administrative Controls Section of TS to a licensee-controlled document. Instituting the proposed changes will continue to ensure the use of applicable ASTM standards to evaluate the quality of both new and stored fuel oil designated for use in the emergency DGs. Changes to the licensee-controlled document are performed in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. This approach provides an effective level of regulatory control and ensures that diesel fuel oil testing is conducted such that there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety. The “clear and bright” test used to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil for use prior to addition to storage tanks has been expanded to allow a water and sediment content test to be performed to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil. The margin of safety provided by the DGs is unaffected by the proposed changes since there continue to be TS requirements to ensure fuel oil is of the appropriate quality for emergency DG use. The proposed changes provide the flexibility needed to improve fuel oil sampling and analysis methodologies while maintaining sufficient controls to preserve the current margins of safety. The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. *NRC Branch Chief:* Russell A. Gibbs. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland *Date of amendments request:* November 8, 2007. *Description of amendments request:* The amendment would clarify the Technical Specification definitions for Channel Calibration and Channel Functional Test. The proposed amendments would incorporate Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-205-A, “Revision of Channel Calibration, Channel Functional Test, and Related Definitions,” Revision 3, dated July 31, 2003. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change clarifies the Technical Specification requirements for performance of channel calibrations and channel functional tests. Specifically, the proposed change incorporates the Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved Technical Specification Task Force Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-205-A, “Revision of Channel Calibration, Channel Functional Test, and Related Definitions,” Revision 3, dated July 31, 2003. The change does not adversely affect the performance or effectiveness of required testing, as testing appropriate to the associated Surveillance Requirements will continue to be performed. The proposed change does not have a detrimental impact on the condition or performance of any plant structure, system, or component that could initiate an analyzed event. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The equipment being calibrated or tested is still required to be operable and capable of performing the accident mitigation functions assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated. 2. The proposed change would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The scope of the proposed change is limited to the clarification of existing calibration and test requirements. As such, the proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in [a] margin of safety. The margin of safety in this case is the verification of instrument channel operability. The proposed change clarifies requirements for the performance of channel calibrations and channel functional tests. Specifically, the proposed change incorporates the Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved Technical Specification Task Force Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-205-A, “Revision of Channel Calibration, Channel Functional Test, and Related Definitions,” Revision 3, dated July 31, 2003. No changes of setpoints to plant process limits are involved. The surveillance requirements, as revised, will continue to ensure that affected equipment is tested in a manner that gives confidence that the equipment can perform its appropriate safety function. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Carey Fleming, Sr. Counsel—Nuclear Generation, Constellation Generation Group, LLC, 750 East Pratt Street, 17th floor, Baltimore, MD 21202. *NRC Branch Chief:* Mark G. Kowal. Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin *Date of amendment request:* November 9, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification
(TS)3.8.a.7 related to the movement of heavy loads over and in the spent fuel pools and would relocate the modified requirements to a licensee-controlled document, the Kewaunee Power Station Technical Requirements Manual (TRM). The proposed amendment is needed to facilitate future spent fuel cask handling activities associated with dry cask spent fuel storage. The proposed amendment would incorporate the use of a single-failure-proof lifting system for handling of necessary heavy loads over or in the spent fuel pool with irradiated fuel in either the fuel storage racks or in the just-loaded spent fuel canister in the spent fuel pool. The proposed modified TS 3.8.a.7 would then be relocated to the TRM. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment revises Kewaunee Power Station
(KPS)heavy load handling Technical Specification
(TS)3.8.a.7 requirements consistent with modifications to the Auxiliary Building
(AB)crane and the NRC's [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] current guidance for single-failure-proof lifting systems. The proposed amendment also relocates the affected heavy load handling-related TS to a licensee-controlled document, consistent with the NRC's regulations. The proposed change to TS 3.8.a.7 permits spent fuel cask handling in the spent fuel pool, which is required for loading spent fuel for dry storage at the on-site Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). Proposed TS 3.8.a.7 includes a new requirement that the AB crane and associated lifting devices meet the applicable single-failure-proof criteria. Heavy load handling will continue to be conducted in accordance with the KPS heavy load handling program, which meets the NRC's guidance in NUREG-0612, as described in this LAR, and as augmented by Regulatory Information Summary 2005-25. With the upgrade of the AB crane load handling system, drops of heavy loads will not be considered credible. Notwithstanding the AB crane upgrade, heavy loads will still be prohibited from being suspended over irradiated fuel in the spent fuel pool storage racks under the revised requirements. The previously evaluated cask drop accident is not considered credible with the upgraded AB crane because the crane trolley is being upgraded to a single-failure-proof design, consistent with applicable NRC-endorsed guidance. Lifting devices and interfacing lifting points associated with spent fuel cask handling will also be designed in accordance with applicable NRC guidance pertaining to single-failure-proof lifting systems. The result of these design upgrades is that the AB crane will retain the lifted load in the event of a single failure in the load path, including a failure of a wire rope. In addition, the crane will hold the load and the trolley and bridge will be designed to stay on their respective rails during a design basis seismic event. The relocation of TS 3.8.a.7 to the KPS Technical Requirements Manual
(TRM)is an administrative change that does not affect plant operation or heavy load handling. Revised TS 3.8.a.7 and its associated Bases will be relocated to the TRM after approval of this amendment request. Changes to the KPS TRM are controlled by 10 CFR 50.59. Regulation 10 CFR 50.59 requires that NRC approval be obtained prior to any change that would result in more than a minimal increase in
(1)the frequency of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated,
(2)likelihood of occurrence of a malfunction of a SSC important to safety previously evaluated, or
(3)consequences of a malfunction of a SSC important to safety previously evaluated. Accordingly, upon relocation of the requirements of TS 3.8.a.7 and associated Bases to the TRM, appropriate control of changes will be maintained, based on the criteria in 10 CFR 50.59. Administrative relocation of the requirements of TS 3.8.a.7 does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, configuration of KPS or the manner in which it is operated. Therefore, the proposed change does not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. Heavy load handling will continue to be conducted in accordance with the KPS heavy load handling program, which meets the NRC's guidance in NUREG-0612, as approved for KPS. Drops of heavy loads will continue to be very improbable events and the upgrade of the KPS AB crane lifting system to a single-failure-proof design provides additional defense-in-depth against such events. Notwithstanding the AB crane upgrade, heavy loads will still be prohibited from being suspended over irradiated fuel in the spent fuel pool storage racks under the revised requirements. Heavy load handling operations at KPS will continue to be conducted as they currently are and no new heavy load handling operations are required as a result of this amendment. The previously evaluated cask drop accident is not considered credible with the upgraded AB crane because the crane trolley is being upgraded to a single-failure-proof design, consistent with applicable NRC-endorsed guidance. Lifting devices and interfacing lifting points associated with spent fuel cask handling will also be designed in accordance with applicable NRC guidance pertaining to single-failure-proof lifting systems. The result of these design upgrades is that the AB crane will retain the lifted load in the event of a single failure in the load path, including a failure of a wire rope. In addition, the crane will hold the load and the trolley and bridge will be designed to stay on their respective rails during a design basis seismic event. The relocation of TS 3.8.a.7 to the KPS Technical Requirements Manual
(TRM)is an administrative change that does not affect plant operation or heavy load handling. Accordingly, upon relocation of the requirements of TS 3.8.a.7 and associated Bases to the TRM, appropriate control of changes will be maintained, based on the criteria in 10 CFR 50.59. Modification of the requirements of TS 3.8.a.7 does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, configuration of KPS or the manner in which it is operated. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed amendment revises KPS heavy load handling TS 3.8.a.7 requirements consistent with modifications to the AB crane and the NRC's current guidance for single-failure-proof lifting systems. Heavy load handling will continue to be conducted in accordance with the KPS heavy load handling program, which meets the NRC's guidance in NUREG-0612, as approved for KPS. Drops of heavy loads will continue to be very improbable events and the upgrade of the KPS AB crane lifting system to a single-failure-proof design provides additional defense-in-depth against such events and an increase in overall design margin. Notwithstanding the AB crane upgrade, heavy loads will still be prohibited from being suspended over irradiated fuel in the spent fuel pool storage racks under the revised requirements. Further, the relocation of TS 3.8.a.7 to the KPS Technical Requirements Manual
(TRM)is an administrative change that does not affect plant operation or heavy load handling. Heavy load handling operations at KPS will continue to be conducted as they currently are and no new heavy load handling operations are required as a result of this amendment. The previously evaluated cask drop accident is less probable with the upgraded AB crane because the crane trolley is being upgraded to a single-failure-proof design, consistent with applicable NRC-endorsed guidance. Lifting devices and interfacing lifting points associated with spent fuel cask handling will also be designed in accordance with applicable NRC guidance pertaining to single-failure-proof lifting systems. The result of these design upgrades is that the AB crane will retain the lifted load in the event of a single failure in the load path, including a failure of a wire rope. In addition, the crane will hold the load and the trolley and bridge will be designed to stay on their respective rails during a design basis seismic event. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Counsel for Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219. *NRC Acting Branch Chief:* Cliff Munson. Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin *Date of amendment request:* November 9, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the Kewaunee Power Station
(KPS)Updated Safety Analysis Report
(USAR)to modify the design and licensing basis for the auxiliary building
(AB)crane. The proposed amendment would allow the use of a methodology for performing the seismic qualification analysis of the upgraded crane. The crane is being upgraded to become a single-failure-proof design. The new methodology includes rolling of the crane bridge and trolley wheels during a seismic event. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. This amendment request pertains solely to an analysis method supporting the upgrade of the KPS AB crane from a non-single-failure-proof design to a single-failure-proof design. The AB crane is used to lift and handle loads in the KPS spent fuel pool and truck bay areas. The AB crane does not interface with operating plant equipment. The design rated load of the AB crane remains the same as previously approved. The proposed amendment does not change the current heavy load handling practices that are in use at KPS. Upgrading the AB crane to a single-failure-proof design will reduce the probability of a heavy load drop in the areas where the AB crane lifts and handles loads. The seismic analysis method proposed for use recognizes the inherent propensity for structures not fixed to one another (e.g., steel wheels on steel rails) to roll if sufficient lateral force is applied to either object. This seismic analysis method is proposed for use solely on the AB crane upgrade and not for any other plant structures, systems, or components. The recognition of wheel rolling between the AB crane trolley and bridge and their respective rails reflects the true nature of the installed equipment and its response to horizontal forces generated by a seismic event. Consideration of rolling reduces the projected analyzed loads on the crane and building structures and eliminates the need for unnecessary modifications to both. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. This amendment request pertains to an analysis method supporting the upgrade of an existing plant component. Specifically, the existing AB crane trolley is being replaced with a state-of-the-art design that is single-failure-proof. The AB crane does not interface with operating plant equipment. This seismic analysis method is proposed for use solely on the AB crane upgrade and not for any other plant structures, systems, or components. The design rated load of the AB crane remains the same at 125 tons. This load controls the design and supporting analysis. The auxiliary hook design rated load is being increased from 10 tons to 15 tons. The proposed amendment does not change the currently acceptable heavy load handling practices in use at KPS. The number and types of lifts made using this crane in support of KPS plant operations are not significantly changed from that contemplated during original plant licensing. Furthermore, the basic operations of the crane (i.e., hoisting and horizontal travel) remain the same, although the electronic controls will be upgraded to current standards. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated in the KPS licensing basis. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Although the proposed change is made specifically to support the upgrade of the KPS AB crane from a non-single-failure-proof to a single-failure-proof design, the margin of safety under consideration in this evaluation is mainly based on that contained within the safety analysis (seismic analysis). The purpose of this methodology is to determine the stress placed on the AB cranes' structural components. The stresses determined by this methodology are then compared to the yield strength values contained in CMAA-70. If the stresses the structural component are analyzed to receive during a postulated seismic event are less than the values contained in CMAA-70 the structural integrity of the crane is maintained and a suspended load will remain suspended during a seismic event. Additional margin has been added by reducing the analysis acceptance criteria to 90% of the acceptance criteria values contained in CMAA-70, modifying the crane support structure through additional welds and material, and confirming the bolts are of the proper material. DEK [Dominion Energy Kewaunee] is modeling the AB crane to roll during a seismic event when the postulated forces exceed the brake holding force. This provides a more realistic approach because the crane trolley is not fixed to the bridge rails. DEK has provided additional conservatisms by doubling the calculated force needed to overcome the brake holding force. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Counsel for Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219. *NRC Acting Branch Chief:* Cliff Munson. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, Pope County, Arkansas *Date of amendment request:* October 22, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify the Technical Specification
(TS)to establish more effective and appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative requirements related to ensuring the habitability of the control room envelope
(CRE)in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved TS Task Force
(TSTF)Standard Technical Specification change traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3, “Control Room Habitability.” Specifically, the proposed amendment would modify TS 3.7.9, “Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS),” and would establish a CRE habitability
(CREH)program in TS Section 5.5, “Administrative Controls—Programs and Manuals.” The NRC staff issued a “Notice of Availability of Technical Specification Improvement to Modify Requirements Regarding Control Room Envelope Habitability Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process” associated with TSTF-448, Revision 3, in the **Federal Register** on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022). The notice included a model safety evaluation, a model no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC)determination, and a model license amendment request. In its application dated October 22, 2007, the licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination which is presented below. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of NSHC adopted by the licensee is presented below: Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components
(SSCs)to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No new or different accidents result from performing the new surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee and, based on this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the request for amendments involves NSHC. *Attorney for licensee:* Terence A. Burke, Associate General Council—Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas G. Hiltz. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, Pope County, Arkansas *Date of amendment request:* October 22, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify requirements of Technical Specification
(TS)3.4.12, “RCS Specific Activity,” and TS 3.7.4, “Secondary Specific Activity,” as related to the use of an alternate source term
(AST)associated with accident offsite and control room dose consequences. Implementation of AST supports adoption of the control room envelope habitability controls in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved TS Task Force
(TSTF)Standard Technical Specification change traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3, “Control Room Habitability.” *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The use of an AST is recognized in 10 CFR 50.67 and guidance for its implementation is provided in RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.183. The AST involves quantities, isotopic composition, chemical and physical characteristics, and release timing of radioactive material for use as inputs to accident dose analyses. As such, the AST cannot affect the probability of occurrence of a previously evaluated accident. In addition, the reduction is specific activity limits within the TSs is unrelated to accident initiators. No facility equipment, procedure, or process changes are required in conjunction with implementing the AST that could increase the likelihood of a previously analyzed accident. The proposed changes in the source term and the methodology for the dose consequence analyses follow the guidance of RG 1.183. As a result, there is no increase in the likelihood of existing event initiators. Regarding accident consequences, the reduction in specific activity limits within the TSs is more restrictive (more conservative) and acts to support the analysis results given the application of an AST. The results of accident dose analyses using the AST are compared to TEDE [total effective dose equivalent] acceptance criteria that account for the sum of deep dose equivalent (for external exposure) and committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposure). Dose results were previously compared to separate limits on whole body, thyroid, and skin doses as appropriate for the particular accident analyzed. The results of the revised dose consequences analyses demonstrate that the regulatory acceptance criteria are met for each analyzed event. Implementing the AST involves no facility equipment, procedure, or process changes that could affect the radioactive material actually released during an event. Consequently, no conditions have been created that could significantly increase the consequences of any of the events being evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any of the events being evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The AST involves quantities, isotopic composition, chemical and physical characteristics, and release timing of radioactive material for use as inputs to accident dose analyses. As such, the AST cannot create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. In addition, the reduction is specific activity limits within the TSs is unrelated to accident initiators. No facility equipment, procedure, or process changes have been made in conjunction with implementing the AST that could initiate or substantially alter the progression of an accident. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Implementing the AST is relevant only to calculated accident dose consequences. The results of the revised dose consequences analyses demonstrate that the regulatory acceptance criteria are met for each analyzed event. In addition, the reduction is specific activity limits within the TSs is unrelated to accident initiators. No facility equipment, procedure, or process changes are required in conjunction with implementing the AST that could increase the exposure of control room or offsite individuals to radioactive material. The AST does not affect the transient behavior of non-radiological parameters (e.g., Reactor Coolant System pressure, Containment pressure) that are pertinent to a margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Terence A. Burke, Associate General Council—Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas G. Hiltz. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, Pope County, Arkansas *Date of amendment request:* October 22, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specifications
(TS)requirements for mode change limitations in Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO)3.0.4 and Surveillance Requirement
(SR)3.0.4. The proposed TS changes are consistent with Revision 9 of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved Industry TS Task Force
(TSTF)Standard TS
(STS)change traveler, TSTF-359, “Increase Flexibility in Mode Restraints.” The amendment would also modify other TSs to reflect the revisions to LCO 3.0.4. The spelling of the word “not” is corrected in Section 1.4 of the TSs. The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the **Federal Register** on August 2, 2002 (67 FR 50475), as part of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP), on possible amendments to revise the plant-specific TS to modify requirements for model change limitations in LCO 3.0.4 and SR 3.0.4. The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models for Safety Evaluation and No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the **Federal Register** on April 4, 2003 (68 FR 16579). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the CLIIP, including the model No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, in its application dated October 22, 2007. The proposed TS changes are consistent with NRC-approved Industry TSTF STS change, TSTF-359, Revision 8, as modified by 68 FR 16579. TSTF-359, Revision 8, was subsequently revised to incorporate the modifications discussed in the April 4, 2003, **Federal Register** notice and other minor changes. TSTF-359, Revision 9, was subsequently submitted to the NRC on April 28, 2003, and was approved by the NRC on May 9, 2003. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the NRC staff's analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS. Being in a TS condition and the associated required actions is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The consequences of an accident while relying on required actions as allowed by proposed LCO 3.0.4, are no different than the consequences of an accident while entering and relying on the required actions while starting in a condition of applicability of the TS. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2 —The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). Entering into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS, will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3 —The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS. The TS allow operation of the plant without the full complement of equipment through the conditions for not meeting the TS Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO). The risk associated with this allowance is managed by the imposition of required actions that must be performed within the prescribed completion times. The net effect of being in a TS condition on the margin of safety is not considered significant. The proposed change does not alter the required actions or completion times of the TS. The proposed change allows TS conditions to be entered, and the associated required actions and completion times to be used in new circumstances. This use is predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the management of plant risk. The change also eliminates current allowances for utilizing required actions and completion times in similar circumstances, without assessing and managing risk. The net change to the margin of safety is insignificant. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff proposes to determine that the request for amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Terence A. Burke, Associate General Council—Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas G. Hiltz. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2*, Pope County, Arkansas *Date of amendment request:* October 22, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify the Technical Specification
(TS)to establish more effective and appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative requirements related to ensuring the habitability of the control room envelope
(CRE)in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved TS Task Force
(TSTF)Standard Technical Specification change traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3, “Control Room Habitability.” Specifically, the proposed amendment would modify TS 3.7.6.1, “Control Room Emergency Ventilation and Air Condition System,” and would establish a CRE habitability
(CREH)program in TS Section 6.5, “Administrative Controls—Programs and Manuals.” The NRC staff issued a “Notice of Availability of Technical Specification Improvement to Modify Requirements Regarding Control Room Envelope Habitability Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process” associated with TSTF-448, Revision 3, in the **Federal Register** on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022). The notice included a model safety evaluation, a model no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC)determination, and a model license amendment request. In its application dated October 22, 2007, the licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination which is presented below. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of NSHC adopted by the licensee is presented below: Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components
(SSCs)to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No new or different accidents result from performing the new surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee and, based on this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the request for amendments involves NSHC. *Attorney for licensee:* Terence A. Burke, Associate General Council—Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas G. Hiltz. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Pope County, Arkansas *Date of amendment request:* October 22, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specifications
(TS)requirements for mode change limitations in Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO)3.0.4 and Surveillance Requirement
(SR)4.0.4. The proposed TS changes are consistent with Revision 9 of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved Industry TS Task Force
(TSTF)Standard TS
(STS)change traveler, TSTF-359, “Increase Flexibility in Mode Restraints.” The amendment would also modify other TSs to reflect the revisions to LCO 3.0.4. In addition, a change to TS 3.4.3 was made which was determined to be equivalent to the TSTF-359 changes. The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the **Federal Register** on August 2, 2002 (67 FR 50475), as part of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP), on possible amendments to revise the plant-specific TS to modify requirements for model change limitations in LCO 3.0.4 and SR 4.0.4. The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models for Safety Evaluation and No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the **Federal Register** on April 4, 2003 (68 FR 16579). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the CLIIP, including the model No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, in its application dated October 22, 2007. The proposed TS changes are consistent with NRC-approved Industry TSTF STS change, TSTF-359, Revision 8, as modified by 68 FR 16579. TSTF-359, Revision 8, was subsequently revised to incorporate the modifications discussed in the April 4, 2003, **Federal Register** notice and other minor changes. TSTF-359, Revision 9, was subsequently submitted to the NRC on April 28, 2003, and was approved by the NRC on May 9, 2003. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the NRC staff's analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS. Being in a TS condition and the associated required actions is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The consequences of an accident while relying on required actions as allowed by proposed LCO 3.0.4, are no different than the consequences of an accident while entering and relying on the required actions while starting in a condition of applicability of the TS. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). Entering into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS, will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS. The TS allow operation of the plant without the full complement of equipment through the conditions for not meeting the TS Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO). The risk associated with this allowance is managed by the imposition of required actions that must be performed within the prescribed completion times. The net effect of being in a TS condition on the margin of safety is not considered significant. The proposed change does not alter the required actions or completion times of the TS. The proposed change allows TS conditions to be entered, and the associated required actions and completion times to be used in new circumstances. This use is predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the management of plant risk. The change also eliminates current allowances for utilizing required actions and completion times in similar circumstances, without assessing and managing risk. The net change to the margin of safety is insignificant. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff proposes to determine that the request for amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Terence A. Burke, Associate General Council—Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas G. Hiltz. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont *Date of amendment request:* October 18, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications to change requirements related to Emergency Diesel Generator
(EDG)fuel oil tank volume, EDG fuel oil testing and Reactor Building crane inspections. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The changes do not impact the operability of any Structure, System or Component that affects the probability of an accident or that supports mitigation of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not affect reactor operations or accident analysis and has no radiological consequences. The operability requirements for accident mitigation systems remain consistent with the licensing and design basis. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change does not involve any physical alteration of plant equipment and does not change the method by which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The specified margin for onsite fuel oil storage is maintained and the applicable testing standards and methods remain unchanged. These changes do not change any existing requirements, and do not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analysis. As such, there are no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. *NRC Branch Chief:* Mark G. Kowal. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont *Date of amendment request:* October 18, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications applicability requirements related to primary containment oxygen concentration and drywell-to-suppression chamber differential pressure limits. The associated actions would also be revised to be consistent with exiting the applicability for each specification. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change does not increase the probability of an accident since it does not involve the modification of any plant equipment or affect how plant systems or components are operated, it only changes the requirements for when inerting and differential pressure need to be established. Whether the containment is inerted or differential pressure is established does not impact the likelihood of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The technical limits (i.e., oxygen concentration and differential pressure) imposed by the associated Technical Specifications remain unchanged. Brief periods where the requirements for maintaining these technical limits are relaxed are currently considered in the Technical Specifications and associated licensing basis. The proposed change clarifies the definition of these periods however, any changes are not considered significant and are supported by remaining consistent with the recommended allowances of NUREG 1433, Revision 3. The consequences of analyzed events are therefore not affected. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change does not involve any physical alteration of plant equipment and does not change the method by which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change does not involve the modification of any plant equipment or affect basic plant operation. Additionally, the associated limitations remain unchanged. These changes do not negate any existing requirement, and do not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analysis. As such, there are no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. The revised plant conditions reflecting the applicability and the duration allowed to restore limits are not credited in any design basis event. These changes do not reflect any significant adverse impact to the overall risk of operating during brief periods without the required primary containment oxygen concentration or differential pressure since the total time for any occurrence is only marginally extended and reflects times consistent with NUREG-1433, Revision 3. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. *NRC Branch Chief:* Mark G. Kowal. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois *Date of amendment request:* November 20, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the values of the safety limit minimum critical power ratio (SLMCPR) in Technical Specification
(TS)Section 2.1.1, “Reactor Core SLs.” Specifically, the proposed change would delete the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station (QCNPS) Unit 2 fuel-specific SLMCPR requirements for Global Nuclear Fuel
(GNF)GE14 fuel and consolidate the Unit 1 and Unit 2 SLMCPR requirements into a bounding dual-unit requirement. This change is needed to support the next cycle of Unit 2 operation. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? The probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident. The consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those consequences. Limits have been established consistent with NRC-approved methods to ensure that fuel performance during normal, transient, and accident conditions is acceptable. The proposed change to delete the QCNPS Unit 2 fuel-specific SLMCPR requirements for Global Nuclear Fuel
(GNF)GE14 fuel conservatively establishes the SLMCPR for QCNPS, Unit 2, Cycle 20 at the SLMCPR value for the co-resident Westinghouse SVEA-96 Optima2 fuel, such that the fuel is protected during normal operation and during plant transients or anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs). The proposed change to delete the GE14 SLMCPR and establish the requirement at the SLMCPR value for the co-resident Westinghouse SVEA-96 Optimal fuel does not increase the probability of an evaluated accident. The change does not require any physical plant modifications, physically affect any plant components, or entail changes in plant operation. Therefore, no individual precursors of an accident are affected. The proposed change to delete the GE14 SLMCPR and establish the requirement at the SLMCPR value for the co-resident Westinghouse SVEA-96 Optimal fuel revises the QCNPS Unit 2 SLMCPR requirement to protect the fuel during normal operation as well as during plant transients or AOOs. Operational limits will be established based on the proposed SLMCPR to ensure that the SLMCPR is not violated. This will ensure that the fuel design safety criterion (i.e., that at least 99.9% of the fuel rods do not experience transition boiling during normal operation and AOOs) is met. Since the proposed change does not affect operability of plant systems designed to mitigate any consequences of accidents, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated will not increase. The proposed consolidation of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 SLMCPR requirements into a bounding dual-unit requirement is administrative. As such, the proposed consolidation does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of accident requires creating one or more new accident precursors. New accident precursors may be created by modifications of plant configuration, including changes in allowable modes of operation. The proposed changes do not involve any plant configuration modifications or changes to allowable modes of operation. The proposed change to delete the GE14 SLMCPR and establish the requirement at the SLMCPR value for the co-resident Westinghouse SVEA-96 Optimal fuel assures that safety criteria are maintained for QCNPS, Unit 2, Cycle 20. The proposed consolidation of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 SLMCPR requirements into a bounding dual-unit requirement is administrative. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? The SLMCPR provides a margin of safety by ensuring that at least 99.9% of the fuel rods do not experience transition boiling during normal operation and AOOs if the SLMCPR limit is not violated. The proposed change will ensure the current level of fuel protection is maintained by continuing to ensure that at least 99.9% of the fuel rods do not experience transition boiling during normal operation and AOOs if the SLMCPR limit is not violated. The proposed SLMCPR values were developed using NRC-approved methods. Additionally, operational limits will be established based on the proposed SLMCPR to ensure that the SLMCPR is not violated. This will ensure that the fuel design safety criterion (i.e., that no more than 0.1% of the rods are expected to be in boiling transition if the MCPR limit is not violated) is met. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. *NRC Branch Chief:* Russell Gibbs. Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota *Date of amendment request:* October 29, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments would revise the Technical Specifications
(TS)for Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) Units 1 and 2 Surveillance Requirement
(SR)3.8.1.9, to require that the test is performed at or below a power factor of 0.85. The proposed amendments fulfill the commitment made in Amendments 178 to Unit 1, and 168 to Unit 2, issued on May 30, 2007 (Agency wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML071310023). *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. This license amendment request proposes more restrictive changes to the Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements for the emergency diesel generators which will require testing at a specified power factor, grid conditions permitting. The emergency diesel generators are not accident initiators and therefore, these changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident. The proposed changes increase the load testing requirements, are consistent with the intent of current regulatory guidance for testing emergency diesel generators, and will continue to assure that this equipment performs its design function. Thus these changes do not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. This license amendment request proposes more restrictive changes to the Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements for the emergency diesel generators which will require testing at a specified power factor, grid conditions permitting. The changes proposed for the emergency diesel generators do not change any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system components are functional. These changes do not create new failure modes or mechanisms which are not identifiable during testing and no new accident precursors are generated. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. This license amendment request proposes more restrictive changes to the Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements for the emergency diesel generators which will require testing at a specified power factor, grid conditions permitting. The current Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements do not specify testing at any power factor. The Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements proposed in this license amendment request are thus more restrictive in that they place additional restraints on the test conditions. These changes may make the testing more rigorous and thus more difficult for the emergency diesel generators to meet the test acceptance criteria. The addition of a power factor is consistent with the intent of current regulatory guidance for testing emergency diesel generators. Since these changes are an increase in the test requirements and are consistent with the intent of current regulatory guidance, these changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President, Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street, Hudson, WI 54016. *NRC Acting Branch Chief:* Cliff Munson. Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota *Date of amendment request:* November 19, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specifications for the PINGP, Units 1 and 2, to replace the current fixed Frequency for testing the containment spray nozzles in Surveillance Requirement 3.6.5.8 with a maintenance or event based Frequency. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. This license amendment request proposes Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement changes which will require verification that the containment spray system spray nozzles are unobstructed following maintenance which could result in nozzle blockage. The containment spray system and its spray nozzles are not accident initiators and therefore, these changes do not involve a significant increase the probability of an accident. The revised surveillance requirement will require event based verification in lieu of fixed Frequency verification which may require either fewer or more verifications of operability. The proposed changes to verify system operability following maintenance is considered adequate to ensure operability of the containment spray system. Since the system continues to be available to perform its accident mitigation function, the consequences of accidents previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. This license amendment request proposes Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement changes which will require verification that the containment spray system spray nozzles are unobstructed following maintenance which could result in nozzle blockage. The proposed change does not introduce a new mode of plant operation and does not involve physical modification to the plant. The change does not introduce new accident initiators or impact the assumption made in the safety analysis. Testing requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system components are functional. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. This license amendment request proposes Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement changes which will require verification that the containment spray system spray nozzles are unobstructed following maintenance which could result in nozzle blockage. The containment spray system is not susceptible to corrosion-induced obstruction or obstruction from sources external to the system. Maintenance activities that could introduce foreign material into the system would require subsequent verification to ensure there is no spray nozzle blockage. The spray header nozzles are expected to remain unblocked and available in the event that the safety function is required. Therefore, the capacity of the system would remain unaffected. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President, Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street, Hudson, WI 54016. *NRC Acting Branch Chief:* Clifford G. Munson. Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Docket No. 50-133, Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP), Unit 3 Humboldt County, California J00336 *Date of amendment request:* November 5, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The licensee has proposed amending the technical specifications
(TS)to delete many operational and administrative requirements upon transfer of spent nuclear fuel assemblies and fuel fragment containers from the Spent Fuel Pool
(SFP)to the Humboldt Bay Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). Some TS requirements will be relocated to the HBPP Quality Assurance Plan. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes reflect the transfer of spent fuel from the Spent Fuel Pool to the Humboldt Bay
(HB)Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. Design basis accidents related to the SFP are discussed in the Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR). These postulated accidents are predicated on spent fuel being stored in the SFP. With the removal of the spent fuel from the SFP, there are no important-to-safety systems, structures or components required to function or to be monitored. In addition, there are no remaining credible accidents involving spent fuel or the SFP that require actions of a Certified Fuel Handler or Noncertified Fuel Handler to prevent occurrence or to mitigate consequences. The proposed change to the Design Features section of the Technical Specifications
(TS)clarifies that the spent fuel is being stored in dry casks within an ISFSI. The probability or consequences of accidents at the ISFSI are evaluated in the HB ISFSI Final Safety Analysis Report
(FSAR)and are independent of the accidents evaluated in the HBPP Unit 3 DSAR. Therefore, the proposed changes will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes reflect the reduced operational risks as a result of the spent fuel being transferred to dry casks within an ISFSI. The proposed changes do not modify any systems, structures or components. The plant conditions for which the HBPP Unit 3 DSAR design basis accidents relating to spent fuel and the SFP have been evaluated are no longer applicable. The aforementioned proposed changes do not affect any of the parameters or conditions that could contribute to the initiation of an accident. Design basis accidents associated with the dry cask storage of spent fuel are already considered in the HB ISFSI FSAR. No new accident scenarios are created as a result of deleting nonapplicable operational and administrative requirements. Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those previously evaluated. 3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes reflect the reduced operational risks as a result of the spent fuel being transferred to dry casks within an ISFSI. The design basis and accident assumptions within the HBPP Unit 3 DSAR and the TS relating to spent fuel are no longer applicable. The proposed changes do not affect remaining plant operations, nor structures, systems, or components supporting decommissioning activities. In addition, the proposed changes do not result in a change in initial conditions, system response time, or in any other parameter affecting the course of a decommissioning activity accident analysis. Therefore, the proposed changes will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Ms. Jennifer K. Post, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 77 Beale Street, B30A, San Francisco, CA. *NRC Branch Chief:* Andrew Persinko. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia *Date of amendment request:* November 30, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification
(TS)Sections TS 5.5.9, “Steam Generator
(SG)Program” and TS 5.6.10, “Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report.” The proposed changes to TS 5.5.9 modify the inspection and plugging requirements for portions of SG tubes within the hot leg side of the tubesheet region of the SGs only. The proposed changes to TS 5.6.10 will add requirements to report specific data related to indications, leakage detected, and calculated accident leakage. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? No. The previously analyzed accidents are initiated by the failure of plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed changes that alter the SG inspection criteria do not have a detrimental impact on the integrity of any plant structure, system, or component that initiates an analyzed event. The proposed changes will not alter the operation of, or otherwise increase the failure probability of, any plant equipment that initiates an analyzed accident. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. Of the applicable accidents previously evaluated, the limiting transients with consideration to the proposed changes to the SG tube inspection criteria, are the SG tube rupture
(SGTR)event and the steam line break
(SLB)accident. During the SGTR event, the required structural integrity margins of the SG tubes will be maintained by the presence of the SG tubesheet. SG tubes are hydraulically expanded in the tubesheet area. Tube rupture in tubes with cracks in the tubesheet is precluded by the constraint provided by the tubesheet. This constraint results from the hydraulic expansion process, thermal expansion mismatch between the tube and tubesheet and from the differential pressure between the primary and secondary side. Based on this design, the structural margins against burst discussed in RG 1.121 (Reference 4) [Regulatory Guide 1.121, “Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam Generator Tubes,” dated August 1976], are maintained for both normal and postulated accident conditions. The proposed changes do not affect other systems, structures, components or operational features. Therefore, the proposed changes result in no significant increase in the probability of the occurrence of a SGTR accident. At normal operating pressures, leakage from primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) below the proposed limited inspection depth is limited by both the tube-to-tubesheet crevice and the limited crack opening permitted by the tubesheet constraint. Consequently, negligible normal operating leakage is expected from cracks within the tubesheet region. The consequences of a SGTR event are affected by the primary-to-secondary leakage flow during the event. Primary-to-secondary leakage flow through a postulated broken tube is not affected by the proposed change since the tubesheet enhances the tube integrity in the region of the hydraulic expansion by precluding tube deformation beyond its initial hydraulically expanded outside diameter. The probability of a SLB is unaffected by the potential failure of a SG tube, since this failure is not an initiator for a SLB. The consequences of a SLB are also not significantly affected by the proposed changes. During a SLB accident, the reduction in pressure above the tubesheet on the shell side of the SG creates an axially uniformly distributed load on the tubesheet due to the reactor coolant system pressure on the underside of the tubesheet. The resulting bending action constrains the tubes in the tubesheet, thereby restricting primary-to-secondary leakage below the midplane. The purpose of the tube-end weld is to ensure the hydraulically expanded tube-to-tubesheet joints in Model F SGs are leak-tight. Considerations were also made with regard to the potential for primary-to-secondary leakage during postulated faulted conditions. However, the leak rate during postulated accident conditions would be expected to be less than that during normal operation for indications near the bottom of the tubesheet based on the evaluation (Reference 1) [Westinghouse Electric Company WCAP-16794-P, “Steam Generator Tube Alternate Repair Criteria for the Portion of the Tube Within the Tubesheet at the Vogtle 1 & 2 Electric Generating Plants,” dated October 2007] which shows that while the driving pressure increases by about a factor of almost two, the flow resistance increases, because the tube-to-tubesheet contact pressure also increases. Depending on the depth within the tubesheet, the relative increase in resistance could easily be larger than that of the pressure potential. Therefore, the leak rate under normal operating conditions could exceed its allowed value before the accident condition leak rate would be expected to exceed its allowed value. This approach is termed an application of the “bellwether principle.” While such a decrease in the leak rate is expected, the postulated accident leak rate could conservatively be taken to be bounded by twice the normal operating leak rate if the increase in contact pressure is ignored. Since normal operating leakage is limited by VEGP TS 3.4.13 and by NEI 97-06 (Reference 3) [NEI 97-06, “Steam Generator Program Guidelines,” Revision 2, dated May 2, 2005] to less than 150 gpd throughout one SG in the VEGP Units 1 and 2 SGs, the attendant accident condition leak rate, assuming all leakage to be from lower tubesheet indications, would be bounded by 0.20 gpm in the faulted SG which is less than the accident analysis assumption of 0.35 gpm to the affected SG included in Section 15.1.5 of the VEGP FSAR. Hence, it is reasonable to omit any consideration of inspection of the tube, tube end weld, bulges/overexpansions or other anomalies below 17 inches from the top of the hot leg tubesheet. Based on the above discussion, the proposed changes do not involve an increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? No. The proposed changes do not involve the use or installation of new equipment and the currently installed equipment will not be operated in a new or different manner. No new or different system interactions are created and no new processes are introduced. The proposed changes will not introduce any new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the design and licensing bases. Based on this evaluation, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? No. The proposed changes maintain the required structural margins of the SG tubes for both normal and accident conditions. NEI 97-06 (Reference 3) and RG 1.121 (Reference 4), are used as the bases in the development of the limited tubesheet inspection depth methodology for determining that SG tube integrity considerations are maintained within acceptable limits. RG 1.121 (Reference 4) describes a method acceptable to the NRC for meeting the following General Design Criteria (GDC). • GDC 14, “Reactor coolant pressure boundary,” • GDC 15, “Reactor coolant system design,” • GDC 31, “Fracture prevention of reactor coolant pressure boundary,” and, • GDC 32, “Inspection of reactor coolant pressure boundary.” RG 1.121 concludes that by determining the limiting safe conditions for tube wall degradation, the probability and consequences of a SGTR are reduced. This RG uses safety factors on loads for tube burst that are consistent with the requirements of Section III of the ASME Code [American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code]. Application of the limited tubesheet inspection depth criteria will preclude unacceptable primary-to-secondary leakage during all plant conditions. The methodology for determining leakage provides for large margins between calculated and actual leakage values in the proposed limited tubesheet inspection depth criteria. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mr. Arthur H. Domby, Troutman Sanders, NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2216. *NRC Branch Chief:* Evangelos C. Marinos. STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas *Date of amendment request:* October 23, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The amendments will relocate the surveillance test intervals of various Technical Specifications
(TSs)to a licensee-controlled program (risk-informed Initiative 5(b)) in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program, which is being added to the Administrative Controls section of the TS. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change[s] [involve] the relocation of various surveillance test intervals from Technical Specifications
(TS)to a licensee-controlled program. The proposed change[s] [do] not involve the modification of any plant equipment or affect basic plant operation. The proposed change[s] will have no impact on the design or function of any safety related structures, systems or components. Surveillance test intervals are not assumed to be an initiator of any analyzed event, nor are they assumed in the mitigation of consequences of accidents. The surveillance requirements themselves will be maintained in the TS along with the applicable Limiting Conditions for Operation
(LCOs)and Action statements. The surveillances performed at the intervals specified in the licensee-controlled program will assure that the affected system or component function is maintained, that the facility operation is within the Safety Limits, and that the LCOs are met. Therefore, the proposed change[s] [do] not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. [Do] the proposed change[s] create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change[s] [do] not involve any physical alteration of plant equipment and does not change the method by which any safety-related structure, system, or component performs its function or is tested. As such, no new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change[s] will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change[s] [do] not negate any existing requirement, and [do] not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analysis. As such, there are no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Margins of safety are unaffected by relocation of the surveillance test intervals to a licensee-controlled program. Therefore, the proposed change[s] [do] not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas G. Hiltz. U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), United States Maritime Administration (MARAD), License No. NS-1, Docket No. 50-238, Nuclear Ship Savannah
(NSS)*Date of amendment request:* October 9, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed license amendment would modify the Technical Specification
(TS)requirements to clarify the TS and make the requirements commensurate with the current ship status and decommissioning schedule. Thirty-nine TS changes are proposed. The proposed changes modify the TS as follows: • Delete requirements more appropriate for the Final Safety Analysis Report; • Provide consistent titles and phrases; • Delete duplicate requirements; • Organize similar requirements into single locations; • Remove requirements that can be implemented through current regulations; • Delete archaic requirements; • Invoke requirements commensurate with current ship status and decommissioning schedule; • Format and renumber, as appropriate; • Revise requirements to reflect historical practices; • Revise TS to be consistent with the Decommissioning Quality Assurance Plan; and • Correct errors introduced in License Amendment 13, Reference (a). The application for license amendment is 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 number for the October 9, 2007, request is ML072880143. 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. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes are administrative and do not involve modification of any plant equipment or affect basic plant operation. The NSS's reactor is not operational and the level of radioactivity in the NSS has significantly decreased from the levels that existed when the 1976 Possession-only License was issued. No aspect of any of proposed changes is and initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. Therefore, the proposed changes no not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident evaluated? Response: No. All of the proposed changes are administrative and do not involve physical alteration of plant equipment that was not previously allowed by Technical Specifications. These proposed changes do not change the method by which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. All of the proposed changes are administrative in nature. No margins of safety exist that are relevant to the ship's defueled and partially dismantled reactor. As such, there are no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed changes. The proposed changes involve movement of the ship, changes in the performance of responsibilities and reflect significantly improved radiological conditions since 1976. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based upon the staff's review of the licensee's analysis, as well as the staff's own evaluation, the staff concludes that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Senior Technical Advisor, N.S. Savannah:* Erhard W. Koehler, MARAD, Office of Ship Disposal Programs. *NRC Branch Chief:* Andrew Persinko. Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, North Anna Power Station, Units No. 1 and No. 2, Louisa County, Virginia *Date of amendment request:* October 24, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The amendments would revise the Technical Specifications
(TS)Limiting Condition for Operations
(LCO)3.8.7 and 3.8.9, pertaining to electrical power systems and distribution associated with the 120 Volt AC vital bus inverters. The TS changes are intended to support operability of components shared between Unit 1 and Unit 2. The proposed changes will add new Conditions, Required Action statements and Completion Times for LCO 3.8.7 and LCO 3.8.9 to address shared components. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. [Does the proposed amendment] involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously analyzed. There is no change to how or under what conditions the inverters or 120 VAC vital buses are operated, nor are there any changes to acceptable operating parameters. Operability requirements, which are consistent with current operation of the inverters and vital buses, are being established for the inverters and vital buses associated with shared systems. The proposed change will ensure that there is an operable electrical control circuit for the Auxiliary Building Central Exhaust subsystem filter and bypass dampers for each train of the [Emergency Core Cooling System Pump Room Exhaust Air Cleanup System] ECCS PREACS which will ensure that the evaluated dose consequences for [design basis accidents] DBAs will not be exceeded. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. [Does the proposed amendment] create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? The implementation of the proposed changes does not create the possibility of an accident of a different type than was previously evaluated in the [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] UFSAR. There is no change to how or under what conditions the inverters or 120 VAC vital buses are operated nor are there any changes to acceptable operating parameters. The proposed operability requirements, which are consistent with current operation of the inverters and vital buses, are being established for the inverters and vital buses associated with shared systems. The proposed changes ensure vital 120 VAC power is available to support operation of the Auxiliary Building Central Exhaust subsystems. These changes do not alter the nature of events postulated in the UFSAR nor do they introduce any unique precursor mechanisms. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. [Does the proposed amendment] involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? The implementation of the proposed changes does not reduce the margin of safety. The proposed changes for the 120 VAC Vital Bus System and Inverters do not affect the ability of these systems or components to perform their intended safety functions to provide power to required safety and monitoring systems or components. Operability requirements, which are consistent with current operation of the inverters and vital buses, are being established for the inverters and vital buses associated with shared systems. These changes provide additional assurance that the Auxiliary Building Central Exhaust subsystems will operate to maintain the margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219. *NRC Branch Chief:* Evangelos C. Marinos. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these actions was published in the **Federal Register** as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see
(1)the applications for amendment,
(2)the amendment, and
(3)the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1
(800)397-4209,
(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina. *Date of application for amendments:* January 22, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated September 28, 2007. *Brief Description of amendments:* The amendments change the Technical Specifications
(TSs)related to the fuel design description and the fuel criticality methods to accommodate the transition to AREVA NP fuel. *Date of issuance:* November 27, 2007. *Effective date:* Date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 243 and 271. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62:* Amendments changed the TSs. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: August 29, 2007 (72 FR 49742). The supplement dated September 28, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 27, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana *Date of amendment request:* August 17, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised the date for performing the “Type A test” in the River Bend Station, Unit 1, Technical Specification 5.5.13, “Primary Containment Leak Rate Testing Program,” from “prior to December 14, 2007,” to “prior to April 14, 2008.” *Date of issuance:* December 3, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 60 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 155. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-47:* The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (72 FR 51857). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 3, 2007. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC), Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois. *Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois.* *Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois.* *Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois.* *EGC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (PBAPS), York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania.* *Date of application for amendments:* December 15, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments modify the technical specifications
(TSs)by replacing the term “plant-specific” with “generic” when discussing job titles in TS Section 5.2.1.a. This revision will ensure the TS description is consistent with the licensee Quality Assurance Topical Report (QATR). The proposed amendment will also revise the PBAPS TS Section 5.2.1.a to replace the reference to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report with reference to the EGC QATR. This change aligns the PBAPS TS wording with the rest of the licensee fleet. *Date of issuance:* November 19, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 152, 152, 147, 147, 225, 217, 187, 174, 265, 269, 236, and 231. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37, NPF-66, NPF-72, NPF-77, DPR-19, DPR-25, NPF-11, NPF-18, DPR-29, DPR-30, DRP-44, and DPR-56:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and Operating Licenses. *Date of initial notice* in Federal Register: March 13, 2007 (72 FR 11387). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 19, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas *Date of amendment request:* December 19, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* Amendments revise the requirements in Technical Specification
(TS)5.5.8, “Inservice Testing Program,” to update references to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME)Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, as the source of requirements for the inservice testing of ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 pumps and valves, and address the applicability of Surveillance Requirement 3.0.2 to other normal and accelerated frequencies specified as 2 years or less in the Inservice Testing Program. *Date of issuance:* December 4, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 1-140; Unit 2-140. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89:* The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: May 22, 2007 (72 FR 28724). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 4, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska *Date of amendment request:* August 16, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated November 5, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised Technical Specification 5.5.6, “Inservice Testing Program,” to allow a one-time extension of the 5-year frequency requirement for setpoint testing of safety valve MS-RV-70ARV. *Date of issuance:* December 4, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 228. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-46:* Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* **Federal Register:** September 25, 2007 (72 FR 54476). The supplement dated November 5, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as initially published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 4, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Docket No. 50-312, Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, Sacramento County, California *Date of application for amendment:* April 12, 2006, and supplemented November 21, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment incorporates the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)approved, License Termination Plan (LTP), and associated addendum, into the Rancho Seco license and specifies limits on the changes the licensee is allowed to make to the approved LTP without prior NRC review and approval. *Date of issuance:* November 26, 2007. *Effective date:* November 26, 2007. *Amendment No:* 133. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-54:* The amendment revised the License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : February 13, 2007 (72 FR 6789). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 26, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, California *Date of application for amendments:* July 14, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated June 28, September 26, and November 2, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments incorporate a description of the parent tube inspection limitation adjacent to the nickel band portion of the lower sleeve joint and provide the basis for the structural and leakage integrity of the joint being ensured with the existing inspection of the parent tube adjacent to the nickel band region. *Date of issuance:* November 29, 2007. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 2-215; Unit 3-207. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15:* The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53720). The supplements dated June 28, September 26, and November 2, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 29, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia *Date of application for amendments:* June 5, 2007, as supplemented June 11, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications testing frequency for surveillance requirement 3.1.4, “Control Rod Scram Times,” from “120 days cumulative operation in MODE 1” to “200 days cumulative operation in MODE 1.” *Date of issuance:* November 26, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 45 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 254, 198. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5:* Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: July 17, 2007, (72 FR 39084). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 26, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of December 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-24284 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Notice of Availability; NUREG-1574, Rev. 2, “Standard Review Plan on Transfer and Amendment of Antitrust License Conditions and Antitrust Enforcement” AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is announcing the completion and availability of NUREG-1574, Rev. 2, “Standard Review Plan on Transfer and Amendment of Antitrust License Conditions and Antitrust Enforcement,” dated November 2007. ADDRESSES: A copy of NUREG-1574, Rev. 2 is available for inspection and/or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. You may also electronically access NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven R. Hom, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: 301-415-1537, e-mail *srh@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NUREG-1574, Rev. 2 (ADAMS accession no. ML072260035) reflects the Energy Policy Act of 2005's removal of the NRC's antitrust review responsibilities regarding applications for licenses under sections 103 and 104 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Accordingly, antitrust review procedures that existed in the previous “Standard Review Plan on Antitrust Reviews” (NUREG-1574, published December 1997) have been omitted from NUREG-1574, Rev. 2. New guidance has been incorporated on the appropriate disposition of existing antitrust license conditions during direct license transfers and on the review of applications to amend antitrust license conditions outside of license transfers. NUREG-1574, Rev. 2 also provides guidance regarding the NRC's responsibility to refer certain antitrust matters to the Attorney General, and regarding the NRC's enforcement of antitrust license conditions. NUREG-1574, Rev. 2 supersedes the Standard Review Plan on Antitrust Reviews, NUREG-1574, in its entirety. Notice of the availability of the draft version of NUREG-1574, Rev. 2 for public comment was published in the **Federal Register** on June 7, 2007 (72 FR 31627). Comments were received from the Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI)dated July 9, 2007. NEI stated that the draft NUREG-1574, Rev. 2 correctly focuses the NRC staff's evaluation of antitrust issues as it conducts limited reviews of existing antitrust license conditions in the context of certain license transfers and license amendment requests related to existing antitrust license conditions. According to NEI, the nuclear energy industry believes the draft of NUREG-1574, Rev. 2 accurately sets forth the state of the law as it applies to NRC licensees. NEI recommended no changes to the draft NUREG-1574, Rev. 2. No other comments were received. With the exception of some minor editorial changes, the text of the draft NUREG-1574, Rev. 2 was carried over to the final NUREG-1574, Rev. 2. Congressional Review Act
(CRA)Under the Congressional Review Act
(CRA)of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Management and Budget. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of December, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Michael J. Case, Director, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-24471 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56949; File No. SR-OPRA-2007-03] Options Price Reporting Authority; Notice of Filing and Order Approving on a Temporary Basis Not To Exceed 120 Days a Proposed Amendment to the Plan for Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale Reports and Quotation Information, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Modify Various Provisions of the OPRA Plan and the OPRA Fee Schedule To Reflect the Elimination of Separate Fees for Access to Market Data Concerning Certain Foreign Currency Options December 12, 2007. I. Introduction Pursuant to section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 608 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on October 9, 2007, the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) an amendment to the Plan for Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale Reports and Quotation Information (“OPRA Plan”). 3 The proposed amendment would amend various provisions of the OPRA Plan in order to reflect the elimination of the separate fees for access to market data concerning Foreign Currency Options (“FCOs”) that currently apply to certain FCOs traded on the Phlx. The OPRA Fee Schedule would similarly be revised to reflect the elimination of the separate FCO service access fees. On November 14, 2007, OPRA submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposal. 4 On December 11, 2007, OPRA submitted a revised version of Exhibit II to Amendment No. 1 to the proposal, which it requested be substituted for the original version of Exhibit II. 5 This order approves the proposal as modified by Amendment No. 1 for a temporary period not to exceed 120 days, and solicits comment on the proposal from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78k-1. 2 17 CFR 242.608. 3 The OPRA Plan is a national market system plan approved by the Commission pursuant to Section 11A of the Act and Rule 608 thereunder (formerly Rule 11Aa3-2). *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 17638 (March 18, 1981), 22 S.E.C. Docket 484 (March 31, 1981). The full text of the OPRA Plan is available at *http://www.opradata.com.* The OPRA Plan provides for the collection and dissemination of last sale and quotation information on options that are traded on the participant exchanges. The six participants to the OPRA Plan are the American Stock Exchange LLC, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE”), NYSE Arca, Inc., and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx”). 4 Amendment No. 1 did not make any substantive changes to the text of the proposed OPRA Plan amendment, but instead provided a revised Exhibit I to the original filing and offered a new Exhibit II to the proposal. Amendment No. 1 replaced the original filing in its entirety. 5 The revised Exhibit II made technical changes to the original and corrected an outdated reference to the “NASD,” which is now called “FINRA.” II. Description and Purpose of the Amendment Effective March 14, 1995, the OPRA Plan was amended to authorize the imposition of separate, unbundled access charges for market information pertaining to FCOs. 6 Subsequently, effective January 1, 1996, separate access charges for market information were imposed by OPRA, and subject to the exception described below, such separate charges have remained in effect since that time. 7 More recently, OPRA adopted a temporary exception to the separate FCO access fees for “new” FCOs first listed on any exchange on or after December 6, 2005, pursuant to which access to market information pertaining to such securities has been included within OPRA's basic information service, and has required payment only of OPRA's basic service access fees. 8 This temporary exception, which is set forth in Section VIII(c)(iii) of the OPRA Plan, is scheduled to expire by its terms on December 31, 2007, at which time, absent further action, all FCOs would become subject to separate FCO service access fees. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35487 (March 14, 1995), 60 FR 14984 (March 21, 1995) (File No. S7-8-90). 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36613 (December 20, 1995), 60 FR 67144 (December 28, 1995) (SR-OPRA-95-5). 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52901 (December 6, 2005), 70 FR 74061 (December 14, 2005) (SR-OPRA-2005-03) and 55049 (January 5, 2007), 72 FR 1568 (January 12, 2007) (SR-OPRA-2006-02). Currently, certain classes of FCOs traded on the Phlx are subject to the separate FCO access fees, while other classes of FCOs traded on that exchange (those first listed on or after December 6, 2005) are subject to OPRA's basic service access fees. The only other exchange currently trading FCOs is the ISE, where all of the FCOs were listed subsequent to December 6, 2005, and thus are subject only to OPRA's basic service access fees. Phlx recently informed OPRA that for business reasons it has ceased listing new series of physical delivery FCOs to replace expiring series, and instead provides a market for foreign currency derivative securities through the listing of new classes of U.S. dollar-settled FCOs, sometimes referred to as World Currency Options. Under the current OPRA Plan, access to market data concerning all options, including the new U.S. dollar-settled FCOs as well as individual equity options and cash-settled index options, is subject to OPRA's basic service access fees. In the case of U.S. dollar-settled FCOs, this reflects the temporary exception described above, whereas in the case of equity and index options it is because OPRA has never adopted separate access fees for its index option service, but instead has made index options subject to the same basic service access fees that apply to equity options. The purpose of this proposed amendment is to maintain this same fee structure after the temporary exception for FCOs expires at the end of 2007. Trading in existing classes of physical delivery FCOs on Phlx will be restricted to closing transactions until the last outstanding class expires on March 14, 2008, if the remaining positions in these classes are not closed out sooner. Thus by that date, if not sooner, there will no longer be any physical delivery FCOs traded on the Phlx that are subject to the existing separate FCO service access fees. At that time, assuming the effectiveness of this proposed amendment, access to market data for all options, including U.S. dollar-settled FCOs and all other FCO securities, will require payment only of OPRA's basic service access fees. As noted, pursuant to the temporary exception in the OPRA Plan for “new” FCOs, all of the FCOs currently traded on ISE are subject only to OPRA's basic service access fees, and none are subject to the separate FCO service access fees. However, unless the OPRA Plan is amended to eliminate the separate access fees for FCOs, upon the expiration of the temporary exception, FCOs traded on ISE would become subject to the separate FCO service access fees. In order to avoid making this change to the status quo on ISE, the effect of which would be to subject FCO subscribers to what for them would be a new, additional, access fee for continued access to FCO market information, ISE joined with Phlx in authorizing the elimination of the separate FCO access fees, and in requesting OPRA to amend the OPRA Plan to reflect the elimination of these separate fees. As proposed to be amended, the OPRA Plan will treat FCOs in exactly the same manner in which it now treats index options. Specifically, similar to index options, the OPRA Plan will continue to provide for a separate FCO accounting center and provide a framework for the possible future imposition of a separate access fees when and if authorized by the parties that provide a market in those securities, subject to satisfying the requirements of the Act. Because the proposed amendment cannot become effective until the elimination by expiration or by closing transaction of the last remaining open position in physical delivery FCOs traded on Phlx that are subject to the separate FCO service access fees, which could be as late as March 14, 2008, and because it is necessary to retain the temporary exception from the separate FCO service access charges until these separate charges no longer apply, OPRA proposes to extend the temporary exception, currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2007, until as late as March 14, 2008. Accordingly, this proposed amendment includes an extension of the temporary exception provided for in section VIII(c)(iii) of the OPRA Plan until such time as there is no longer any open interest in physical delivery FCOs traded on the Phlx that are subject to the separate FCO service access fees. In no event will this be later than March 14, 2008. The Phlx has undertaken to advise OPRA when that last remaining open interest no longer exists, so that the separate FCO service access fees and the temporary exception can be removed from the OPRA Plan effective as of that time, in accordance with this proposed OPRA Plan amendment. The text of the proposed amendment to the OPRA Plan and the proposed changes to the OPRA Fee Schedule are available at OPRA, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://opradata.com/pdf/proposed_amendments.pdf* . III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed OPRA Plan amendment is consistent with the 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 No. SR-OPRA-2007-03 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-OPRA-2007-03. 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 plan amendment that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed plan amendment 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 OPRA. 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-OPRA-2007-03 and should be submitted on or before January 8, 2008. IV. Discussion After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed OPRA Plan amendment, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is sufficient under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder for temporary approval of not more than 120 days. 9 Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposed OPRA Plan amendment, is sufficient under section 11A of the Act 10 and Rule 608(b)(4) 11 thereunder for temporary approval not to exceed 120 days in that it is in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to preserve the status quo by extending the deadline set forth in section VIII(c)(iii) of the OPRA Plan until such time as there is no longer any open interest in physical delivery FCOs traded on the Phlx that are subject to the separate FCO service access fee. The Commission believes that OPRA's proposal, which would amend various provisions of the OPRA Plan and the OPRA Fee Schedule in order to reflect the elimination of the separate fees for access to market data concerning FCOs that currently apply to certain FCOs traded on the Phlx, is appropriate in light of Phlx's decision to cease listing new series of physical delivery FCOs to replace expiring series. The proposed amendment would maintain the same fee structure after the temporary exception would otherwise expire on December 31, 2007. Further, once the remaining positions in existing classes of physical delivery FCOs listed on the Phlx are Phlx are closed-out, access to market data for all options, including dollar-settled FCOs and all other FCO securities will require payment of the same fee, OPRA's basic service access fee. 9 In approving the proposed OPR Plan Amendment, the Commission has considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 10 15 U.S.C. 78k-1. 11 17 CFR 242.608(b)(4). Finally, the Commission finds that it is appropriate to put the proposed OPRA Plan amendment, as modified by Amendment No.1, into effect summarily upon publication of notice on a temporary basis not to exceed 120 days to extend for a brief period the temporary exception provided for in section VIII(c)(iii) of the OPRA Plan and thus preserve the status quo. Absent such extension, the ISE would become subject to the separate FCO service access fee. Accordingly, the Commission finds that is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors or the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a national market system to approve the proposed OPRA Plan amendment, as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto, on a temporary basis not to exceed 120 days. V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 11A of the Act, 12 and Rule 608 thereunder, 13 that the proposed OPRA Plan amendment (SR-OPRA-2007-03), as modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved on a temporary basis not to exceed 120 days. 12 15 U.S.C. 78k-1. 13 17 CFR 242.608. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(29). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-24484 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56950; File No. SR-OPRA-2007-04] Options Price Reporting Authority; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Amendment To Revise OPRA's Fee Schedule December 12, 2007. Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 608 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on October 16, 2007 the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) an amendment to the Plan for Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale Reports and Quotation Information (“OPRA Plan”). 3 Specifically, OPRA proposes to revise the device-based professional subscriber fees charged by OPRA in respect of its Basic Service. Similarly, the proposal would make a conforming change to OPRA's Enterprise Rate Professional Subscriber Fee (“Enterprise Rate”). On November 14, 2007, OPRA submitted a revised Exhibit I, which it requested be substituted for the Exhibit I attached to the original filing. 4 On December 11, 2007, OPRA submitted a further revised Exhibit I, which it asked be substituted for the Exhibit I submitted on November 14, 2007. 5 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons on the proposed OPRA Plan amendment. 1 15 U.S.C. 78k-1. 2 17 CFR 242.608. 3 The OPRA Plan is a national market system plan approved by the Commission pursuant to Section 11A of the Act and Rule 608 thereunder (formerly Rule 11Aa3-2). *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 17638 (March 18, 1981), 22 S.E.C. Docket 484 (March 31, 1981). The full text of the OPRA Plan is available at *http://www.opradata.com* . The OPRA Plan provides for the collection and dissemination of last sale and quotation information on options that are traded on the participant exchanges. The six participants to the OPRA Plan are the American Stock Exchange LLC, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, the International Securities Exchange, Inc. (“ISE”), the NYSE Arca, Inc., and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx”). 4 The second revised Exhibit I reflects technical changes and sets forth the entire OPRA Fee Schedule. As originally filed, Exhibit I included only that portion of the OPRA Fee Schedule pertaining to OPRA's professional subscriber fees. 5 The revised Exhibit I made technical changes to the prior version of Exhibit I and corrected an outdated reference to the “NASD,” which is now called “FINRA.” I. Description and Purpose of the Amendment The purpose of the amendment is to make incremental increases in OPRA's device-based professional subscriber fees in respect of its Basic Service and in respect of the Enterprise Rate charged to those subscribers who elect that rate in place of device-based fees. These increases would be phased in over a three-year period. Specifically, OPRA proposes to increase the current $20 monthly per device fee by $1.00 in each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010. OPRA also proposes to increase the Enterprise Rate, currently a monthly fee of $20 times the number of a subscriber's U.S.-based registered representatives, by this same amount in each of these years. These increases would become effective on January 1 of each year. OPRA's Basic Service currently consists of market data and related information pertaining to equity options, index options, and most (soon to be all) foreign currency options (“OPRA Data”). 6 Professional subscribers are persons who subscribe to receive OPRA Data and do not qualify for the reduced fees charged to nonprofessional subscribers. OPRA's Enterprise Rate is based on the number of a professional subscriber's U.S.-based registered representatives and independent investment advisers who contract with the subscriber to provide advisory services to the subscriber's customers. 6 Commencing January 1, 1996, OPRA data pertaining to foreign currency options (“FCOs”) was made subject to separate FCO Service access fees. However, pursuant to an exception for FCOs first listed on any exchange on or after December 6, 2005, these separate access fees do not currently apply to most of the FCOs traded on the Phlx, or to any of the FCOs traded on the ISE, which are the only two exchanges currently providing a market in FCOs. OPRA has recently filed a Plan amendment (SR-OPRA-2007-03) that proposes the elimination of all remaining separate access fees for FCOs. Upon the effectiveness of that amendment, which OPRA anticipates will occur no later than March 14, 2008, access to market information pertaining to all FCOs would be included within OPRA's Basic Service and would require payment only of OPRA's Basic Service access fees. The proposed increases in the device-based professional subscriber fees and in the Enterprise Rate are intended to generate additional revenues for OPRA and its participating exchanges that are needed to cover actual and anticipated increases in the costs of collecting, consolidating, processing, and disseminating options market information and assuring the reliability and integrity of that information. According to OPRA, these increases reflect the costs of continuing enhancements to and upgrades of the OPRA system and related exchange systems since the time these fees were last adjusted in order to enable OPRA, its participant exchanges, and its vendors to handle a greater volume of market information as a result of the continuing expansion of listed options trading and to provide a greater degree of redundancy and security in the OPRA system. Past and projected expansion of options trading reflects such factors as an increase in the number of exchanges that trade options and in the number of options classes and series traded on each exchange, and actual and anticipated growth in the number of quotes on account of the ongoing implementation of quoting in penny intervals. The fee increases also take into account the loss of revenue on account of the elimination of separate fees for access to OPRA's FCO Service. 7 OPRA estimates that the overall effect of the proposed increases in professional subscriber fees would be to increase revenues derived from these fees by approximately 5% in each of the three years covered by the proposal, before giving effect to the elimination of the FCO access fee upon the discontinuation of OPRA's separate FCO Service. 7 *See* *id.* The text of the proposed amendment to the OPRA Plan is available at OPRA, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://opradata.com* . II. Implementation of the OPRA Plan Amendment Pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(i) of Rule 608 under the Act, 8 OPRA designated this amendment as establishing or changing a fee or other charge collected on behalf of all of the OPRA participants in connection with access to, or use of, OPRA facilities, thereby qualifying for effectiveness upon filing. In order to give persons subject to these fees advance notice of the changes, the first of these fee changes is not proposed to be implemented until January 1, 2008. 8 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(i). The Commission may summarily abrogate the amendment within sixty days of its filing and require refiling and approval of the amendment by Commission order pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2) under the Act 9 if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 10 9 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2). 10 For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3) under the Act, the Commission considers the period to commence on December 11, 2007, the date on which OPRA submitted the second revised Exhibit I. *See* 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3). III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed OPRA Plan amendment is consistent with the 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 No. SR-OPRA-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-OPRA-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 plan amendment that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed plan amendment 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 OPRA. 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-OPRA-2007-04 and should be submitted on or before January 8, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(29). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-24485 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56941; File No. 4-551] Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule 17d-2; Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Plan for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Among the American Stock Exchange LLC, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, the International Securities Exchange, LLC, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., NYSE Arca, Inc., and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. December 11, 2007 On October 30, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”), the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE”), the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”), the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE”), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”), and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx”) (collectively, “Participants”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 17d-2 thereunder, 2 a proposed plan for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities (“Plan”). 3 The Plan was published for comment on November 9, 2007. 4 The Commission received no comments on the Plan. This order approves and declares effective the Plan. 1 15 U.S.C. 78q(d). 2 17 CFR 240.17d-2. 3 *See infra* Section II (describing the proposed Plan). 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56731 (November 1, 2007), 72 FR 63637 (File No. 4-551) (“Notice”). I. Introduction Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, 5 among other things, requires every self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) registered as either a national securities exchange or registered securities association to examine for, and enforce compliance by, its members and persons associated with its members with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the SRO's own rules, unless the SRO is relieved of this responsibility pursuant to Section 17(d) 6 or Section 19(g)(2) 7 of the Act. Without this relief, the statutory obligation of each individual SRO could result in a pattern of multiple examinations of broker-dealers that maintain memberships in more than one SRO (“common members”). Such regulatory duplication would add unnecessary expenses for common members and their SROs. 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1). 6 15 U.S.C. 78q(d). 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2). Section 17(d)(1) of the Act 8 was intended, in part, to eliminate unnecessary multiple examinations and regulatory duplication. 9 With respect to a common member, Section 17(d)(1) authorizes the Commission, by rule or order, to relieve an SRO of the responsibility to receive regulatory reports, to examine for and enforce compliance with applicable statutes, rules, and regulations, or to perform other specified regulatory functions. 8 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1). 9 *See* Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975). To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules: Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act. 10 Rule 17d-1 authorizes the Commission to name a single SRO as the designated examining authority (“DEA”) to examine common members for compliance with the financial responsibility requirements imposed by the Act, or by Commission or SRO rules. 11 When an SRO has been named as a common member's DEA, all other SROs to which the common member belongs are relieved of the responsibility to examine the firm for compliance with the applicable financial responsibility rules. On its face, Rule 17d-1 deals only with an SRO's obligations to enforce member compliance with financial responsibility requirements. Rule 17d-1 does not relieve an SRO from its obligation to examine a common member for compliance with its own rules and provisions of the federal securities laws governing matters other than financial responsibility, including sales practices and trading activities and practices. 10 17 CFR 240.17d-1 and 17 CFR 240.17d-2, respectively. 11 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12352 (April 20, 1976), 41 FR 18808 (May 7, 1976). To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act. 12 Rule 17d-2 permits SROs to propose joint plans for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities with respect to their common members. Under paragraph
(c)of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may declare such a plan effective if, after providing for notice and comment, it determines that the plan is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors, to foster cooperation and coordination among the SROs, to remove impediments to, and foster the development of, a national market system and a national clearance and settlement system, and is in conformity with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act. Commission approval of a plan filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 relieves an SRO of those regulatory responsibilities allocated by the plan to another SRO. 12 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12935 (October 28, 1976), 41 FR 49091 (November 8, 1976). II. The Plan The Plan is intended to reduce regulatory duplication for common members by allocating regulatory responsibility for certain options-related market surveillance matters among the Participants. 13 Under the Plan, a Participant will serve as the Designated Options Surveillance Regulator (“DOSR”) for each common member assigned to it and will assume regulatory responsibility with respect to that common member's compliance with applicable common rules for certain accounts. As proposed, the Plan currently is limited to the review of expiring exercise declarations pursuant to the common rules listed in proposed Exhibit A to the Plan. When an SRO has been named as a common member's DOSR, all other SROs to which the common member belongs will be relieved of regulatory responsibility for that common member, pursuant to the terms of the Plan, with respect to the applicable common rules specified in Exhibit A to the Plan. The full text of the proposed Plan and Exhibit A thereto can be found in the Notice. 13 The proposed plan is wholly separate from the multiparty options agreement made pursuant to Rule 17d-2 by and among Amex, BSE, CBOE, ISE, NASD (n/k/a FINRA), NYSE, NYSE Arca, and Phlx involving the allocation of regulatory responsibilities with respect to common members for compliance with common rules relating to the conduct of broker-dealers of accounts for listed options or index warrants entered into on December 1, 2006, and as may be amended from time to time. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55145 (January 22, 2007), 72 FR 3882 (January 26, 2007) (File No. S7-966) and 55532 (March 26, 2007), 72 FR 15729 (April 2, 2007) (File No. S7-966). III. Discussion The Commission finds that the proposed Plan is consistent with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act 14 and Rule 17d-2(c) thereunder 15 in that the proposed Plan is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors, fosters cooperation and coordination among SROs, and removes impediments to and fosters the development of a national market system. In particular, the Commission believes that the proposed Plan is an achievement in cooperation among the Participants and should reduce regulatory duplication by allocating to the DOSR the responsibility for certain options-related market surveillance matters that would otherwise be performed by multiple Participants. Accordingly, the proposed Plan promotes efficiency by reducing costs to common members. Furthermore, because the Participants will coordinate their regulatory functions in accordance with the Plan, the Plan should promote investor protection. 14 15 U.S.C. 78q(d). 15 17 CFR 240.17d-2(c). The Commission notes that the Plan will be administered by a committee known as the Options Surveillance Group (the “OSG”). The Commission further notes that, under the Plan, the Participants will allocate among themselves certain regulatory responsibilities relating to compliance by their common members with such options rules of the Participants as the Participants shall determine are substantially similar and shall approve from time to time, insofar as such rules relate to market surveillance (collectively, the “Common Rules”). The Common Rules covered by the Plan are specifically listed in Exhibit A to the Plan, as may be amended by the Participants from time to time upon unanimous written agreement by the Participants. The Commission notes that each year, or more frequently if required by changes in the rules of a Participant, each Participant will submit to the other Participants, through the Chair of the OSG, an updated list of Common Rules for review, and each Participant will confirm in writing to the Chair of the OSG whether that Participant's rules listed in Exhibit A continue to qualify as Common Rules under the Plan. In reviewing the list of Common Rules, the Participants may add additional rules that qualify as Common Rules, will delete rules that are no longer identical or substantially similar to the Common Rules, and will confirm that the remaining rules included on Exhibit A continue to qualify as Common Rules. The Commission notes that all amendments to the Plan, excluding certain changes to Exhibits A and B, must be filed with and approved by the Commission. 16 16 With respect to this proposed Plan, the Participants may include an additional rule in the list of Common Rules on Exhibit A without having to file an amendment to the Plan with the Commission, as long as such rules of each Participant that are to be included in Exhibit A meet the definition of Common Rules contained in the Plan and are otherwise consistent with the allocation of regulatory responsibility pursuant to the terms of the Plan. In addition, no less frequently than every two years, the OSG will allocate common members that conduct an options business among the Participants, and the Participant to which a common member is allocated will serve as the DOSR for that common member. The Plan also permits the Participants, subject to notice, to terminate the Plan or cancel their participation in the Plan. The Commission notes that a cancelling Participant will retain its regulatory responsibilities under the Plan until such time as the Commission has approved the cancellation or termination of the Plan. The Commission also notes that the proposed Plan is wholly separate from the multiparty options agreement made pursuant to Rule 17d-2 by and among Amex, BSE, CBOE, ISE, NASD (n/k/a FINRA), NYSE, NYSE Arca, and Phlx involving the allocation of regulatory responsibilities with respect to common members for compliance with common rules relating to the conduct of broker-dealers of accounts for listed options or index warrants entered into on December 1, 2006, and as may be amended from time to time. 17 17 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55145 (January 22, 2007), 72 FR 3882 (January 26, 2007) (File No. S7-966) (notice) and 55532 (March 26, 2007), 72 FR 15729 (April 2, 2007) (File No. S7-966) (order). IV. Conclusion This Order gives effect to the Plan filed with the Commission in File No. 4-551. The Participants shall notify all members affected by the Plan of their rights and obligations under the Plan. *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Act, 18 that the Plan in File No. 4-551 by and between Amex, BSE, CBOE, ISE, FINRA, NYSE Arca, and Phlx, filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act, 19 is hereby approved and declared effective. 18 15 U.S.C. 78q(d). 19 17 CFR 240.17d-2. *It is further ordered* that those SRO Participants that are not the DOSR as to a particular common member are relieved of those regulatory responsibilities allocated to the common member's DOSR under the Plan. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 20 20 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(34). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-24467 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 500-1] In the Matter of: Avitech Life Sciences, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading December 14, 2007. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the market for the securities of Avitech LifeSciences, Inc. (“Avitech,” trading symbol AVLF), may be reacting to manipulative forces or deceptive practices and that there is insufficient current public information about the issuer upon which an informed investment decision may be made, particularly concerning
(1)the identity of and prior securities fraud judgments against persons who appear to be involved in the offer and sale of Avitech shares;
(2)the financial performance and business prospects of Avitech; and
(3)offerings to foreign investors and any restrictions on the resale of shares. The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed company is suspended for the period of 9:30 a.m. EST, December 14, 2007 through 11:59 p.m. EST, on December 28, 2007. By the Commission. J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 07-6095 Filed 12-14-07; 12:26 pm]
Connectionstraces to 32
Traces to 32 documents
CFR
10 references not yet in our index
  • 47 CFR 1.429(e)
  • 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)
  • 12 CFR 225
  • 40 CFR 1002.14(d)
  • Pub. L. 92-463
  • 43 CFR 2
  • 30 CFR 250
  • 29 USC 2911(h)(4)
  • 10 CFR 2
  • 17 CFR 240.17
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of Availability
U.S.C.§ 552b
U.S.C.§ 1817
C.F.R.§ 225.41
U.S.C.§ 1843
C.F.R.§ 225.28
U.S.C.§ 4321
U.S.C.§ 1331
C.F.R.§ 250.141
U.S.C.§ 552
Cite47 CFR 1.429(e)
Cite47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)
Cite12 CFR 225
Cites 42 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.