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 · 2008-02-26 · National Aeronautics and Space Administration · Notices

Notices. Notice of meeting

25,093 words·~114 min read·/register/2008/02/26/08-861·

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

BILLING CODE 9211-03-M NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice (08-019)] NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Heliophysics Subcommittee; Meeting AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA)announces a meeting of the Heliophysics Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Subcommittee reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The Meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting from the scientific community and other persons scientific and technical information relevant to program planning. DATES: Wednesday, March 19, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Thursday, March 20, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Friday, March 21, 8:30 a.m. to Noon. ADDRESSES: NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., Room 5H45, Washington, DC 20546. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Marian Norris, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546,
(202)358-4452, fax
(202)358-4118, or *mnorris@nasa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics: —Heliophysics Division Overview and Program Status. —Overview of Heliophysics Fiscal Year 2009 Budget. —Report of the Mission Planning Working Group. —Review of Decadal Scientific Goals and Progress Toward Meeting Them. It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID, before receiving an access badge. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide the following information no less than 5 working days prior to the meeting: full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa/green card information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee. To expedite admittance, attendees with U.S. citizenship can provide identifying information 3 working days in advance by contacting Marian Norris via e-mail at *mnorris@nasa.gov* or by telephone at
(202)358-4452. Dated: February 19, 2008. P. Diane Rausch, Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. [FR Doc. E8-3536 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Committee Management; Renewal The NSF management officials having responsibility for the two advisory committees listed below have determined that renewing these groups for another two years is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Director, National Science Foundation by 42 U.S.C. 1861, *et seq.* This determination follows consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration. 1. Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education (#9487). 2. Proposal Review Panel for Industrial Innovation and Partnerships (#28164). The effective date for renewal will be February 29, 2008. For more information contact Susanne Bolton at
(703)292-7488. Dated: February 21, 2008. Susanne E. Bolton, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-3612 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-219-LR] In the Matter of Amergen Energy Company, LLC (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station) Commissioners: Dale E. Klein, Chairman, Gregory B. Jaczko, Peter B. Lyons. Notice of Appointment of Adjudicatory Employee Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.4, notice is hereby given that Dr. Mahendra Shah, Commission employee of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Division of High Level Waste Repository Safety, has been appointed as a Commission adjudicatory employee within the meaning of Section 2.4, to advise the Commission regarding issues related to the pending Commission review of LBP-07-17. Dr. Shah has not previously performed any investigative or litigating function in connection with this or any related proceeding. Until such time as a final decision is issued in this matter, interested persons outside the agency and agency employees performing investigative or litigating functions in this proceeding are required to observe the restrictions of 10 CFR 2.347 and 2.348 in their communications with Dr. Shah. *It is so ordered* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of February 2008. For the Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-3593 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030-34325] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Amendment of a Materials Permit in Accordance With Byproduct Materials License No. 03-23853-01VA, for Unrestricted Release of a Department of Veterans Affairs Facility in Tucson, AZ AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Snell, Senior Health Physicist, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532; telephone:
(630)829-9871; fax number:
(630)515-1259; or by e-mail at *wgs@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is proposing to amend a materials permit held under Byproduct Materials License No. 03-23853-01VA. The permit is held by the Department of Veterans Affairs (the Licensee), for its Southern Arizona VA Health Care System facilities, located at 3601 South 6th Avenue, Tucson, Arizona (Facility). Issuance of the amendment would authorize release of Building 32 (described below) for unrestricted use. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated June 12, 2007. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA)in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the **Federal Register** . II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would approve the Licensee's June 12, 2007, materials permit amendment request, resulting in release of Building 32 for unrestricted use. License No. 03-23853-01VA was issued on March 17, 2003, pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 35, and has been amended periodically since that time. This license authorizes the Licensee to use byproduct materials at several Licensee facilities around the country, as authorized on a site-specific basis by permits issued by the Licensee's National Radiation Safety Committee. Under the license, the permits authorize the use of by-product materials for various medical and veterinary purposes, and for use in portable gauges. The Facility is situated on a 116 acre site comprised of about 40 buildings, and is located in a mixed residential/industrial urban area of Tucson, Arizona. Within the Facility, Building 32 was constructed in 1969 as a single story block frame and brick structure. The building was used to house animals for research until July 1975 when it was used for interim storage and treatment (by disposal to sewer and incineration) of radioactive research and medical waste. The licensee ceased using licensed materials in Building 32 on September 1, 2004, and initiated surveys and decontamination of the building. Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions within Building 32, the Licensee determined that only routine decontamination activities, in accordance with their NRC-approved, operating radiation safety procedures, were required. The Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC because worker cleanup activities and procedures are consistent with those approved for routine operations. The Licensee conducted surveys of Building 32 during September through November 2004. The results of these surveys along with other supporting information were provided to the NRC to demonstrate that the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release have been met. Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities in Building 32, and seeks the unrestricted use of Building 32. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical review of licensed activities conducted in Building 32 shows that such activities involved use of the following radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days: hydrogen-3 (H-3) and carbon-14 (C-14). Prior to performing the final status survey, the Licensee conducted decontamination activities, as necessary, in the areas of Building 32 affected by these radionuclides. The Licensee completed final status surveys on Building 32 on November 8, 2004. The surveys covered all areas of Building 32. The final status survey report was attached to the Licensee's amendment request dated June 12, 2007. The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 using the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Volume 2. The Licensee used the radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), developed there by the NRC, which comply with the dose criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These DCGLs provide acceptable levels of surface contamination to demonstrate compliance with the NRC requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release. The Licensee's final status survey results were below these DCGLs and are in compliance with the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC thus finds that the Licensee's final status survey results are acceptable. Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). The staff finds there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material in Building 32. The NRC staff reviewed available docket file records and the final status survey report to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment surrounding Building 32. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified. The NRC has identified no other radiological or non-radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts. The NRC staff finds that issuance of the proposed amendment authorizing release of Building 32 for unrestricted use is in compliance with 10 CFR part 20. Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity from Building 32 and concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey data confirmed that Building 32 meets the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, denying the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency for review on December 27, 2007. The State had no comments regarding the EA. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers. 1. E. Lynn McGuire, Department of Veterans Affairs, letter to Cassandra Frazier, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, dated June 12, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071650164); 2. Gary Williams, Department of Veterans Affairs, E-mail to William Snell, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, dated August 20, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072780281); 3. Thomas Huston, Department of Veterans Affairs, E-mail to William Snell, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, dated September 21, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072910118); 4. Thomas Huston, Department of Veterans Affairs, E-mail to William Snell, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, dated October 19, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072920554); 5. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, part 20, subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination;” 6. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions;” 7. NUREG-1496, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities;” 8. NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance.” If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Lisle, Illinois, this 14th day of February 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Patrick Louden, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III. [FR Doc. E8-3585 Filed 2-25-08; 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 to 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 January 31 to February 13, 2008. The last biweekly notice was published on February 12, 2008 (73 FR 8068). 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. 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 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/* . If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:
(1)The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;
(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;
(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and
(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. A request for 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.* 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 amendments request:* August 13, 2007. *Description of amendments request:* The amendment would revise Technical Specification
(TS)Table 3.3.1.2-1, “Source Range Monitor [SRM] Instrumentation,” to add a note that specifies the required locations of SRMs in Mode 5 during core alterations, and also to make an administrative correction to Unit 1 TS Surveillance Requirement
(SR)3.3.1.2.2. *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 changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed changes are administrative in nature. There are no requirements being added, deleted, or altered as a result of either of the proposed changes. The change to Table 3.3.1.2-1 adds a footnote to Table 3.3.1.2-1 which duplicates the Mode 5 operable SRM location requirements currently specified in SR 3.3.1.2.2 and discussed in the LCO [limiting condition for operation] bases section for TS 3.3.1.2. The specific Mode 5 operable SRM location requirements are not being changed and are consistent with the requirements provided in the current version of NUREG-1433. This change is being done as an aid to Operations personnel, to help prevent inadvertently missing the requirements. The change to SR 3.3.1.2.2 for Unit 1 corrects a typographical error to be consistent with other locations within the Unit 1 and Unit 2 TSs as well as the current version of NUREG 1433. The proposed changes do not involve a physical change to the SRMs, nor do they alter the assumptions of the accident analyses. Therefore, the probability and the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not affected. 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed changes do not involve a physical change to the SRMs, nor do they alter the assumptions of the accident analyses. The changes are purely administrative in nature. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The proposed changes are administrative in nature, being done as an aid to Operations personnel, to help prevent inadvertently missing the Mode 5 operable SRM location requirements and to correct a typographical error. There are no requirements being added, deleted, or altered as a result of either of the proposed changes. As such, the proposed changes do not involve a 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:* David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel II—Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas H. Boyce. Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan *Date of amendment request:* January 15, 2008. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications
(TS)Surveillance Requirement
(SR)frequency in TS 3.1.3, “Control Rod OPERABILITY” from “7 days after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than the [Low Power Setpoint] LPSP of [Rod Worth Minimizer] RWM” to “31 days after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than the LPSP of the RWM” and revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. The proposed amendment does not adopt the clarification of Source Range Monitor
(SRM)TS action for inserting control rods, which is applicable only to Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)/6 plants. Since Fermi 2 is a BWR/4 plant, this change in TSTF-475, Revision 1 is not applicable and therefore, not adopted. *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 by a reference to a generic analysis published in the **Federal Register** on November 13, 2007 (72 FR 63935), which is presented below: Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated Biweekly Notice Coordinator. The proposed change generically implements TSTF-475, Revision 1, “Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert Control Rod Action.” TSTF-475, Revision 1 modifies NUREG-1433 (BWR/4) and NUREG-1434 (BWR/6) STS. The changes:
(1)Revise TS testing frequency for surveillance requirement
(SR)3.1.3.2 in TS 3.1.3, “Control Rod OPERABILITY”, [ ], and
(3)revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. The consequences of an accident after adopting TSTF-475, Revision 1 are no different than the consequences of an accident prior to adoption. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously Evaluated. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously analyzed. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety. TSTF-475, Revision 1 will:
(1)Revise the TS SR 3.1.3.2 frequency in TS 3.1.3, “Control Rod OPERABILITY”, [ ], and
(3)revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. The GE Nuclear Energy Report, “CRD Notching Surveillance Testing for Limerick Generating Station,” dated November 2006, concludes that extending the control rod notch test interval from weekly to monthly is not expected to impact the reliability of the scram system and that the analysis supports the decision to change the surveillance frequency. Therefore, the proposed changes in TSTF-475, Revision 1 [ ] do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(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:* David G. Pettinari, Legal Department, 688 WCB, Detroit Edison Company, 2000 2nd Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226-1279. *NRC Acting Branch Chief:* Patrick Milano. Duke Power Company LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina *Date of amendment request:* July 30, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The amendments would revise the Technical Specifications to allow single header operation of the nuclear service water system
(NSWS)for a time period of 35 days. The change will facilitate future maintenance of the NSWS headers. *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: [First Standard] Does operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed single supply header operation configuration for NSWS operation and the associated proposed TS and Bases changes have been evaluated to assess their impact on plant operation and to ensure that the design basis safety functions of safety related systems are not adversely impacted. During single supply header operation, the operating NSWS header will be able to supply all required NSWS flow to safety related components. It was demonstrated that proposed single failures would not cause the NSWS to be rendered incapable of performing its required safety related function under accident conditions. The purpose of this amendment request is to ultimately facilitate inspection and maintenance of the NSWS supply headers. Therefore, NRC approval of this request will ultimately help to enhance the long-term structural integrity of the NSWS and will help to ensure the system's reliability for many years. In general, the NSWS serves as an accident mitigation system and cannot by itself initiate an accident or transient situation. The only exception is that the NSWS piping can serve as a source of floodwater to safety related equipment in the auxiliary building or in the diesel generator buildings in the event of a leak or a break in the system piping. The probability of such an event is not significantly increased as a result of this proposed request. NSWS piping added in support of the proposed request will be tested and maintained in a manner consistent with that for comparable safety related piping in the NSWS. The proposed 35 day TS Required Action Completion Time has been evaluated for risk significance and the results of this evaluation have been found acceptable. The probabilities of occurrence of accidents presented in the UFSAR will not increase as a result of implementation of this change. Because the PRA analysis supporting the proposed change yielded acceptable results, the NSWS will maintain its required availability in response to accident situations. Since NSWS availability is maintained, the response of the plant to accident situations will remain acceptable and the consequences of accidents presented in the UFSAR will not increase. [Second Standard] Does operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. Implementation of this amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed request does not affect the basic operation of the NSWS or any of the systems that it supports. These include the Emergency Core Cooling System, the Containment Spray System, the Containment Valve Injection Water System, the Auxiliary Feedwater System, the Component Cooling Water System, the Control Room Area Ventilation System, the Control Room Area Chilled Water System, the Auxiliary Building Filtered Ventilation Exhaust System, or the Diesel Generators. During proposed single supply header operation, the NSWS will remain capable of fulfilling all of its design basis requirements, even when assuming the required single failure. No new accident causal mechanisms are created as a result of NRC approval of this amendment request. No changes are being made to the plant which will introduce any new type of accident outside those assumed in the UFSAR. [Third Standard] Does operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? *Response:* No. Implementation of this amendment will not involve a significant reduction in any margin of safety. Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions during and following an accident situation. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. The performance of these fission product barriers will not be impacted by implementation of this proposed TS amendment. During single supply header operation, the NSWS and its supported systems will remain capable of performing their required functions even assuming the postulated single failure. No safety margins will be impacted. The PRA conducted for this proposed amendment demonstrated that the impact on overall plant risk remains acceptable during single supply header operation. Therefore, there is not 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. Lisa F. Vaughn, Associate General Counsel and Managing Attorney, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 526 South Church Street, EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. *NRC Branch Chief:* Melanie C. Wong, Acting. Duke Power Company LLC, et al. , Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina *Date of amendment request:* September 27, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The amendments would modify Technical Specification
(TS)3.7.2 (Main Steam Isolation Valves) and TS 3.7.3 (Main Feedwater Isolation Valves, Main Feedwater Control Valves, Associated Bypass Valves and Tempering Valves) by removing the specific isolation time for the isolation valves from the associated Surveillance Requirements. *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. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review is presented below. *Criterion 1:* The Proposed Changes Do Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated. The proposed changes allow relocating main steam and main feedwater valve isolation times to the licensee-controlled document that is referenced in the Bases. The proposed changes are described in Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Standard TS Change Traveler TSTF-491 related to relocating the main steam and main feedwater valves isolation times to the licensee-controlled document that is referenced in the Bases and replacing the isolation time with the phrase, “within limits.” The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater isolation valve times to the licensee-controlled document that is referenced in the Bases. The requirements to perform the testing of these isolation valves are retained in the TSs. Future changes to the Bases or licensee-controlled document will be evaluated pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, “Changes, test 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. 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 consequences of any accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types and the amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released, 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. *Criterion 2:* The Proposed Changes Do Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Previously Evaluated. The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater valve isolation times to the licensee-controlled document that is referenced in the Bases. In addition, the valve isolation times are replaced in the TS with the phrase “within limits”. The changes do not involve a physical altering of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in methods governing normal plant operation. The requirements in the TSs continue to require testing of the main steam and main feedwater isolation valves to ensure the proper functioning of these isolation valves. Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. *Criterion 3:* The Proposed Changes Do Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety. The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater valve isolation times to the licensee-controlled document that is referenced in the Bases. In addition, the valve isolation times are replaced in the TSs with the phrase “within limits.” Instituting the proposed changes will continue to ensure the testing of main steam and main feedwater isolation valves. Changes to the Bases or license-controlled document are performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. This approach provides an effective level of regulatory control and ensures that main steam and feedwater isolation valve testing is conducted such that there is no significant reduction in the margin of safety. The margin of safety provided by the isolation valves is unaffected by the proposed changes since there continue to be TS requirements to ensure the testing of main steam and main feedwater isolation valves. The proposed changes maintain sufficient controls to preserve the current margins of safety. 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. Lisa F. Vaughn, Associate General Counsel and Managing Attorney, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 526 South Church Street, EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. *NRC Branch Chief:* Melanie C. Wong, Acting. 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:* December 21, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment revises Technical Specification
(TS)Surveillance Requirements
(SR)3.8.4.2 and 3.8.4.5 to add an additional acceptance criterion to verify that total battery connector resistance is within pre-established limits that ensure the batteries can perform their design functions. The proposed amendment is in response to a non-cited violation that was documented in NRC Component Design Bases Inspection Report 05000254/2006003(DRS), 05000265/2006003(DRS). *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 revisions of SR 3.8.4.2 and SR 3.8.4.5 to add a battery connector resistance acceptance criterion will not challenge the ability of the safety-related batteries to perform their safety function. Appropriate monitoring and maintenance will continue to be performed on the safety-related batteries. In addition, the safety-related batteries are within the scope of 10 CFR 50.65, “Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants,” which will ensure the control of maintenance activities associated with this equipment. Current TS requirements will not be altered and will continue to require that the equipment be regularly monitored and tested. Since the proposed change does not alter the manner in which the batteries are operated, there is no significant impact on reactor operation. The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the batteries, nor does it change the safety function of the batteries. The proposed TS revision involves no significant changes to the operation of any systems or components in normal or accident operating conditions and no changes to existing structures, systems, or components. Therefore, these changes will not increase 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 changes revising SR 3.8.4.2 and SR 3.8.4.5 to add an additional acceptance criterion for battery connector resistance is an increase in conservatism, without a change in system testing methods, operation, or control. Safety-related batteries installed in the plant will be required to meet criteria more restrictive and conservative than current acceptance criteria and standards. The proposed change does not affect the manner in which the batteries are tested and maintained; therefore, there are no new failure mechanisms for the system. 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. The margin of safety is established through the design of the plant structures, systems, and components, the parameters within which the plant is operated, and the setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to an event. The proposed change does not modify the safety limits or setpoints at which protective actions are initiated. The change is conservative and further ensures safety-related battery operability and availability. As such, sufficient DC capacity to support operation of mitigation equipment is enhanced, which results in an increase in the margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed 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 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. FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa *Date of amendment request:* December 20, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* Duane Arnold Energy Center
(DAEC)requests a change, consistent with the adoption of TSTF-475, Revision 1, an approved change to the Standard Technical Specifications
(STS)for General Electric
(GE)Plants (NUREG-1433, BWR/4) and plant specific technical specifications (TS), that allows:
(1)Revising the frequency of Surveillance Requirement
(SR)3.1.3.2, notch testing of fully withdrawn control rod, from “7 days after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than 20% [Rated Thermal Power] RTP” to “31 days after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than 20% RTP” and
(2)revising Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify that the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension in SR 3.0.2 is applicable to time periods discussed in NOTES in the “SURVEILLANCE” column in addition to the time periods in the “FREQUENCY” column. The NRC staff acknowledges that, in item
(1)above, the wording that is to be adopted by the Duane Arnold TS in SR 3.1.3.2 (“31 days after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than 20% RTP”) is a deviation from the language in the Improved STS (“31 days after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than the [Low Power Setpoint] LPSP of the [Rod Worth Minimizer] RWM.”) This deviation from NUREG-1433 was incorporated into the DAEC TS by Amendment 223 dated May 22, 1998, in the conversion of the DAEC TS to the Improved STS. *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
(NSHC)through incorporation by reference of the NSHC determination (NSHCD) published in the **Federal Register** Notice dated November 13, 2007, that announced the availability of TS improvement through the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). The NSHCD, with references to BWR/6 information deleted and with clarifying comments inserted within brackets [ ], 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 generically implements TSTF-475, Revision 1, “Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert Control Rod Action.” TSTF-475, Revision 1 modifies NUREG-1433 (BWR/4) STS. The changes:
(1)Revise TS testing frequency for surveillance requirement
(SR)3.1.3.2 in TS 3.1.3, “Control Rod OPERABILITY” and
(2)revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. The consequences of an accident after adopting TSTF-475, Revision 1 are no different than the consequences of an accident prior to adoption. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 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 a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously analyzed. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? *Response:* No. TSTF-475, Revision 1 [, as adopted by DAEC TS,] will:
(1)Revise the TS SR 3.1.3.2 frequency in TS 3.1.3, “Control Rod OPERABILITY” and
(2)revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. The GE Nuclear Energy Report, “CRD Notching Surveillance Testing for Limerick Generating Station,” dated November 2006, concludes that extending the control rod notch test interval from weekly to monthly is not expected to impact the reliability of the scram system and that the analysis supports the decision to change the surveillance frequency. Therefore, the proposed changes in TSTF-475, Revision 1 [, as adopted by DAEC TS,] 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 request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Marjan Mashhadi, Florida Power & Light Company, 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 220, Washington, DC 20004. *NRC Acting Branch Chief:* Patrick Milano. 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 No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina *Date of application for amendment:* November 15, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated December 21, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment is a one-time change that revised Technical Specification
(TS)Section 3.1.7, “Rod Position Indication.” The requirements related to one inoperable bank demand position indicator
(DPI)are modified by a footnote to allow two DPIs to be inoperable per bank for one or more banks on a temporary basis during the current operating cycle (Cycle 25). This provision allows for corrective maintenance on three inoperable DPIs in the rod position indication system that necessitates removing both DPIs for the affected rod banks from service during the repair. This amendment expires at the end of operating Cycle 25. *Date of issuance:* January 29, 2008. *Effective date:* Effective as of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.* 217. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23:* The amendment revises the Technical Specifications and Facility Operating License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67321). *Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC):* No. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final NSHC determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated January 29, 2008. *Attorney for licensee:* David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel II—Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-1551. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas H. Boyce. Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin *Date of application for amendment:* October 2, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises Technical Specification Sections 3.7, “Auxiliary Electrical Systems,” and 4.6, “Periodic Testing of Emergency Power System,” to change the testing requirements for ensuring operability of the remaining operable emergency diesel generator
(EDG)when the other EDG is inoperable. In addition, the amendment adds a new specification when two EDGs are inoperable and revises the surveillance requirements for the EDGs. *Date of issuance:* February 7, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 194. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-43:* Amendment revised the License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: November 20, 2007 (72 FR 65363) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 7, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2, New London County, Connecticut *Date of amendment request:* February 16, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification 3/4.4.3, “Reactor Coolant System, Relief Valves” to modify the method of testing the pressurizer Power Operated Relief Valves (PORVs). Specifically, the requirement for bench testing the valves is changed to accommodate testing of the PORVs while installed in the plant. The change is requested due to the installation of new PORVs that are welded to the piping rather than bolted into the system. *Date of issuance:* February 12, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 302. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-65:* Amendment revised the License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : November 19, 2007 (72 FR 65084). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 12, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Pope County, Arkansas *Date of amendment request:* April 24, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated August 2, 2007, and electronic mail dated January 8, 2008. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments relocate the Fuel Handling Area Ventilation System and associated Ventilation Filter Testing Program requirements that are included in the Unit 1 Technical Specifications
(TS)3.7.12 and 5.5.11 and the Unit 2 TS 3.9.11 and 6.5.11 to the unit-specific Technical Requirements Manuals (TRMs). The TRMs are licensee-controlled documents which are controlled under 10 CFR 50.59, “Changes, tests, and experiments.” *Date of issuance:* February 4, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 1-231; Unit 2-274. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6:* Amendments revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : June 5, 2007 (72 FR 31098). The supplemental letter dated August 2, 2007, and electronic mail dated January 8, 2008, 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 February 4, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2, Westchester County, New York *Date of application for amendment:* October 24, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises the containment buffering agent used for pH control under post loss-of-coolant accident
(LOCA)conditions, from trisodium phosphate to sodium tetraborate. *Date of issuance:* February 7, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented prior to entry into Mode 4 following completion of the spring 2008 refueling outage. *Amendment No.:* 253. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26:* The amendment revised the License and the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : December 4, 2007 (72 FR 68211). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 7, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York *Date of application for amendment:* July 25, 2007, as supplemented November 1, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The proposed amendment would modify the Technical Specifications by adding an Action Statement to the Limiting Conditions for Operation
(LCOs)for TS 3.7.4, “Control Room Air Conditioning
(AC)System.” Specifically, the new Action statement allows 72 hours to restore one control room air conditioning subsystem to operable status and requires verification that the control room temperature remains below 90 °F every 4 hours during the period of inoperability. The change is consistent with NRC-approved Revision 3 to Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF)Improved Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler, TSTF-477, “Add Action Statement for Two Inoperable Control Room Air Conditioning Subsystems.” *Date of issuance:* January 23, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 290. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-59:* The amendment revises the License and the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : September 11, 2007 (72 FR 51855). The November 1, 2007, supplement provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 23, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan *Date of application for amendment:* November 6, 2006, supplemented by letters dated August 10, 2007, and December 20, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment would revise Appendix A, technical specification (TS), Core Operating Limits Report analytical methods referenced in TS 5.6.5.b to add EMF-2103 (P)(A), “Realistic Large Break LOCA Methodology for Pressurized Water Reactors.” *Date of issuance:* January 31, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days. *Amendment No.:* 229. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-20:* Amendment revised the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : December 19, 2006 (71 FR 75995) The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination, and did not expand the scope of the original **Federal Register** notice. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 31, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 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.* *Date of application for amendment:* January 8, 2007 as supplemented by letter dated October 12, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendments extended the reactor trip system and engineered safety features actuation system completion times, bypass test times, and surveillance test intervals for technical specifications
(TS)3.3.1, “RTS Instrumentation,” TS 3.3.2, “ESFAS Instrumentation,” and TS 3.3.6, “Containment Ventilation Isolation Instrumentation.” *Date of issuance:* January 29, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 153, 153, 148, and 148. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37, NPF-66, NPF-72 and NPF-77:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : March 27, 2007 (72 FR 14305). The October 12, 2007, supplement, contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 29, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida *Date of application for amendments:* November 12, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revise TS 3.1.3.2, “Position Indication Systems—Operating,” to allow for the use of an alternate method, other than the movable incore detectors, to monitor the position of a control rod or shutdown rod in the event of a problem with the analog rod position indication system. The use of this alternate method will reduce the required frequency of flux mapping using the movable incore detectors to determine the position of the non-indicating rod, thus reducing the wear on the movable incore detector system that is also used to complete other required TS surveillances. *Date of issuance:* January 28, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos:* 237 and 232. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41:* Amendments revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67323). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 28, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2, Oswego County, New York *Date of application for amendment:* September 19, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises Limiting Condition for Operation 3.10.1 to expand its scope to include provisions for temperature excursions greater than 200 °F as a consequence of inservice leak and hydrostatic testing, and as a consequence of scram time testing initiated in conjunction with an inservice leak or hydrostatic test, while considering operational conditions to be in Mode 4, using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process. *Date of issuance:* February 7, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 121. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69:* Amendment revised the License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: November 20, 2007 (72 FR 65368). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 7, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota *Date of application for amendment:* February 15, 2007, as supplemented on November 30, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised the Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirement
(SR)3.8.4.2, “DC [Direct Current] Sources—Operating,” to specify that the Division 1 battery chargers are verified to supply ≥150 amps and the Division 2 battery chargers are verified to supply ≥110 amps. *Date of issuance:* January 30, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 153. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-22:* Amendment revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: April 24, 2007 (72 FR 20384). The supplemental letter contained clarifying information, did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination, and did not expand the scope of the original **Federal Register** notice. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 30, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska *Date of amendment request:* September 21, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises Technical Specifications
(TS)safety limit
(SL)requirements related to the use of a non-cycle specific peak linear heat rate
(PLHR)SL of 22 kW/ft to fuel centerline melt (FCM). The TS change is consistent with the Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)445-A, Revision 1. Because these Limiting Safety Systems Setting
(LSSS)values appear in the FCS TS Bases Sections of TS 1.3, TS 1.0, Safety Limits and Limiting Safety System Settings, was also revised to more clearly align with the Combustion Engineering
(CE)Standard Technical Specifications
(STS)2.0 in content. Therefore, TS Section 1.1, Safety Limits—Reactor Core, is revised to incorporate the TSTF-445-A, Revision 1, peak fuel centerline temperature criteria and TS 1.2, Safety Limits—Reactor Coolant System Pressure, is revised to incorporate the SL violation action which is currently delineated in administrative control TS 5.7.1. TS Section 1.3, Limiting Safety System Settings, was relocated to the currently unused TS Section 2.13 to be more consistent with the content of the CE STS (i.e., the LSSS will be located in the Limiting Conditions for Operation
(LCO)section of the FCS TS which is similar to the LCO/Surveillance Requirements Section 3.0 of the STS). As noted above, the administrative control in TS 5.7.1, Safety Limit Violation, is relocated. Also, administrative control TS 5.9.5, Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), item a., is revised to add TS 2.13, RPS Limiting Safety System Settings, Table 2-11, Items 6, 8, and 9, to the list of items that shall be documented in the COLR. The TS Table of Contents
(TOC)is also updated to reflect the deletion and subsequent renumbering of Section 1.3 and Table 1-1 to TS 2.13 and Table 2-11, respectively. The TOC is also updated to delineate the new TS subsections 1.1.1 and 1.1.2, provide the revised titles for TS 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 2.13, and to reflect TS 5.7.1 as “Not used.” *Date of issuance:* February 4, 2008. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance and prior to startup from the 2008 refueling outage. *Amendment No.:* 252. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40:* The amendment revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: November 6, 2007 (72 FR 62690). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated February 4, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket No. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 and 2), Luzerne County, Pennsylvania *Date of application for amendments:* October 11, 2007, as supplemented on October 25, December 4 and 26, 2006, February 13, March 14 and 22, April 13, 17, 23, 26, and 27, May 3, 9, 14, and 21, June 1, 4, 8, 14, 20, and 27, July 6, 12, 13, 30, and 31, August 3, 13, 15, and 28, September 19, October 5, November 30, December 10, 2007, and January 9, 24, and 29, 2008. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments increase the SSES 1 and 2 licensed thermal power to 3952 Mega-watts thermal (MWt), which is 20% above the original rated thermal power
(RTP)of 3293 MWt, and approximately 13% above the current RTP of 3489 MWt. The amendments revise the SSES 1 and 2 Operating License and Technical Specifications necessary to implement the increased power level. *Date of issuance:* January 30, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and to be implemented in accordance with the issued License Conditions. *Amendment Nos.:* 246 and 224. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22:* The amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: March 13, 2007 (72 FR 11392). The supplements dated October 25, December 4 and 26, 2006, February 13, March 14 and 22, April 13, 17, 23, 26, and 27, May 3, 9, 14, and 21, June 1, 4, 8, 14, 20, and 27, July 6, 12, 13, 30, and 31, August 3, 13, 15, and 28, September 19, October 5, November 30, December 10, 2007, and January 9, 24, and 29, 2008, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 30, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of February 2008. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E8-3481 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414, 50-369 and 50-370] Duke Power Company LLC, et al.; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52 issued to Duke Power Company LLC, et al., for operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in York County, South Carolina, and Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17 for operation of the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The proposed amendment would revise the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, and the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports by requiring an inspection of each ice condenser within 24 hours of experiencing a seismic event greater than or equal to an operating basis earthquake within the five
(5)week period after ice basket replenishment has been completed to confirm that adverse ice fallout has not occurred. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not
(1)involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or
(2)create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: A. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The analyzed accidents of consideration in regard to changes potentially affecting the ice condenser are a loss of coolant accident and a steam or feedwater line break inside Containment. The ice condenser is an accident mitigator and is not postulated as being the initiator of a LOCA [loss-coolant-accident] or HELB [high-energy line break]. The ice condenser is structurally designed to withstand a Safe Shutdown Earthquake plus a Design Basis Accident and does not interconnect or interact with any systems that interconnect or interact with the Reactor Coolant, Main Steam or Feedwater systems. Because the proposed changes do not result in, or require any physical change to the ice condenser that could introduce an interaction with the Reactor Coolant, Main Steam or Feedwater systems, there can be no change in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. Under the current licensing basis, the ice condenser ice baskets would be considered fully fused prior to power ascension and the ice condenser would perform its accident mitigation function even if a safe shutdown seismic event occurred coincident with or just preceding the accident. Under the proposed change, there is some finite probability that, within 24 hours following a seismic disturbance, a LOCA or HELB in Containment could occur within five weeks of the completion of ice basket replenishment. However, several factors provide defense-in-depth and tend to mitigate the potential consequences of the proposed change. Design basis accidents are not assumed to occur simultaneously with a seismic event. Therefore, the coincident occurrence of a LOCA or HELB with a seismic event is strictly a function of the combined probability of the occurrence of independent events, which in this case is very low. Based on the Probabilistic Risk Assessment model and seismic hazard analysis, the combined probability of occurrence of a seismic disturbance greater than or equal to an OBE during the 5 week period following ice replenishment coincident with or subsequently followed by a LOCA or HELB during the time required to perform the proposed inspection (24 hours) and if required by Technical Specifications, complete Unit shutdown (37 hours), is less than 2.2E-09 for McGuire and Catawba. This probability is well below the threshold that is typically considered credible. Even if ice were to fall from ice baskets during a seismic event occurring coincident with or subsequently followed by an accident, the ice condenser would be expected to perform its intended safety function. The design of the lower inlet doors is such that complete blockage of flow into the ice condenser is not credible during a LOCA or HELB. The inherent redundancy of flow paths into the ice condenser provide reasonable assurance that it would perform its function even if some lower inlet doors were blocked closed. Based on the above, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The ice condenser is expected to perform its intended safety function under all circumstances following a LOCA or HELB in Containment. B. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change affects the assumed timing of a postulated seismic and design basis accident applied to the ice condenser and provides an alternate methodology to confirm the ice condenser lower inlet doors are capable of opening. As previously discussed, the ice condenser is not postulated as an initiator of any design basis accident. The proposed change does not impact any plant system, structure or component that is an accident initiator. The proposed change does not involve any hardware changes to the ice condenser or other changes that could create new accident mechanisms. Therefore, there can be no new or different accidents created from those previously identified and evaluated. C. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? Response: No. Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions during and following an accident situation. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the Reactor Coolant system, and the Containment system. The performance of the fuel cladding and the Reactor Coolant system will not be impacted by the proposed change. The requirement to inspect the ice condensers within 24 hours of experiencing seismic activity greater than or equal to an OBE during the five
(5)week period following the completion of ice basket replenishment will confirm that the ice condenser lower inlet doors are capable of opening. This inspection will confirm that the ice condenser doors remain fully capable of performing their intended safety function under credible circumstances. The inherent redundancy of flow paths into the ice condenser provides reasonable assurance that it would perform its function even if some lower inlet doors were blocked closed. As such, the ice condenser has reasonable assurance of performing its intended function during the highly unlikely scenario in which a postulated accident (LOCA or HELB) occurs coincident with or subsequently following a seismic event. The proposed change affects the assumed timing of a postulated seismic and design basis accident applied to the ice condenser and provides an alternate methodology in confirming the ice condenser lower inlet doors are capable of opening. As previously discussed, the combined probability of occurrence of a LOCA or HELB and a seismic disturbance greater than or equal to an OBE [operating basis earthquake] during the “period of potential exposure” is less than 2.2E-09 for McGuire and Catawba. This probability is well below the threshold that is considered credible. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The McGuire and Catawba ice condensers will perform their intended safety function under credible circumstances. The changes proposed in this LAR do not make any physical alteration to the ice condensers, nor does it affect the required functional capability of the ice condenser in any way. The intent of the proposed change to the UFSARs is to eliminate an overly restrictive waiting period prior to Unit ascent to power operations following the completion of ice basket replenishment. The required inspection of the ice condenser following a seismic event greater than or equal to an OBE will confirm that the ice condenser lower inlet doors will continue to fully perform their safety function as assumed in the McGuire and Catawba safety analyses. Thus, it can be concluded that the proposed 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 amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, 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 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 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(s) 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 by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:
(1)The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;
(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;
(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and
(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. 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 on 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 submissions. For further details with respect to this license amendment application, see the application for amendment dated February 15, 2008, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of February 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. John F. Stang, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E8-3588 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425] Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards; Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission, or the NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81 to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (the licensee) for operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Vogtle 1 and 2), which are located in Burke County, Georgia. The proposed amendments in the licensee's application dated February 13, 2008, propose a one-time steam generator
(SG)tubing eddy current inspection interval revision to the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Vogtle 1 and 2) Technical Specifications
(TSs)5.5.9, “Steam Generator
(SG)Program,” to incorporate an interim alternate repair criterion
(ARC)in the provisions for SG tube repair criteria during the Vogtle 1 inspection performed in refueling outage 14 and subsequent operating cycle, and during the Vogtle 2 inspection performed in refueling outage 13 and subsequent 18-month SG tubing eddy current inspection interval and subsequent 36-month SG tubing eddy current inspection interval. These amendments request approval of an interim ARC that requires full-length inspection of the tubes within the tubesheet but does not require plugging tubes if any axial or circumferential cracking observed in the region greater than 17 inches below the top of the tubesheet
(TTS)is less than a value sufficient to permit the remaining circumferential ligament to transmit the limiting axial loads. These amendments are required to preclude unnecessary plugging while still maintaining structural and leakage integrity. These amendments also revise TS 5.6.10, “Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report,” where three new reporting requirements are proposed to be added to the existing seven requirements. For TS 5.5.9, the amendments would replace the existing ARC in TS 5.5.9.c.1 for SG tube inspections that were approved in Amendment Nos. 146 and 126 issued September 12, 2006, for refueling outage 13 and the subsequent operating cycle for Vogtle 1, and for refueling outage 12 and the subsequent operating cycle for Vogtle 2. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not
(1)involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or
(2)create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
(1)Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. Of the various accidents previously evaluated, the proposed changes only affect the steam generator tube rupture
(SGTR)event evaluation and the postulated steam line break (SLB), locked rotor and control rod ejection accident evaluations. Loss-of-coolant accident
(LOCA)conditions cause a compressive axial load to act on the tube. Therefore, since the LOCA tends to force the tube into the tubesheet rather than pull it out, it is not a factor in this licensing amendment request. Another faulted load consideration is a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE); however, the seismic analysis of Model F steam generators has shown that axial loading of the tubes is negligible during an SSE. At normal operating pressures, leakage from primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) below 17 inches from the top of the tubesheet 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. For the Unit 1 SGTR event, the required structural margins of the steam generator tubes is maintained by limiting the allowable ligament size for a circumferential crack to remain in service to 214 degrees below 17 inches from the top of the tubesheet. For the Unit 2 SGTR event, the required structural margins of the steam generator tubes is maintained by limiting the allowable ligament size for a circumferential crack to remain in service to 214 degrees below 17 inches from the top of the tubesheet for the 18-month SG tubing eddy current inspection interval and to remain in service 183 degrees below 17 inches from the top of the tubesheet for the 36-month SG tubing eddy current inspection interval. Tube rupture is precluded for cracks in the hydraulic expansion region due to the constraint provided by the tubesheet. The potential for tube pullout is mitigated by limiting the Unit 1 allowable crack size to 214 degrees and limiting the Unit 2 allowable crack size to 214 degrees for the 18-month SG tubing eddy current inspection interval and to 183 degrees for the 36-month SG tubing eddy current inspection interval. These allowable crack sizes take into account eddy current uncertainty and crack growth rate. It has been shown that a Unit 1 circumferential crack with an azimuthal extent of 214 degrees and a Unit 2 circumferential crack with an azimuthal extent of 214 degrees for the 18-month SG tubing eddy current inspection interval and an azimuthal extent of 183 degrees for the 36-month SG tubing eddy current inspection interval meet the performance criteria of NEI 97-06, Rev. 2, “Steam Generator Program Guidelines” and the Regulatory Guide
(RG)1.121, “Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam Generator Tubes.” Likewise, a best effort visual inspection will be conducted to confirm that a Unit 1 circumferential crack of greater than 294 degrees and that a Unit 2 circumferential crack of greater than 294 degrees for the 18-month SG tubing eddy current inspection interval and a circumferential crack of greater than 263 degrees for the 36-month SG tubing eddy current inspection interval do not remain in service in the tube end weld metal in any tube mitigating the potential for tube pullout. Therefore, the margin against tube burst/pullout is maintained during normal and postulated accident conditions and the proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequence of a SGTR. The probability of a SLB is unaffected by the potential failure of a SG tube as the failure of a tube is not an initiator for a SLB event. SLB leakage is limited by leakage flow restrictions resulting from the leakage path above potential cracks through the tube-to-tubesheet crevice. The leak rate during postulated accident conditions (including locked rotor and control rod ejection) has been shown to remain within the accident analysis assumptions for all axial or circumferentially oriented cracks occurring 17 inches below the top of the tubesheet. Since normal operating leakage is limited to 150 gpd (approximately 0.10 gpm), the attendant accident condition leak rate, assuming all leakage to be from indications below 17 inches from the top of the tubesheet, would be bounded by 0.35 gpm. This value is within the accident analysis assumptions for the limiting design basis accident for VEGP, which is the postulated SLB event. Based on the above, the performance criteria of NEI-97-06, Rev. 2 and draft Regulatory Guide
(RG)1.121 continue to be met and the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2)Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change does not introduce any changes or mechanisms that create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. Tube bundle integrity is expected to be maintained for all plant conditions upon implementation of the interim alternate repair criterion. The proposed change does not introduce any new equipment or any change to existing equipment. No new effects on existing equipment are created nor are any new malfunctions introduced. Therefore, based on the above evaluation, the proposed 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 change maintains the required structural margins of the steam generator tubes for both normal and accident conditions. NEI 97-06, Rev. 2 and RG 1.121 are used as the basis in the development of the limited tubesheet inspection depth methodology for determining that steam generator tube integrity considerations are maintained within acceptable limits. RG 1.121 describes a method acceptable to the NRC staff for meeting General Design Criteria 14, 15, 31, and 32 by reducing the probability and consequences of an SGTR. RG 1.121 concludes that by determining the limiting safe conditions of tube wall degradation beyond which tubes with unacceptable cracking, as established by inservice inspection, should be removed from service or repaired, 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. For axially oriented cracking located within the tubesheet, tube burst is precluded due to the presence of the tubesheet. For circumferentially oriented cracking in a tube or the tube-to-tubesheet weld, Reference 3 defines a length of remaining tube ligament that provides the necessary resistance to tube pullout due to the pressure induced forces (with applicable safety factors applied). Additionally, it is shown that application of the limited tubesheet inspection depth criteria will not result in unacceptable primary-to-secondary leakage during all plant conditions. Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not result in any reduction of margin with respect to plant safety as defined in the Updated Safety Analysis Report or bases of the plant Technical Specifications. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, 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 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 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(s) 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 by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: 1) the name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; 2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; 3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and 4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. 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 on 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 submissions. For further details with respect to this license amendment application, see the letter dated February 13, 2008, from the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of February 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Siva P. Lingam, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E8-3581 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-188] Kansas State University Triga Mark II Nuclear Reactor; Notice of Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is considering issuance of a renewed Facility License No. R-88, to be held by Kansas State University (the licensee), which would authorize continued operation of the Kansas State University TRIGA Mark II nuclear reactor (KSU TRIGA), located in Manhattan, Riley County, Kansas. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. Description of Proposed Action The proposed action would renew Facility License No. R-88 for a period of twenty years from the date of issuance of the renewed license, and would increase the licensed maximum steady-state power level to 1.25 megawatts thermal power (MW(t)) and the maximum pulse reactivity insertion. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated September 12, 2002, as supplemented on November 11, and November 13, 2002; December 21, 2004; July 6, and September 27, 2005; March 20, March 30, June 28, and September 28, 2006; May 17, June 4, September 12, and October 11, 2007; and February 6, 2008. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.109, the license remains in effect until the NRC takes final action on the renewal application. The KSU TRIGA is located in the north wing of Ward Hall in the northwest sector of the University campus near the center of the city of Manhattan, Kansas. The reactor is housed in the reactor bay, a reinforced concrete and structural steel building which serves as a confinement. The KSU TRIGA site comprises the entire building and the fenced areas immediately surrounding the building. There are no nearby industrial, transportation, or military facilities that could pose a threat to the KSU TRIGA. The KSU TRIGA is a pool-type, light water moderated and cooled research reactor currently licensed to operate at a steady-state power level of 250 kilowatts thermal power (kW(t)). The reactor is licensed to operate in a pulse mode, with a maximum pulse thermal power of 250 MW(t). A detailed description of the reactor can be found in the KSU TRIGA Safety Analysis Report (SAR). As part of the proposed action the licensee has requested an increase in the licensed maximum steady-state power level, an increase in the maximum reactivity insertion and authorization to install an additional control rod to support operation at the increased power level. The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability of accidents. The proposed action may increase the consequences of accidents, but will not result in doses in excess of the limits specified by 10 CFR Part 20. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site. There should be no significant increase in routine occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, the proposed action should not significantly change the environmental impact of facility operation. Summary of the Environmental Assessment The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's application which included an Environmental Report. To document its review, the NRC staff has prepared an environmental assessment
(EA)which discusses the KSU TRIGA site and facility; radiological impacts of gaseous, liquid, and solid effluents; environmental and personnel radiation monitoring; radiation dose estimates for the maximum hypothetical accident (MHA); impacts of the “no action” alternative to the proposed action; alternative use of resources; considerations related to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and presents the radiological and non-radiological environmental impacts of the proposed action. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated September 12, 2002 (ML022620007, ML022620011, ML022620643, ML022630012, ML022630054, ML022630077), as supplemented on November 11, 2002 (ML023190241); November 13, 2002 (ML023190219); December 21, 2004 (ML052580517); July 6, 2005 (ML051960517, ML051960520, ML051960521, ML051960522, ML052580519, ML052590053); September 27, 2005 (ML052760292); March 20, 2006 (ML061640472); March 30, 2006 (ML061010264); June 28, 2006 (ML070660601); September 28, 2006 (ML063070520); May 17, 2007 (ML071430200); June 4, 2007 (ML071630328); September 12, 2007 (ML072680471); October 11, 2007 (ML072970624) and February 6, 2008 (ML080500366). Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* The EA can be found in ADAMS under Accession Number ML063190172. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of February, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Daniel S. Collins, Chief, Research and Test Reactors Branch A, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E8-3598 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Information Collection: RI 20-64, RI 20-64A and RI 20-64B AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request for extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection. RI 20-64, Letter Reply to Request for Information, is used by the Civil Service Retirement System to provide information about the amount of annuity payable after a survivor reduction, to explain the annuity reductions required to pay for the survivor benefit, and to give the beginning rate of survivor annuity. RI 20-64A, Former Spouse Survivor Annuity Election, is used by the Civil Service Retirement System to obtain a survivor benefits election from annuitants who are eligible to elect to provide survivor benefits for a former spouse. RI 20-64B, Information on Electing a Survivor Annuity for Your Former Spouse, is a pamphlet that provides important information to retirees under the Civil Service Retirement System who want to provide a survivor annuity for a former spouse. Comments are particularly invited on: whether this information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of OPM, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or others forms of information technology. We estimate that 30 survivor elections on RI 20-64A will be processed per year and that of these eight will use RI 20-64 to ask for information about electing a smaller survivor benefit. Form RI 20-64A requires 45 minutes to complete for a burden of 23 hours. Form RI 20-64 requires eight minutes to complete for a burden of one hour. The total burden is 24 hours. For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on
(202)606-8358, Fax
(202)418-3251 or via E-mail to *MaryBeth.Smith-Toomey@opm.gov* . Please include a mailing address with your request. DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to Ronald W. Melton, Deputy Assistant Director, Retirement Services Program, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3305, Washington, DC 20415-3500. *For Information Regarding Administrative Coordination—Contact:* Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RIS Support Services/Support Group,
(202)606-0623. U.S. Office of Personnel Management Howard Weizmann, Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E8-3539 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Collection: RI 38-45 AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request for extension of a currently approved collection. RI 38-45, We Need the Social Security Number of the Person Named Below, is used by the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees Retirement System to identify the records of individuals with similar or the same names. It is also needed to report payments to the Internal Revenue Service. Comments are particularly invited on: whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of OPM, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use of the appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Approximately 3,000 RI 38-45 forms are completed annually. Each form requires approximately 5 minutes to complete. The annual estimated burden is 250 hours. For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on
(202)606-8358, Fax
(202)418-3251 or via e-mail to *MaryBeth.Smith-Toomey@opm.gov* . Please include a mailing address with your request. DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to Ronald W. Melton, Deputy Assistant Director, Retirement Services Program, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3305, Washington, DC 20415-3500. *For Information Regarding Administrative Coordination Contact:* Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RIS Support Services/Support Group,
(202)606-0623. Howard Weizmann, Deputy Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management. [FR Doc. E8-3540 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Information Collection: RI 38-47 AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request for extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection. RI 38-47, Information and Instructions on Your Reconsideration Rights outlines the procedures required to request reconsideration of an initial OPM decision about Civil Service or Federal Employees retirement, Federal or Retired Federal Employees Health Benefits requests to enroll or change enrollment, or Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance coverage. This form lists the procedures and time periods required for requesting reconsideration. Comments are particularly invited on: whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Office of Personnel Management, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on
(202)606-8358, Fax
(202)418-3251 or via e-mail to *MaryBeth.Smith-Toomey@opm.gov* . Please include a mailing address with your request. DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to Ronald W. Melton, Deputy Assistant Director, Retirement Services Program, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3305, Washington, DC 20415-3500. *For Information Regarding Administrative Coordination Contact:* Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RIS Support Services/Support Group,
(202)606-0623. Howard Weizmann, Deputy Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management. [FR Doc. E8-3541 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Investment Company Act Release No. 28165; 812-13447] Triangle Capital Corporation; Notice of Application February 20, 2008. AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”). ACTION: Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 23(a), 23(b) and 63 of the Act, and under sections 57(a)(4) and 57(i) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act authorizing certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by section 57(a)(4) of the Act. *Summary of the Application:* Triangle Capital Corporation (“Triangle”) requests an order to permit it to issue restricted shares of its common stock under the terms of its employee and director compensation plan. *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on October 31, 2007, and amended on February 20, 2008. *Hearing or Notification of Hearing:* An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on March 17, 2008, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary. ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Triangle, c/o Garland S. Tucker III, Triangle Capital Corporation, 3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 104, Raleigh, NC 27612. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Yoder, Senior Counsel, at
(202)551-6878, or Janet M. Grossnickle, Branch Chief, at
(202)551-6821, (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Desk, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1520 (tel. 202-551-5850). Applicant's Representations 1. Triangle, a Maryland corporation, is an internally managed, non-diversified, closed-end investment company that has elected to be regulated as a business development company (“BDC”) under the Act. 1 Triangle is a specialty finance company that provides customized financing solutions to companies with annual revenues between $10 million and $100 million. Shares of Triangle's common stock are traded on The NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol “TCAP.” Triangle's initial public offering was completed on February 21, 2007. As of December 31, 2007, there were 6,803,863 shares of Triangle's common stock outstanding and Triangle had eleven employees, including the employees of its wholly-owned consolidated subsidiaries. 1 Section 2(a)(48) defines a BDC to be any closed-end investment company that operates for the purpose of making investments in securities described in sections 55(a)(1) through 55(a)(3) of the Act and makes available significant managerial assistance with respect to the issuers of such securities. 2. Triangle currently has an eight member board of directors (“Board”) of whom three are “interested persons” of Triangle within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act and five are non-interested persons (“Non-interested Directors”). Triangle has five directors who are not officers or employees of Triangle (the “Non-employee Directors”). 3. Triangle believes that its successful performance depends on its ability to offer compensation packages to its professionals that are competitive with those offered by its competitors and other investment management businesses. Triangle believes its ability to offer compensation plans providing for the periodic issuance of shares of restricted stock ( *i.e.* , stock that, at the time of issuance, is subject to certain forfeiture restrictions, and thus is restricted as to its transferability until such forfeiture restrictions have lapsed) (the “Restricted Stock”) is vital to its future growth and success. Effective February 13, 2007, Triangle adopted the 2007 Equity Incentive Plan. Triangle proposes to amend and restate the 2007 Equity Incentive Plan (“Amended and Restated Plan”) to permit the issuance of shares of Restricted Stock to its Non-employee Directors, employees and employees of its wholly-owned consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, the “Participants” and each, a “Participant”). 4. The Amended and Restated Plan will authorize the issuance of shares of Restricted Stock subject to certain forfeiture restrictions. These restrictions may relate to continued employment or service on the Board, as the case may be (lapsing either on an annual or other periodic basis or on a “cliff” basis, *i.e.* , at the end of a stated period of time), or other restrictions deemed by the Board to be appropriate. The Restricted Stock will not be transferable except for disposition by gift, will or intestacy. Except to the extent restricted under the terms of the Amended and Restated Plan, a Participant granted Restricted Stock will have all the rights of any other shareholder, including the right to vote the Restricted Stock and the right to receive dividends. During the restriction period, the Restricted Stock generally may not be sold, transferred, pledged, hypothecated, margined, or otherwise encumbered by the Participant. Except as the Board otherwise determines, upon termination of a Participant's employment or service on the Board during the applicable restriction period, Restricted Stock for which forfeiture restrictions have not lapsed at the time of such termination shall be forfeited. 5. The maximum amount of Restricted Stock that may be issued under the Amended and Restated Plan will be 10% of the outstanding shares of Triangle's common stock on the effective date of the Amended and Restated Plan plus 10% of the outstanding number of shares of Triangle's common stock issued or delivered by Triangle (other than pursuant to compensation plans) during the term of the Amended and Restated Plan. 2 The Amended and Restated Plan limits the total number of shares that may be awarded to any single Participant in a single year to 100,000 shares. In addition, no Participant may be granted more than 25% of the shares of common stock reserved for issuance under the Amended and Restated Plan. The Amended and Restated Plan will be administered by the Board, which will award shares of Restricted Stock to the Participants (except for Non-employee Directors) from time to time as part of the Participants' compensation based on a Participant's actual or expected performance and value to Triangle. 2 For purposes of calculating compliance with this limit, Triangle will count as Restricted Stock all shares of Triangle's common stock that are issued pursuant to the Amended and Restated Plan less any shares that are forfeited back to Triangle and cancelled as a result of forfeiture restrictions not lapsing. 6. Under the Amended and Restated Plan, Triangle's Non-Employee Directors will each receive a grant of $30,000 worth of shares of Restricted Stock at the beginning of each one-year term of service on the Board, for which forfeiture restrictions would lapse one year from the grant date. The Amended and Restated Plan will be administered by the Board, and the grants of Restricted Stock under the Amended and Restated Plan to Non-employee Directors will be automatic and will not be changed without Commission approval. 7. The Amended and Restated Plan will be submitted for approval to Triangle's shareholders, and will become effective upon such approval, subject to the issuance of the requested order. Applicant's Legal Analysis Sections 23(a) and (b), Section 63 1. Under section 63 of the Act, the provisions of section 23(a) of the Act generally prohibiting a registered closed-end investment company from issuing securities for services or for property other than cash or securities are made applicable to BDCs. This provision would prohibit the issuance of Restricted Stock as a part of the Amended and Restated Plan. 2. Section 23(b) generally prohibits a closed-end management investment company from selling its common stock at a price below its current net asset value (“NAV”). Section 63(2) makes section 23(b) applicable to BDCs unless certain conditions are met. Because Restricted Stock that would be granted under the Amended and Restated Plan would not meet the terms of section 63(2), sections 23(b) and 63 would prevent the issuance of the Restricted Stock. 3. Section 6(c) provides, in part, that the Commission may, by order upon application, conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes thereof, from any provision of the Act, if and to the extent that the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. 4. Triangle requests an order pursuant to section 6(c) of the Act granting an exemption from the provisions of sections 23(a) and
(b)and section 63 of the Act. Triangle states that the concerns underlying those sections include:
(i)Preferential treatment of investment company insiders and the use of options and other rights by insiders to obtain control of the investment company;
(ii)complication of the investment company's structure that makes it difficult to determine the value of the company's shares; and
(iii)dilution of shareholders' equity in the investment company. Triangle states that the Amended and Restated Plan does not raise the concern about preferential treatment of Triangle's insiders because the Amended and Restated Plan is a bona fide compensation plan of the type that is common among corporations generally. In addition, section 61(a)(3)(B) of the Act permits a BDC to issue to its officers, directors and employees, pursuant to an executive compensation plan, warrants, options and rights to purchase the BDC's voting securities, subject to certain requirements. Triangle states that, for reasons that are unclear, section 61 and its legislative history do not address the issuance by a BDC of restricted stock as incentive compensation. Triangle states, however, that the issuance of Restricted Stock is substantially similar, for purposes of investor protection under the Act, to the issuance of warrants, options, and rights as contemplated by section 61. Triangle also asserts that the Amended and Restated Plan would not become a means for insiders to obtain control of Triangle because the maximum number of Triangle's voting securities that may be issued pursuant to the Amended and Restated Plan will be limited as set forth in the application. Triangle's current intention is to issue only shares of Restricted Stock as incentive compensation; however, if Triangle issues stock options in the future, it will do so pursuant to section 61 and in compliance with the terms and conditions of the application. Moreover, no individual Participant could be issued more than 25% of the shares reserved for issuance under the Amended and Restated Plan. 5. Triangle further states that the Amended and Restated Plan will not unduly complicate Triangle's structure because equity-based employee compensation arrangements are widely used among corporations and commonly known to investors. Triangle notes that the Amended and Restated Plan will be submitted to its shareholders. Triangle represents that a concise, “plain English” description of the Amended and Restated Plan, including its potential dilutive effect, will be provided in the proxy materials that will be submitted to Triangle's shareholders. Triangle also states that it will comply with the proxy disclosure requirements in Item 10 of Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Triangle further notes that the Amended and Restated Plan will be disclosed to investors in accordance with the requirements of the Form N-2 registration statement for closed-end investment companies, and pursuant to the standards and guidelines adopted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board for operating companies. In addition, Triangle will comply with the disclosure requirements for executive compensation plans applicable to operating companies under the Exchange Act. 3 Triangle thus concludes that the Amended and Restated Plan will be adequately disclosed to investors and appropriately reflected in the market value of Triangle's shares. 3 In addition, Triangle will comply with the amendments to the disclosure requirements for executive and director compensation, related party transactions, director independence and other corporate governance matters, and security ownership of officers and directors to the extent adopted and applicable to BDCs. See Executive Compensation and Related Party Disclosure, Release No. 34-53185 (Jan. 27, 2006). 6. Triangle acknowledges that, while awards granted under the Amended and Restated Plan would have a dilutive effect on the shareholders' equity in Triangle, that effect would be outweighed by the anticipated benefits of the Amended and Restated Plan to Triangle and its shareholders. Triangle asserts that it needs the flexibility to provide the requested equity-based employee compensation in order to be able to compete effectively with other financial services firms for talented professionals. These professionals, Triangle suggests, in turn are likely to increase Triangle's performance and shareholder value. Triangle also asserts that equity-based compensation would more closely align the interests of Triangle's employees with those of Triangle's shareholders. Triangle believes that the granting of shares of Restricted Stock to Non-employee Directors under the Amended and Restated Plan is fair and reasonable because of the skills and experience that such directors provide to Triangle. Such skills and experience are necessary for the management and oversight of Triangle's investments and operations. Triangle believes that granting the shares of Restricted Stock will provide significant incentives for Non-employee Directors to remain on the Board and to devote their best efforts to the success of Triangle's business in the future. The issuance of shares of Restricted Stock will also provide a means for Triangle's Non-employee Directors to increase their ownership interest in Triangle, thereby helping to ensure a close identification of their interests with those of Triangle and its shareholders. In addition, Triangle states that Triangle's shareholders will be further protected by the conditions to the requested order that assure continuing oversight of the operation of the Amended and Restated Plan by Triangle's Board. Section 57(a)(4), Rule 17d-1 7. Section 57(a) proscribes certain transactions between a BDC and persons related to the BDC in the manner described in section 57(b) (“57(b) persons”), absent a Commission order. Section 57(a)(4) generally prohibits a 57(b) person from effecting a transaction in which the BDC is a joint participant absent such an order. Rule 17d-1, made applicable to BDCs by section 57(i), proscribes participation in a “joint enterprise or other joint arrangement or profit-sharing plan,” which includes a stock option or purchase plan. Employees and directors of a BDC are 57(b) persons. Thus, the issuance of shares of Restricted Stock could be deemed to involve a joint transaction involving a BDC and a 57(b) person in contravention of section 57(a)(4). Rule 17d-1(b) provides that, in considering relief pursuant to the rule, the Commission will consider
(i)whether the participation of the company in a joint enterprise is consistent with the Act's policies and purposes and
(ii)the extent to which that participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants. 8. Triangle requests an order pursuant to section 57(a)(4) and rule 17d-1 to permit the Amended and Restated Plan. Triangle states that the Amended and Restated Plan, although benefiting the Participants and Triangle in different ways, are in the interests of Triangle's shareholders because the Amended and Restated Plan will help Triangle attract and retain talented professionals, help align the interests of Triangle's employees with those of its shareholders, and in turn help produce a better return to Triangle's shareholders. Thus, Triangle asserts that the Amended and Restated Plan is consistent with the policies and purposes of the Act. Applicant's Conditions Triangle agrees that the order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions: 1. The Amended and Restated Plan will be approved by Triangle's shareholders in accordance with section 61(a)(3)(A)(iv) of the 1940 Act. 2. Each issuance of Restricted Stock to officers and employees will be approved by the required majority, as defined in section 57(o) of the Act, of Triangle's directors on the basis that such issuance is in the best interests of Triangle and its shareholders. 3. The amount of voting securities that would result from the exercise of all of Triangle's outstanding warrants, options, and rights, together with any Restricted Stock issued pursuant to the Amended and Restated Plan, at the time of issuance shall not exceed 25% of the outstanding voting securities of Triangle, except that if the amount of voting securities that would result from the exercise of all of Triangle's outstanding warrants, options, and rights issued to Triangle's directors, officers, and employees, together with any Restricted Stock issued pursuant to the Amended and Restated Plan, would exceed 15% of the outstanding voting securities of Triangle, then the total amount of voting securities that would result from the exercise of all outstanding warrants, options, and rights, together with any Restricted Stock issued pursuant to the Amended and Restated Plan, at the time of issuance shall not exceed 20% of the outstanding voting securities of Triangle. 4. The maximum amount of Restricted Stock that may be issued under the Amended and Restated Plan will be 10% of the outstanding shares of common stock of Triangle on the effective date of the Amended and Restated Plan plus 10% of the number of shares of Triangle's common stock issued or delivered by Triangle (other than pursuant to compensation plans) during the term of the Amended and Restated Plan. 5. The Board will review periodically the potential impact that the issuance of Restricted Stock under the Amended and Restated Plan could have on Triangle's earnings and NAV per share, such review to take place prior to any decisions to grant Restricted Stock under the Amended and Restated Plan, but in no event less frequently than annually. Adequate procedures and records will be maintained to permit such review. The Board will be authorized to take appropriate steps to ensure that the grant of Restricted Stock under the Amended and Restated Plan would not have an effect contrary to the interests of Triangle's shareholders. This authority will include the authority to prevent or limit the granting of additional Restricted Stock under the Amended and Restated Plan. All records maintained pursuant to this condition will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-3555 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release Nos. 33-8897; 34-57364; File No. 265-24] Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission. ACTION: Notice of Meeting of SEC Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting. SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting is providing notice that it will hold a public meeting on Thursday, March 13, and Friday, March 14, 2008, at University of California—San Francisco, Laurel Heights Conference Center, Sublevel 1 Auditorium, 3333 California Street, San Francisco, California 94118. The meeting will begin at 3 p.m. on Thursday, March 13, and at 8 a.m. on Friday, March 14. The meeting will be open to the public. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.sec.gov* . Persons needing special accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify a contact person listed below. The public is invited to submit written statements for the meeting. The agenda for the Thursday, March 13 meeting includes hearing oral testimony from panel participants regarding the Advisory Committee's developed proposals related to materiality, restatements, and professional judgment. The agenda for the Friday, March 14 meeting includes
(1)hearing oral testimony from panel participants regarding the Advisory Committee's developed proposal related to the implementation of XBRL, and
(2)consideration of comment letters received by the Advisory Committee, consideration of updates from subcommittees of the Advisory Committee, and discussion of next steps and planning for the next meeting. DATES: Written statements should be received on or before March 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written statements may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet submission form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail message to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number 265-24 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper statements in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File No. 265-24. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your statements more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission staff will post all statements on the Advisory Committee's Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oca/acifr.shtml* ). Statements also will be available for public 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. All statements received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James L. Kroeker, Deputy Chief Accountant, or Shelly C. Luisi, Senior Associate Chief Accountant, at
(202)551-5300, Office of the Chief Accountant, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-6561. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 1, § 10(a), James L. Kroeker, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, has approved publication of this notice. Dated: February 21, 2008. Nancy M. Morris, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-3568 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 500-1] In the Matter of: TelcoBlue, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading February 22, 2008. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of TelcoBlue, Inc. (“TelcoBlue”) because TelcoBlue has failed to file its last six required periodic reports. 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 from 9:30 a.m. EST on February 22, 2008 through 11:59 p.m. EST on March 6, 2008. By the Commission. J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 08-861 Filed 2-22-08; 10:44 am]
Connectionstraces to 14
Traces to 14 documents
CFR
4 references not yet in our index
  • 10 CFR 51
  • 10 CFR 20
  • 10 CFR 2
  • Pub. L. 104-13
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of meeting
U.S.C.§ 1861
C.F.R.§ 2.4
C.F.R.§ 2.347
C.F.R.§ 20.1402
C.F.R.§ 30.36
C.F.R.§ 50.92
C.F.R.§ 2.309
C.F.R.§ 2.302
C.F.R.§ 50.91
Cite10 CFR 51
Cite10 CFR 20
Cite10 CFR 2
Cites 18 · 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.