Notices. Availability of ICCVAM Test Method Evaluation Report and Final Background Review Document

41,812 words·~190 min read·/register/2008/03/25/08-1071

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

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage *de novo* , or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies.

Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* .

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 9, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago** (Burl Thornton, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414: *1. First Fontanelle Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust, Fontanelle, Iowa;* to indirectly engage in insurance agency activities through Corn Belt Insurance Agency, Massena, Iowa, and thereby indirectly acquire First Fontanelle Bancorporation, Fontanelle, Iowa pursuant to section 225.28(b)(11)(iii)(A) of Regulation Y.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 20, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc.E8-5970 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Toxicology Program (NTP); NTP Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM); Availability of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) Test Method Evaluation Report:

In Vitro Cytotoxicity Test Methods for Estimating Starting Doses for Acute Oral Systemic Toxicity Tests and the Final Background Review Document for In Vitro Cytotoxicity Test Methods for Estimating Acute Oral Systemic Toxicity; Notice of Transmittal of ICCVAM Test Method Recommendations to Federal Agencies AGENCY: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH). ACTION: Availability of ICCVAM Test Method Evaluation Report and Final Background Review Document.

SUMMARY: NICEATM announces availability of the *ICCVAM Test Method Evaluation Report: In Vitro Cytotoxicity Test Methods for Estimating Starting Doses for Acute Oral Systemic Toxicity Tests* (NIH Publication 07-4519). The report describes two *in vitro* basal cytotoxicity neutral red uptake

(NRU)test methods that can be used for estimating starting doses for acute oral toxicity tests. The report includes ICCVAM's

(a)final test method recommendations on the use of these two test methods,

(b)recommended test method protocols for future use,

(c)recommendations for future studies to further characterize the usefulness and limitations of *in vitro* methods for assessing acute systemic toxicity, and

(d)recommended performance standards for tests with similar scientific principles and that measure or predict acute oral systemic toxicity. The report recommends the use of these methods in a weight-of-evidence approach to determine starting doses for acute oral systemic toxicity tests with rodents. The report also recommends that these *in vitro* test methods be considered before using animals for acute oral systemic toxicity testing and used when determined appropriate. NICEATM also announces the availability of the final *Background Review Document: In Vitro Cytotoxicity Test Methods for Estimating Acute Oral Systemic Toxicity*

(BRD)(NIH Publication 07-4518). The BRD provides data and analyses from a collaborative international validation study organized by NICEATM and the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) to evaluate the usefulness and limitations of two *in vitro* basal cytotoxicity NRU test methods using either BALB/c 3T3 mouse fibroblasts

(3T3)or primary human epidermal keratinocytes

(NHK)for estimating acute oral rodent toxicity. Electronic copies of the ICCVAM Test Method Evaluation Report and the BRD are available from the ICCVAM/NICEATM Web site at *http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov* or by contacting NICEATM (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). The ICCVAM Test Method Evaluation Report and the final BRD have been forwarded to U.S. Federal agencies for regulatory and other acceptance considerations where applicable. Responses will be posted on the ICCVAM/NICEATM Web site as they are received. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. William S. Stokes, Director, NICEATM, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-17, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (phone) 919-541-2384,

(fax)919-541-0947, (e-mail) *niceatm@niehs.nih.gov* . Courier address: NICEATM, NIEHS, 79 T.W. Alexander Drive, Building 4401, Room 3128, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In 2002, NICEATM and ECVAM initiated a collaborative, international, multi-laboratory validation study to independently evaluate the usefulness of the 3T3 and NHK NRU basal cytotoxicity test methods for estimating acute oral rodent toxicity and for estimating starting doses for *in vivo* rodent acute oral toxicity tests. The 3T3 and NHK NRU test methods were evaluated with 72 reference substances. Once the study was completed in January 2005, NICEATM prepared a draft BRD that contained comprehensive summaries of the data generated in the validation study, analyses of the relevance and reliability of the two test methods, and simulation analyses of the refinement (i.e., to lessen or avoid pain and distress) and reduction in animal use that might occur if these tests were used as adjuncts to two acute oral toxicity test methods (i.e., the Up-and-Down Procedure and the Acute Toxic Class method). The draft BRD was released for public comment on March 21, 2006 ( **Federal Register** , Vol. 71, No. 54, pp. 14229-14231). On May 23, 2006, NICEATM, on behalf of ICCVAM, convened an independent, scientific peer review panel meeting to review the draft BRD and evaluate the validation status of the 3T3 and NHK NRU test methods for determining starting doses for *in vivo* acute oral systemic toxicity tests. The peer review panel's report was released in July 2006 ( **Federal Register** , Vol. 71, No. 132, pp. 39122-39123). At a public teleconference meeting on August 3, 2006 ( **Federal Register** , Vol. 71, No. 132, pp. 39121-39122), the Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods (SACATM) reviewed and endorsed the conclusions of the peer review panel (minutes from the teleconference are available at *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/SACATMAug06MinutesVF081506.pdf* ). ICCVAM considered the peer panel report, public comments, SACATM comments, and the draft BRD in finalizing its recommendations on the use of these two *in vitro* basal cytotoxicity test methods for estimating starting doses for acute oral systemic toxicity tests. The ICCVAM Test Method Evaluation Report includes the ICCVAM recommendations on the use of the two *in vitro* NRU test methods, as well as recommended test method protocols, recommendations for future studies to further characterize the usefulness and limitations of *in vitro* methods for assessing acute systemic toxicity, recommended performance standards for tests with similar scientific principles and that measure or predict acute oral systemic toxicity, the peer panel report and **Federal Register** notices. The final BRD, which provides the supporting documentation for this report, is available as a separate document. The ICCVAM Test Method Evaluation Report and the supporting final BRD were forwarded to U.S. Federal agencies for their consideration for regulatory acceptance as required by the ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 285 *l* -3). Agencies' responses to the test method recommendations will be posted on the ICCVAM/NICEATM Web site as they are received. Background Information on ICCVAM, NICEATM, and SACATM ICCVAM is an interagency committee composed of representatives from 15 Federal regulatory and research agencies that use, generate, or disseminate toxicological information. ICCVAM conducts technical evaluations of new, revised, and alternative methods with regulatory applicability and promotes the scientific validation and regulatory acceptance of toxicological test methods that more accurately assess the safety and hazards of chemicals and products and that refine, reduce, and replace animal use. The ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 established ICCVAM as a permanent interagency committee of the NIEHS under NICEATM. NICEATM administers ICCVAM and provides scientific and operational support for ICCVAM-related activities. NICEATM and ICCVAM work collaboratively to evaluate new and improved test methods applicable to the needs of U.S. Federal agencies. Additional information about ICCVAM and NICEATM can be found on their Web site ( *http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov* ). SACATM was established January 9, 2002, and is composed of scientists from the public and private sectors ( **Federal Register** , Vol. 67, No. 49, page 11358). SACATM provides advice to the Director of the NIEHS, to ICCVAM, and to NICEATM regarding the statutorily mandated duties of ICCVAM and activities of NICEATM. Additional information about SACATM, including the charter, roster, and records of past meetings, can be found at *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/* see “Advisory Board & Committees” (or directly at *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/167* ). Dated: March 14, 2008. Samuel H. Wilson, Acting Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program. [FR Doc. E8-5936 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology; American Health Information Community Confidentiality, Privacy, & Security Workgroup Meeting ACTION: Announcement of meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces the 18th meeting of the American Health Information Community Confidentiality, Privacy, & Security Workgroup in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.) DATES: April 17, 2008, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. (Eastern Time). ADDRESSES: Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 4090 (please bring photo ID for entry to a Federal building). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/confidentiality/* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Workgroup Members will continue discussing and evaluating the confidentiality, privacy, and security protections and requirements for participants in electronic health information exchange environments. The meeting will be available via Web cast. For additional information, go to: *http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/cps_instruct.html* . Dated: March 13, 2008. Judith Sparrow, Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. [FR Doc. E8-5853 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-45-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Proposed Projects *Title:* Grants to States for Access and Visitation: State Child Access Program Survey. *OMB No.:* 0970-0204. *Description:* On an annual basis, States must provide OCSE with data on programs that the Grants to States for Access and Visitation Program has funded. These program reporting requirements include, but are not limited to, the collection of data on the number of parents served, types of services delivered, program outcomes, client socio-economic data, referral sources, and other relevant data. OCSE is proposing revisions to the current survey. Annual Burden Estimates Instrument No. of respondents No. of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Total burden hours State Child Access Program Survey 314 1 15 4,710 *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 4,710. In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACE Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail address: *infocollection@acf.hhs.gov.* All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. The Department specifically requests comments on:

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication. Dated: March 19, 2008. Janean Chambers, Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5951 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Proposed Projects *Title:* Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF)State Plan; Guidance. *OMB No.:* 0970-0145. *Description:* The State plan is a mandatory statement submitted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services by the State. It consists of an outline of how the State's TANF program will be administered and operated and certain required certifications by the State's Chief Executive Officer. Its submittal triggers the State's family assistance grant funding and it is used to provide the public with information about the program. If a State makes changes in its program, it must submit a State plan amendment. *Respondents:* The 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Annual Burden Estimates Instrument No. of respondents No. of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Total burden hours Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF)State Plan Guidance 54 0.5 33 891 *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 891. In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail address: *infocollection@acf.hhs.gov.* All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. The Department specifically requests comments on:

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication. Dated: March 19, 2008. Janean Chambers, Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5952 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0149] (formerly Docket No. 2007D-0031) Global Harmonization Task Force, Study Group 4; Final Document; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is announcing the availability of a final document that has been prepared by Study Group 4 of the Global Harmonization Task Force (GHTF). This document represents a harmonized proposal and recommendation from Study Group 4 of the GHTF that may be used by governments developing and updating their regulatory requirements for medical devices. This document is intended to provide information only and does not describe current regulatory requirements; elements of this document may not be consistent with current U.S. regulatory requirements. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on this guidance at any time. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time. ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance document to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and Consumer Assistance (HFZ-220), Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD 20850. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to 240-276-3151. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written comments concerning this document to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jan Welch, GHTF, Study Group 4, Office of Compliance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-320), Food and Drug Administration, 2094 Gaither Rd., Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-0115. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background FDA has participated in a number of activities to promote the international harmonization of regulatory requirements. In September 1992, a meeting was held in Nice, France by senior regulatory officials to evaluate international harmonization. This meeting led to the development of the organization now known as the Global Harmonization Task Force

(GHTF)to facilitate harmonization. Subsequent meetings have been held on a yearly basis in various locations throughout the world. The GHTF is a voluntary group of representatives from national medical device regulatory authorities and the regulated industry. Since its inception, the GHTF has been comprised of representatives from five founding members grouped into three geographical areas: Europe, Asia-Pacific, and North America, each of which actively regulates medical devices using their own unique regulatory framework. The objective of the GHTF is to encourage convergence at the global level of regulatory systems of medical devices to facilitate trade while preserving the right of participating members to address the protection of public health by regulatory means considered most suitable. One of the ways this objective is achieved is by identifying and developing areas of international cooperation to facilitate progressive reduction of technical and regulatory differences in systems established to regulate medical devices. In an effort to accomplish these objectives, the GHTF formed five study groups to draft documents and carry on other activities designed to facilitate global harmonization. This notice is a result of a document that has been developed by one of the Study Groups (4). Study Group 4 was initially tasked with the responsibility of developing guidance documents on quality systems auditing practices. As a result of its efforts, this group has developed document SG4/N33R16:2007. The final document (SG4/N33R16:2007) entitled “Guidelines for Regulatory Auditing of Quality Management Systems of Medical Device Manufacturers—Part 3: Regulatory Audit Reports” provides a structure for audit reports used in multiple jurisdictions, promoting consistency and uniformity and should assist the auditor in preparing a report for use by multiple regulators and/or auditing organizations. Having reports that are consistent in content should facilitate the review and exchange of audit reports. Acceptance of audit reports by multiple regulators should eventually reduce the number of audits for manufacturers. This document was announced as available for comment on February 6, 2007 (72 FR 5443). GHTF received several comments on the document proposed on February 6, 2007. In response to the comments, GHTF made changes to clarify the document. II. Significance of Guidance This document represents recommendations from the GHTF study groups and does not describe regulatory requirements. FDA is making this document available so that industry and other members of the public may express their views and opinions. III. Electronic Access Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by using the Internet. The Center for Devices and Radiological Health

(CDRH)maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to information including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded to a personal computer with Internet access. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page includes device safety alerts, **Federal Register** reprints, information on premarket submissions (including lists of approved applications and manufacturers' addresses), small manufacturer's assistance, information on video conferencing and electronic submissions, Mammography Matters, and other device-oriented information. Information on the GHTF may be accessed at *http://www.ghtf.org* . The CDRH Web site may be accessed at *http://www.fda.gov/cdrh* . IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 For this final document, FDA concludes that there are no collection of information requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. V. Comments Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ), written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic submissions will be accepted by FDA through FDMS only. Dated: March 14, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5927 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Down Syndrome. *Date:* April 18, 2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Norman Chang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01 Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)496-1485, *changnmaiI.nih.gov* . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: March 17, 2008. Anna Snouffer, Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5818 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Growth and Development of the Nervous System: Molecular Mechanisms. *Date:* April 10, 2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Gopal M. Bhatnagar, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Bldg. Rm. 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852,

(301)435-6889, *bhatnagg@mail.nih.gov* . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: March 17, 2008. Anna Snouffer, Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5822 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Chronic Aberrant Behavior. *Date:* April 14, 2008. *Time:* 12:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Marita R. Hopmann, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health And Human Development, 6100 Building, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)435-6911, *hopmannmmail.nih.gov* . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: March 17, 2008. Anna Snouffer, Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5823 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Alien Crewman Landing Permit AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: 60-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of existing collection of information: 1651-0114. SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on an information collection requirement concerning the Alien Crewman Landing Permit. This request for comment is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). DATES: Written comments should be received on or before May 27, 2008, to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Information Services Group, Room 3.2.C, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20229. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn.: Tracey Denning, Room 3.2.C, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20229, Tel.

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and

(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operations, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection: *Title:* Alien Crewman Landing Permit. *OMB Number:* 1651-0114. *Form Number:* Form I-95. *Abstract:* This collection of information is used by CBP to document conditions and limitations imposed upon an alien crewman applying for benefits under Section 251 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. *Current Actions:* There are no changes to the information collection. This submission is being submitted to extend the expiration date. *Type of Review:* Extension (without change). *Affected Public:* Individuals. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 433,000. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 433,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* 5 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 35,939. Dated: March 18, 2008. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, Information Services Group. [FR Doc. E8-6011 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Customs and Border Protection Agency Information Collection Activities: Entry of Articles for Exhibition AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: 30-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing information collection: 1651-0037. ACTION: Proposed collection; comments requested. SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)of the Department of Homeland Security has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Entry of Articles for Exhibition. This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 3984) on January 23, 2008, allowing for a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before April 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection, and sent via electronic mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or faxed to

(202)395-6974. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)encourages the general public and affected Federal agencies to submit written comments and suggestions on proposed and/or continuing information collection requests pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13). Your comments should address one of the following four points:

(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency/component, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies/components estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Title:* Entry of Articles for Exhibition. *OMB Number:* 1651-0037. *Form Number:* None. *Abstract:* This information is used by CBP to substantiate that the goods imported for exhibit have been approved for entry by the Department of Commerce. *Current Actions:* There are no changes to the information collection. This submission is being submitted to extend the expiration date. *Type of Review:* Extension (without change). *Affected Public:* Businesses, Individuals, Institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 40. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 1,600. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 20 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 530. If additional information is required contact: Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3.2.C, Washington, DC 20229, at 202-344-1429. Dated: March 18, 2008. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, Information Services Branch. [FR Doc. E8-6016 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Customs and Border Protection Proposed Collection; Comment Request Documentation Requirements for Articles Entered Under Various Special Tariff Treatment Provisions AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: 60-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of existing collection of information: 1651-0067. SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on an information collection requirement concerning Documentation Requirements for Articles Entered Under Various Special Tariff Treatment Provisions. This request for comment is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). DATES: Written comments should be received on or before May 27, 2008, to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Information Services Group, Attn.: Tracey Denning, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 3.2C, Washington, DC 20229. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn.: Tracey Denning, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3.2C, Washington, DC 20229, Tel.

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

(d)ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and

(OMB)approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection: *Title:* Documentation Requirements for Articles Entered Under Various Special Tariff Treatment Provisions. *OMB Number:* 1651-0067. *Form Number:* N/A. *Abstract:* This collection is used to ensure revenue collections and to provide duty free entry of merchandise eligible for reduced duty treatment under provisions of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. *Current Actions:* There are no changes to the information collection. This submission is being submitted to extend the expiration date. *Type of Review:* Extension (without change). *Affected Public:* Businesses, Individuals, Institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 19,433. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 58,300. *Estimated Time per Response:* 15 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 14,575. Dated: March 18, 2008. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, Information Services Group. [FR Doc. E8-6021 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa (Form I-193) AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: 60-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of existing collection of information: 1651-0107. SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on an information collection requirement concerning the Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa (Form I-193). This request for comment is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). DATES: Written comments should be received on or before May 27, 2008, to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Information Services Group, Room 3.2.C, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20229. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn.: Tracey Denning, Room 3.2.C, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20229, Tel.

(202)344-1429. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The comments should address the accuracy of the burden estimates and ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology, as well as other relevant aspects of the information collection. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection: *Title:* Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa. *OMB Number:* 1651-0107. *Form Number:* I-193. *Abstract:* This information collection is used by CBP to determine an applicant's eligibility to enter the United States. This form is used by aliens who wish to waive the documentary requirements for passport's and/or visas due to an unforeseen emergency. *Current Actions:* There are no changes to the information collection. This submission is being submitted to extend the expiration date. *Type of Review:* Extension (without change). *Affected Public:* Individuals. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 25,000. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 25,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* 10 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 4,150. Dated: March 18, 2008. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, Information Services Group. [FR Doc. E8-6024 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency Information Collection Activities: Certificate of Compliance for Turbine Fuel Withdrawal AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: 30-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing information collection: 1651-0072. ACTION: Proposed collection; comments requested. SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)of the Department of Homeland Security has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Certificate of Compliance for Turbine Fuel Withdrawal. This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments form the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 3981) on January 23, 2008, allowing for a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before April 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection, and sent via electronic mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or faxed to

(202)395-6974. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies/components estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(CBP)invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on an information collection requirement concerning Drawback Process Regulations and Entry Collection Documents. This request for comment is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (P. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). DATES: Written comments should be received on or before May 27, 2008, to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Information Services Group, Attn.: Tracey Denning, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 3.2.C, Washington, DC 20229. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn.: Tracey Denning, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 3.2.C, Washington, DC 20229, Tel.

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and

(OMB)approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection: *Title:* Drawback Process Regulations and Entry Collection Documents. *OMB Number:* 1651-0075. *Form Number:* Forms CBP-7551, 7552, 7553. *Abstract:* The information is to be used by CBP officers to expedite the filing and processing of drawback claims, while maintaining necessary enforcement information to maintain effective administrative oversight over the drawback program. *Current Actions:* There are no changes to the information collection. This submission is being submitted to extend the expiration date. *Type of Review:* Extension (without change). *Affected Public:* Businesses, Institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 8,150. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 163,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* 33 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 90,000. Dated: March 18, 2008. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, Information Services Branch. [FR Doc. E8-6026 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Automated Clearinghouse Credit AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: 60-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of existing collection of information: 1651-0078. SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on an information collection requirement concerning the Automated Clearinghouse Credit. This request for comment is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (P. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). DATES: Written comments should be received on or before May 27, 2008, to be assured of consideration. ADDRESS: Direct all written comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Information Services Group, Attn.: Tracey Denning, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 3.2.C, Washington, DC 20229. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn.: Tracey Denning, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 3.2. C, Washington, DC 20229, Tel.

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and

(OMB)approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection: *Title:* Automated Clearinghouse Credit. *OMB Number:* 1651-0078. *Form Number:* N/A. *Abstract:* The information is to be used by CBP to send information to the company (such as revised format requirements), and to contact participating companies if there is a payment problem. *Current Actions:* There are no changes to the information collection. This submission is being submitted to extend the expiration date. *Type of Review:* Extension (without change). *Affected Public:* Businesses, Institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 65. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 3,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* 5 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 249. Dated: March 18, 2008. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, Information Services Branch. [FR Doc. E8-6028 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Customs and Border Protection Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Permit To Transfer Containers to a Container Station AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: 60-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of existing collection of information: 1651-0049. AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security (DHS). ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on an information collection requirement concerning the Permit to Transfer Containers to a Container Station. This request for comment is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments should be received on or before May 27, 2008, to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to CBP, Information Services Group, Attn.: Tracey Denning, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 3.2C, Washington, DC 20229. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to CBP, Attn.: Tracey Denning, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 3.2.C, Washington, DC 20229, Tel.

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and

(OMB)approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection: *Title:* Permit to Transfer Containers to a Container Station. *OMB Number:* 1651-0049. *Form Number:* N/A. *Abstract:* This information collection is needed in order for a container station operator to receive a permit to transfer a container or containers to a container station, he/she must furnish a list of names, addresses, etc., of the persons employed by them upon demand by CBP officials. *Current Actions:* There are no changes to the information collection. This submission is being submitted to extend the expiration date. *Type of Review:* Extension (without change). *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 350. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 1,400. *Estimated Time Per Respondent:* 20 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 466. Dated: March 18, 2008. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, Information Services Group. [FR Doc. E8-6050 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency Information Collection Activities: Record of Foreign Vessel Repair AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: 30-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing information collection: 1651-0027. ACTION: Proposed collection; comments requested. SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)of the Department of Homeland Security has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Record of Foreign Vessel Repair. This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 3982) on January 23, 2008, allowing for a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before April 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection, and sent via electronic mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or faxed to

(202)395-6974. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies/components estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Title:* Record of Foreign Vessel Repair. *OMB Number:* 1651-0027. *Form Number:* CBP Form 226. *Abstract:* This collection of information is necessary to ensure the collection of applicable duties on all equipment, parts, or materials purchased, and repairs made to U.S. Flag vessels outside the United States. *Current Actions:* There are no changes to the information collection. This submission is being submitted to extend the expiration date. *Type of Review:* Extension (without change). *Affected Public:* Businesses, Individuals. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 200. *Estimated Total Responses:* 2,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* 45 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1,500. If additional information is required contact: Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 3.2.C, Washington, DC 20229, at 202-344-1429. Dated: March 18, 2008. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, Information Services Branch. [FR Doc. E8-6069 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Certificate of Origin AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: 60-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of existing collection of information: 1651-0016. SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on an information collection requirement concerning the Certificate of Origin. This request for comment is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). DATES: Written comments should be received on or before May 27, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Information Services Group, Attn.: Tracey Denning, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 3.2.C, Washington, DC 20229. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn.: Tracey Denning, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 3.2C, Washington, DC 20229, Tel.

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and

(OMB)approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection: *Title:* Certificate of Origin. *OMB Number:* 1651-0016. *Form Number:* Customs Form-3229. *Abstract:* This certification is required to determine whether an importer is entitled to duty-free for goods which are the growth or product of a U.S. insular possession and which contain foreign materials representing no more than 70 percent of the goods total value. *Current Actions:* There are no changes to the information collection. This submission is being submitted to extend the expiration date. *Type of Review:* Extension (without change). *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 10. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 310. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 20 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 113. Dated: March 18, 2008. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, Information Services Group. [FR Doc. E8-6070 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Report of Diversion AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: 60-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of existing collection of information: 1651-0025. SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on an information collection requirement concerning Report of Diversion. This request for comment is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). DATES: Written comments should be received on or before May 27, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Information Services Group, Attn.: Tracey Denning, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 3.2.C, Washington, DC 20229. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn.: Tracey Denning, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 3.2C, Washington, DC 20229, Tel.

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and

(OMB)approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection: *Title:* Report of Diversion. *OMB Number:* 1651-0025. *Form Number:* Form CBP-26. *Abstract:* CBP uses Form-26 to track vessels traveling coastwise from U.S ports to other U.S. ports when a change occurs in scheduled itineraries. This is required for enforcement of the Jones Act (46 U.S.C. App. 883) and for continuity of vessel manifest information and permits to proceed actions. *Current Actions:* There are no changes to the information collection. This submission is being submitted to extend the expiration date. *Type of Review:* Extension (without change). *Affected Public:* Businesses, Individuals, Institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 2800. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 2800. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 5 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 233. Dated: March 18, 2008. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, Information Services Group. [FR Doc. E8-6071 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Information AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: 30-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing information collection: 1651-0023. ACTION: Proposed collection; comments requested. SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)of the Department of Homeland Security has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Request for Information. This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 3981) on January 23, 2008, allowing for a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before April 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection, and sent via electronic mail to: *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or faxed to

(202)395-6974. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's/component's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Title:* Request for Information. *OMB Number:* 1651-0023. *Form Number:* CBP Form 28. *Abstract:* Form CBP-28 is used by CBP personnel to request additional information from importers when the invoice or other documentation provides insufficient information for CBP to carry out its responsibilities to protect revenues. *Current Actions:* There are no changes to the information collection. This submission is being submitted to extend the expiration date. *Type of Review:* Extension (without change). *Affected Public:* Businesses, Individuals, Institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 60,000. *Estimated Time Per Respondent:* 1 hour. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 60,000. *Estimated Total Annualized Cost to the Public:* $1,782,000. If additional information is required contact: Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 3.2.C, Washington, DC 20229, at 202-344-1429. Dated: March 18, 2008. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, Information Services Branch. [FR Doc. E8-6077 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency Information Collection Activities: Ship's Stores Declaration AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: 30-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing information collection: 1651-0018. ACTION: Proposed collection; comments requested. SUMMARY: The U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)of the Department of Homeland Security has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Ship's Stores Declaration. This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 3983) on January 23, 2008, allowing for a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before April 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection, and sent via electronic mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or faxed to

(202)395-6974. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's/component's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(CBP)of the Department of Homeland Security has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: NAFTA Duty Deferral. This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 3983) on January 23, 2008, allowing for a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before April 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection, and sent via electronic mail to: *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or faxed to

(202)395-6974. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency/component, including hether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies/components estimate of the burden of The proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Title:* North American Free Trade Agreement Duty Deferral. *OMB Number:* 1651-0071. *Form Number:* None. *Abstract:* The North American Free Trade Agreement Duty Deferral Program prescribe the documentary and other requirements that must be followed when merchandise is withdrawn from a U.S. duty-deferral program for exportation to another NAFTA country. *Current Actions:* There are no changes to the information collection. This submission is being submitted to extend the expiration date. *Type of Review:* Extension (without change). *Affected Public:* Businesses, Individuals, Institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 50. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 1,400. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 12 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 280. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 3.2.C, Washington, DC 20229, at 202-344-1429. Dated: March 18, 2008. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, Information Services Branch. [FR Doc. E8-6088 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R5-R-2008-N0018; 50133-1265-PKRP-S3] Wapack National Wildlife Refuge, Hillsborough County, NH AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability: draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment; request for comments. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

(CCP)and Environmental Assessment

(EA)for Wapack National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), and request public review and comment on its proposals. We prepared the Draft CCP/EA in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. DATES: The Draft CCP/EA will be available for public review and comment until the close of business on May 1, 2008. To ensure consideration, we must receive your comments by that date. We must also receive any requests for hard-copy documents for review no later than April 15, 2008. We plan to host one public meeting on April 17, 2008 at the Shieling Forest visitor building, One Old Street Road, in Peterborough, New Hampshire. We will post additional details of that meeting approximately 2 weeks in advance on the Web site *http://www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/Wapack/ccphome.html,* via our project mailing list, and in local papers. ADDRESSES: You may obtain copies of the draft CCP/EA on compact diskette or in print by writing to Nancy McGarigal, Refuge Planner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035, or by electronic mail at *northeastplanning@fws.gov;* please put the words “Wapack Refuge” in your subject line. You may also view the draft document on the Web at *http://library.fws.gov/CCPs/wapack/index.html.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy McGarigal, Refuge Planner, at the address above, by telephone at 413-253-8562, by fax at 413-253-8468, or by electronic mail at *northeastplanning@fws.gov.* Please use the words “Wapack Refuge” in your subject line. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), requires the Service to develop a CCP for each refuge. The purpose of developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), in conformance with the sound principles of fish and wildlife science, natural resources conservation, legal mandates, and Service policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. The Service will review and update each CCP at least once every 15 years, in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The 1,625-acre Wapack NWR, established by donation in 1972, was the first national wildlife refuge in New Hampshire. Its purpose is for use as an inviolate sanctuary or for any other management purpose for migratory birds. Because it is un-staffed, the Great Bay NWR staff, headquartered in Newington, New Hampshire, administers it. The refuge is located about 20 miles west of Nashua, New Hampshire, and encompasses the 2,278-foot elevation North Pack Monadnock Mountain in the towns of Greenfield and Temple, New Hampshire. The terms of the deed require the Service to manage the refuge in a “wilderness-like” setting for wildlife. Specific deed restrictions prohibit using motorized vehicles, hunting and fishing, trapping, or cutting trees. Generally, mature northern hardwood-mixed and spruce-fir forest characterizes the refuge. It provides nesting habitat for numerous migratory songbirds, such as the black-capped chickadee, blackburnian warbler, black-throated blue warbler, hermit thrush, myrtle warbler, ovenbird, and red-eyed vireo. The refuge also supports a wide variety of other native wildlife, including deer, bear, coyote, fisher, fox, mink and weasel. Visitors often engage in wildlife observation and photography on the refuge. It is especially popular for viewing the fall migration of hawks. A 4-mile segment of the 21-mile Wapack Trail traverses it, and rewards hikers with a beautiful view of the surrounding mountains. Two other trails cross the refuge to offer a 6-mile circuit hike. The Draft CCP/EA evaluates two alternatives, which address eleven key issues identified by the public, State or Federal agencies, other Service programs, and our planning team. The draft CCP/EA describes those issues in detail. Highlights follow. *Alternative A (Current Management):* This alternative is the “No Action” alternative required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, as amended). Alternative A defines our current management activities, and serves as the baseline against which to compare the other alternative. The Service would continue to manage the refuge in a “wilderness-like” setting, without actively managing its habitat, thereby allowing natural succession to continue without human interference. The Service would continue to allow only compatible uses that are consistent with a “wilderness-like” setting and adhere to other deed restrictions. We would not allow hunting, fishing, trapping, driving motor vehicles, or cutting trees (except for maintaining trails). In addition, we would continue to prohibit camping, mountain biking, horseback riding and dog walking. This alternative would not improve access to the refuge or the visibility of the Service in the area. We would continue our informal relationships with the Friends of the Wapack and the Mountain View Hiking Club to maintain refuge trails. We would also continue to work under a memorandum of agreement with the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department to resolve inter-jurisdictional issues on the refuge as they arise. *Alternative B (the Service-preferred alternative):* Alternative B is the alternative we propose as the best means to manage this refuge over the next 15 years. It includes an array of management actions that, in our professional judgment, work best toward achieving the purpose of the refuge, our vision and goals for it and State and regional conservation plans. In our opinion, this alternative would most effectively address the key issues. We propose to focus on improving our baseline biological database and enhancing visitor services programs by expanding our partnerships with other federal agencies, state agencies, town departments, local conservation organizations, and individuals. One such project is to gather baseline data on the populations of plants and wildlife on the refuge in partnership with the U.S. Forest Service. We would also use partnerships to maintain trails, develop and maintain a new trailhead parking area, and assess and monitor threats to the integrity of refuge habitat. We would also increase our presence on the refuge and its visibility in the local community, and better communicate refuge regulations, visitor information, and contact information. Under alternative B, we would manage public uses similar to alternative A by allowing only compatible activities that are consistent with a “wilderness-like” setting and adhere to other deed restrictions. The only differences are that we would allow dog walking on leash and recreational berry-picking. This alternative does not propose to expand the refuge. However, we would offer our support to partners engaged in other land conservation and protection in the area, work with them to identify lands of high wildlife value in need of protection, and provide them with technical assistance in managing them. After we evaluate and respond to the public comments on this Draft CCP/EA, we will prepare a final CCP for our Regional Director's approval. He will determine whether a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate, and certify whether the final CCP meets agency compliance requirements, achieves refuge purposes, and helps fulfill the mission of the NWRS. With an affirmative FONSI and other positive findings, the Regional Director can approve the final CCP. If he issues a FONSI and approves that final CCP, we will announce its availability in the **Federal Register** and begin its implementation. Dated: January 18, 2008. Wendi Weber, Acting Regional Director, Region 5, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. [FR Doc. E8-6043 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs Land Acquisitions; Puyallup Tribe, Washington AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Final Agency Determination to Take Land into Trust under 25 CFR Part 151. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs made a final agency determination to acquire approximately 10.2 acres of land into trust for the Puyallup Tribe of Washington on March 14, 2008. This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 Departmental Manual 8.1. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, MS-3657 MIB, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240; Telephone

(202)219-4066. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published to comply with the requirement of 25 CFR 151.12(b) that notice be given to the public of the Secretary's decision to acquire land in trust at least 30 days prior to signatory acceptance of the land into trust. The purpose of the 30-day waiting period in 25 CFR 151.12(b) is to afford interested parties the opportunity to seek judicial review of final administrative decisions to take land in trust for Indian tribes and individual Indians before transfer of title to the property occurs. On March 14, 2008, the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs decided to accept approximately 10.2 acres of land into trust for the Puyallup Tribe of Washington. Pursuant to the Act of May 18, 2006, Public Law 109-224 (120 Stat. 376) Congress directed that the Secretary of the Interior accept the conveyance of certain specifically described tracts of land and hold that land in trust for the Puyallup Tribe. This tract of land is specifically identified in the Section 1(b)

(1)and

(2)of the statute. The statute specifically mandates that the Secretary “shall” accept the conveyance and hold the land in trust. The 10.2 acre parcel is located in the City of Fife, Pierce County, Washington. The legal description of the property is as follows: PARCEL A (0420076005) Lots A, Boundary Line Adjustment recorded under recording number 9508150496, according to the map thereof recorded August 15, 1995, records of Pierce County Auditor. EXCEPT that portion thereof lying North of a line that is 63.00 feet South of the Centerline of SR99 (Old State No. 1) as conveyed by instrument recorded under recording number 689874, records of Pierce County. PARCEL B (0420076006) Lot B, Boundary line adjustment 9508150496, according to the map thereof Recorded August 15, 1995, records of Pierce County Auditor. EXCEPT that portion thereof lying North of a line that is 63.00 feet South of the centerline of SR99 (Old State Road No. 1) as conveyed by instrument recorded under recording number 689874, records of Pierce County. Situate in the City of Fife, County of Pierce, State of Washington. PARCEL C (0420076008) Lot 4, Pierce County Short Plat No. 8908020412, according to the map thereof recorded August 2, 1995, records of Pierce County Auditor. Together with portion of SR-5 abutting Lot 4, conveyed by deed recorded under recording no. 9309070433 described as follows: That portion of Government Lot 1, Section 07, Township 20 North, Range 4 East of the Willamette Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at Highway Engineer's Station (hereinafter referred to as HES) AL26 6+38.0 P.O.T. on the AL26 line survey of SR 5, Tacoma to King County line; THENCE South 88°54′30″ East along the North line of said Lot 1, a distance of 95 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE South 01°05′30″ West 87.4 feet; THENCE Westerly to a point opposite HES AL26 5+50.6 P.O.T. on said AL26 line survey and 75 feet Easterly therefrom; THENCE Northwesterly to a point opposite AL26 5+80.6 on said AL 26 line survey and 55 feet Easterly therefrom; THENCE Northerly parallel with said survey to the North line of said lot 1; THENCE North 88°54′30″ East to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT that portion of Lot 4 of said short plat No. 8908020412, conveyed to the State of Washington by deed recorded under Recording No. 9308100165 and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot 4; THENCE North 89°53′30″ West along the North line of said Lot 4 a distance of 147.44 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and a point of curvature; THENCE Southwesterly along a curve to the left, the center of which bears South 00°06′30″ West, 55.00 feet distant, through a central angle of 89°01′00″ , an arc distance of 85.45 feet; THENCE South 01°05′30″ West, 59.43 Feet; THENCE North 88°54′30″ West, 20.00 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 4; THENCE North 00°57′10″ East along said Westerly line 113.15 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 4; THENCE South 89°53′30″ East along said North line, a distance of 74.34 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. And EXCEPT that portion thereof lying North of a line that is 63.00 feet South of and parallel with the centerline of SR99 (Old State Road No. 1) as conveyed by instrument recorded under recording number 689874, records of Pierce County, Washington. PARCEL D (0420076007) Lot 3, Pierce County Short Plat No. 8908020412, according to the map thereof recorded August 2, 1989, Records of Pierce County Auditor. EXCEPT that portion thereof lying North of a line that is 63.00 feet South of the centerline of SR99 (Old State Road No. 1) as conveyed by instrument recorded under recording number 689874, records of Pierce County. Situate in the City of Fife, County of Pierce, State of Washington. Containing 10.2 acres, more or less. Dated: March 14, 2008. Carl J. Artman, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. [FR Doc. E8-5923 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [WY-957-08-1420-BJ] Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey, Wyoming AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)has filed the plats of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, on the dates indicated. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These surveys were executed at the request of the Bureau of Land Management, and are necessary for the management of resources. The lands surveyed are: The supplemental plat showing new lottings in sections 8, 17 and 18, Township 18 North, Range 79 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, was accepted December 6, 2007. The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the subdivisional lines, 1909 meanders of the Green River and an island located in sections 14 and 15, and the subdivision of certain sections, and the metes-and-bounds survey of Lot 13 in section 14, Township 23 North, Range 111 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 723, was accepted December 6, 2007. The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary, the west and north boundaries and the subdivisional lines, Township 50 North, Range 78 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 727, was accepted December 6, 2007. The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 21, and the metes and bounds survey of Lot 1, section 21, Township 18 North, Range 80 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 779, was accepted December 6, 2007. The plat representing the entire record of the establishment of reference monuments for the meander corner of sections 33 and 34, on the left bank of the Gros Ventre River, Township 42 North, Range 116 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 607, was accepted January 30, 2008. The plat representing the entire record of the establishment of reference monuments for certain corners of Parcel A, Section 28, Township 26 North, Range 105 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 674, was accepted January 30, 2008. The plat representing the entire record of the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines designed to restore the corners in their true original locations according to the best available evidence, Township 20 North, Range 85 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 766, was accepted January 30, 2008. The plat and field notes representing the corrective dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the dependent resurvey of a portion of the Twelfth Standard Parallel North (north boundary), through Range 80 West, a portion of the south boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, Township 48 North, Range 80 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 762, was accepted February 26, 2008. The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary, and the subdivisional lines, Township 21 North, Range 94 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 763, was accepted February 26, 2008. The plat representing the entire record of the corrective dependent resurvey of a portion of the Ninth Guide Meridian West, Township 51 North, between Ranges 72 and 73 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, designed to restore the corners to their original locations according to the best available evidence, Group No. 765, was accepted March 17, 2008. Copies of the preceding described plats and field notes are available to the public at a cost of $1.10 per page. Dated: March 18, 2008. John P. Lee, Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Division of Support Services. [FR Doc. E8-6035 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [CA-310-0777-XX] Notice of Public Meeting: Northeast California Resource Advisory Council AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)Northeast California Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated below. DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday and Friday, May 15 and 16, 2008, in the Conference Room of the BLM Alturas Field Office, 708 W. 12th St., Alturas, California. On May 15, the members convene at the Alturas Field Office at 10 a.m. and depart immediately for a field tour. Members of the public are welcome. They must provide their own transportation in a high clearance four-wheel-drive vehicle and their own lunch. On May 16, the meeting runs from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Time for public comment is reserved at 11 a.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Burke, BLM Alturas Field Office manager,

(530)233-4666; or BLM Public Affairs Officer Joseph J. Fontana,

(530)252-5332. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Northeast California and the northwest corner of Nevada. At this meeting, agenda topics will include a status report on proposals for wind energy development and updates on the sage steppe restoration management plan, sage-grouse conservation, wild horse and burro management, and the Modoc Resource Academy. Members also will hear status reports from the Alturas, Eagle Land and Surprise field offices. All meetings are open to the public. Members of the public may present written comments to the council. Each formal council meeting will have time allocated for public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, and the time available, the time for individual comments may be limited. Members of the public are welcome on field tours, but they must provide their own transportation and lunch. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation and other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above. Dated: March 17, 2008. Joseph J. Fontana, Public Affairs Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5973 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-40-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [AK-963-1410-FQ; F-14223] Public Land Order No. 7692; Partial Revocation of Public Land Order No. 5150, as Amended; Alaska AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Public Land Order. SUMMARY: This order partially revokes a Public Land Order as it affects approximately 82,608 acres of public lands withdrawn and reserved as a utility and transportation corridor within Alaska. This order also makes the lands available for selection and conveyance to the State of Alaska. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 25, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Renee Fencl, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, # 13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7599; 907-271-5067. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The withdrawal was reviewed through the land use planning process for the Bureau of Land Management East Alaska Resource Management Plan. It was determined to retain the lands withdrawn by Public Land Order No. 5150, as amended, under Federal management except for the lands described in Paragraph 1 areas located near Paxson, Alaska. Upon revocation, the State of Alaska applications for selection made under the Alaska Statehood Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act become effective without further action by the State, if such lands are otherwise available. Otherwise, the lands in this order will continue to be subject to the terms and conditions of Public Land Order No. 5180, as amended, and any other withdrawal, applications, or segregation of record. Order By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by section 22(h)(4) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C. 1631(h)(4) and section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000), it is ordered as follows: 1. Public Land Order No. 5150, as amended, which withdrew lands and reserved them for utility and transportation corridor purposes, is hereby revoked insofar as it affects the following described unsurveyed lands: Fairbanks Meridian T. 17 S., R. 9 E., Secs. 25 to 36, inclusive. T. 18 S., R. 9 E., Secs. 1 to 36, inclusive. T. 17 S., R. 10 E., Secs. 29 to 34, inclusive. T. 18 S., R. 10 E., Secs. 3 to 10, inclusive; Secs. 15 to 22, inclusive; Secs. 27 to 34, inclusive. T. 19 S., R. 10 E., Secs. 4 to 9, inclusive; Secs. 17 to 20, inclusive; Secs. 28 to 33, inclusive. T. 20 S., R. 12 E., Secs. 1 to 3, inclusive; Secs. 10 to 15, inclusive; Secs. 22 to 27, inclusive; Secs. 34 to 36, inclusive. T. 21 S., R. 12 E., Secs. 1 to 3, inclusive; Secs. 10 to 15, inclusive; Secs. 22 to 27, inclusive; Secs. 34 to 36, inclusive. The areas described aggregate approximately 82,608 acres. 2. The State of Alaska applications for selection made under section 6(b) of the Alaska Statehood Act of July 7, 1958, 48 U.S.C. note prec. 21 (2000), and under section 906(e) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 43 U.S.C. 1635(e) (2000), become effective without further action by the State upon publication of this Public Land Order in the **Federal Register** , if such lands are otherwise available. Lands selected by, but not conveyed to, the State will continue to be subject to Public Land Order No. 5180, as amended, and any other withdrawal or segregation of record. Dated: March 13, 2008. C. Stephen Allred, Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals Management. [FR Doc. E8-5988 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [ES-960-1430-ET; MNES-017121] Public Land Order No. 7693; Revocation of the Withdrawal Established by Executive Order Dated February 4, 1909; Minnesota AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Public Land Order. SUMMARY: This order revokes in its entirety the withdrawal established by an Executive Order as to 204.09 acres of public land withdrawn from surface entry and reserved for use by the United States Coast Guard for lighthouse purposes. No lighthouse was ever constructed and the United States Coast Guard has determined the reservation is no longer needed. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 25, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ida Doup, Bureau of Land Management-Eastern States, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153, 703-440-1541. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a record-clearing action only as 194.91 acres have been conveyed out of Federal ownership and the remaining 9.18 acres remain withdrawn subject to the Shipstead-Newton-Nolan Act of July 10, 1930. Order By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior, by section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000), it is ordered as follows: The withdrawal established by Executive Order No. 1020 dated February 4, 1909, and any other order which reserved for lighthouse purposes the land, or any part thereof that is described below, is hereby revoked in its entirety: 4th Principal Meridian T. 64 N., R. 7 E., Fractional sec 25, lots 1 and 2; Fractional sec 26, lots 1 to 4, inclusive. The area described contains 204.09 acres in Cook County. Dated: March 14, 2008. C. Stephen Allred, Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals Management. [FR Doc. E8-5995 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [MT-060-1430-ET; MTM 68761] Public Land Order No. 7695; Extension of Public Land Order No. 6674; Montana AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Public Land Order. SUMMARY: This order extends the withdrawal created by Public Land Order No. 6674 for an additional 20-year period. This extension is necessary to continue protection of the Bureau of Land Management's Blacktail Creek Paleontological Site in Fergus County, Montana, which would otherwise expire on April 26, 2008. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Russ Sorensen, BLM, Lewistown Field Office, P.O. Box 1160, Lewistown, Montana 59457,

(406)538-1910, or Sandra Ward, BLM, Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669,

(406)896-5052. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The withdrawal extended by this order will expire April 26, 2028, unless, as a result of a review conducted prior to the expiration date pursuant to section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (2000), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be further extended. Order By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000), it is ordered as follows: Public Land Order No. 6674 (53 FR 15041 (1988)), which withdrew 320 acres of public lands from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the general land laws, including the United States mining laws to protect the Blacktail Creek Paleontological Site, is hereby extended for an additional 20-year period until April 26, 2028. Authority: 43 CFR 2310.4 Dated: March 13, 2008. C. Stephen Allred, Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals Management. [FR Doc. E8-6010 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [MTM 21943] Public Land Order No. 7696; Extension of Public Land Order No. 6669; Montana AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Public Land Order. SUMMARY: This order extends the withdrawal created by Public Land Order No. 6669 for an additional 20-year period. This extension is necessary to continue protection of the United States Forest Service's Lincoln Gulch Historic Site in Lewis and Clark County, Montana which would otherwise expire on March 23, 2008. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 24, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Bixler, U.S. Forest Service, Region 1, P.O. Box 7669, Missoula, Montana 59807, 406-329-3655, or Sandra Ward, Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669,

(406)896-5052. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The withdrawal extended by this order will expire on March 23, 2028, unless, as a result of a review conducted prior to the expiration date pursuant to section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (2000), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be further extended. Order By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2006), it is ordered as follows: Public Land Order No. 6669 (53 FR 9628 (1988)), which withdrew 90 acres of National Forest System land from the United States mining laws to protect the Lincoln Gulch Historic Site, is hereby extended for an additional 20-year period until March 23, 2028. Authority: 43 CFR 2310.4. Dated: March 13, 2008. C. Stephen Allred, Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals Management. [FR Doc. E8-6013 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-11-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [ES-960-1430-ET; WIES-016527] Public Land Order No. 7694; Revocation of Executive Order Dated April 7, 1868; Wisconsin AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Public Land Order. SUMMARY: This order revokes in its entirety the withdrawal established by an Executive Order as to 9.06 acres of public land withdrawn from surface entry and reserved for use by the United States Coast Guard for lighthouse purposes. The reservation is no longer needed by the United States Coast Guard. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 25, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ida Doup, Bureau of Land Management-Eastern States, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153, 703-440-1541. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This revocation is a record-clearing action only, since the 9.06 acres have been conveyed out of Federal ownership. Order By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior, by section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000), it is ordered as follows: The withdrawal established by Executive Order dated April 7, 1868, which reserved the following described public land for lighthouse purposes, is hereby revoked in its entirety: Fourth Principal Meridian T. 30 N., R. 28 E., Tract No. 37. The area described contains 9.06 acres in Door County. Dated: March 14, 2008. C. Stephen Allred, Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals Management. [FR Doc. E8-5997 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service Gulf of Mexico, Outer Continental Shelf, Central Planning Area, Oil and Gas Lease Sale 207

(2008)Environmental Assessment AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability of an environmental assessment. SUMMARY: The Minerals Management Service

(MMS)is issuing this notice to advise the public, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* , that MMS has prepared an environmental assessment

(EA)for proposed Outer Continental Shelf

(OCS)oil and gas Lease Sale 207 in the Western Gulf of Mexico

(GOM)Planning Area

(WPA)(Lease Sale 207) scheduled for August 2008. The preparation of this EA is an important step in the decision process for Lease Sale 207. The proposal for Lease Sale 207 was identified by the Call for Information and Nominations published in the **Federal Register** on December 3, 2007, and was analyzed in the *Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007-2012; Western Planning Area Sales 204, 207, 210, 215, and 218; Central Planning Area Sales 205, 206, 208, 213, 216, and 222—Final Environmental Impact Statement; Volumes I and II* (Multisale EIS, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-018). The proposal includes approximately 28.6 million acres offshore Texas and western Louisiana in water up to 10,978 ft (3,346 m) deep. This EA for proposed Lease Sale 207 reexamined the potential environmental effects of offering for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA (excluding unleased whole and partial blocks that are part of Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, and whole and partial blocks that lie within the 1.4-nautical mile buffer zone north of the outer continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico). Alternatives excluded additional blocks in biologically sensitive areas of the western GOM, use of a nomination and tract selection leasing system, and no action. The EA determined that no new information about environmental resources or potential impacts were identified that were not considered in the Multisale EIS. MMS determined that a Supplemental EIS is not required and prepared a Finding of No New Significant Impact (FONNSI). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dennis Chew, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, MS 5410, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394. You may also contact Mr. Chew by telephone at

(504)736-2793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In April 2007, MMS published a Multisale EIS that addressed 11 proposed Federal actions that would offer for lease areas on the GOM OCS that may contain economically recoverable oil and gas resources. Federal regulations allow for several related or similar proposals to be analyzed in one EIS (40 CFR 1502.4). Since each proposed lease sale and its projected activities are very similar each year for each planning area, a single EIS was prepared for the 11 WPA and Central Planning Area

(CPA)lease sales scheduled in the proposed *OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2007-2012* (5-Year Program). The Multisale EIS addressed WPA Lease Sale 204 in 2007, Sale 207 in 2008, Sale 210 in 2009, Sale 215 in 2010, and Sale 218 in 2011; and CPA Lease Sale 205 in 2007, Sale 206 in 2008, Sale 208 in 2009, Sale 213 in 2010, Sale 216 in 2011, and Sale 222 in 2012. Although the Multisale EIS addresses 11 proposed lease sales, at the completion of the EIS process, Records of Decision were published in July and August 2007 for only proposed WPA Lease Sale 204 and proposed CPA Lease Sale 205, respectively. An additional NEPA review (an EA) was conducted for proposed Lease Sale 207 to address any new information relevant to the proposed lease sale. Additional NEPA reviews will also be conducted prior to decisions on each of the remaining proposed lease sales. The purpose of an EA for a lease sale is to determine whether to prepare a FONNSI or a Supplemental EIS. For each proposed lease sale, MMS prepares a Consistency Determination

(CD)to determine whether the lease sale is consistent with each affected State's federally-approved coastal zone management program. Finally, MMS solicits comments via the Proposed Notice of Sale

(PNOS)from the governors of the affected States on the size, timing, and location of the lease sale. The tentative schedule for the prelease decision process for Lease Sale 207 is as follows: CDs sent to affected States, March 2008; PNOS sent to governors of the affected States, March 2008; Final Notice of Sale published in the **Federal Register** , July 2008; and Lease Sale 207, August 2008. *Public Comments:* Within 30 days of this Notice's publication, interested parties are requested to send comments on this EA/FONNSI. Comments may be submitted in one of the following two ways: 1. In written form enclosed in an envelope labeled “Comments on WPA Lease Sale 207 EA” and mailed (or hand carried) to the Regional Supervisor, Leasing and Environment (MS 5410), Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394. 2. Electronically to the MMS e-mail address: *environment@mms.gov.* All comments received will be considered in the decisionmaking process for proposed Lease Sale 207. *EA Availablity:* To obtain a copy of this EA for Lease Sale 207, you may contact the Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Attention: Public Information Office (MS 5034), 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, Room 114, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394 (1-800-200-GULF). You may also view this EA on the MMS Web site at *http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/nepa/nepaprocess.html* . Dated: February 29, 2008. Chris C. Oynes, Associate Director for Offshore Minerals Management. [FR Doc. E8-6008 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service Notice of Availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale for the Outer Continental Shelf

(OCS)Oil and Gas Lease Sale 207 in the Western Planning Area

(WPA)in the Gulf of Mexico AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale for Proposed Sale 207. SUMMARY: The MMS announces the availability of the proposed Notice of Sale for proposed Sale 207 in the WPA. This Notice is published pursuant to 30 CFR 256.29(c) as a matter of information to the public. With regard to oil and gas leasing on the OCS, the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to section 19 of the OCS Lands Act, provides the affected states the opportunity to review the proposed Notice. The proposed Notice sets forth the proposed terms and conditions of the sale, including minimum bids, royalty rates, and rentals. DATES: Comments on the size, timing, or location of proposed Sale 207 are due from the affected states within 60 days following their receipt of the proposed Notice. The final Notice of Sale will be published in the **Federal Register** at least 30 days prior to the date of bid opening. Bid opening is currently scheduled for August 20, 2008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed Notice of Sale for Sale 207 and a “Proposed Sale Notice Package” containing information essential to potential bidders may be obtained from the Public Information Unit, Gulf of Mexico Region, Minerals Management Service, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394. Telephone:

(504)736-2519. Dated: March 18, 2008. Randall B. Luthi, Director, Minerals Management Service. [FR Doc. E8-6012 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337-TA-640] In the Matter of: Certain Short-Wavelength Light Emitting Diodes, Laser Diodes and Products Containing Same; Notice of Investigation AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on February 20, 2008, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Gertrude Neumark Rothschild of Hartsdale, New York. Letters supplementing the complaint were filed on March 11 (two letters), 12, and 14, 2008. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain short-wavelength light emitting diodes, laser diodes and products containing same that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,252,499. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue exclusion orders and cease and desist orders. ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at: *http://www.usitc.gov.* The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)at: *http://edis.usitc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey T. Hsu, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone

(202)205-2579. Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2007). *Scope of Investigation:* Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on March 18, 2008, *ordered that* —

(1)Pursuant to subsection

(b)of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain short-wavelength light emitting diodes, laser diodes or products containing same that infringe one or more of claims 10, 12, 13, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 5,252,499, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

(2)For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

(a)The complainant is—Gertrude Neumark Rothschild, 153 Old Colony Road, Hartsdale, New York 10530-3609.

(b)The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served: Avago Technologies, No. 1 Yishun Avenue 7, Singapore 768923. Bacol Optoelectronic Co. Ltd., 2F, No. 760, Chung Cheng Road, Chung Ho City, Taipei 235, Taiwan. Dominant Semiconductor Sdn. Bhd., Lot 6, Batu Berendam, FTZ Phase III, 75350, Melaka, Malaysia. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., 25, Lane 76, Sec. 3, Chung Yang Road, TuCheng, Taipei 236, Taiwan. Exceed Perseverance Electronic Ind. Co., Ltd., Room 606, Unit 3, Building 14, Jiuzhou Garden, Longyuan Road, Longgang District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China, 518116. Guangzhou Hongli Opto-Electronic Co., Ltd., West Side of Dongfeng Highway, Auto City, Huadu District, Guangzhou, China. Harvatek International Inc., No. 18, Lane 522, Chung Hwa Road, Sec. 5, Hsin Chu, Taiwan. Hitachi, Ltd., 6-6, Marunouchi 1-chome, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8280, Japan. Kingbright Electronic Co., Ltd., 3F, No. 317-1, Chung Shan Road, Sec. 2, Chung Ho, Taipei Hsien, Taipei 235, Taiwan. LG Electronics, LG Twin Towers 20, Yoido-dong, Youngdungpo-gu, Seoul, 150-721, Korea. Lite-On Technology Corp., 90, Chien I Road, Chung Ho, Taipei Hsien, Taiwan. Lucky Light Electronics Co., Ltd., Unit E & F, 15/F, Cooperative Finance Building, Shennan East Road, Louhu District, Shenzhen, China. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., 1006, Kadoma, Kadoma City, Osaka 571-8501, Japan. Motorola, Inc., 1303 East Algonquin Road, Schaumburg, Illinois 60196. Nokia, P.O. Box 226, FI-00045 Nokia Group, Finland. Opto Tech Corporation, No. 8, Innovation Road I, Hsinchu Science-based Industrial Park, Hsinchu, Taiwan. Pioneer Corporation, 1-4-1 Meguro, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8654, Japan. Rohm Co., Ltd., 21, Saiin Mizosaki-cho, Ukyo-ku, Kyoto 615-8585, Japan. Samsung Group, 250, 2-ga, Taepyung-ro, Jung-gu, Seoul, 100-742, Korea. Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., 5-5 Keihan-Hondori 2-Chome, Moriguchi City, Osaka 570-8677, Japan. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., 148-29 Gasan-dong, Keumchun-gu, Seoul, Korea. Sharp Corporation, 22-22 Nagaike-cho, Abeno-ku, Osaka 545-8522, Japan. Shenzhen Unilight Electronic Co., Ltd., Tongfuyu Industrial Zone, Xinhe Village, Fuyong Town, Bao'an District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, China. Shinano Kenshi Co., Ltd., 1078, Kami-maruko, Ueda-shi, Nagano-ken, Japan. Sony Corporation, 1-1-1 Konan, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0075, Japan. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB, Nya Vattentornet, SE-221 88 Lund, Sweden. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8636, Japan. Toshiba Corporation, 1-1, Shibaura 1-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-8001, Japan. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., 63 Lancaster Avenue, Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355. Yellow Stone Corporation, No. 9, Lane 113, Chihyuan 2nd Road, Beitou District, Taipei, Taiwan.

(c)The Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation, is Jeffrey T. Hsu, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

(3)For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Paul J. Luckern is designated as the presiding administrative law judge. Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown. Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent. By order of the Commission. Issued: March 19, 2008. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-5909 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-1135 (Preliminary)] Sodium Metal From France Determination On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigation, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)) (the Act), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports from France of sodium metal, provided for in subheading 2805.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). 2 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 2 Chairman Daniel R. Pearson dissenting. Commencement of Final Phase Investigation Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigation. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the **Federal Register** as provided in section 207.21 of the Commission's rules, upon notice from the Department of Commerce (Commerce) of an affirmative preliminary determination in the investigation under section 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary determination is negative, upon notice of an affirmative final determination in that investigation under section 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the investigation need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigation. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigation. Background Effective October 23, 2007, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Wilmington, DE, on behalf of the domestic industry that produces sodium metal, alleged that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV imports of sodium metal from France. Accordingly, effective October 23, 2007, the Commission instituted antidumping duty investigation No. 731-TA-1135 (Preliminary). Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigation and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the **Federal Register** of October 30, 2007 (72 FR 61374). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on November 13, 2007, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission transmitted its determination in this investigation to the Secretary of Commerce on December 7, 2007. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3973 (December 2007), entitled *Sodium Metal from France: Investigation No. 731-TA-1135 (Preliminary)* . By order of the Commission. Issued: March 19, 2008. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-5907 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure. ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting. SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Rule of Criminal Procedure will hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation. DATES: October 20-21, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: Arizona Biltmore, 2400 East Missouri Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone

(202)502-1820. Dated: March 19, 2008. John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office. [FR Doc. E8-5913 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 2210-55-M JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting. SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure will hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation. DATES: October 2-3, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: Hotel Teatro, 1100 14th Street, Denver, CO 80202. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone

(202)502-1820. Dated: March 19, 2008. John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office. [FR Doc. E8-5898 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 2210-55-M JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES Meeting of the Judicial Conference Committee; On Rules of Practice and Procedure AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States Committee on Rules and Practice and Procedure. ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting. SUMMARY: The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure will hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation. DATES: June 9-10, 2008. TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Mecham Conference Center, One Columbus Circle, NE., Washington, DC 20544. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone

(202)502-1820. Dated: March 19, 2008. John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office. [FR Doc. E8-5914 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 2210-55-M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration Agency Information Collection Activity; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)Control Number Under the Paperwork Reduction Act AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Notice; announcement of OMB approval of an information collection requirement. SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA)announces that the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has extended its approval of a collection of information regarding occupational injuries and illnesses. OSHA sought approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95), and, as required by that Act, is announcing the approval number and expiration date for this requirement. DATES: *Effective Date:* This notice is effective March 25, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph J. Dubois, Office of Statistical Analysis, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3507, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone:

(202)693-1875. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the **Federal Register** of October 23, 2007 (72 FR 60028), the Agency announced its intent to request an extension of approval for 29 CFR Part 1904, Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. The Agency provided a 60-day comment period for the public to respond to OSHA's burden hour and cost estimates. In accordance with PRA-95 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), OMB renewed its approval for the information collection requirement and assigned OMB control number 1218-0176. The approval expires on March 31, 2011. In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.5(b), an agency cannot conduct, sponsor, or require a response to a collection of information unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number and the agency informs respondents that they are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Authority and Signature Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 *et seq.* ), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31159). Signed at Washington, DC, on March 20, 2008. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E8-5989 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Royalty Board Notice of Intent To Audit AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress. ACTION: Public notice. SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges are announcing receipt of a notice of intent to audit the 2006 and 2007 statements of account submitted by Last.fm, Ltd. concerning the royalty payments made under two statutory licenses. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Strasser, Senior Attorney, or Gina Giuffreda, Attorney Advisor, by telephone at

(202)707-7658 or e-mail at *crb@loc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1995, Congress enacted the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 (“DPRA”), Public Law No. 104-39, which created an exclusive right for copyright owners of sound recordings subject to certain limitations, to perform publicly sound recordings by means of certain digital audio transmissions. Among the limitations on the performance right was the creation of a compulsory license for nonexempt noninteractive digital subscription transmissions. 17 U.S.C. 114(f). Section 114 was later amended with the passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (“DMCA” or “the Act”), Public Law No. 105-304, to cover additional digital audio transmissions, including eligible nonsubscription transmissions. 1 In addition to expanding the section 114 license, the DMCA also created a statutory license to allow a service to make any necessary ephemeral reproductions to facilitate the digital transmission of the sound recording. 17 U.S.C. 112(e). 1 An “eligible nonsubscription transmission” is a noninteractive digital audio transmission which, as the name implies, does not require a subscription for receiving the transmission. The transmission must also be made as a part of a service that provides audio programming consisting in whole or in part of performances of sound recordings the primary purpose of which is to provide audio or entertainment programming, but not to sell, advertise, or promote particular goods or services other than sound recordings, live concerts, or other music-related events. 17 U.S.C. 114(j)(6). Licensees may operate under these licenses provided they pay the royalty fees and comply with the terms set by the Copyright Royalty Judges (the “Judges”). On May 1, 2007, the Copyright Royalty Judges issued their final determination setting rates and terms for the section 112 and 114 licenses for the period 2006-2010. 72 FR 24084. As part of the terms set for these licenses, the Judges designated SoundExchange, Inc. as the organization charged with collecting the royalty payments and statements of account and distributing the royalties to the copyright owners and performers entitled to receive such royalties under the section 112 and 114 licenses. 37 CFR 380.4(b)(1). As the designated Collective, SoundExchange may conduct a single audit of a licensee for any calendar year for the purpose of verifying their royalty payments. SoundExchange must first file with the Judges a notice of intent to audit a licensee and serve the notice on the licensee to be audited. 37 CFR 380.6(b), (c). On March 3, 2008, pursuant to 37 CFR 380.6(c), SoundExchange filed with the Judges a notice of intent to audit Last.fm, Ltd. for the years 2006 and 2007. 2 Section 380.6(c) requires the Judges to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** within 30 days of receipt of the notice announcing the Collective's intent to conduct an audit. 2 SoundExchange also stated in the notice its intent to audit Last.fm Ltd. for the calendar year 2005. Verification of statements of account for 2005 are governed by 37 CFR 262.6(c) of the Copyright Office's regulations. In accordance with 37 CFR 380.6(c), the Copyright Royalty Judges are publishing today's notice to fulfill this requirement with respect to SoundExchange's notice of intent to audit Last.fm, Ltd. filed on March 3, 2008. Dated: March 19, 2008. James Scott Sledge, Chief Copyright Royalty Judge. [FR Doc. E8-6068 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-72-P OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Office of Federal Procurement Policy Determination of Executive Compensation Benchmark Amount AGENCY: Office of Federal Procurement Policy, OMB. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)is publishing the attached memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies concerning the determination of the maximum benchmark compensation amount that will be allowable under government contracts during contractors' fiscal year 2008—$612,196. This determination is required under Section 39 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy

(OFPP)Act (41 U.S.C. 435), as amended. The benchmark compensation amount applies equally to both defense and civilian procurement agencies. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Auletta, OFPP, at

(202)395-3256. MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES *From:* Paul A. Denett, Administrator, OFPP. *Subject:* Determination of Executive Compensation Benchmark Amount, Pursuant to Section 39 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy,

(OFPP)Act (41 U.S.C. 435), as amended. This memorandum sets forth the benchmark compensation amount as required by Section 39 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy

(OFPP)Act (41 U.S.C. 435), as amended. Under Section 39, the benchmark compensation amount is the median amount of the compensation provided for all senior executives of benchmark corporations for the most recent year for which data is available. The benchmark compensation amount established by Section 39 limits the allowability of compensation costs under government contracts. The benchmark compensation amount does not limit the compensation that an executive may otherwise receive. This amount is based on data from commercially available surveys of executive compensation that analyze the relevant data made available by the Securities and Exchange Commission. More specifically, as required by Section 39 of the OFPP Act, the data used is the median (50th percentile) amount of compensation accrued over a recent 12-month period for the top five highest paid executives of publicly traded companies with annual sales over $50 million. After consultation with the Director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency, we have determined pursuant to the requirements of Section 39 that the benchmark compensation amount for contractors' fiscal year

(FY)2008 is $612,196. This amount is for contractors' FY 2008 and subsequent contractor fiscal years, unless and until revised by OFPP. The benchmark compensation amount applies to contract costs incurred after January 1, 2008, under covered contracts of both the defense and civilian procurement agencies as specified in Section 39 of the OFPP Act (41 U.S.C. 435), as amended. Questions concerning this memorandum may be addressed to Laura Auletta, OFPP, at

(202)395-3256. Paul A. Denett, Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5978 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3110-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted: 1. *The title of the information collection:* 10 CFR Part 20—Standards for Protection Against Radiation. 2. *Current OMB approval number:* 3150-0014. 3. *How often the collection is required:* Annually for most reports and at license termination for reports dealing with decommissioning. 4. *Who is required or asked to report:* NRC licensees, including those requesting license terminations. 5. *The number of annual respondents:* 4,512. 6. *The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 127,469 hours (3,709 hours for reporting [9.11 hours per response] plus 123,760 hours for recordkeeping [27.43 hours per recordkeeper]). 7. *Abstract:* 10 CFR Part 20 establishes standards for protection against ionizing radiation resulting from activities conducted under licenses issued by the NRC. These standards require the establishment of radiation protection programs, maintenance of radiation protection programs, maintenance of radiation records recording of radiation received by workers, reporting of incidents which could cause exposure to radiation, submittal of an annual report to NRC of the results of individual monitoring, and submittal of license termination information. These mandatory requirements are needed to protect occupationally exposed individuals from undue risks of excessive exposure to ionizing radiation and to protect the health and safety of the public. Submit, by May 27, 2008, comments that address the following questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html* . The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Margaret A. Janney (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7245, or by email to *INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of March, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gregory Trussell, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E8-5968 Filed 3-24-08; 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 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 February 28, 2008 to March 12, 2008. The last biweekly notice was published on March 11, 2008 (73 FR 13021). 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 <sup>TM</sup> to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer <sup>TM</sup> 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.* 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:* December 11, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The amendments would revise the Technical Specifications

(TSs)permitting relaxation of the allowed bypass test times and completion times for various systems in accordance with Technical Specification Task Force Traveler

(TSTF)418, Revision 2, “RPS and ESFAS Test Times and Completion Times (WCAP-14333). *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 changes to the Completion Times, bypass test time, and Surveillance Frequencies reduces the potential for inadvertent reactor trips and spurious actuations, and therefore do not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes to the Completion Times and bypass test time do not change the response of the plant to any accidents and have an insignificant impact on the reliability of the reactor trip system and engineered safety feature actuation system (RTS and ESFAS) signals. The RTS and ESFAS will remain highly reliable and the proposed changes will not result in a significant increase in the risk of plant operation. This is demonstrated by showing that the impact on plant safety as measured by core damage frequency

(CDF)is less than 1.0E-06 per year and the impact on large early release frequency

(LERF)is less than 1.0E-07 per year. In addition, for the Completion Time change, the incremental conditional core damage probabilities (ICCDP) and incremental conditional large early release probabilities (ICLERP) are less than 5.0E-07 and 5.0E-08, respectively. These changes meet the acceptance criteria in Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177. Therefore, since the RTS and ESFAS will continue to perform their functions with high reliability as originally assumed, and the increase in risk as measured by CDF, LERF, ICCDP, and ICLERP is within the acceptance criteria of existing regulatory guidance, there will not be a significant increase in the consequences of any accidents. The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components

(SSCs)from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed changes are consistent with safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences. The determination on risk impacts that the results of the proposed changes are acceptable was established in the NRC Safety Evaluations prepared for WCAP-14333-P-A (issued by letter dated July 15, 1998) and for WCAP-15376-P-A (issued by letter dated December 20, 2002). Implementation of the proposed changes will result in an insignificant risk impact. Applicability of these conclusions has been verified through plant-specific reviews and implementation of the generic analysis results in accordance with the respective NRC Safety Evaluation conditions. The proposed changes based on TSTF-246 do not involve any physical alteration of plant SSCs. The remaining intermediate range and power range nuclear instruments remain operable and have required actions that ensure compliance with applicable safety analyses. Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not increase the probability of occurrence of a malfunction of equipment important to safety. 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. The proposed changes do not result in a change in the manner in which the RTS or ESFAS provide plant protection. The RTS and ESFAS will continue to have the same setpoints after the proposed changes are implemented. There are no design changes associated with the license amendment. The changes to Completion Times, bypass test times, and Surveillance Frequencies do not change any existing accident scenarios, nor create any new or different accident scenarios. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant ( *i.e.* , no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice. The proposed changes do not introduce new failure mechanisms for systems, structures, or components not already considered in the UFSAR. Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated is not created because no new failure mechanisms or initiating events have been introduced. Third Standard Does operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not impacted by these changes. Redundant RTS and ESFAS trains are maintained, and diversity with regard to the signals that provide reactor trip and ESFAS is also maintained. Signals credited as primary or secondary and operator actions credited in the accident analyses will remain the same. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside design basis. The calculated impact on risk is insignificant and meets the acceptance criteria contained in Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177. Although there was no attempt to quantify any positive human factors benefit due to increased Completion Times and bypass test time, it is expected that there would be a net benefit due to a reduced potential for spurious reactor trips and actuations associated with testing. Implementation of the proposed changes is expected to result in an overall improvement in safety, as follows: a. Reduced testing will result in fewer inadvertent reactor trips, less frequent actuation of ESFAS components, less frequent distraction of operations personnel without significantly affecting RTS and ESFAS reliability. b. Improvements in the effectiveness of the operating staff in monitoring and controlling plant operation will be realized. This is due to less frequent distraction of the operators and shift supervisor to attend to instrumentation Required Actions with short Completion Times. c. Longer repair times associated with increased Completion Times will lead to higher quality repairs and improved reliability. d. The Completion Time extensions for the reactor trip breakers will provide the utilities additional time to complete test and maintenance activities while at power, potentially reducing the number of forced outages related to compliance with reactor trip breaker Completion Times, and provide consistency with the Completion Times for the logic trains. Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 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 Wong. Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina *Date of amendment request:* December 11, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments would revise the Technical Specifications permitting relaxation of the allowed bypass test times and completion times for various systems in accordance with Technical Specification Task Force Traveler

(CDF)is less than 1.0E-06 per year and the impact on large early release frequency

(SSCs)from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed changes are consistent with safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences. The determination that the results of the proposed changes are acceptable was established in the NRC Safety Evaluations prepared for WCAP-14333-P-A (issued by letter dated July 15, 1998) and for WCAP-15376-P-A (issued by letter dated December 20, 2002). Implementation of the proposed changes will result in an insignificant risk impact. Applicability of these conclusions has been verified through plant-specific reviews and implementation of the generic analysis results in accordance with the respective NRC Safety Evaluation conditions. The proposed changes based on TSTF-246 do not involve any physical alteration of plant systems, structures, or components. The remaining intermediate range and power range nuclear instruments remain operable and have required actions that ensure compliance with applicable safety analyses. Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not increase the probability of occurrence of a malfunction of equipment important to safety. 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. The proposed changes do not result in a change in the manner in which the RTS or ESFAS provide plant protection. The RTS and ESFAS will continue to have the same setpoints after the proposed changes are implemented. There are no design changes associated with the license amendment. The changes to Completion Times, bypass test times, and Surveillance Frequencies do not change any existing accident scenarios, nor create any new or different accident scenarios. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant ( *i.e.* , no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice. The proposed changes do not introduce new failure mechanisms for systems, structures, or components not already considered in the UFSAR. Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated is not created because no new failure mechanisms or initiating events have been introduced. Third Standard Does operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not impacted by these changes. Redundant RTS and ESFAS trains are maintained, and diversity with regard to the signals that provide reactor trip and ESFAS is also maintained. Signals credited as primary or secondary and operator actions credited in the accident analyses will remain the same. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside design basis. The calculated impact on risk is insignificant and meets the acceptance criteria contained in Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177. Although there was no attempt to quantify any positive human factors benefit due to increased Completion Times and bypass test time, it is expected that there would be a net benefit due to a reduced potential for spurious reactor trips and actuations associated with testing. Implementation of the proposed changes is expected to result in an overall improvement in safety, as follows: e. Reduced testing will result in fewer inadvertent reactor trips, less frequent actuation of ESFAS components, less frequent distraction of operations personnel without significantly affecting RTS and ESFAS reliability. f. Improvements in the effectiveness of the operating staff in monitoring and controlling plant operation will be realized. This is due to less frequent distraction of the operators and shift supervisor to attend to instrumentation Required Actions with short Completion Times. g. Longer repair times associated with increased Completion Times will lead to higher quality repairs and improved reliability. h. The Completion Time extensions for the reactor trip breakers will provide the utilities additional time to complete test and maintenance activities while at power, potentially reducing the number of forced outages related to compliance with reactor trip breaker Completion Times, and provide consistency with the Completion Times for the logic trains. Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 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 Wong. Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina *Date of amendment request:* January 22, 2008. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments would modify Technical Specification

(TS)requirements related to control room envelope habitability in accordance with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-448, Revision 3, “Control Room Habitability.” For McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, this TSTF revises TS 3.7.9, Control Room Area Ventilation System (CRAVS), and adds a new administrative controls program, TS 5.5.16, Control Room Envelope Habitability Program. The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the **Federal Register** on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61075) on possible license amendments adopting TSTF-448 using the NRC's consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP) for amending the licensee's TSs, which included a model safety evaluation

(SE)and model no significant hazards consideration

(NSHC)determination. The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models for referencing in license amendment applications in the **Federal Register** on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022), which included the resolution of public comments on the model SE. The licensee has affirmed the applicability of the following NSHC determination in its application. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below. Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components

(SSCs)to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the control room envelope

(CRE)emergency ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No new or different accidents result from performing the new surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff 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. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 (IP2), Westchester County, New York *Date of amendment request:* December 13, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would add some Emergency Core Cooling System

(ECCS)valves and remove other ECCS valves from Surveillance Requirement

(SR)3.5.2.1. The purpose of the SR is to verify that ECCS valves whose single failure could cause loss of the ECCS function are in the required position with power removed so that the single failure could not occur. The valves being added are currently controlled administratively. The valves being removed have been evaluated to demonstrate that a single failure would not cause loss of the ECCS function. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Response: No. The proposed change adds three ECCS valves and removes four ECCS valves from IP2 SR 3.5.2.1. The purpose of the surveillance is to assure that the valves are in their required position with power removed so that misalignment or single failure cannot prevent completion of the ECCS function. The performance of the SR does not involve any actions related to the initiation of an accident and therefore the proposed changes cannot increase the probability of an accident. Misalignment or single failure of one of the three valves being added to TS could cause a loss of the ECCS function so the change will not increase the consequences of an accident but rather provide assurance that no such increase can occur. Removal of the four valves has been evaluated and the evaluation demonstrates that the misalignment or single failure of one of the valves will not affect the ECCS function and therefore will not increase the consequences of an accident. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change adds three ECCS valves and removes four ECCS valves from IP2 SR 3.5.2.1. The purpose of the surveillance is to assure that the valves are in their required position with power removed so that misalignment or single failure cannot prevent completion of the ECCS function. The removal of valves from the surveillance allows power to be maintained to the valves during normal operation but does not otherwise affect the function of the valves or the design and operation of plant systems. The addition of power does mean that the valves could fail open but this does not create the possibility of a new or different type of accident since such a failure mode is currently evaluated. The performance of the SR for added valves does not affect the function of the valves or the manner in which the valves or their systems are operated or any procedures used for valve or system operation. The change assures that the valves will be in their correct position and does not introduce any new failure modes or the possibility of a different accident. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change adds three ECCS valves and removes four ECCS valves from IP2 SR 3.5.2.1. The purpose of the surveillance is to assure that the valves are in their required position with power removed so that misalignment or single failure cannot prevent completion of the ECCS function. The addition of the three valves to the TS provides additional assurance that operation will be with power removed and the valves in the correct position. This increases safety margin. Removal of valves from the surveillance is based on analysis of the effects of misalignment or single failure on the ECCS function. Analysis demonstrates that the misalignment or single failure would not adversely affect the ECCS function and therefore there is no significant reduction in the margin of safety. The margin of safety remains adequate to assure the ECCS function is performed. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. *NRC Branch Chief:* Mark G. Kowal. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Westchester County, New York *Date of amendment request:* December 18, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification

(TS)requirements related to control room envelope habitability by adding a Control Room Envelope Habitability Program and then referencing this program in place of existing surveillances. It also standardizes terminology and modifies other TS related to the control room envelope. This change was proposed by the industry's Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF)and is designated TSTF-448, Revision 3. The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the **Federal Register** on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61075), on possible amendments concerning TSTF-448, including a model safety evaluation and model no significant hazards

(SSCs)to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No new or different accidents result from performing the new surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed this analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. *NRC Branch Chief:* Mark G. Kowal. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Westchester County, New York *Date of amendment request:* December 20, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specifications (TS), to replace the current limits on primary coolant gross specific activity with limits on primary coolant noble gas activity. The noble gas activity would be based on DOSE EQUIVALENT XE-133 and would take into account only the noble gas activity in the primary coolant. This change was proposed by the industry's Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF)and is designated TSTF-490. The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the **Federal Register** on November 20, 2006 (71 FR 67170), on possible amendments concerning TSTF-490, including a model safety evaluation and model no significant hazards

(NSHC)determination, using the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models for referencing in license amendment applications in the **Federal Register** on March 15, 2007 (72 FR 12217). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the following NSHC determination in its application dated December 20, 2007. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated Reactor coolant specific activity is not an initiator for any accident previously evaluated. The Completion Time when primary coolant gross activity is not within limit is not an initiator for any accident previously evaluated. The current variable limit on primary coolant iodine concentration is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the proposed change does not significantly increase the probability of an accident. The proposed change will limit primary coolant noble gases to concentrations consistent with the accident analyses. The proposed change to the Completion Time has no impact on the consequences of any design basis accident since the consequences of an accident during the extended Completion Time are the same as the consequences of an accident during the Completion Time. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased. 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 in specific activity limits does not alter any physical part of the plant nor does it affect any plant operating parameter. The change does not create the potential for a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety The proposed change revises the limits on noble gas radioactivity in the primary coolant. The proposed change is consistent with the assumptions in the safety analyses and will ensure the monitored values protect the initial assumptions in the safety analyses. The NRC staff has reviewed this analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. *NRC Branch Chief:* Mark G. Kowal. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan *Date of amendment request:* January 31, 2008. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications

(TS)to change the description of fuel assemblies specified in TS 4.2.1, and add the Framatome Advanced Nuclear Power, Inc.

(ANP)report, BAW-10240(P)-A, “Incorporation of M5 Properties in Framatome ANP Approved Methods,” to the analytical methods referenced in TS 5.6.5.b to permit the use of M5 alloy for fuel rod cladding and fuel assembly structural components in future operating cycles. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed license amendment adds a Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved analytical method, BAW-10240(P)-A, “Incorporation of M5 Properties in Framatome ANP Approved Methods,” used to determine the core operating limits, to Technical Specification

(TS)5.6.5.b and changes the description of fuel assemblies specified in TS 4.2.1 to allow use of the M5 alloy. The proposed amendment does not affect the acceptance criteria for any Final Safety Analysis Report

(FSAR)safety analysis analyzed accidents and anticipated operational occurrences. As such, the proposed amendment does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident. The proposed amendment does not involve operation of the required structures, systems or components

(SSCs)in a manner or configuration different from those previously recognized or evaluated. Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. Use of M5 clad fuel will not result in changes in the operation or configuration of the facility. Topical report BAW-10240(P)-A describes, by reference, that the material properties of the M5 alloy are similar or better than those of zircaloy-4. Therefore, M5 fuel rod cladding and fuel assembly structural components will perform similarly to those fabricated from zircaloy-4, thus precluding the possibility of the fuel becoming an accident initiator and causing a new or different type of accident. Since the material properties of M5 alloy are similar or better than those of zircaloy-4, there will be no significant changes in the types of any effluents that may be released off-site. There will not be a significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. The proposed amendment does not involve operation of any required SSCs in a manner or configuration different from those previously recognized or evaluated. No new failure mechanisms will be introduced by the changes being requested. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety because it has been demonstrated that the material properties of the M5 alloy are not significantly different from those of zircaloy-4. M5 alloy is expected to perform similarly or better than zircaloy-4 for all normal operating and accident scenarios, including both loss-of-coolant accident

(LOCA)and non-LOCA scenarios. The proposed changes do not affect the acceptance criteria for any FSAR safety analysis analyzed accidents or anticipated operational occurrences. All required safety limits would continue to be analyzed using methodologies approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Therefore, the proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mr. William Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White Plains, NY 10601. *NRC Acting Branch Chief:* Patrick D. Milano. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California *Date of amendment request:* February 1, 2008. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification

(TS)5.5.16.a, “Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,” to add an exception to Regulatory Guide 1.163 to allow the use of Standard ANSI/ANS 56.8-2002, and to revise TS 5.5.16.b to specify both a lower peak calculated containment internal pressure following a large-break loss-of-coolant accident

(LOCA)and containment design pressure. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change to TS 5.5.16.a adds an exception to Regulatory Guide 1.163 to specify use of Standard ANSI/ANS-56.8-2002, rather than ANSI/ANS-56.8-1994. The proposed change to TS 5.5.16.b specifies both the peak calculated containment internal pressure with margin following a large-break LOCA and the containment design pressure. These changes only affect the applicable version of the standard (2002 in place of 1994) and the test pressures for containment leak-rate tests, and do not involve the modification of any plant equipment or have any effect on plant operation. The changes are made based on the safety analysis and containment design, and do not have any adverse effect on accidents previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. [Do] the proposed change[s] create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration to the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The changes are made based on the safety analysis and containment design, and do not affect any previously evaluated accidents. Therefore, the proposed change[s] [do] not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by these changes, and the changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas G. Hiltz. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia *Date of amendment request:* February 29, 2008. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments would modify Technical Specification

(TS)requirements related to control room envelope

(CRE)habitability in accordance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved Revision 3 of Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF)Standard Technical Specifications

(STS)Change Traveler TSTF-448, “Control Room Habitability.” The NRC staff published a notice of opportunity for comment in the **Federal Register** on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61075), on possible license amendments adopting TSTF-448 using the NRC's consolidated line-item improvement process (CLIIP) for amending licensees' TSs, which included a model safety evaluation

(SE)and model no significant hazards consideration

(NSHC)determination. The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models for referencing in license amendment applications in the **Federal Register** on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022), which included the resolution of public comments on the model SE and model NSHC determination. The licensee affirmed the applicability of the following NSHC determination in its application dated February 29, 2008. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components

(SSCs)to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No new or different accidents result from performing the new surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant ( *i.e.* , no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation as determined. The proposed change does not affect safety analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mr. Arthur H. Domby, Troutman Sanders, NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2216. *NRC Branch Chief:* Melanie C. Wong. STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas *Date of amendment request:* January 28, 2008. *Description of amendment request:* The amendments would revise the Technical Specifications

(TS)to establish an Action in TS 3.3.1, “Reactor Trip Instrumentation,” for two inoperable channels of extended range neutron flux instrumentation. The licensee also proposes a minor correction to revise ACTION c of TS 3.4.1.4.2, “Reactor Coolant System, Cold Shutdown—Loops Not Filled,” to change the requirement for verification of boron concentration to verification of shutdown margin. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The extended range neutron flux monitoring instrumentation that is the subject of the proposed change performs a monitoring function and of itself has no potential as an accident initiator. The proposed requirement for the condition where both channels of the function are inoperable establishes actions that preserve the design basis where no actions previously existed. This is a more restrictive change and thus does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed change[s] to TS 3.4.1.4.2 ACTION c. clarification regarding the verification of shutdown margin [do] not result in any technical change in the way the TS ACTION is applied. Therefore this proposed change does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed change[s] [include] formatting changes that are administrative and consequently have no effect on accident analyses. Therefore, the proposed change[s] [do] not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. [Do] the proposed change[s] create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of plant equipment and [do] not change the method by which any safety related structure, system, or component performs its function or is tested. As such, no new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety analysis assumptions. The proposed change[s] [include] formatting changes that are administrative and consequently have no effect on accident analyses. Therefore, the proposed change[s] will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes do not negate any existing requirement, and d[o] not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analysis. The purpose of the proposed changes is to provide greater assurance that the design basis is maintained. There are no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change[s]. The proposed change[s] [include] formatting changes that are administrative and consequently have no effect on accident analyses. Therefore, the proposed change[s] [do] not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas G. Hiltz. STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas *Date of amendment request:* January 23, 2008. *Description of amendment request:* The amendments would revise the Technical Specification

(TS)3.6.1.3 Actions to

(1)allow entry and exit through the containment air lock doors, even if the applicable action requires the containment air lock door to be closed, and

(2)expand the current guidance provided to address inoperable air lock components. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed Technical Specification changes to revise the action requirements associated with the containment air lock will not cause an accident to occur and will not result in any change in the operation of the associated accident mitigation equipment. The containment air lock is not an accident initiator. The proposed changes will not revise the operability requirements (e.g., leakage limits) for the containment air lock. Proper operation of the containment air lock will still be verified. As a result, the design basis accidents will remain the same postulated events described in the South Texas Project Unit 1 and Unit 2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, and the consequences of the design basis accidents will remain the same. Therefore, the proposed changes will not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. [Do] the proposed change[s] create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications do not impact any system or component that could cause an accident. The proposed changes will not alter the plant configuration (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or require any unusual operator actions. The proposed changes will not alter the way any structure, system, or component functions, and will not significantly alter the manner in which the plant is operated. The response of the plant and the operators following an accident will not be different. In addition, the proposed changes do not introduce any new failure modes. Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed. 3. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed Technical Specification changes to revise the action requirements associated with the containment air lock will not cause an accident to occur and will not result in any change in the operation of the associated accident mitigation equipment. The operability requirements for the containment air lock have not been changed. The containment air lock will continue to function as assumed in the safety analysis. In addition, the proposed changes will not adversely affect equipment design or operation, and there are no changes being made to the Technical Specification required safety limits or safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety. Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in 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 standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas G. Hiltz Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County, Missouri *Date of amendment request:* December 28, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification Administrative Controls Section 5.5.8, “Inservice Testing Program,” to indicate that the Inservice Testing Program shall include testing frequencies applicable to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME)Code for Operation and Maintenance, and to indicate that there may be some non-standard frequencies specified as 2 years or less in the Inservice Testing Program to which the provisions of Surveillance Requirement 3.0.2 is applicable. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change revises TS 5.5.8, “Inservice Testing Program,” for consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) regarding the inservice testing of pumps and valves. The proposed change incorporates revisions to the ASME Code that result in a net improvement in the measures for testing pumps and valves. The proposed change does not impact any accident initiators or analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events, nor does it involve the addition or removal of any equipment, or any design changes to the facility. Therefore, the proposed change does not represent a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No The proposed change revises TS 5.5.8, “lnservice Testing Program,” for consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) regarding the inservice testing of pumps and valves. The proposed change incorporates revisions to the ASME Code that result in a net improvement in the measures for testing pumps and valves. The proposed change does not involve a modification to the physical configuration of the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change will not impose any new or different requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism. Additionally, there is no change in the types or increases in the amounts of any effluent that may be released off-site, and there is no increase in individual or cumulative occupational exposure. Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility of an accident of a different kind than previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No The proposed change revises TS 5.5.8, “Inservice Testing Program, ” for consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) regarding the inservice testing of pumps and valves. The proposed change incorporates revisions to the ASME Code that result in a net improvement in the measures for testing pumps and valves. The safety functions of the affected pumps and valves will be maintained. Therefore, this proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas G. Hiltz. Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County, Missouri *Date of amendment request:* December 28, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The amendment would revise Technical Specifications

(TS)3.7.2, to add the Main steam isolation valve

(MSIV)bypass valves to the scope of the TS. The proposed changes include a revision to the APPLICABILITY for the TS and a revision to footnote

(i)in Table 3.3.2-1 of TS 3.3.2, “ESFAS Instrumentation,” to make it consistent with the revised Applicability of LCO 3.7.2. The amendment would also add new TS 3.7.19, “Secondary System Isolation Valves (SSIVs),” to include Limiting Conditions for Operation and Surveillance Requirements for the secondary system isolation valves: Main steam low point drain isolation valves, steam generator chemical injection isolation valves, steam generator blowdown isolation valves, and steam generator sample line isolation valves. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change adds requirements to the TS to ensure that systems and components are maintained consistent with the safety analysis and licensing basis. Requirements are incorporated into the TS for secondary system isolation valves. These changes do not involve any design or physical changes to the facility, including the SSIVs themselves. The design and functional performance requirements, operational characteristics, and reliability of the SSIVs are unchanged. There is no impact on the design safety function of MSIVs, MFIVs, MFRVs or MFRVBVs [main steam isolation valves, main feedwater isolation valves, main feedwater regulating valves, main isolation feedwater regulating valve bypass valves] to close (either as an accident mitigator or as a potential transient initiator). Since no failure mode or initiating condition that could cause an accident (including any plant transient) evaluated per the FSAR [final safety analysis report]-described safety analyses is created or affected, the change cannot involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. With regard to the consequences of an accident and the equipment required for mitigation of the accident, the proposed changes involve no design or physical changes to components in the main steam supply system or feedwater system. There is no impact on the design safety function of MSIVs, MFIVs, MFRVs, or MFRVBVs or any other equipment required for accident mitigation. Adequate equipment availability would continue to be required by the TS. The consequences of applicable, analyzed accidents (such as a main steam line break of feedline break) are not impacted by the proposed changes. The change in APPLICABILITY for the MSIVs is consistent with the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specification 3.7.2. The change to footnote

(i)in TS Table 3.3.2-1 makes the provisions of that note for the affected instrumentation consistent with the revised APPLICABILITY of TS 3.7.2. These changes involve no physical changes to the facility and do not adversely affect the availability of the safety functions assumed for the MSIVs and SSIVs. Therefore, they do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Based on the above considerations, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes add requirements to the TS that support or ensure the availability of the safety functions assumed or required for the MSIVs and SSIVs. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or changes in controlling parameters. Additional requirements are being imposed, but they are consistent with the assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis. The addition of Conditions, Required Actions and Completion Times to TS for the SSIVs does not involve a change in the design, configuration, or operational characteristics of the plant. Further, the proposed changes do not involve any changes in plant procedures for ensuring that the plant is operated within analyzed limits. As such, no new failure modes or mechanisms that could cause a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated are introduced. Therefore, 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 amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed addition of Conditions, Required Actions and Completion Times for SSIVs, as well as the proposed change to the APPLICABILITY for the MSIV TS (and the corresponding change to the footnote for the ESFAS Instrumentation in TS 3.3.2) does not alter the manner in which safety limits or limiting safety system settings are determined. No changes to instrument/system actuation setpoints are involved. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not impacted and the proposed change will not permit plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The changes are consistent with the safety analysis and licensing basis for the facility. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas G. Hiltz. Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County, Missouri *Date of amendment request:* December 28, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The amendment would incorporate changes in the Technical Specifications (TS). Specifically, a footnote associated with Table 3.3.2-1 of Technical Specification 3.3.2, “Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,” would be revised to make the exception allowed by the footnote consistent with the scope and Applicability of TS 3.7.3, “Main Feedwater Isolation Valves (MFIVs) and Main Feedwater Regulating Valves (MFRVs) and Main Feedwater Regulating Valve Bypass Valves (MFRVBVs)” and a Note connected with each of two Surveillance Requirements (SRs), i.e., SR 3.7.2.1 and SR 3.7.2.2 under TS 3.7.2, “Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIVs),” would be deleted as it is no longer needed or appropriate for the affected SRs. *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 Overall protection system performance will remain within the bounds of the previously performed accident analyses since there are no design changes. All design, material, and construction standards that were applicable prior to this amendment request will be maintained. There will be no changes to any design or operating limits. The proposed changes will not change accident initiators or precursors assumed or postulated in the final safety analysis report (FSAR)-described accident analyses, nor will they alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes will not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components

(SSC)performs its specified safety function. The proposed changes will not affect the normal method of plant operation or change any operating parameters. No equipment performance requirements will be affected. The proposed changes will not alter any assumptions made in the safety analyses. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced as a result of this amendment. There will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result of this amendment. The proposed amendment will not alter the design or performance of the 7300 Process Protection System, Nuclear Instrumentation System, or Solid State Protection System used in the plant protection systems. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No There will be no effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. There will be no impact on the overpower limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio

(DNBR)limits, heat flux hot channel factor (FQ), nuclear enthalpy rise hot channel factor (FAH), loss of coolant accident peak cladding temperature (LOCA PCT), peak local power density, or any other margin of safety. The applicable radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria for design-basis transients and accidents will continue to be met. The proposed changes do not eliminate any surveillance or alter the frequency of surveillances required by the Technical Specifications. None of the acceptance criteria for any accident analysis will be changed. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas G. Hiltz. Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County, Missouri *Date of amendment request:* November 29, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification

(TS)3.4.10, “Pressurizer Safety Valves,” and TS 3.4.11, “Pressurizer Power Operated Relief Valves (PORVs),” to modify the completion times for default conditions in both TSs and to allow separate condition entry for PORV block valves in TS 3.4.11. The amendment request is adopting the following two Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved TS Task Force

(TSTF)travelers to the standard TSs: TSTF-247-A and TSTF-352-A. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. Overall protection system performance will remain within the bounds of the previously performed accident analyses since there are no design changes. All design, material, and construction standards that were applicable prior to this amendment request will be maintained. There will be no changes to the design and operating temperature and pressure limits placed on the reactor coolant system. The proposed changes will 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 will not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components

(SSCs)from performing their intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed changes do not physically alter safety-related systems nor affect the way in which safety-related systems perform their functions. All accident analysis acceptance criteria will continue to be met with the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes will not alter any assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological consequence evaluations in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report for the plant]. The applicable radiological dose acceptance criteria will continue to be met. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. [Do] the proposed change[s] create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. There are no proposed design changes nor are there any changes in the method by which any safety-related plant SSC performs its safety function. The proposed changes will not affect the normal method of plant operation or change any operating parameters. No equipment performance requirements will be affected. The proposed changes will not alter any assumptions made in the safety analyses. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced as a result of this amendment. There will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result of this amendment. The proposed amendment will not alter the design or performance of the 7300 Process Protection System, Nuclear Instrumentation System, or Solid State Protection System used in the plant protection systems. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. There will be no effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. There will be no impact on the overpower limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio

(DNBR)limits, heat flux hot channel factor (FQ), nuclear enthalpy rise hot channel factor (FΔH), loss of coolant accident peak cladding temperature (LOCA PCT), peak local power density, or any other margin of safety. The applicable radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria will continue to be met. The proposed changes do not eliminate any surveillances or alter the frequency of surveillances required by the Technical Specifications. None of the acceptance criteria for any accident analysis will be changed. The proposed changes will have no impact on the radiological consequences of a design basis accident. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas G. Hiltz. Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The following notices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration. For details, see the individual notice in the **Federal Register** on the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period of the original notice. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia *Date of amendment request:* February 13, 2008. *Brief description of amendment request:* The amendments 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. The 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. *Date of publication of individual notice in* Federal Register: February 26, 2008 (73 FR 10305). *Expiration date of individual notice:* April 28, 2008. 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.* Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana *Date of amendment request:* March 28, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated October 24, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised the required wattage specified in the River Bend Station, Unit 1, Technical Specification 5.5.7.e, Ventilation Filter Testing Program, for the Control Room Fresh Air System (CRFAS) heater for testing. The required wattage for testing the CRFAS heater was revised from 23 ± 2.3 kilowatt

(kW)to “≥=15 kW.” *Date of issuance:* February 28, 2008 *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 159 *Facility Operating License No. NPF-47:* The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : May 8, 2007 (72 FR 26175). The supplement dated October 24, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** on May 8, 2007 (72 FR 26175). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2008. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas *Date of application for amendment:* August 30, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated December 5, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised Technical Specification 3.1.3.4, “Reactivity Control Systems CEA [Control Element Assembly] Drop Time,” to change the individual rod drop time from the fully withdrawn position to 90 percent insertion from less than or equal to 3.5 seconds to less than or equal to 3.7 seconds. *Date of issuance:* March 5, 2008. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to startup following the spring 2008 refueling outage. *Amendment No.:* 275. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6:* The amendment revised the Technical Specifications and license. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57354). The supplemental letter dated December 5, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 5, 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:* March 15, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment changes Technical Specification

(TS)Section 1.4 and Section 5. Changes to TS 1.4 incorporate Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF)Standard Technical Specification Changes TSTF-284, “Add ‘Met vs. Perform' to Specification 1.4, Frequency,” Revision 3, TSTF-485-A, “Correction Example 1.4-1,” Revision 0, and make administrative changes. Changes to TS Section 5 incorporate NRC-approved TSTF-258, “Changes to Section 5.0, Administrative Controls,” Revision 4, NRC-approved TSTF-273, “[Safety Functions Determination Program] SFDP Clarifications,” Revision 2, as amended by Westinghouse Owners Group

(WOG)editorial change WOG-ED-23, and make administrative changes. *Date of issuance:* March 5, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 231 *Facility Operating License No. DPR-20:* Amendment revised the Technical Specifications and Renewed License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: June 19, 2007 (72 FR 33782). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 5, 2008. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois *Date of application for amendments:* June 18, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendment revised Technical Specification 3.7.5, “Control Room Area Ventilation Air Conditioning

(AC)System,” to add an Action Statement for two inoperable control room area ventilation AC subsystems. This operating license improvement was made available by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on March 26, 2007 (72 FR 14143) as part of the consolidated line item improvement process. *Date of issuance:* March 10, 2008 *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 188/175 *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: September 1, 2007 (72 FR 51860). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 10, 2008. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania *Date of amendment request:* November 17, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated September 21, 2007, December 21, 2007, February 1, 2008, and February 14, 2008. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 3.3.1.1.8 to increase the frequency interval between Local Power Range Monitor

(LPRM)calibrations from 1000 megawatt days per ton (MWD/T) average core exposure to 2000 MWD/T average core exposure. The LPRM system provides signals to associated nuclear instrumentation systems that serve to detect conditions in the core that have the potential to threaten the overall integrity of the fuel barrier. The LPRM system also incorporates features designed to diagnose and display various system trip and inoperative conditions. *Date of issuance:* February 29, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 266 and 270 *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56:* Amendment revised the License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49577). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 29, 2008. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. FPL Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin *Date of application for amendments:* October 12, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated December 12, and December 21, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revises Technical Specification 5.5.15 “Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,” for Units 1 and 2. The proposed change allows a one-time interval extension of no more than 5 years for the Type A, Integrated Leakage Rate Test. *Date of issuance:* February 26, 2008 *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 232, 237 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27: Amendments revised the Technical Specifications/License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: December 4, 2007 (72 FR 68217). The supplements contained clarifying information and did not change the 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 February 26, 2008. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (DCCNP-1 and DCCNP-2), Berrien County, Michigan *Date of application for amendments:* September 15, 2006 *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised Action Q of Technical Specifications Section 3.3.1, “Reactor Trip System

(RTS)Instrumentation,” to reflect deletion of the power range neutron flux high negative rate trip function previously approved by Amendment Nos. 293 (for Unit 1) and 275 (for Unit 2). *Date of issuance:* March 5, 2008 *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 30 days. *Amendment No.:* 302 (for DCCNP-1) and 285 (for DCCNP-2) *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74:* Amendments revised the Renewed Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : November 21, 2006 (71 FR 67396). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated March 5, 2008. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas *Date of amendment request:* May 22, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated December 5, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised the Technical Requirements Surveillance 13.3.33.2, Cycling Frequency for the Turbine Stop and Control Valves. The change will increase the valve cycle frequency interval from 12 to 26 weeks. *Date of issuance:* February 29, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 1-143; Unit 2-143 *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89:* The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45462). The supplement dated December 5, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** on August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45462). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 29, 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:* March 30, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated October 16, 2007, and November 2, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment changes the NMP2 Technical Specifications to reflect an expanded operating domain resulting from implementation of Average Power Range Monitor/Rod Block Monitor/Technical Specifications/Maximum Extended Load Line Analysis (ARTS/MELLLA). The Average Power Range Monitor

(APRM)flow-biased simulated thermal power allowable value

(AV)would be revised to permit operation in the MELLLA region. The current flow-biased Rod Block Monitor

(RBM)would be replaced by a power dependent RBM, which also would require new AVs. The flow-biased APRM simulated thermal power setdown requirement would be replaced by more direct power and flow dependent thermal limits administration. The Surveillance Requirement for the standby liquid control

(SLC)system would be revised to require each SLC pump to deliver required flow at a discharge pressure ≥1325 psig in lieu of ≥1320 psig; the SLC relief valve setpoint would be increased from 1394 psig to 1400 psig. Finally, the proposed amendment employs a new model for performing the anticipated transients without scram analysis for ARTS/MELLLA conditions. *Date of issuance:* February 27, 2008 *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 123 *Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69:* Amendment revises the License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: May 22, 2007 (72 FR 28721). The supplements dated October 16, 2007, and November 2, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 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:* January 30, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated December 28, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised Technical Specifications

(TSs)Surveillance Requirement

(SR)3.5.1.3.b to correctly state that the required pressure at which the Alternate Nitrogen System is determined to be operable should be greater than or equal to 410 psig, not the former stated pressure of greater than or equal to 220 psig. The safety-related Alternate Nitrogen System provides an alternate pressure source to equipment required during or following an accident. The licensee determined that the former acceptance value specified by SR 3.5.1.3.b (greater than or equal to 220 psig ) was non-conservative and needed to be corrected to the higher value. *Date of issuance:* February 21, 2008 *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 155 *Facility Operating License No. DPR-22:* Amendment revised the Technical Specifications and the Operating License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: March 27, 2007 (72 FR 14307). 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 February 21, 2008. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket No. 50-133, Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit 3, Humboldt County, California (TAC. No. J52690) *Date of application for amendment:* May 17, 2006, supplemented January 25, 2008. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment approves a proposed change to the Physical Security Plan related to security post manning requirements. *Date of issuance:* February 27, 2008 *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 42 *Facility Operating License No. DPR-7:* This amendment revises the License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: February 13, 2007 (72 FR 6788). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2008. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 2, Salem County, New Jersey *Date of application for amendment:* October 17, 2007, as supplemented on January 11, 2008. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment allows a one-time revision to the requirements for fuel decay time prior to commencing movement of irradiated fuel in the reactor. Specifically, the proposed amendment revises Technical Specification

(TS)3/4.9.3 to allow fuel movement to commence at 86 hours after the reactor is subcritical. The proposed change is only applicable to Salem Unit 2 refueling outage 2R16 which is scheduled to commence on March 11, 2008. *Date of issuance:* March 5, 2008 *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, to be implemented within 7 days. *Amendment No.:* 271 *Facility Operating License No. DPR-75:* The amendment revises the TSs and the license. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: December 4, 2007 (72 FR 68218). The letter dated January 11, 2008, provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination or expand the application beyond the scope of the original **Federal Register** notice. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 5, 2008. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia *Date of application for amendments:* August 28, 2007, as supplemented on October 9, 2007, December 21, 2007, January 18, 2008, and January 30, 2008. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised the “Maximum Power Level” in paragraph 2.C(1) of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Facility Operating Licenses NPF-68 and NPF-81 for Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively. In addition, the amendments revised the definition of “Rated Thermal Power (RTP)” in Technical Specification 1.1 for both units to reflect the change to the Maximum Power Level. The proposed change increased the RTP from 3565 MWt to 3625.6 MWt, resulting in an increase of 1.7% from the current reactor output. This increase in reactor core power level is referred to as a Measurement Uncertainty Recapture

(MUR)power uprate. *Date of issuance:* February 27, 2008 *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented at the completion of spring 2008 refueling outage for Unit 1 and fall 2008 refueling outage for Unit 2. *Amendment Nos.:* 149, 129 *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81:* Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: November 20, 2007 (72 FR 65372). The supplements dated October 9, 2007, December 21, 2007, January 18, 2008, and January 30, 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 February 27, 2008. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia *Date of application for amendments:* August 28, 2007, as supplemented on October 9, 2007, December 21, 2007, January 18, 2008, and January 30, 2008. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised the “Maximum Power Level” in paragraph 2.C(1) of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Facility Operating Licenses NPF-68 and NPF-81 for Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively. In addition, the amendments revised the definition of “Rated Thermal Power (RTP)” in Technical Specification 1.1 for both units to reflect the change to the Maximum Power Level. The proposed change increased the RTP from 3565 MWt to 3625.6 MWt, resulting in an increase of 1.7% from the current reactor output. This increase in reactor core power level is referred to as a Measurement Uncertainty Recapture

(MUR)power uprate. *Date of issuance:* February 27, 2008 *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented at the completion of spring 2008 refueling outage for Unit 1 and fall 2008 refueling outage for Unit 2. *Amendment Nos.:* 149, 129 *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81:* Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: November 20, 2007 (72 FR 65372). The supplements dated October 9, 2007, December 21, 2007, January 18, 2008, and January 30, 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 February 27, 2008. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas *Date of amendment request:* March 22, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated April 10, July 18, October 11, November 13, December 13, and December 18, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised the licensing basis, pursuant to Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations,* Section 50.67, “Accident Source Term,” and approved the methodology for evaluating radiological consequences of design-basis accidents as described in Regulatory Guide 1.183, “Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents

(DBAs)at Nuclear Power Reactors.” The amendments revised the Technical Specifications in support of the revisions to the licensing basis. *Date of issuance:* March 6, 2008 *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 1—182; Unit 2—169 *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80:* The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (72 FR 41788). The supplemental letters dated April 10, July 18, October 11, November 13, December 13, and December 18, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 6, 2008. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas *Date of amendment request:* March 14, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated December 18, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised TS Table 3.3.2-1, “Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation,” to separate the automatic actuation logic and actuation relays for steam line isolation (Function 4) and main feedwater isolation (Function 5) into the solid state protection system function and the main steam and feedwater isolation system. There are other proposed changes to the TSs and the plant in the application that are not being addressed in this amendment. The amendment to revise Surveillance Requirements 3.7.2.1 and 3.7.3.1 to replace the valve isolation times with the phrase “within limits” was issued August 28, 2007. The remaining TS and plant changes in the application will be addressed in future letters to the licensee. *Date of issuance:* March 3, 2008 *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to the startup from Refueling Outage 16, scheduled for the spring of 2008. *Amendment No.:* 175 *Facility Operating License No. NPF-42:* The amendment revised the Operating License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: The supplemental letter dated December 18, 2007, 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 published in the **Federal Register** on June 19, 2007 (72 FR 33785). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 3, 2008. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of March 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E8-5734 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of New Reactors; Interim Staff Guidance on the Use of the GALE86 Code for Calculation of Routine Radioactive Releases in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents to Support Design; Certification and Combined License Applications; Solicitation of Public Comment AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC is soliciting public comment on its Proposed Interim Staff Guidance COL/DC-ISG-005. This interim staff guidance supplements the guidance provided to the staff in Chapter 11, “Radioactive Waste Management,” of NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan

(SRP)for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants,” concerning the review of radioactive releases in gaseous and liquid effluents

(GALE)to support design certification and combined license applications. This guidance provides a clarification on the use of a newer version of the boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water reactors GALE codes that is not referenced in the current NRC guidance. Upon receiving public comments, the NRC staff will evaluate and disposition the comments, as appropriate. Once the NRC staff completes the COL/DC-ISG-005, it will be issued for NRC and industry use. The NRC staff will also incorporate the approved COL/DC-ISG-005 into the next revision of the SRP and related guidance documents. DATES: Comments must be filed no later than 30 days from the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555-0001. Comments should be delivered to: 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, Room T-6D59, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Persons may also provide comments via e-mail to Timothy Frye at *tjf@nrc.gov* . The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. These documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at *pdr@nrc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Timothy Frye, Chief, Health Physics Branch, Division of Construction, Inspection & Operational Programs, Office of the New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone 301-415-3900 or e-mail at *tjf@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agency posts its issued staff guidance in the agency external Web page ( *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/isg/* ). The NRC staff is issuing this notice to solicit public comments on the proposed COL/DC-ISG-005. After the NRC staff considers any public comments, it will make a determination regarding the proposed COL/DC-ISG-005. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of March 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. William D. Reckley, Branch Chief, Rulemaking, Guidance and Advanced Reactors Branch, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors. [FR Doc. E8-5962 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials; Meeting Notice The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials (ACNW&M) will hold its 188th meeting on April 8-10, 2008, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Tuesday, April 8, 2008, Room T-2B3 *8 a.m.-4:10 p.m.: Working Group on the Effects of Low Radiation Doses Science And Policy* (Open)—Purpose: The objectives of this Working Group Meeting are:

(1)To discuss the Linear Non-Threshold

(LNT)theory in light of current health physics, medical theory and cohort databases;

(2)to review uncertainties about the presence or absence of health effects at low doses;

(3)to examine the balance of science and policy in regulatory practice;

(4)to discuss possible alternative approaches to the LNT theory in regulatory practice; and

(5)to develop the information necessary to provide a letter report to the Commission. *8-8:05 a.m.: Greetings and Introductions* (Open)—Dr. Michael Ryan, the cognizant ACNW&M Member for this meeting topic, will provide an overview of the expected goals for the Working Group Meeting, the planned technical sessions, and introduce the invited speakers. *8:05-8:25 a.m.: Opening Remarks by NRC Commissioner Peter B. Lyons*

(Open)*8:25 a.m.-4:10 p.m.: Session I: The State of the Science* (Open)—This session will include six presentations. There will be a lunch break from 11:45 a.m.-1 p.m. *4:10-5 p.m.: Discussion of ACNW&M Letter Reports* (Open)—The Committee will discuss potential ACNW&M letter reports on matters considered during previous meetings:

(1)Managing Low-Activity Radioactive Waste;

(2)Use of Burnup Credit for Licensing Spent Fuel Transportation Casks. Wednesday, April 9, 2008, Room T-2B3 *8:30 a.m.-4:10 p.m.: Working Group on the Effects of Low Radiation Doses Science and Policy* —Continuation (Open)—Session II: Balancing Science and Policy in the Regulatory Area. There will be three presentations and a panel discussion. A lunch break will be held from 11:15 a.m.-1 p.m. *4:10-5 p.m.: Discussion of ACNW&M Letter Reports* (Open)—Continued discussion of proposed and potential ACNW&M letter reports mentioned previously, as well as

(3)Effects of Low Radiation Doses. Thursday, April 10, 2008, Room T-2B1 *8:30-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACNW&M Chairman*

(Open)The Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions. *8:35 a.m.-12 p.m.: Discussion of ACNW&M Letter Reports*

(All)Continued discussion of proposed and potential ACNW&M letter reports previously listed. *4:10-5 p.m.: Miscellaneous* (Open)—The Committee will discuss matters related to the conduct of ACNW&M activities and specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings. Discussions may include content of future letters and scope of future Committee Meetings. Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW&M meetings were published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54693). In accordance with those procedures, oral or written views may be presented by members of the public. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify Dr. Antonio F. Dias (Telephone 301-415-6805), between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. (ET), as far in advance as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made to schedule the necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the ACNW&M Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside for taking pictures may be obtained by contacting the ACNW&M office prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for ACNW&M meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should notify Dr. Dias as to their particular needs. Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, as well as the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefore can be obtained by contacting Dr. Dias. Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACNW&M meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACNW&M meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS/ACNW&M Audio Visual Assistant (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m., (ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed. During the days of the meeting, phone number 301-415-7360 should be used in order to access anyone in the ACNW&M Office. ACNW&M meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at *pdr@nrc.gov* , or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly Available Records System

(PARS)component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acnw* (ACNW&M schedules and agendas). Dated: March 19, 2008. Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Office. [FR Doc. E8-5979 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Sunshine Federal Register Notice. AGENCY: Agency Holding the Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. DATES: Weeks of March 24, 31, April 7, 14, 21, 28, 2008. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and Closed. Matters to be Considered: Week of March 24, 2008 Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:25 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative). a. Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC (Materials License Application) Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Decision on Environmental Contentions (Dec. 21, 2007) (Tentative). b. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon ISFSI), Docket No. 72-26-ISFSI, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's Response to NRC Staff's Vaughn Index, Request for Leave to Conduct Discovery Against the NRC Staff, Request for Access to Unredacted Reference Documents, and Request for Procedures to Protect Submission of Sensitive Information (Tentative). 9:30 a.m. Discussion of Management Issues (Closed—Ex. 2) Week of March 31, 2008—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of March 31, 2008. Week of April 7, 2008—Tentative Monday, April 7, 2008 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Digital Instrumentation and Control (Public Meeting) (Contact: Steven Arndt, 301 415-6502). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* Tuesday, April 8, 2008 10 a.m. Joint Meeting of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC)and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)(Public Meeting). To be Held at FERC Headquarters, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC. (Contact: Michelle Schroll, 301 415-1662). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.ferc.gov.* Wednesday, April 9, 2008 1 p.m. Discussion of Management Issues (Closed—Ex. 2). Week of April 14, 2008—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 14, 2008. Week of April 21, 2008—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 21, 2008. Week of April 28, 2008—Tentative Monday, April 28, 2008 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Reactor Materials Issues (Public Meeting) (Contact: Ted Sullivan, 301 415-2796). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:30 p.m. Meeting with Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (Public Meeting) (Contact: Ashley Tull, 918-488-0552). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* Wednesday, April 30, 2008 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Materials Licensing and Security (Public Meeting). (Contact: Doug Broaddus, 301 415-8124). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* 1:30 p.m. Briefing on NRC Combined Infrastructure (Public Meeting). (Contact: Peter Rabideau, 301 415-7323). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* * The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll,

(301)415-1662. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: *http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policy-making/schedule.html.* Additional Information Affirmation of “Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC (Materials License Application) Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Decision on Environmental Contentions (Dec. 21, 2007) (Tentative)”; and “Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon ISFSI), Docket No. 72-26-ISFSI, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's Response to NRC Staff's Vaughn Index, Request for Leave to Conduct Discovery Against the NRC Staff, Request for Access to Unredacted Reference Documents, and Request for Procedures To Protect Submission of Sensitive Information (Tentative)” previously scheduled on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. has been rescheduled on Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, Rohn Brown, at 301-492-2279, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at *REB3@nrc.gov.* Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to: *dkw@nrc.gov.* Dated: March 20, 2008. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 08-1071 Filed 3-21-08; 11:21 am]

Connectionstraces to 26

Traces to 26 documents

U.S. Code