64792 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Notices 

attend MACOSH at the times and places 

listed above. The full meeting on 

December 8 and 9 will include 

presentations and discussions of 

OSHA’s standard and guidance 

activities, maritime enforcement, 

alliances and partnerships, outreach 

activities, and MACOSH work group 

reports. Specific topics will include 

OSHA’s proposed standard for 

Chromium VI, a NIOSH maritime noise 

study, automatic external defibrillators 

(AED), and an update on development 

of the construction crane standard. 

MACOSH has several active work 

groups. The container safety, 

longshoring, and shipyard work groups 

will meet on the morning of December 

7. The work groups dealing with health 

issues, traffic safety, and safety culture 

will meet on the afternoon of December 

7. The work groups will report to the 

full committee on December 8 and 9. 

Public Participation: Written data, 

views or comments for consideration by 

MACOSH on the various agenda items 

listed above may be submitted to 

Vanessa L. Welch at the address listed 

above. Submissions received by 

November 17, 2004, will be provided to 

committee members and will be 

included in the record of the meeting. 

Requests to make oral presentations to 

the Committee may be granted as time 

permits. Anyone wishing to make an 

oral presentation to the Committee on 

any of the agenda items listed above 

should notify Vanessa L. Welch by 

November 17, 2004. The request should 

state the amount of time desired, the 

capacity in which the person will 

appear, and a brief outline of the 

content of the presentation.

Authority: John L. Henshaw, Assistant 

Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety 

and Health, directed the preparation of this 

notice under the authority granted by 6(b)(1) 

and 7(b) of the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655, 656, the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 

App. 2), and 29 CFR part 1912.

Signed at Washington, DC., this 2nd day of 

November, 2004. 

John L. Henshaw, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 04–24838 Filed 11–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–286] 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission) is 

considering issuance of an amendment 

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

64 issued to Entergy Nuclear 

Operations, Inc., (the licensee) for 

operation of the Indian Point Nuclear 

Generating Unit No. 3, located in 

Westchester County, New York. 

The proposed amendment would 

revise Technical Specification (TS) 

3.7.11, ‘‘Control Room Ventilation 

System (CRVS),’’ to add a note in 

limiting condition for operation (LCO) 

3.7.11 and surveillance requirement 

(SR) 3.7.11.4 to allow, on a one-time 

basis, the placement of the CRVS in an 

alternate configuration to support tracer 

gas testing. The one-time allowance was 

proposed for the remaining period of the 

current operating cycle 13. The 

proposed amendment would also allow 

self-contained breathing apparatus and 

potassium iodide pill to be used as 

compensatory measures for the control 

room operators in the event that the 

tracer gas test results are not bounded 

by the dose consequence evaluations for 

the test. 

Before issuance of the proposed 

license amendment, the Commission 

will have made findings required by the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), and the Commission’s 

regulations. 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. Under 

the Commission’s regulations in Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR), section 50.92, this means that 

operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would 

not (1) involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated; or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its 

analysis of the issue of no significant 

hazards consideration, which is 

presented below:

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change involves a 

modification to the design and operation of 

the control room ventilation system (CRVS). 

The primary effect of the proposed 

modification is an increase in the flow rate 

of filtered outside air into the control room. 

Industry experience and analyses indicate 

that this change will tend to reduce the 

amount of unfiltered outside air migrating 

through the control room envelope. The 

proposed change also establishes 

compensatory measures that could be 

invoked in the event that a measurement of 

unfiltered inleakage indicates the dose 

analysis assumptions are not bounding. 

Neither of these proposed changes is related 

to accident initiators so that the probability 

of a previously evaluated accident is not 

affected. The scope of previously evaluated 

accidents includes the dose consequences to 

control room operators. Dose consequence 

analyses have been updated, using existing 

dose acceptance criteria based on 10 CFR 

[Part] 50, Appendix A, GDC [General Design 

Criterion]—19, to reflect the proposed 

modification of the CRVS. In addition, 

establishing compensatory measures 

available to control room operators, provides 

further [assurance] that the dose 

consequences of previously evaluated 

accidents meet existing limits. 

Therefore the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

There are no new accident precursors 

being created by the proposed modification 

of the CRVS or by establishing compensatory 

measures that could be used if unfiltered 

inleakage through the control room envelope 

is higher than assumed in dose consequence 

analyses. The CRVS will continue to function 

as required to provide protection to the 

control room operators and the availability of 

compensatory measures provides further 

assurance that dose limits will be met. 

Therefore, the proposed changes described 

in this license amendment request will not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The existing dose limits established in 10 

CFR [Part] 50, Appendix A, GDC 19 for 

control room operators are being maintained. 

Dose consequence analyses have been 

prepared that account for the proposed new 

configuration of the CRVS and a limit for 

unfiltered inleakage has been established as 

an acceptance criterion for the performance 

of tracer gas testing. In the event that tracer 

gas test results conclude that additional 

measures are needed for the control room 

envelope, compensatory measures are 

available to provide further assurance that 

dose limits will be met.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Notices 64793

Therefore, the proposed changes described 

in this license amendment request will 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. 

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, Rules and 

Directives Branch, Division of 

Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and should cite the publication 

date and page number of this Federal 

Register notice. Written comments may 

also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two 

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 

a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 

Documents may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room, located at One White 

Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 

11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland. 

The filing of requests for hearing and 

petitions for leave to intervene is 

discussed below. 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, the licensee 

may file a request for a hearing with 

respect to issuance of the amendment to 

the subject facility operating license and 

any person whose interest may be 

affected by this proceeding and who 

wishes to participate as a party in the 

proceeding must file a written request 

for a hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene. 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 persons 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/.(Note:

Public access to ADAMS has been 

temporarily suspended so that security 

reviews of publicly available documents 

may be performed and potentially 

sensitive information removed. Please 

check the NRC Web site for updates on 

the resumption of ADAMS access.) If a 

request for a hearing or petition for 

leave to intervene is filed by the above 

date, the Commission or a presiding 

officer designated by the Commission or 

by the Chief Administrative Judge of the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel, will rule on the request and/or 

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestors/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also identify the specific 

contentions which the petitioner/

requestor seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the petitioner/requestor shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner/requestor must 

also provide references to those specific 

sources and documents of which the 

petitioner is aware and on which the 

petitioner intends to rely to establish 

those facts or expert opinion. The 

petition must include sufficient 

information to show that a genuine 

dispute exists with the applicant on a 

material issue of law or fact. 

Contentions shall be limited to matters 

within the scope of the amendment 

under consideration. The contention 

must be one which, if proven, would 

entitle the petitioner to relief. A 

petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy 

these requirements with respect to at 

least one contention will not be 

permitted to participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. 

If a hearing is requested, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to decide 

when the hearing is held. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration, the Commission may 

issue the amendment and make it 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 

held would take place after issuance of 

the amendment. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves a significant hazards 

consideration, any hearing held would 

take place before the issuance of any 

amendment. 

Nontimely requests and/or petitions 

and contentions will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the 

Commission or the presiding officer of 

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

that the petition, request and/or the 

contentions should be granted based on 

a balancing of the factors specified in 10 

CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)–(viii). 

A request for a hearing or a petition 

for leave to intervene must be filed by:

64794 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Notices 

(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; (2) courier, express 

mail, and expedited delivery services: 

Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, 

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, 

Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail 

addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

hearingdocket@nrc.gov; or (4) facsimile 

transmission addressed to the Office of 

the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC, 

Attention: Rulemakings and 

Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101, 

verification number is (301) 415–1966. 

A copy of the request for hearing and 

petition for leave to intervene should 

also be sent to the Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and it is requested that copies be 

transmitted either by means of facsimile 

transmission to 301–415–3725 or by email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy 

of the request for hearing and petition 

for leave to intervene should also be 

sent to Mr. John Fulton, Assistant 

General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear 

Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, 

White Plains, NY 10601, attorney for the 

licensee. 

For further details with respect to this 

action, see the application for 

amendment dated October 26, 2004, 

which is available for public inspection 

at the Commission’s PDR, located at 

One White Flint North, File Public Area 

O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 

available records will be accessible from 

the Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System’s (ADAMS) Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 

at the NRC Web site, http://

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 

Persons who do not have access to 

ADAMS or who encounter problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR 

Reference staff by telephone at 1–800–

397–4209, (301) 415–4737, or by e-mail 

to pdr@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day 

of November 2004.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Patrick D. Milano, 

Senior Project Manager, Section I, Project 

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project 

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 04–24807 Filed 11–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Meeting Postponement: USEC 

American Centrifuge Plant

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Meeting postponement.

SUMMARY: The NRC is postponing the 

public scoping meeting for the proposed 

USEC Inc. American Centrifuge Plant 

that was to be held on November 15, 

2004. The original meeting 

announcement appeared in the Federal 

Register on October 15, 2004 (69 FR 

61268). 

On October 25, 2004, the NRC 

initiated an additional security review, 

by agency experts, of publicly available 

documents to ensure that potentially 

sensitive information is removed from 

the agency Web site. During this review, 

ADAMS, the NRC’s on-line document 

library, will be temporarily unavailable 

to the public. This meeting 

postponement is appropriate to allow 

members of the public adequate access 

to USEC Inc.’s license application and 

environmental report before the scoping 

meeting. After the documents related to 

this application are made publically 

available the NRC will announce a new 

meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general or technical information 

associated with the license review of the 

USEC Inc., application, please contact 

Yawar Faraz at (301) 415–8113. For 

general information on the NRC NEPA 

process, or the environmental review 

process related to the USEC Inc. 

application, please contact Matthew 

Blevins at (301) 415–7684.

Signed in Rockville, MD, this 2nd day of 

November, 2004.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

B. Jennifer Davis, 

Chief, Environmental and Low-Level Waste 

Section, Division of Waste Management and 

Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 04–24805 Filed 11–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

Submission of Information Collection 

for OMB Review; Comment Request; 

Survey of Frozen Defined Benefit 

Pension Plans

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of request for OMB 

approval. 

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation (‘‘PBGC’’) is requesting that 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) approve a new collection of 

information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. The purpose of the 

information collection, which will be 

conducted via a mail survey, is to help 

the PBGC assess the extent to which the 

plans it insures have been frozen, the 

intentions of the plans’ sponsors 

regarding those frozen plans, and the 

extent to which plan sponsors are 

considering freezing plans that are not 

frozen. This notice informs the public of 

the PBGC’s request and solicits public 

comment on the collection of 

information.

DATES: Comments should be submitted 

by December 8, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

mailed to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs of the Office of 

Management and Budget, Attention: 

Desk Officer for Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation, Washington, DC 

20503. 

Copies of the request (including the 

collection of information) may be 

obtained by writing to the PBGC’s 

Communications and Public Affairs 

Department, suite 240, 1200 K Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026, or 

by visiting that office or calling 202–

326–4040 during normal business 

hours. (TTY and TDD users may call the 

Federal relay service toll-free at 1–800–

877–8339 and ask to be connected to 

202–326–4040.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James L. Beller, Attorney, Office of the 

General Counsel, PBGC, 1200 K Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026; 202–

326–4024. (TTY and TDD users may call 

the Federal relay service toll-free at 1–

800–877–8339 and ask to be connected 

to 202–326–4024.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PBGC 

is requesting that OMB approve a mail 

survey designed to gather information 

about frozen defined benefit plans. 

Findings about these plans’

characteristics, sponsor rationales for 

freezing these plans, sponsor intentions 

to either terminate or unfreeze these 

plans, and sponsor intentions to freeze 

plans that are not frozen will allow the 

PBGC to better forecast future trends in 

the plans it insures. In addition, the 

Government Accountability Office has 

recommended that the PBGC ‘‘conduct 

a pilot study to identify frozen [defined 

benefit] plans it insures and assess the 

usefulness of information on the 

characteristics and consequences of 

plan freezes.’’ This collection of 

information would address that 

recommendation.