69136 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Notices 

policy and methodological documents 

and original data collection through 

one-on-one interviews with key 

stakeholders conducted during site 

visits. For the MSP Management 

Information System, the contract team 

will analyze these data using 

quantitative statistical models. A second 

data source consists of annual project 

reports and other reports submitted by 

the MSP grantees to the NSF in 

accordance with Federal research 

project reporting requirements 

established at NSF under OMB 3145– 

0058. A third source is U.S. Department 

of Education’s public use files on 

student achievement and school 

systems’ demographic characteristics. 

The fourth source for data is the 

proposed evaluation’s original data 

collection activities. In particular and 

principally a series of site visits will be 

conducted during 2006–2011. 

The evaluation’s overall framework 

consists of several substudies each 

focusing on a different, but essential 

part of the MSP grantees’ work (e.g., 

partnerships, the role of disciplinary 

faculty, student achievement). The 

relevant evaluation design under these 

conditions might be considered a metaanalytic rather than singular design— 

e.g., providing a rationale for the 

selection of substudies as well as some 

guidance for conducting the substudies. 

Consultations have occurred with a 

team of external experts on the research 

design during the evaluation’s design 

phase and will continue to take place 

throughout the evaluation. The team of 

external experts represents the nation’s 

leading researchers and scholars on 

methodology and content in the field of 

evaluation and representatives are from 

top-tier university schools of education 

and departments of mathematics or 

science; an education advocacy group; 

and an education research council. 

The data collection instruments 

include face-to-face interviews, such as 

focus groups, and telephone or 

electronic surveys. An interview 

protocol based on the evaluation 

framework will be administered during 

the site visits. Expected respondents at 

site visits are Principal Investigators, coPrincipal Investigators, administrators, 

teams of external experts, and other 

stakeholders who participated in MSP. 

There are no costs to respondents other 

than the time involved in the interview 

or survey process. 

Information from the evaluation’s data 

collections and analysis will be used to 

improve the NSF’s program processes 

and outcomes. It will enable NSF to 

prepare and publish reports, and to 

respond to requests from Committees of 

Visitors, Congress, and the Office of 

Management and Budget, particularly as 

related to the Government Performance 

and Results Act (GPRA) and the 

Program Effectiveness Rating Tool 

(PART). 

The primary evaluation questions 

include but are not limited to: 

(1) How has the MSP Program effected 

or influenced the expertise, numbers, 

and diversity of the mathematics and 

science teaching force, K–12 student 

achievement in mathematics and 

science, and other presumed program 

outcomes? 

(2) What factors or attributes have 

accelerated or constrained progress in 

the MSP Program’s achievements? and 

(3) How have institutions of higher 

education (IHEs) disciplinary faculty 

(mathematics, science, and engineering) 

participated in the MSP Program, and 

what has been their role in the 

Program’s achievements? 

Respondents: Individuals and not-forprofit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Total 

Respondents: 352. 

Total Burden on the Public: 960 

hours. 

Dated: November 4, 2010. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28308 Filed 11–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362; NRC– 

2010–0101] 

Southern California Edison Company, 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating 

Station, Units 2 and 3; Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of an exemption, pursuant to 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Section 73.5, 

‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ from the 

implementation date for certain new 

requirements of 10 CFR part 73, 

‘‘Physical protection of plants and 

materials,’’ for Facility Operating 

License Nos. NPF–10, and NPF–15, 

issued to Southern California Edison 

Company (SCE, the licensee), for 

operation of the San Onofre Nuclear 

Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 

(SONGS 2 and 3), located in San Diego 

County, California. In accordance with 

10 CFR 51.21, the NRC prepared an 

environmental assessment documenting 

its finding. The NRC concluded that the 

proposed actions will have no 

significant environmental impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would exempt 

SCE from the required implementation 

date of March 31, 2010, for one new 

requirement of 10 CFR part 73. 

Specifically, SCE would be granted a 

second exemption, further extending the 

date for full compliance with one new 

requirement contained in 10 CFR 73.55, 

from October 31, 2010 (the date 

specified in a prior exemption granted 

by NRC on March 16, 2010), until 

February 28, 2011. SCE has proposed an 

alternate full compliance 

implementation date of February 28, 

2011, which is approximately 11 

months beyond the compliance date 

required by 10 CFR Part 73. The 

proposed action, an extension of the 

schedule for completion of certain 

actions required by the revised 10 CFR 

part 73, does not involve any physical 

changes to the reactors, fuel, plant 

structures, support structures, water, or 

land at the SONGS 2 and 3 site. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

August 24, 2010, as supplemented by 

letter dated October 17, 2010. The NRC 

staff’s safety evaluation will be provided 

in the exemption that will be issued as 

part of the letter to the licensee 

approving the exemption from the 

regulation, if granted. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action, a second 

scheduler exemption, is needed to 

provide the licensee with additional 

time to implement one specific element 

of the new requirements in 10 CFR part 

73, which involves significant physical 

modifications to the SONGS 2 and 3 

security systems. While the licensee 

completed much of the work required 

by the 10 CFR Part 73 rule change at 

SONGS 2 and 3 by the March 31, 2010, 

implementation date, and has made 

substantial progress on completing the 

remaining item for which the previous 

scheduler exemption was granted, SCE 

requires additional time to complete all 

modifications associated with the single 

remaining item to achieve full 

compliance with 10 CFR part 73. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its 

environmental assessment of the 

proposed action. The staff has 

concluded that the proposed action to 

further extend the implementation 

deadline for one item would not 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Notices 69137 

significantly affect plant safety and 

would not significantly affect the 

probability of an accident. 

The proposed action would not result 

in an increased radiological hazard 

beyond those hazards previously 

analyzed in the environmental 

assessment and finding of no significant 

impact made by the Commission in 

promulgating its revisions to 10 CFR 

part 73 as discussed in a Federal 

Register notice dated March 27, 2009; 

74 FR 13926. There will be no change 

to radioactive effluents or emissions that 

affect radiation exposures to plant 

workers and members of the public. 

Therefore, no radiological impacts are 

expected as a result of the proposed 

exemption. 

The proposed action is an extension 

of the compliance deadline and will not 

result in any additional construction or 

major renovation of any buildings or 

structures, nor any ground disturbing 

activities, beyond the security 

improvements previously planned to 

achieve compliance with the new rule. 

No changes in the size of the workforce, 

or in traffic to or around SONGS 2 and 

3, are expected as a result of an 

extension of the compliance deadline. 

Providing the licensee with additional 

time to comply with the revised 

requirements of 10 CFR 73.55 would not 

alter land use, air quality, and water use 

(quality and quantity) conditions or 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permits at SONGS 2 

and 3. Aquatic and terrestrial habitat in 

the vicinity of the plant; threatened, 

endangered, and protected species 

under the Endangered Species Act; and 

essential fish habitat covered by the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act would not be 

affected. In addition, historic and 

cultural resources, socioeconomic 

conditions, and minority- and lowincome populations in the vicinity of 

SONGS 2 and 3 would also not be 

affected by this action. Therefore, no 

changes to or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are 

expected as a result of the proposed 

exemption. 

As previously noted, in promulgating 

its amendments to 10 CFR part 73, the 

Commission prepared an environmental 

assessment of the rule change and 

published a finding of no significant 

impact (10 CFR parts 50, 52, 72, and 73, 

Power Reactor Security Requirements, 

March 27, 2009; 74 FR 13926). Thus, 

through the proposed action, the 

Commission would be granting 

additional time for the licensee to 

comply with regulatory requirements for 

which the Commission has already 

found no significant impact. 

For the foregoing reasons, the NRC 

concludes that there would be no 

significant radiological or nonradiological environmental impacts 

associated with the extension of the 

implementation date for one element of 

the new requirements of 10 CFR 73.55 

for SONGS 2 and 3. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the NRC staff considered denial 

of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the 

exemption request would result in no 

change in current environmental 

impacts. Denial of the exemption 

request would result in the licensee 

being in non-compliance with 10 CFR 

73.55(a)(1) and thus, subject to NRC 

enforcement action. The end result, 

however, would still be ultimate 

licensee compliance with the 

requirements of 10 CFR 73.55, but with 

the added expense to both the NRC and 

the licensee of any enforcement actions. 

The NRC concludes that the 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

exemption and the ‘‘no action’’ 

alternative are similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The proposed action does not involve 

the use of any different resources than 

those previously considered in the Final 

Environmental Statement for SONGS 

Units 2 and 3, dated May 12, 1981. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on October 22, 2010, the NRC staff 

consulted with the California State 

official, Mr. Stephen Hsu of the 

California Department of Public Health, 

regarding the environmental impact of 

the proposed action. The State official 

had no comments. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the above 

environmental assessment, which in 

accordance with 10 CFR 51.32(a)(4), is 

incorporated into this finding of no 

significant impact by reference, the NRC 

concludes that the proposed action 

constitutes an administrative change 

(timing) that would not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC has determined not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed action. 

For further details with respect to the 

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter 

dated August 24, 2010, as supplemented 

by letter dated October 17, 2010. 

Portions of the August 24 and October 

17, 2010, submittals contain safeguards 

and security-related information and, 

accordingly, redacted versions of those 

letters are available for public review in 

the Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS), at 

Accession Nos. ML102380401 and 

ML102920691, respectively. These 

documents may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR), located at One 

White Flint North, Public File Area O– 

1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly 

available records will be accessible 

electronically from the ADAMS Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 

at the NRC Web site: http:// 

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

Persons who do not have access to 

ADAMS or who encounter problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR 

Reference staff by telephone at 1–800– 

397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or send an 

e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, November 3, 

2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

James R. Hall, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing 

Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28395 Filed 11–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–366; NRC–2010–0345] 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company 

Inc. Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 

No. 2 Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering the 

issuance of an exemption from Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations, (10 

CFR), Section 50.46, ‘‘Acceptance 

criteria for emergency core cooling 

systems for light-water nuclear power 

reactors,’’ and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 

K, ‘‘ECCS Evaluation Models,’’ for the 

Renewed Facility Operating License No. 

NPF–5, issued to Southern Nuclear 

Company (SNC, the licensee), for 

operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear 

Plant (HNP), Unit 2, located in Appling 

County, Georgia. In accordance with the 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 51, the 

NRC has prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) in support of this 

exemption. Based on the EA, the NRC 

has concluded that a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) is 

appropriate. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES