Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 18 / Thursday, January 29, 2009 / Notices 5191 

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–1904 Filed 1–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–277 and 50–278; NRC– 

2009–0033] 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; 

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 

Unit Nos. 2 and 3; Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of an exemption from Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G, 

‘‘Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown 

Capability,’’ for the use of operator 

manual actions in lieu of the 

requirements specified in Section III.G.2 

as requested by Exelon Generation 

Company, LLC, (the licensee, in 

addition to PSEG Nuclear, LLC) for 

operation of Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3 

located in York and Lancaster Counties, 

Pennsylvania. Therefore, as required by 

10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this 

environmental assessment and finding 

of no significant impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would grant an 

exemption to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 

R, Section III.G.2 for 25 operator manual 

actions contained in the licensee’s Fire 

Protection Program (FPP). The licensee’s 

FPP requires that the identified operator 

manual actions be performed outside of 

the control room to achieve shutdown 

following fires in certain fire areas. The 

licensee states that each of the manual 

actions were subjected to a manual 

action feasibility review for PBAPS that 

determined that the manual actions are 

feasible and can be readily performed. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

October 5, 2007, as supplemented on 

May 1 and December 11, 2008 

(Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession Numbers ML072820129, 

ML081220873 and ML083470170, 

respectively). 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed exemption from 10 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix R, was submitted in 

response to the need for an exemption 

as identified by NRC Regulatory 

Information Summary (RIS) 2006–10, 

‘‘Regulatory Expectations with 

Appendix R Paragraph III.G.2 Operator 

Manual Actions.’’ The RIS noted that 

NRC inspections identified that some 

licensees had relied upon operator 

manual actions, instead of the options 

specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 

R, Section III.G.2, as a permanent 

solution to resolve issues related to 

Thermo-Lag 330–1 fire barriers. The 

licensee indicates that the operator 

manual actions, referenced in the 

October 5, 2007, application, were 

previously included in correspondence 

with the NRC and found acceptable in 

a fire protection-related Safety 

Evaluation (1993 SE) dated September 

16, 1993 (ADAMS Accession Number 

ML081690220). However, RIS 2006–10 

identifies that an exemption under 10 

CFR Part 50.12 is necessary for use of 

the manual actions in lieu of the 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix R, Section III.G.2, even if the 

NRC previously issued a safety 

evaluation found the manual actions 

acceptable. The proposed exemption 

provides the formal vehicle for NRC 

approval for the use of the specified 

operator manual actions instead of the 

options specified in 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix R, Section III.G.2. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its safety 

evaluation of the proposed action and 

concludes that the exemption will not 

present an undue risk to the public 

health and safety. The details of 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 to the 

regulation. 

In the 1993 SE, the NRC staff 

evaluated the operator manual actions 

presented in the proposed exemption, 

and found that they maintained a safe 

shutdown capability that satisfies the 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix R, Section III.G. In addition, 

the licensee supplemented the October 

5, 2007, request for exemption with 

additional information in a letter dated 

December 11, 2008, to confirm that the 

operator manual actions addressed in 

the 1993 SE are feasible and that the 

safety basis for these actions remains 

valid. Therefore, the proposed action 

will not significantly increase the 

probability or consequences of 

accidents. No changes are being made in 

the types of effluents that may be 

released offsite. There is no significant 

increase in the amount of any effluent 

released offsite. There is no significant 

increase in occupational or public 

radiation exposure. Therefore, there are 

no significant radiological 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. The NRC staff, 

thus, concludes that granting the 

proposed exemption would result in no 

significant radiological environmental 

impact. 

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 

action does not have a potential to affect 

any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no 

other environmental impact. Therefore, 

there are no significant non-radiological 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that 

there are no significant environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 

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 

application would result in no change 

in current environmental impacts. The 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and the alternative action are 

similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The action does not involve the use of 

any different resources than those 

previously considered in the Final 

Environmental Statement for PBAPS 

Units 1, 2, and 3, dated April 1973, and 

for PBAPS Units 2 and 3, ‘‘Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,’’ 

(NUREG–1437, Supplement 10), dated 

January 2003. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on August 8, 2008, the NRC staff 

consulted with the Pennsylvania State 

official, Dennis Dyckman of the 

Pennsylvania State Department of 

Environmental Protection, regarding the 

environmental impact of the proposed 

action. The State official had no 

comments. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the environmental 

assessment, the NRC concludes that the 

proposed action will not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC has determined not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed action. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
5192 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 18 / Thursday, January 29, 2009 / Notices 

For further details with respect to the 

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter 

dated October 5, 2007, as supplemented 

on May 1 and December 11, 2008 

(ADAMS Accession Numbers 

ML072820129, ML081220873 and 

ML083470170, respectively). 

Documents may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR), located at One 

White Flint North, Public File Area O1 

F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland. 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@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd 

day of January 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

John D. Hughey, 

Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I– 

2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E9–1903 Filed 1–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0013] 

Safety Culture Policy Statement 

Development: Public Meeting and 

Request for Public Comments; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects a 

notice appearing in the Federal Register 

on January 23, 2009 (74 FR 4260), that 

informs the public of the public meeting 

and Request for Comments on topics 

relating to the development of the 

policy statement. In addition to 

announcing the public meeting, the 

NRC is using this notice to request 

comments on the topics discussed in 

this notice. These topics can be found 

in section D (Topics for Discussion of 

the Supplementary Information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June 

Cai at (301) 415–5192; june.cai@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On page 

4262, column 1, in the fourth complete 

paragraph, in the 17th line, is corrected 

to delete ‘‘Some of the questions use 

terminology such as ‘your organization,’ 

but input from individual stakeholders 

who may not be part of a specific 

organization in the topic area are 

requested as well.’’ 

On page 4262, column 1, in the 

seventh paragraph, in the 46th line, is 

corrected to read: ‘‘How do you 

generally view the relationship or 

hierarchy between safety and security 

functions and decision making’’? 

On page 4262, column 1, in the eighth 

paragraph, in the 61st line, is corrected 

to read: ‘‘Are there any other examples 

where efforts to maintain safety and 

security require different approaches or 

result in competing outcomes that need 

to be addressed to achieve the desired 

outcome or goal’’? 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day 

of January 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Stewart L. Magruder, 

Deputy Director, Office of Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E9–1902 Filed 1–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

Determination of Trade Surplus in 

Certain Sugar Goods of Peru 

AGENCY: Office of the United States 

Trade Representative. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with relevant 

provisions of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTS), the 

Office of the United States Trade 

Representative (USTR) is providing 

notice of its determination of the trade 

surplus in certain sugar goods of Peru. 

As described below, the level of Peru’s 

trade surplus in these goods relates to 

the quantity of sugar goods for which 

the United States grants duty-free tariff 

treatment under the United States—Peru 

Trade Promotion Agreement (Peru 

TPA). 

DATES: Effective Date: February 1, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Inquiries may be mailed or 

delivered to Leslie O’Connor, Director of 

Agricultural Affairs, Office of 

Agricultural Affairs, Office of the United 

States Trade Representative, 600 17th 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leslie O’Connor, Office of Agricultural 

Affairs, 202–395–6127. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 101 of the United States— 

Peru Trade Promotion Agreement 

Implementation Act (Pub. L. 110–138; 

19 U.S.C. 3805 note), Presidential 

Proclamation No. 8341 of January 16, 

2009 (74 FR 4105) implemented the 

Peru TPA on behalf of the United States 

and modified the HTS to reflect the 

tariff and rules of origin treatment 

provided for in the Peru TPA. 

U.S. Note 28(c) to subchapter XXII of 

HTS chapter 98 provides that USTR is 

required to publish annually in the 

Federal Register a determination of the 

amount of Peru’s trade surplus, by 

volume, with all sources for goods in 

Harmonized System (HS) subheadings 

1701.11, 1701.12, 1701.91, 1701.99, 

1702.20, 1702.40, and 1702.60, except 

that Peru’s imports of U.S. goods 

classified under HS subheadings 

1702.40 and 1702.60 that are originating 

goods under the Peru TPA and Peru’s 

exports to the United States of goods 

classified under HS subheadings 

1701.11, 1701.12, 1701.91, and 1701.99 

are not included in the calculation of 

Peru’s trade surplus. 

U.S. Note 28(d) to subchapter XXII of 

HTS chapter 98 provides duty-free 

treatment for certain sugar goods of Peru 

entered under subheading 9822.06.10 in 

an amount equal to the lesser of Peru’s 

trade surplus or the specific quantity set 

out in that note for that calendar year. 

During calendar year (CY) 2007, the 

most recent year for which data is 

available, Peru’s imports of the sugar 

goods described above exceeded its 

exports of those goods by 245,132 

metric tons according to data published 

by its customs authority, the 

Superintendencia Nacional de 

Administration Tributaria. Based on 

this data, USTR determines that Peru’s 

trade surplus is negative. Therefore, in 

accordance with U.S. Note 28(d) to 

subchapter XXII of HTS chapter 98, 

goods of Peru are not eligible to enter 

the United States duty-free under 

subheading 9822.06.10 in CY2009. 

James Murphy, 

Assistant United States Trade Representative. 

[FR Doc. E9–1830 Filed 1–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3190–W9–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meeting. 

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 

the provisions of the Government in the 

Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, that 

the Securities and Exchange 

Commission will hold a Closed Meeting 

on Thursday, January 29, 2009 at 2 p.m. 

Commissioners, Counsel to the 

Commissioners, the Secretary to the 

Commission, and recording secretaries 

will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES