Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Notices 28525 

1. Proposed Rule: Section 701.2 of 

NCUA’s Rules and Regulations, Federal 

Credit Union Bylaws. 

2. Proposed Rule: Interpretive Ruling 

and Policy Statement (IRPS) 07–1, 

Section 701.1 of NCUA’s Rules and 

Regulations, Amendments to NCUA’s 

Chartering and Field of Membership 

Policies. 

3. Final Rule: Part 701 of NCUA’s 

Rules and Regulations, Technical 

Amendments. 

Recess: 11:15 a.m. 

Time and Date: 11:30 a.m., Thursday, 

May 24, 2007. 

Place: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 

7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 

22314–3428. 

Status: Closed. 

Matters to be Considered: 

1. Action under Section 205 of the 

Federal Credit Union Act. Closed 

pursuant to Exemptions (6), (7), and (8). 

For Further Information Contact: 

Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, 

Telephone: 703–518–6304. 

Mary Rupp, 

Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 07–2548 Filed 5–17–07; 2:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7535–01–M 

THE NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE 

ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES 

Meetings of Humanities Panel 

AGENCY: The National Endowment for 

the Humanities. 

ACTION: Notice of meetings. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(Pub. L. 92–463, as amended), notice is 

hereby given that the following 

meetings of Humanities Panels will be 

held at the Old Post Office, 1100 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20506. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heather C. Gottry, Acting Advisory 

Committee Management Officer, 

National Endowment for the 

Humanities, Washington, DC 20506; 

telephone (202) 606–8322. Hearingimpaired individuals are advised that 

information on this matter may be 

obtained by contacting the 

Endowment’s TDD terminal on (202) 

606–8282. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposed meetings are for the purpose 

of panel review, discussion, evaluation 

and recommendation on applications 

for financial assistance under the 

National Foundation on the Arts and the 

Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 

including discussion of information 

given in confidence to the agency by the 

grant applicants. Because the proposed 

meetings will consider information that 

is likely to disclose trade secrets and 

commercial or financial information 

obtained from a person and privileged 

or confidential and/or information of a 

personal nature the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy, pursuant 

to authority granted me by the 

Chairman’s Delegation of Authority to 

Close Advisory Committee meetings, 

dated July 19, 1993, I have determined 

that these meetings will be closed to the 

public pursuant to subsections (c) (4), 

and (6) of section 552b of Title 5, United 

States Code. 

1. Date: June 1, 2007. 

Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Room: 415. 

Program: This meeting will review 

applications for The IMLS/NEH Digital 

Partnership Advancing Knowledge I, 

submitted to the Division of 

Preservation and Access, at the March 

27, 2007 deadline. 

2. Date: June 12, 2007. 

Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Room: 415. 

Program: This meeting will review 

applications for The IMLS/NEH Digital 

Partnership Advancing Knowledge II, 

submitted to the Division of 

Preservation and Access, at the March 

27, 2007 deadline. 

Heather C. Gottry, 

Acting Advisory Committee, Management 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7–9717 Filed 5–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7536–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–346, 50–440, 50–334, and 

50–412; License Nos. NPF–3, NPF–58, DPR–

66, NPF–73; EA 07–123] 

In the Matter of First Energy Nuclear 

Operating Company—Davis-Besse 

Nuclear Power Plant, Perry Nuclear 

Power Plant, and Beaver Valley 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Demand 

for Information 

I 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company (FENOC or licensee) is the 

holder of four NRC Facility Operating 

Licenses issued by the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC or 

Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR part 

50, which authorizes the operation of 

the specifically named facilities in 

accordance with the conditions 

specified in each license. License No. 

NPF–3 was issued on April 22, 1977, to 

operate the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power 

Station (Davis-Besse). License No. NPF–

58 was issued on November 13, 1986, to 

operate the Perry Nuclear Power Plant. 

Licenses No. DPR–66 and NPF–73 to 

operate the Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant, 

Units 1 and 2 were issued on July 2, 

1976, and August 14,1987, respectively. 

The facilities are located on the 

licensee’s properties near Toledo and 

Painesville, Ohio, for the Davis-Besse 

and Perry Plants, respectively, and near 

McCandless, Pennsylvania, for the 

Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant. 

II 

On March 8, 2004, the NRC issued a 

Confirmatory Order to FENOC and 

approved restart of the Davis-Besse 

Plant following substantial licensee 

action to evaluate and develop 

appropriate corrective actions for the 

technical and programmatic issues that 

were associated with the 2002 reactor 

pressure vessel head degradation event. 

On April 21, 2005, the NRC issued a 

Notice of Violation and Proposed 

Imposition of Civil Penalties in the 

amount of 5,450,000 dollars involving 

violations associated with the 2002 

Davis-Besse reactor pressure vessel head 

degradation event and the root causes 

for the event. On September 14, 2005, 

FENOC responded to the Notice of 

Violation, paid the proposed civil 

penalty and addressed each of the 

violations cited. Its response also 

addressed FENOC’s assessment of the 

root cause for each violation. On 

January 23, 2006, FENOC provided a 

supplemental reply to the Notice of 

Violation. 

FENOC obtained a report from its 

contractor, Exponent Failure Analysis 

Associates and Altran Solutions 

Corporations (Exponent), dated 

December 2006, prepared in connection 

with its claim against Nuclear Electric 

Insurance Limited (NEIL), which 

included an updated analysis of the 

timeline and root cause for the 2002 

Davis-Besse reactor pressure vessel head 

degradation event. A significant 

conclusion of this analysis was a 

determination by Exponent that the time 

period between the beginning of 

substantial leakage from the reactor 

pressure vessel head nozzle causing the 

development of the large cavity next to 

the nozzle may have been as short as 

four months. Previously, FENOC had 

conducted its own technical and 

programmatic root cause evaluations of 

the event and concluded that the reactor 

pressure vessel head cavity was the 

result of ongoing nozzle leakage which 

had gone undetected for more than four 

years. FENOC also obtained a second 

report, dated in December 2006, from 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
28526 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Notices 

another contractor, entitled, ‘‘Report on 

Reactor Pressure Vessel Wastage at the 

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant.’’ This 

second report included conclusions that 

appeared to be inconsistent with 

FENOC’s previous communications 

with the NRC and the April 21, 2005, 

Notice of Violation and Proposed 

Imposition of Civil Penalties associated 

with the 2002 Davis-Besse reactor 

pressure vessel degradation event. 

In February 2007, NEIL sent to 

FENOC a letter identifying what NEIL 

believed to be potential safety concerns 

raised by the Exponent report 

conclusions. Upon receipt of the NEIL 

letter, the Davis-Besse plant staff 

generated a condition report in its 

corrective action program to document 

the issue. 

During March 2007, the NRC held 

several conference calls with the DavisBesse staff to obtain additional 

information regarding the licensee’s 

assessment of the concerns raised in the 

NEIL letter and to understand the 

licensee’s planned actions to address 

the concerns. 

By letter dated April 2, 2007, the NRC 

requested the licensee to respond, in 

writing, to four questions regarding 

information and conclusions presented 

in the Exponent Report to assist the 

NRC in understanding the assumptions, 

analysis, and conclusions of the 

Exponent Report, and to confirm the 

information provided during the March 

2007 conference calls. 

By letter dated May 2, 2007, FENOC 

provided a written response to the 

NRC’s questions. In its response, 

FENOC stated, among other things, that 

the Exponent Report set forth an 

informed analysis that more accurately 

characterizes the timeline of the reactor 

head degradation event based upon the 

use of more recently available test data 

in conjunction with detailed analytical 

modeling. FENOC’s response did not 

indicate whether it had completed a 

comprehensive review of the Exponent 

Report relative to its previous root cause 

reports. 

The information provided by the 

licensee regarding the foregoing did not 

provide the NRC with sufficient 

information to determine if FENOC had 

conducted a prompt and thorough 

review of the Exponent Report. In 

particular, the NRC needs additional 

information to determine whether 

FENOC conducted a timely and 

comprehensive analysis of the 

assumptions and conclusions of the 

Exponent Report to assess their 

accuracy relative to the technical and 

programmatic root cause reports 

previously developed by FENOC and an 

assessment of whether the NRC should 

have been notified regarding its 

conclusions. In addition, FENOC did 

not provide the NRC with sufficient 

information to determine if FENOC 

endorsed the conclusions of the second 

contractor report and, if so, the effect 

such positions may have regarding its 

earlier responses to the April 2005 

enforcement actions. 

In light of the foregoing, further 

information is needed for the 

Commission to determine whether an 

Order or other action should be taken 

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, to provide 

reasonable assurance that FENOC will 

continue to operate its licensed facilities 

in accordance with the terms of its 

licenses and the Commission’s 

regulations; in particular, to assure that: 

1. FENOC demonstrates an 

appropriate focus, centered on the 

timely and critical evaluation of 

information developed internally by 

FENOC, by its contractors, and by 

industry sources which may affect 

safety assessments of its operating 

nuclear fleet; 

2. FENOC promptly communicates to 

the NRC all information that it develops, 

receives, or becomes aware of that has 

the potential to have a significant 

impact on public health and safety; 

3. FENOC has completed a 

comprehensive assessment of the 

assumptions and conclusions of the 

Exponent Report and has determined 

whether the assumptions and 

conclusions are consistent with the past 

operational experience at the DavisBesse Plant, the assumptions of the 

previous technical and non-technical 

root cause reports developed by FENOC 

as a part of its assessment of the 2002 

reactor pressure vessel head degradation 

event; and the corrective actions 

developed and implemented by FENOC 

and relied upon by the NRC as a basis 

for the restart of the Davis-Besse Plant. 

4. FENOC has completed a 

comprehensive assessment of the 

conclusions of its contractor’s report, 

entitled, ‘‘Report on Reactor Pressure 

Vessel Wastage at the Davis-Besse 

Nuclear Power Plant,’’ and has 

determined whether the root cause 

reports and licensee event reports 

related to the 2002 reactor pressure 

vessel head degradation event and the 

responses to the NRC Notice of 

Violation and Proposed Imposition of 

Civil Penalties dated April 21, 2005, 

should be updated to ensure they are 

complete and accurate in all material 

respects. 

III 

Accordingly, pursuant to sections 

161c, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 

the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR 

2.204 and 10 CFR 50.54(f), in order to 

determine whether your licenses should 

be modified, suspended or revoked, or 

other action should be taken, the 

licensee is required to submit to the 

Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, with 

copies to the Assistant General Counsel 

for Materials Litigation and Enforcement 

at the same address, to the Regional 

Administrator, NRC Region III, 2443 

Warrenville, Road, Suite 210, Lisle, IL 

60532–4352 and to the Resident 

Inspectors, within 30 days of the date of 

this Demand for Information the 

following information, in writing, and 

under oath or affirmation: 

A. A detailed discussion of the 

process used, the specific information 

evaluated, and the conclusions reached 

as a part of FENOC’s assessment of the 

Exponent Report, upon receipt or 

subsequently, to determine if the 

Exponent Report assumptions, analyses, 

conclusions, or other related 

information, should have been reported 

to the NRC in a more prompt manner. 

Your response shall include sufficient 

information for the NRC to assess how 

FENOC evaluated the significant 

differences between the crack growth 

and leakage timelines developed in the 

Exponent Report and previous root 

cause reports. 

B. A detailed discussion of the 

differences in assumptions, analyses, 

conclusions, and other related 

information of the Exponent Report and 

previous technical and programmatic 

root cause reports, developed following 

the 2002 Davis-Besse reactor pressure 

vessel head degradation event. Your 

response shall address, among other 

matters you believe warranted, 

differences between the operational 

experience data, such as the origin and 

presence of boric acid deposits and 

corrosion products on air coolers, 

radiation filters, the reactor vessel head, 

and other components in the 

containment, and the Exponent Report 

assumptions for these items. Your 

response shall also indicate if 

differences in the Exponent Report 

assumptions, analyses, information, or 

conclusions and previous root cause 

reports demonstrate a need for any new 

or different corrective actions relative to 

the 2002 Davis-Besse reactor pressure 

vessel head degradation event and 

related issues. Your response shall also 

address the impact on the continued 

effectiveness of your corrective actions. 

C. With regard to the ‘‘Report on 

Reactor Pressure Vessel Wastage at the 

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant,’’

dated December 2006, indicate if 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Notices 28527 

FENOC endorses the report’s 

conclusions. If so, your response shall 

set forth your assessment of whether 

this position is in conflict with previous 

root cause and licensee event reports 

regarding the 2002 Davis-Besse reactor 

pressure vessel head degradation event 

and FENOC’s responses to the NRC 

Notice of Violation and Proposed 

Imposition of Civil Penalties, dated 

April 21, 2005. Your response shall also 

address the impact on the continued 

effectiveness of your corrective actions. 

After reviewing your response, the 

NRC will determine whether further 

action is necessary to ensure 

compliance with regulatory 

requirements. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Dated this 14th day of May, 2007. 

Cynthia A. Carpenter, 

Director, Office of Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E7–9715 Filed 5–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

Generalized System of Preferences 

(GSP): Notice Regarding the Initiation 

of the 2007 Annual GSP Product and 

Country Eligibility Practices Review 

and Change in Deadlines for Filing 

Certain Petitions 

AGENCY: Office of the United States 

Trade Representative. 

ACTION: Notice and solicitation for 

public petition. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces that 

the Office of the United States Trade 

Representative (USTR) will receive 

petitions in 2007 to modify the list of 

products that are eligible for duty-free 

treatment under the GSP program, and 

to modify the GSP status of certain GSP 

beneficiary developing countries 

because of country practices. This 

notice further determines that the 

deadline for submission of product 

petitions, other than those requesting 

competitive need limitation (CNL) 

waivers, and country practice petitions 

for the 2007 Annual GSP Product and 

Country Eligibility Practices Review is 

5 p.m., June 22, 2007. The deadline for 

submission of product petitions 

requesting CNL waivers is 5 p.m., 

November 16, 2007. The list of product 

petitions and country practice petitions 

accepted for review will be announced 

in the Federal Register at later dates. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Contact the GSP Subcommittee of the 

Trade Policy Staff Committee, Office of 

the United States Trade Representative, 

1724 F Street, NW., Room F–220, 

Washington, DC 20508. The telephone 

number is (202) 395–6971, the facsimile 

number is (202) 395–9481, and the 

e-mail address is 

FR0711@USTR.EOP.GOV. Public 

versions of all documents relating to 

this Review will be available for 

examination approximately 30 days 

after the pertinent due date, by 

appointment, in the USTR public 

reading room, 1724 F Street, NW., 

Washington, DC. Availability of 

documents may be ascertained, and 

appointments may be made from 9:30 

a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, by calling (202) 

395–6186. 

2007 Annual GSP Review 

The GSP regulations (15 CFR part 

2007) provide the timetable for 

conducting an annual review, unless 

otherwise specified by Federal Register 

notice. Notice is hereby given that, in 

order to be considered in the 2007 

Annual GSP Product and Country 

Eligibility Practices Review, all petitions 

to modify the list of articles eligible for 

duty-free treatment under GSP or to 

review the GSP status of any beneficiary 

developing country, with the exception 

of petitions requesting CNL waivers, 

must be received by the GSP 

Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff 

Committee no later than 5 p.m. on June 

22, 2007. Petitions requesting CNL 

waivers must be received by the GSP 

Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff 

Committee no later than 5 p.m. on 

November 16, 2007 in order to be 

considered in the 2007 Annual Review. 

Petitions submitted after the respective 

deadlines will not be considered for 

review. 

Interested parties, including foreign 

governments, may submit petitions to: 

(1) Designate additional articles as 

eligible for GSP benefits, including to 

designate articles as eligible for GSP 

benefits only for countries designated as 

least-developed beneficiary developing 

countries, or only for countries 

designated as beneficiary sub-Saharan 

African countries under the African 

Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA); 

(2) withdraw, suspend or limit the 

application of duty-free treatment 

accorded under the GSP with respect to 

any article, either for all beneficiary 

developing countries, least-developed 

beneficiary developing countries or 

beneficiary sub-Saharan African 

countries, or for any of these countries 

individually; (3) waive the ‘‘competitive 

need limitations’’ for individual 

beneficiary developing countries with 

respect to specific GSP-eligible articles 

(these limits do not apply to either leastdeveloped beneficiary developing 

countries or AGOA beneficiary subSaharan African countries); and (4) 

otherwise modify GSP coverage. 

As specified in 15 CFR 2007.1, all 

product petitions must include a 

detailed description of the product and 

the subheading of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

under which the product is classified. 

Further, product petitions requesting 

CNL waivers for GSP-eligible articles 

from beneficiary developing countries 

that exceed the CNLs in 2007 must be 

filed in the 2007 Annual Review. In 

order to allow petitioners an 

opportunity to review additional 2007 

U.S. import statistics, these petitions 

may be filed after June 22, 2007, but 

must be received on or before the 

November 16, 2007, deadline described 

above in order to be considered in the 

2007 Annual Review. Copies will be 

made available for public inspection 

after the November 16, 2007, deadline. 

Any person may also submit petitions 

to review the designation of any 

beneficiary developing country, 

including any least-developed 

beneficiary developing country, with 

respect to any of the designation criteria 

listed in sections 502(b) or 502(c) of the 

Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2462(b) and (c)) 

(petitions to review the designation of 

beneficiary sub-Saharan African 

countries are considered in the Annual 

Review of the AGOA, a separate 

administrative process not governed by 

the GSP regulations). Such petitions 

must comply with the requirements of 

15 CFR 2007.0(b). 

Requirements for Submissions 

All such submissions must conform to 

the GSP regulations set forth at 15 CFR 

part 2007, except as modified below. 

These regulations are reprinted in the 

‘‘U.S. Generalized System of Preferences 

Guidebook’’ (February 2007) (‘‘GSP 

Guidebook’’), available at http:// 

www.ustr.gov/assets/ 

Trade_Development/ 

Preference_Programs/GSP/ 

asset_upload_file412_8359.pdf. 

Any person or party making a 

submission is strongly advised to review 

the GSP regulations. Submissions that 

do not provide the information required 

by sections 2007.0 and 2007.1 of the 

GSP regulations will not be accepted for 

review, except upon a detailed showing 

in the submission that the petitioner 

made a good faith effort to obtain the 

information required. Petitions with 

respect to waivers of the ‘‘competitive 

need limitations’’ must meet the 

information requirements for product 

addition requests in section 2007.1(c) of 

the GSP regulations. A model petition 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES