Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 1997 / Notices 64237

Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Committee

Management Officer, National

Endowment for the Arts, Washington,

D.C. 20506, or call 202/682–5691.

Dated: December 1, 1997.

Kathy Plowitz-Worden,

Panel Coordinator, Office of Guidelines and

Panel Operations, National Endowment for

the Arts.

[FR Doc. 97–31868 Filed 12–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7537–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Final Standard Review Plan for

Antitrust Reviews: Issuance,

Availability

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is issuing this final

Standard Review Plan (SRP) for

Antitrust Reviews to describe the

procedures (prescribed in Sections 105

and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of

1954, as amended) for performing

antitrust reviews and enforcing antitrust

license conditions. This SRP reflects

current regulations and policy and will

be updated as necessary to reflect

changes in NRC regulations.

The revised text for the SRP for

Antitrust Reviews includes the

resolution of public comments received

in response to the draft version issued

on December 27, 1996 (61 FR 68309).

The purpose of the draft SRP was to

solicit comments on the current NRC

staff practice in carrying out the NRC’s

antitrust mandate in accordance with

the Atomic Energy Act, to review

construction permit and operating

license applications and transfer

requests, and to enforce antitrust license

conditions.

The NRC has published its Standard

Review Plan for Antitrust Reviews

(NUREG–1574), under Section 109,

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Appropriation Authorization, Public

Law 96–295. The SRP describes the

procedures used to implement the

antitrust review and enforcement

provisions in Sections 105 and 186 of

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended.

The final SRP for Antitrust Reviews is

a ‘‘rule’’ for the purposes of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (5 U.S.C., Chapter 8). The

staff, in consultation with the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB), has

confirmed that this SRP is a not a major

rule.

The final SRP for Antitrust Reviews

does not, by itself, establish any new or

revised requirements. It incorporates

previously established NRC staff

positions, public comments on the draft

SRP for Antitrust Reviews, and lessons

learned from completed reviews of

various restructuring and reorganization

applications. The review guidance in

the SRP will be used by the NRC staff

in evaluating future submittals in

connection with applications for

construction permits, operating licenses,

combined operating licenses, and

operating license transfer requests.

The final SRP for Antitrust Reviews is

being made available to the public as

part of the NRC’s policy to inform the

nuclear industry and the general public

of regulatory procedures and policies.

The SRP will be revised periodically to

reflect changes to statutes and NRC

rules and regulations.

Copies of NUREG–1574 may be

purchased from the Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC

20013–7082. Copies are also available

from the National Technical Information

Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also

available for inspection and/or copying

for a fee in the NRC Public Document

Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower

Level), Washington, DC.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day

of November, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Thomas H. Essig,

Acting Chief, Generic Issues and

Environmental Projects Branch, Division of

Reactor Program Management, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–31799 Filed 12–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket 70–7002]

Amendment to Certificate of

Compliance GDP–2 for the U.S.

Enrichment Corporation, Portsmouth

Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Portsmouth,

OH

The Director, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, has

made a determination that the following

amendment request is not significant in

accordance with 10 CFR 76.45. In

making that determination, the staff

concluded that: (1) There is no change

in the types or significant increase in

the amounts of any effluents that may be

released offsite; (2) there is no

significant increase in individual or

cumulative occupational radiation

exposure; (3) there is no significant

construction impact; (4) there is no

significant increase in the potential for,

or radiological or chemical

consequences from, previously analyzed

accidents; (5) the proposed changes do

not result in the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident; (6) there is no

significant reduction in any margin of

safety; and (7) the proposed changes

will not result in an overall decrease in

the effectiveness of the plant’s safety,

safeguards, or security programs. The

basis for this determination for the

amendment request is described below.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

certificate amendment application and

concluded that it provides reasonable

assurance of adequate safety, safeguards,

and security and compliance with NRC

requirements. Therefore, the Director,

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards, is prepared to issue an

amendment to the Certificate of

Compliance for the Portsmouth Gaseous

Diffusion Plant (PORTS). The staff has

prepared a Compliance Evaluation

Report which provides details of the

staff’s evaluation.

The NRC staff has determined that

this amendment satisfies the criteria for

a 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 this

amendment.

USEC or any person whose interest

may be affected may file a petition, not

exceeding 30 pages, requesting review

of the Director’s Decision. The petition

must be filed with the Commission not

later than 15 days after publication of

this Federal Register Notice. A petition

for review of the Director’s Decision

shall set forth with particularity the

interest of the petitioner and how that

interest may be affected by the results of

the decision. The petition should

specifically explain the reasons why

review of the Decision should be

permitted with particular reference to

the following factors: (1) The interest of

the petitioner; (2) how that interest may

be affected by the Decision, including

the reasons why the petitioner should

be permitted a review of the Decision;

and (3) the petitioner’s areas of concern

about the activity that is the subject

matter of the Decision. Any person

described in this paragraph (USEC or

any person who filed a petition) may

file a response to any petition for

review, not to exceed 30 pages, within

10 days after filing of the petition. If no

petition is received within the

designated 15-day period, the Director

will issue the final amendment to the

Certificate of Compliance without

further delay. If a petition for review is

received, the decision on the

amendment application will become