Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 33 / Wednesday, February 19, 1997 / Notices 7477

The PEA is envisioned to serve as a

baseline environmental document from

which other drilling proponents and

permit applicants will be able to tier site

specific environmental assessments for

similar activities within the reservoir

area. The USIBWC reviewed and

approved the completed Draft PEA from

TransTexas for proposed oil and gas

development within the reservoir, and it

is currently available for review and

comment.

Finding of the Programmatic

Environmental Assessment

The PEA finds that the proposed

action for the USIBWC to grant

exceptions to its policy of prohibiting

oil and natural gas development upon

USIBWC real property below the 307-

foot traverse property line at Falcon

Reservoir but above the 307-foot mean

sea level elevation does not constitute a

major federal action which would cause

a significant local, regional, or national

adverse impact on the environment

based on the following facts:

1. Construction, drilling and

production activities at potential well

pad sites will have no significant

adverse impacts on air quality. Standard

construction practices to control fugitive

dust would be utilized.

2. The slight impacts from

construction, drilling and production

activities associated with noise at

potential well pad sites are fully

mitigable through vegetative buffer

zones, equipment noise suppressors,

and avoidance of critical wildlife use

periods.

3. Negligible impacts to geologic and

water resources are mitigable through

the use of erosion and sediment control

measures and devices, secondary

containment measures, best

management practices during all phases

of site development, and use of site

specific spill prevention control and

countermeasure plans.

4. Biological resources will be

protected from impacts by total

avoidance of clearing within heavy

brush corridors, animal exclusion fences

around drill pad locations, site specific

surveys for threatened and endangered

plants and animals, and monitoring

plans coordinated by the appropriate

federal and state conservation agencies.

5. Impacts to cultural resources can be

mitigated through avoidance of sites

determined to be eligible for the

National Register of Historic Places and

if avoidance is not viable,

implementation of a Memorandum of

Agreement for mitigating impacts will

be necessary prior to BLM approval of

applications for permits to drill,

USIBWC issuance of land use permits,

and any development at potential drill

sites.

6. Negligible impacts associated with

land use and transportation will not

require additional mitigation.

7. Negligible impacts associated with

visual resources are mitigable through

properly placed night lighting,

unobtrusive painting of facilities, and

alignment of access road and utility

corridors for limited views of individual

project facilities.

On the basis of the TransTexas Draft

PEA, the USIBWC has determined that

an environmental impact statement is

not required for the USIBWC to grant

exceptions to its policy of prohibiting

oil and natural gas development upon

USIBWC real property under Falcon

Reservoir and hereby provides notice of

a finding of no significant impact

(FONSI). An environmental impact

statement will not be prepared unless

additional information which may affect

this decision is brought to our attention

within thirty (30) days of the date of this

Notice. Copies of the Draft PEA are

available for public review at the

USIBWC Falcon Dam Field Office,

Falcon Road, Falcon Heights, Texas

78545, and have been distributed to

Federal, State, and local agencies and

organizations that have been consulted

and coordinated within the preparation

of the PEA. A limited number of copies

are available to fill single copy requests

at the above address.

Dated: February 10, 1997.

Randall A. McMains,

Attorney.

[FR Doc. 97–4018 Filed 2–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–03–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–362]

Southern California Edison Company;

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. NPF–

15, issued to Southern California Edison

Company (the licensee), for operation of

the San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station (SONGS), Unit No. 3 located in

San Diego County, California.

The proposed amendment would

defer implementation of Surveillance

Requirement (SR) 3.1.5.4 of Technical

Specification 3.1.5, ‘‘CEA Alignment’’

until no later than the next SONGS Unit

3 refueling outage (currently scheduled

to begin on April 12, 1997).

The exigent circumstances for this

amendment request exist due to the

recent discovery of the inappropriate

crediting of previous test results to this

post-Technical Specification

Improvement Program SR.

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.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for

amendments to be granted under

exigent circumstances, the NRC staff

must determine that the amendment

request involves no significant hazards

consideration. Under the Commission’s

regulations in 10 CFR 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. The proposed change does not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed change would defer the

implementation of Surveillance Requirement

(SR) 3.1.5.4 of Technical Specification (TS)

3.1.5 until the Unit 3, Cycle 9 refueling

outage.

Operation of the facility would remain

unchanged as a result of the proposed

changes and no assumptions or results of any

accident analyses are affected. Based on

testing, operating experience, and the

inherent reliability of the system, Edison

concludes the Reed Switch Position

Transmitters have demonstrated their

capability to perform their specified safety

function and are operable. Therefore, the

proposed change will not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of any accident previously

evaluated.

2. The proposed change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed change would defer the

implementation of Surveillance Requirement

(SR) SR 3.1.5.4 of Technical Specification

(TS) 3.1.5 until the Unit 3, Cycle 9 refueling

outage.

Operation of the facility would remain

unchanged as a result of the proposed

change. The Reed Switch Position

Transmitters cannot initiate an accident.
7478 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 33 / Wednesday, February 19, 1997 / Notices

Therefore, the proposed change will not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. The proposed change does not involve

a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed change would defer the

implementation of Surveillance Requirement

(SR) SR 3.1.5.4 of Technical Specification

(TS) 3.1.5 until the Unit 3, Cycle 9 refueling

outage. The Reed Switch Position

Transmitters are concluded to be able to

perform their safety function and are

operable. Therefore, the proposed change

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 14 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 the 14-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period, such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

14-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received. Should

the Commission take this action, it will

publish in the Federal Register a notice

of 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 Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

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 6D22, Two White

Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, MD, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15

p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of

written comments received may be

examined at the NRC Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street NW., Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By March 21, 1997, 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 2.714

which is available at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street NW.,

Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at the Main

Library, University of California, P.O.

Box 19557, Irvine, CA 92713. If a

request for a hearing or petition for

leave to intervene is filed by the above

date, the Commission or an Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board, designated

by the Commission or by the Chairman

of the Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board Panel, will rule on the request

and/or petition; and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of hearing or

an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, 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 factors: (1) the nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made a party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of 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 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. Petitioner must provide

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 who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies 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, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If the amendment is issued before the

expiration of the 30-day hearing period,

the Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. If a

hearing is requested, 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.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 33 / Wednesday, February 19, 1997 / Notices 7479

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to William

H. Bateman, Director, Project Directorate

IV–2: petitioner’s name and telephone

number, date petition was mailed, plant

name, and publication date and page

number of this Federal Register notice.

A copy of the petition should also be

sent to the Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and to T.E. Oubre, Esquire,

Southern California Edison Company,

P.O. Box 800, Rosemead, CA 91770,

attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1) (i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated February 7, 1997,

which is available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street NW., Washington, DC, and at the

local public document room, located at

the Main Library, University of

California, P.O. Box 19557, Irvine, CA

92713.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day

of February 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Mel B. Fields,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV–2,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–4055 Filed 2–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995:

Covered Officials

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is adding to its list

of ‘‘covered officials’’, for purposes of

the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, the

NRC’s Chief Information Officer.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In late 1995, President Clinton signed

into law the Lobbying Disclosure Act of

1995 (the ‘‘Act’’), which requires some

individuals and entities who lobby

‘‘covered’’ Federal officials to register

with Congress and to file semiannual

reports describing their lobbying

activities.

For purposes of the Act, the NRC had

determined that ‘‘covered’’ officials at

the NRC were limited to Members of the

Commission and their personal staffs,

the Inspector General, the Executive

Director for Operations, the General

Counsel, and the Directors of the Offices

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards and

Nuclear Regulatory Research. See

Federal Register of February 1, 1996 (61

FR 3737).

As a result of the enactment of the

Information Technology Management

Reform Act of 1996, the position of

Chief Information Officer (CIO) was

created for 22 named executive-branch

agencies, including the NRC. The NRC

has determined that the NRC’s CIO is a

‘‘covered’’ official for purposes of the

Act. Therefore, the NRC is adding the

NRC’s CIO to its list of ‘‘covered

officials’’.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pamela Urban, Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555–

0001, telephone (301) 415–1619.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day

of February, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 97–4057 Filed 2–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards; Subcommittee Meeting on

Planning and Procedures; Notice of

Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning

and Procedures will hold a meeting on

March 5, 1997, Room T–2B1, 11545

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to

public attendance, with the exception of

a portion that may be closed pursuant

to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (2) and (6) to discuss

organizational and personnel matters

that relate solely to internal personnel

rules and practices of ACRS, and

matters the release of which would

constitute a clearly unwarranted

invasion of personal privacy.

The agenda for the subject meeting

shall be as follows:

Wednesday, March 5, 1997—2:00 p.m.

until 4:00 p.m.

The Subcommittee will discuss

proposed ACRS activities and related

matters. It may also discuss the

qualifications of candidates for

appointment to the ACRS. The purpose

of this meeting is to gather information,

analyze relevant issues and facts, and to

formulate proposed positions and

actions, as appropriate, for deliberation

by the full Committee.

Oral statements may be presented by

members of the public with the

concurrence of the Subcommittee

Chairman; written statements will be

accepted and made available to the

Committee. Electronic recordings will

be permitted only during those portions

of the meeting that are open to the

public, and questions may be asked only

by members of the Subcommittee, its

consultants, and staff. Persons desiring

to make oral statements should notify

the cognizant ACRS staff person named

below five days prior to the meeting, if

possible, so that appropriate

arrangements can be made.

Further information regarding topics

to be discussed, the scheduling of

sessions open to the public, whether the

meeting has been cancelled or

rescheduled, the Chairman’s ruling on

requests for the opportunity to present

oral statements, and the time allotted

therefor can be obtained by contacting

the cognizant ACRS staff person, Dr.

John T. Larkins (telephone: 301/415–

7360) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.

(EST). Persons planning to attend this

meeting are urged to contact the above

named individual one or two working

days prior to the meeting to be advised

of any changes in schedule, etc., that

may have occurred.

Date: February 12, 1997.

Sam Duraiswamy,

Chief, Nuclear Reactors Branch.

[FR Doc. 97–4056 Filed 2–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE: Weeks of February 17, 24, March

3, and 10, 1997.

PLACE: Commissioner’s Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: