Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Notices 5495 

[FR Doc. 2016–01373 Filed 2–1–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2016–0019] 

Biweekly Notice; Applications and 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses 

Involving No Significant Hazards 

Considerations 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Biweekly notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) 

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 

publishing this regular biweekly notice. 

The Act requires the Commission to 

publish notice of any amendments 

issued, or proposed to be issued, and 

grants the Commission the authority to 

issue and make immediately effective 

any amendment to an operating license 

or combined license, as applicable, 

upon a determination by the 

Commission that such amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration, notwithstanding the 

pendency before the Commission of a 

request for a hearing from any person. 

This biweekly notice includes all 

notices of amendments issued, or 

proposed to be issued from January 5, 

2016, to January 15, 2016. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

January 19, 2016. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

March 3, 2016. A request for a hearing 

must be filed by April 4, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods (unless 

this document describes a different 

method for submitting comments on a 

specific subject): 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2016–0019. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, 

Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 

OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

1384, email: Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2016– 

0019 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 

action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2016–0019. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 

ADAMS accession number for each 

document referenced (if it is available in 

ADAMS) is provided the first time that 

it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2016– 

0019, facility name, unit number(s), 

application date, and subject in your 

comment submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC posts all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov, as well as entering 

the comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment submissions into 

ADAMS. 

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses and 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

§ 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), 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, (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. The basis for this proposed 

determination for each amendment 

request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 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 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
5496 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Notices 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license or 

combined license. Requests for a 

hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene shall be filed in accordance 

with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules 

of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR 

part 2. Interested person(s) should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the NRC’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Room 

O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The 

NRC’s regulations are accessible 

electronically from the NRC Library on 

the NRC’s Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing 

or petition for leave to intervene is filed 

within 60 days, the Commission or a 

presiding officer designated by the 

Commission or by the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will 

rule on the request and/or petition; and 

the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, 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 general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also set forth the specific 

contentions which the requestor/

petitioner seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the requestor/petitioner 

intends to rely in proving the contention 

at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner 

must also provide references to those 

specific sources and documents of 

which the petitioner is aware and on 

which the requestor/petitioner intends 

to rely to establish those facts or expert 

opinion. The petition must include 

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 requestor/

petitioner to relief. A requestor/

petitioner who fails to satisfy 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 with respect to resolution of 

that person’s admitted contentions, 

including the opportunity to present 

evidence and to submit a crossexamination plan for cross-examination 

of witnesses, consistent with NRC 

regulations, policies and procedures. 

Petitions for leave to intervene must 

be filed no later than 60 days from the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Requests for hearing, petitions for leave 

to intervene, and motions for leave to 

file new or amended contentions that 

are filed after the 60-day deadline will 

not be entertained absent a 

determination by the presiding officer 

that the filing demonstrates good cause 

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 

2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). 

If a hearing is requested, and the 

Commission has not made a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. 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, then any hearing held 

would take place before the issuance of 

any amendment unless the Commission 

finds an imminent danger to the health 

or safety of the public, in which case it 

will issue an appropriate order or rule 

under 10 CFR part 2. 

A State, local governmental body, 

Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or 

agency thereof, may submit a petition to 

the Commission to participate as a party 

under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition 

should state the nature and extent of the 

petitioner’s interest in the proceeding. 

The petition should be submitted to the 

Commission by April 4, 2016. The 

petition must be filed in accordance 

with the filing instructions in the 

‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ 

section of this document, and should 

meet the requirements for petitions for 

leave to intervene set forth in this 

section, except that under § 2.309(h)(2) 

a State, local governmental body, or 

Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or 

agency thereof does not need to address 

the standing requirements in 10 CFR 

2.309(d) if the facility is located within 

its boundaries. A State, local 

governmental body, Federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, or agency 

thereof may also have the opportunity to 

participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c). 

If a hearing is granted, any person 

who does not wish, or is not qualified, 

to become a party to the proceeding 

may, in the discretion of the presiding 

officer, be permitted to make a limited 

appearance pursuant to the provisions 

of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a 

limited appearance may make an oral or 

written statement of position on the 

issues, but may not otherwise 

participate in the proceeding. A limited 

appearance may be made at any session 

of the hearing or at any prehearing 

conference, subject to the limits and 

conditions as may be imposed by the 

presiding officer. Persons desiring to 

make a limited appearance are 

requested to inform the Secretary of the 

Commission by April 4, 2016. 

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing, a petition for leave 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 

hearing or petition to intervene, and 

documents filed by interested 

governmental entities participating 

under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in 

accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule 

(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The EFiling process requires participants to 

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Notices 5497 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital 

identification (ID) certificate, which 

allows the participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or petition for 

hearing (even in instances in which the 

participant, or its counsel or 

representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon 

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/

getting-started.html. System 

requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the 

NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic 

Submission,’’ which is available on the 

agency’s public Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. Participants may 

attempt to use other software not listed 

on the Web site, but should note that the 

NRC’s E-Filing system does not support 

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta 

System Help Desk will not be able to 

offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange System, users 

will be required to install a Web 

browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 

site. Further information on the Webbased submission form, including the 

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. 

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC’s public Web site 

at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered 

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern 

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC Meta System Help Desk through 

the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC 

Meta System Help Desk is available 

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern 

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 

and Adjudications Staff. Participants 

filing a document in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E-Filing, may require a participant 

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the 

reason for granting the exemption from 

use of E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http://

ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission, 

or the presiding officer. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

home phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. However, in some 

instances, a request to intervene will 

require including information on local 

residence in order to demonstrate a 

proximity assertion of interest in the 

proceeding. With respect to copyrighted 

works, except for limited excerpts that 

serve the purpose of the adjudicatory 

filings and would constitute a Fair Use 

application, participants are requested 

not to include copyrighted materials in 

their submission. 

Petitions for leave to intervene must 

be filed no later than 60 days from the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Requests for hearing, petitions for leave 

to intervene, and motions for leave to 

file new or amended contentions that 

are filed after the 60-day deadline will 

not be entertained absent a 

determination by the presiding officer 

that the filing demonstrates good cause 

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 

2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). 

For further details with respect to 

these license amendment applications, 

see the application for amendment 

which is available for public inspection 

in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For 

additional direction on accessing 

information related to this document, 

see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374, LaSalle 

County Station (LSCS), Units 1 and 2, 

LaSalle County, Illinois 

Date of amendment request: 

November 19, 2015. A publicly 

available version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15324A309. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise LSCS Technical Specifications 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
5498 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Notices 

(TS) Section 2.1.1, ‘‘Reactor Core SLs,’’ 

to reflect a lower reactor steam dome 

pressure stated for Reactor Core Safety 

Limits (SLs) 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2. 

Specifically, the proposed amendment 

will reduce the reactor steam dome 

pressure in TS SLs 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 

from 785 psig [pound per square inch 

gage] to 685 psig. This change to TS 

Section 2.1.1 was identified as a result 

of General Electric Part 21 report SC05– 

03, ‘‘Potential to Exceed Low Pressure 

Technical Specification Safety Limit.’’ 

This change is valid for the NRCapproved pressure range pertinent to the 

critical power correlations applied to 

the fuel types in use at LSCS. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

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. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to the reactor steam 

dome pressure in the LSCS Reactor Core 

Safety Limits TS 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 does not 

alter the use of the analytical methods used 

to determine the safety limits that have been 

previously reviewed and approved by the 

NRC. The proposed change is in accordance 

with an NRC approved critical power 

correlation methodology, and as such, 

maintains required safety margins. The 

proposed change does not adversely affect 

accident initiators or precursors, nor does it 

alter the design assumptions, conditions, or 

configuration of the facility or the manner in 

which the plant is operated and maintained. 

The proposed change does not alter or 

prevent the ability of structures, systems, and 

components (SSCs) from performing their 

intended function to mitigate the 

consequences of an initiating event within 

the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed 

change does not require any physical change 

to any plant SSCs nor does it require any 

change in systems or plant operations. The 

proposed change is consistent with the safety 

analysis assumptions and resultant 

consequences. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed reduction in the reactor 

dome pressure safety limit from 785 psig to 

685 psig is a change based upon previously 

approved documents and does not involve 

changes to the plant hardware or its 

operating characteristics. As a result, no new 

failure modes are being introduced. 

There are no hardware changes nor are 

there any changes in the method by which 

any plant systems perform a safety function. 

No new accident scenarios, failure 

mechanisms, or limiting single failures are 

introduced as a result of the proposed 

change. 

The proposed change does not introduce 

any new accident precursors, nor does it 

involve any physical plant alterations or 

changes in the methods governing normal 

plant operation. Also, the change does not 

impose any new or different requirements or 

eliminate any existing requirements. The 

change does not alter assumptions made in 

the safety analysis. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The margin of safety is established through 

the design of the plant structures, systems, 

and components, and through the parameters 

for safe operation and setpoints for the 

actuation of equipment relied upon to 

respond to transients and design basis 

accidents. 

Evaluation of the 10 CFR part 21 condition 

by General Electric determined that since the 

Minimum Critical Power Ratio improves 

during the PRFO [Pressure Regulator Failure 

Maximum Demand (Open)] transient, there is 

no decrease in the safety margin and 

therefore there is not a threat to fuel cladding 

integrity. 

The proposed change in reactor dome 

pressure supports the current safety margin, 

which protects the fuel cladding integrity 

during a depressurization transient, but does 

not change the requirements governing 

operation or availability of safety equipment 

assumed to operate to preserve the margin of 

safety. The change does not alter the behavior 

of plant equipment, which remains 

unchanged. 

The proposed change to Reactor Core 

Safety Limits 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 is consistent 

with and within the capabilities of the 

applicable NRC approved critical power 

correlation for the fuel designs in use at 

LSCS, Units 1 and 2. No setpoints at which 

protective actions are initiated are altered by 

the proposed change. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

manner in which the safety limits are 

determined. This change is consistent with 

plant design and does not change the TS 

operability requirements; thus, previously 

evaluated accidents are not affected by this 

proposed change. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 

requested amendments involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Bradley J. 

Fewell, Associate General Counsel, 

Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, 

Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Acting Branch Chief: Justin C. 

Poole. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 

and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and 

Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: 

December 3, 2015. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML15337A413. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the 

technical specification (TS) surveillance 

requirements (SRs) associated with the 

emergency diesel generator (EDG) fuel 

oil transfer system. Specifically, the 

amendments would allow for the 

crediting of manual actions, in lieu of 

automatic actions, without having to 

declare the EDGs inoperable. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

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. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change will revise SR 3.8.1.6 

by adding a note to allow for procedurally 

controlled simple manual actions associated 

with the fuel oil transfer system without 

having to declare the EDG inoperable [under] 

administrative control. The fuel oil transfer 

system is required to support continuous 

operation of standby power sources. The 

surveillance provides assurance that the fuel 

oil transfer system is OPERABLE. The fuel oil 

transfer system is not an initiator of any 

event previously evaluated. Therefore, the 

probability of any accident previously 

evaluated is not increased. 

In the event of an accident, if simple 

manual actions were necessary to restore the 

automatic feature of the EDG day tank fill, 

analysis shows that significant margin exists 

to ensure that EDG operability would not be 

adversely affected. Although the proposed 

change to allow simple manual actions could 

introduce additional potential malfunctions, 

such that human error could result in the 

potential to improperly realign the fuel oil 

transfer system during a DBA [design-basis 

accident], the improper realignment would 

be detected when the transfer of fuel oil from 

the storage tank to the day tank did not occur 

as expected and the error would be corrected 

prior to having a significant impact. 

The proposed change does not involve any 

physical changes to the structures, systems, 

or components (SSCs) in the plant. Further 

the proposed change does not alter or prevent 

the ability of SSCs from performing their 

intended function to mitigate the 

consequences of an event. 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Notices 5499 

The proposed change is consistent with 

NRC regulatory requirements regarding the 

content of plant TS as identified in 10 CFR 

50.36. Additionally, the proposed change is 

consistent with NUREG–1433, ‘‘Standard 

Technical Specifications General Electric 

BWR/4 Plants,’’ in that the word 

‘automatically’ is bracketed (i.e., optional or 

as required by plant design). 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

physical design, safety limits, or safety 

analysis assumptions associated with the 

operation of the plant. Accordingly, the 

change does not introduce any new accident 

initiators, nor does it reduce or adversely 

affect the capabilities of any plant structure, 

system, or component to perform their safety 

function. Consequently, there are no new 

initiators that could result in a new or 

different kind of accident. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change conforms to NRC 

regulatory guidance regarding the content of 

plant Technical Specifications. The proposed 

change does not alter the physical design, 

safety limits, or safety analysis assumptions 

associated with the operation of the plant. 

The proposed change has no adverse impact 

on current Safety Limits, Limiting Safety 

System Settings, Limiting Control Settings, 

Limiting Conditions for Operation, 

Surveillance Requirements, Design Features, 

or Administrative Controls. 

Therefore, the proposed change does 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. 

Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, 

Associate General Counsel, Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, 4300 

Winfield Rd., Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Company, Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52– 

028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 

(VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield 

County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: 

December 17, 2015, and supplemented 

by letter dated January 11, 2016. 

Publicly-available versions are in 

ADAMS under Accession Nos. 

ML15351A452 and ML16011A500, 

respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed changes, if approved, 

would amend Combined License Nos. 

NPF–93 and NPR–94 for VCSNS, Units 

2 and 3, respectively. The requested 

amendment proposes to change the 

design of the auxiliary building Wall 11 

and other changes to the licensing basis 

for the use of Category II structures, 

such as Wall 11.2 in the turbine 

building. The changes in the proposed 

amendment are located primarily in the 

VCSNS Updated Final Safety Analysis 

Report (UFSAR) Tier 2* and Tier 2 

information, and also require 

conforming changes to a license 

condition. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

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. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not adversely 

affect the operation of any systems or 

equipment inside or outside the auxiliary 

building that could initiate or mitigate 

abnormal events, e.g., accidents, anticipated 

operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods, 

tornado missiles, and turbine missiles, or 

their safety or design analyses, evaluated in 

the UFSAR. The changes do not adversely 

affect any design function of the auxiliary 

building or the systems and equipment 

contained therein. The ability of the affected 

auxiliary building [main steam isolation 

valve] MSIV compartments to withstand the 

pressurization effects from the design basis 

pipe rupture is not adversely affected by the 

removal of the Wall 11 upper vent openings, 

because vents at these locations are not 

credited in the subcompartment 

pressurization analysis. MSIV compartment 

temperatures following the limiting one 

square foot pipe rupture with the vent 

openings removed remain acceptably within 

the envelope for environmental qualification 

of equipment in the compartments. The 

credit of seismic Category II Wall 11.2 as a 

[high energy line break] HELB barrier and the 

seismic Category II turbine building first bay 

and associated missile barriers to protect 

Wall 11 openings from tornado missiles 

continues to provide adequate protection of 

structures, systems, and components (SSCs) 

required to safely shut down the plant, as 

these structures are designed to the same 

requirements as seismic Category I structures, 

and with the additional HELB loadings 

assumed, remain well within the applicable 

acceptance criteria. 

Therefore, the proposed activity does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not change the 

design function of the auxiliary building or 

of any of the systems or equipment in the 

auxiliary building or elsewhere within the 

Nuclear Island structure. These proposed 

changes do not introduce any new equipment 

or components that would result in a new 

failure mode, malfunction or sequence of 

events that could affect safety-related or 

nonsafety-related equipment. This activity 

will not allow for a new fission product 

release path, result in a new fission product 

barrier failure mode, or create a new 

sequence of events that would result in 

significant fuel cladding failures. 

Therefore, this activity does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The margin of safety for the design of the 

auxiliary building is maintained through 

continued use of the current codes and 

standards as stated in the UFSAR and 

adherence to the assumptions used in the 

analyses of this structure and the events 

associated with this structure. The auxiliary 

building will continue to maintain a seismic 

Category I rating which preserves the current 

structural safety margins. The 3-hour fire 

rating requirements for the impacted 

auxiliary building walls are maintained. The 

Wall 11 upper vents are not credited in the 

subcompartment pressurization analysis and 

the remaining vents and pressure relief 

devices provide sufficient venting to 

maintain the MSIV compartment pressures 

below the design limit and design basis. The 

credit of turbine building Wall 11.2 as a 

HELB barrier provides protection of Wall 11 

from selected dynamic effects, which in turn 

provides that essential SSCs remain 

protected from the effects of postulated HELB 

events. The credit of the seismic Category II 

turbine building first bay and associated 

missile barriers to provide protection of Wall 

11 openings from tornado missiles provides 

sufficient protection for the essential SSCs 

located in the auxiliary building in the 

vicinity of Wall 11 from the effects of 

external missiles. Thus the requested changes 

will not adversely affect any safety-related 

equipment, design code, function, design 

analysis, safety analysis input or result, or 

design/safety margin. No safety analysis or 

design basis acceptance limit/criterion is 

challenged or exceeded by the requested 

change, thus, no margin of safety is reduced. 

Therefore, the proposed change does 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 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
5500 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Notices 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. 

Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20004–2514. 

NRC Acting Branch Chief: John 

McKirgan. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 

and 4, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: 

November 16, 2015. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15320A464. 

Description of amendment request: 

The requested amendment proposes to 

depart from Tier 2* information in the 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

related to the construction methods 

used for the composite floors and roof 

of the auxiliary building. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

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. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The design functions of the nuclear island 

structures are to provide support, protection, 

and separation for the seismic Category I 

mechanical and electrical equipment located 

in the nuclear island. The nuclear island 

structures are structurally designed to meet 

seismic Category I requirements as defined in 

Regulatory Guide 1.29. 

The use of [American Concrete Institute 

(ACI)] 349 and [American Institute of Steel 

Construction (AISC)] N690 provides criteria 

for the design, qualification, fabrication, and 

inspection of composite steel beam floors and 

roof in the auxiliary building. These 

structures continue to meet the applicable 

portions of ACI 349 and AISC N690. The 

proposed change does not have an adverse 

impact on the response of the nuclear island 

structures to safe shutdown earthquake 

ground motions or loads due to anticipated 

transients or postulated accident conditions. 

The change does not impact the support, 

design, or operation of mechanical and fluid 

systems. There is no change to plant systems 

or the response of systems to postulated 

accident conditions. There is no change to 

the predicted radioactive releases due to 

normal operation or postulated accident 

conditions. The plant response to previously 

evaluated accidents or external events is not 

adversely affected, nor does the change 

described create any new accident 

precursors. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises the 

description of the construction of composite 

steel beam floors and roof in the auxiliary 

building. The proposed change does not 

change the design function, support, design, 

or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. 

The proposed change does not result in a 

new failure mechanism for the pertinent 

structures or new accident precursors. As a 

result, the design function of the structures 

is not adversely affected by the proposed 

change. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change is consistent with 

ACI 349 and AISC N690. The design and 

construction of the auxiliary building floors 

and roof remain in conformance with the 

requirements in ACI 349 and AISC N690. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

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. 

Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford 

Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 

Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 

35203–2015. 

NRC Acting Branch Chief: John 

McKirgan. 

Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 

50–387 and 50–388, Susquehanna 

Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 

(SSES), Luzerne County, Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: March 

19, 2015, as supplemented by letters 

dated October 15, 2015, October 16, 

2015, and January 8, 2016. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under 

Package Accession Nos. ML15091A657, 

ML15296A048, and ML15296A057, and 

Accession No. ML16011A103, 

respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The NRC staff previously made a 

proposed determination that the 

amendment request dated March 19, 

2015, involved no significant hazards 

consideration (80 FR 38762; July 7, 

2015). Subsequently, the supplemental 

letter dated October 15, 2015, provided 

additional information that expanded 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed. Accordingly, this notice 

supersedes the previous notice in its 

entirety. The amendments would revise 

the Emergency Plan for SSES to adopt 

the Nuclear Energy Institute’s (NEI’s) 

revised emergency action level (EAL) 

scheme described in NEI 99–01, 

Revision 6, ‘‘Development of Emergency 

Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors’’ 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML12326A805), 

which was endorsed by the NRC as 

documented in NRC letter dated March 

28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML12346A463). Supplemental changes 

in these amendments were discussed in 

a September 23, 2015, public meeting 

held with Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC. 

The public meeting summary was 

issued October 9, 2015, and is available 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML15278A492. The additional 

information, and the changes discussed 

at the public meeting, are included in 

the two Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC 

letters dated October 15, 2015, and 

October 16, 2015. The revised 

Emergency Plan includes the 

appropriate plant-specific changes as a 

result of an emergency operating 

procedure upgrade project and 

corrective action in response to an NRC 

Emergency Preparedness White Finding, 

documented in NRC Inspection Report 

No. 05000387/2015504 and 05000388/ 

2015504, dated June 22, 2015 (ADAMS 

Accession Nos. ML15173A297 and 

ML15181A332). 

On June 1, 2015, the NRC staff issued 

an amendment changing the name on 

the SSES license from PPL 

Susquehanna, LLC to Susquehanna 

Nuclear, LLC. This amendment was 

issued subsequent to an order issued on 

April 10, 2015, to SSES, approving an 

indirect license transfer. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

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, along with NRC edits in square 

brackets: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to the EAL scheme 

to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 

99–01, Revision 6, ‘‘Development of 

Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive 

Reactors,’’ [and the additional plant-specific 

Emergency Plan changes] do not reduce the 

capability to meet the emergency planning 

requirements established in 10 CFR 50.47 

and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E. The proposed 

changes do not reduce the functionality, 

performance, or capability of the ERO 

[Emergency Response Organization] to 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Notices 5501 

respond in mitigating the consequences of 

any design basis accident. 

The probability of a reactor accident 

requiring implementation of Emergency Plan 

EALs has no relevance in determining 

whether the proposed changes to the EALs 

reduce the effectiveness of the Emergency 

Plan. As discussed in Section I.D, ‘‘Planning 

Basis,’’ of NUREG–0654, Revision 1, ‘‘Criteria 

for Preparation and Evaluation of 

Radiological Emergency Response Plans and 

Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power 

Plants’’; 

. . . The overall objective of emergency 

response plans is to provide dose savings 

(and in some cases immediate life saving) for 

a spectrum of accidents that could produce 

offsite doses in excess of Protective Action 

Guides (PAGs). No single specific accident 

sequence should be isolated as the one for 

which to plan because each accident could 

have different consequences, both in nature 

and degree. Further, the range of possible 

selection for a planning basis is very large, 

starting with a zero point of requiring no 

planning at all because significant offsite 

radiological accident consequences are 

unlikely to occur, to planning for the worst 

possible accident, regardless of its extremely 

low likelihood. . . . 

Therefore, risk insights are not considered 

for any specific accident initiation or 

progression in evaluating the proposed 

changes. 

The proposed changes do not involve any 

physical changes to plant equipment or 

systems, nor do they alter the assumptions of 

any accident analyses. The proposed changes 

do not adversely affect accident initiators or 

precursors nor do they alter the design 

assumptions, conditions, and configuration 

or the manner in which the plants are 

operated and maintained. The proposed 

changes do not adversely affect the ability of 

Structures, Systems, or Components (SSCs) 

to perform their intended safety functions in 

mitigating the consequences of an initiating 

event within the assumed acceptance limits. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to the EAL scheme 

to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 

99–01, Revision 6, [and the additional plantspecific Emergency Plan changes] do not 

involve any physical changes to plant 

systems or equipment. The proposed changes 

do not involve the addition of any new plant 

equipment. The proposed changes will not 

alter the design configuration, or method of 

operation of plant equipment beyond its 

normal functional capabilities. All ERO 

functions will continue to be performed as 

required. The proposed changes do not create 

any new credible failure mechanisms, 

malfunctions, or accident initiators. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from those that have been 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to the EAL scheme 

to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 

99–01, Revision 6, [and the additional plantspecific Emergency Plan changes] do not 

alter or exceed a design basis or safety limit. 

There is no change being made to safety 

analysis assumptions, safety limit, or limiting 

safety system settings that would adversely 

affect plant safety as a result of the proposed 

changes. There are no changes to setpoints or 

environmental conditions of any SSC or the 

manner in which any SSC is operated. 

Margins of safety are unaffected by the 

proposed changes to adopt the NEI 99–01, 

Revision 6 EAL scheme guidance. The 

applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and 

10 CFR 50, Appendix E will continue to be 

met. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve any 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. 

Attorney for licensee: Damon D. Obie, 

Associate General Counsel, Talen 

Energy Supply, LLC, 835 Hamilton St., 

Suite 150, Allentown, PA 18101. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 

50–391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), 

Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: 

December 15, 2015. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML15350A250. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The amendment would revise 

the technical specification (TS) 

surveillance requirements (SRs) for the 

WBN, Unit 2, ice condenser lower inlet 

doors. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

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. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequence of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The ice condenser is a passive heat 

removal plant feature. The proposed 

amendment to the TS 3.6.12 does not change 

the design, physical features or the function 

of the ice condenser or the ice condenser 

doors. The ice condenser is not an accident 

initiator, thus the proposed amendment does 

not increase the probability of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

The ice condenser is credited in mitigating 

the consequences of postulated Design Basis 

Accidents (DBAs) and remains capable of 

performing its design basis functions. The 

proposed amendment to the SRs during the 

first cycle of WBN Unit 2 operation does not 

change the ice condenser configuration or 

how it behaves in the event of a DBA. Thus 

it is concluded that a significant increase in 

the consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated will not occur as a result of the 

proposed amendment. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment does not create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. The proposed amendment does 

not introduce any new modes of plant 

operation, change the design function of the 

ice condenser or any other Structure System 

or Component (SSC), or change the mode of 

operation of the ice condenser or any other 

SSC. There are no new equipment failure 

modes or malfunctions created as the ice 

condenser and ice condenser lower inlet 

doors continue to operate in the same 

manner assumed in the accident analysis. 

The ice condenser is a passive post-accident 

heat removal feature that is not an accident 

initiator. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Ice condensers have been in-service at nine 

nuclear units in the United States for many 

years. Operating experience has shown that 

an 18-month surveillance frequency for 

evaluating operability is appropriate for the 

lower inlet doors. The proposed amendment 

to perform a revised schedule of lower inlet 

door surveillances in the first cycle before 

transitioning to the standard 18-month 

surveillance frequency does not result in a 

significant reduction in the margin of safety. 

Therefore, since there is no adverse impact 

of this amendment on the WBN Unit 2 safety 

analysis, there is no significant reduction in 

the margin of safety of the plant. 

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. 

Attorney for licensee: Scott A. Vance, 

Associate General Counsel, Nuclear, 

Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West 

Summit Hill Drive, WT 6A–K, 

Knoxville, TN 37902. 

NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. 

Beasley. 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
5502 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Notices 

III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments 

to Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application 

complies with the standards and 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

A notice of consideration of issuance 

of amendment to facility operating 

license or combined license, as 

applicable, proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination, 

and opportunity for a hearing in 

connection with these actions, was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

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 these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) 

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items can be accessed as described in 

the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 

50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam 

Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick 

County, North Carolina 

Date of amendment request: January 

30, 2015, as supplemented by letter 

dated November 23, 2015. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments authorized the upgrade of 

the emergency action level scheme for 

each unit based on the Nuclear Energy 

Institute (NEI) document NEI 99–01, 

Revision 6, ‘‘Development of Emergency 

Action Levels for Non-Passive 

Reactors,’’ dated November 2012. NEI 

99–01, Revision 6, was endorsed by the 

NRC by letter dated March 28, 2013. 

Date of issuance: January 8, 2016. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 180 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 268 (Unit 1) and 

296 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML15344A153; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–71 and DPR–62: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 28, 2015 (80 FR 23602). 

The supplemental letter dated 

November 23, 2015, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 8, 2016. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket Nos. 50–003, 50–247, and 50– 

286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating 

Station (IP), Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and 

Docket No. 72–51 for IP Independent 

Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), 

Westchester County, New York 

Date of application for amendments: 

August 20, 2013, as supplemented by 

letters dated November 21, 2013, and 

May 13 and July 24, 2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments modified the licenses to 

reflect a grant of Section 161A of the 

Atomic Energy Act, to authorize the 

licensee the authority to possess and use 

certain firearms, ammunition, and other 

devices such as large-capacity 

ammunition feeding devices, and to 

implement the NRC-approved security 

plan for IP including the generallicensed ISFSI. 

Date of issuance: January 5, 2016. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 20 days. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—58, Unit 

2—282, and Unit 3—259. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Package Accession No. ML14259A209; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

5, DPR–26, and DPR–64 and Special 

Nuclear Materials General-License: The 

amendments revised the Facility 

Operating Licenses including the 

general-licensed ISFSI. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 27, 2014 (79 FR 

11147). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 5, 2016. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–333, James A. Fitzpatrick 

Nuclear Power Plant (Fitzpatrick), and 

Docket No. 72–12 for Fitzpatrick 

Independent Spent Fuel Storage 

Installation (ISFSI), Oswego County, 

New York 

Date of application for amendment: 

August 30, 2013, as supplemented by 

letters dated November 12, 2013, May 

14, and July 11, 2014, and January 15, 

2015. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment modified the licenses to 

reflect a grant of Section 161A of the 

Atomic Energy Act, to authorize the 

licensee the authority to possess and use 

certain firearms, ammunition, and other 

devices such as large-capacity 

ammunition feeding devices, and to 

implement the NRC-approved security 

plan for Fitzpatrick including the 

general-licensed ISFSI. 

Date of issuance: January 5, 2016. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 20 days. 

Amendment No.: 310. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

package Accession No. v; documents 

related to this amendment are listed in 

the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–59 and Special Nuclear 

Materials General-License: The 

amendment revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating License including the 

general-licensed ISFSI. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 6, 2014 (79 FR 25900). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 5, 2016. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–410, Nine Mile Point 

Nuclear Station (NMP), Unit 2, Oswego 

County, New York 

Date of amendment request: 

September 3, 2015. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment changed Technical 

Specification (TS) Section 2.1.1.2, 

‘‘Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits],’’ to 

revise the cycle-specific safety limit 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Notices 5503 

minimum critical power ratio for Cycle 

16 for NMP, Unit 2. 

Date of issuance: January 5, 2016. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

prior to startup from the refueling 

outage where Global Nuclear Fuel 2 is 

loaded. 

Amendment No.: 153. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15341A336; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–69: Amendment revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating License and 

TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 3, 2015 (80 FR 

67801). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 5, 2016. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–220 and 50–410, Nine 

Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 

2 (NMP), and Docket No. 72–1036 for 

NMP Independent Spent Fuel Storage 

Installation (ISFSI), Oswego County, 

New York 

Date of application for amendments: 

August 14, 2013, as supplemented by 

letters dated September 10, 2013, and 

May 14, 2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments modified the licenses to 

reflect a grant of Section 161A of the 

Atomic Energy Act, to authorize the 

licensee the authority to possess and use 

certain firearms, ammunition, and other 

devices such as large-capacity 

ammunition feeding devices, and to 

implement the NRC-approved security 

plan for NMP including the generallicensed ISFSI. 

Date of issuance: January 5, 2016. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 20 days. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—220; Unit 

2—154. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Package Accession 

No. ML14254A450; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–63 and NPF–69, and Special 

Nuclear Materials General-License: The 

amendments revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating Licenses including 

the general-licensed ISFSI. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 27, 2014 (79 FR 

63956). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 5, 2016. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear 

Power Plant (Ginna), and Docket No. 

72–67 for Ginna Independent Spent 

Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), Wayne 

County, New York 

Date of application for amendment: 

August 14, 2013, as supplemented by 

letters dated November 4, 2013, and 

May 14, 2014. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment modified the licenses to 

reflect a grant of Section 161A of the 

Atomic Energy Act, to authorize the 

licensee the authority to possess and use 

certain firearms, ammunition, and other 

devices such as large-capacity 

ammunition feeding devices, and to 

implement the NRC-approved security 

plan for Ginna including the generallicensed ISFSI. 

Date of issuance: January 5, 2016. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 20 days. 

Amendment No.: 120. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Package Accession No. ML14260A140; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–18 and Special Nuclear 

Materials General-License: The 

amendment revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating License including the 

general-licensed ISFSI. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 27, 2014 (79 FR 

63951). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 5, 2016. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Luminant Generation Company LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–445 and 50–446, 

Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, 

Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (CPNPP), Somervell 

County, Texas 

Date of amendment request: January 

28, 2015, as supplemented by letter 

dated July 29, 2015. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 5.5.16, ‘‘Containment 

Leakage Rate Testing Program,’’ for 

CPNPP, to allow an increase in the 10 

CFR part 50, Appendix J, ‘‘Primary 

Reactor Containment Leakage Testing 

for Water-Cooled Power Reactors,’’ Type 

A Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT) 

interval from a 10-year frequency to a 

maximum of 15 years and the extension 

of the containment isolation valves 

leakage Type C tests from its current 60- 

month frequency to 75 months in 

accordance with Nuclear Energy 

Institute (NEI) 94–01, Revision 3–A, 

‘‘Industry Guidance for Implementing 

Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR 

50, Appendix J,’’ July 2012, and 

conditions and limitations specified in 

NEI 94–01, Revision 2–A, ‘‘Industry 

Guidance for Implementing 

Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR 

50, Appendix J,’’ October 2008, in 

addition to limitations and conditions of 

NEI 94–01, Revision 3–A. The 

amendments also deleted the listing of 

one-time exceptions previously granted 

to ILRT frequencies. 

Date of issuance: December 30, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—165; Unit 

2—165. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML15309A073; documents related to 

these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

87 and NPF–89: The amendments 

revised the Facility Operating Licenses 

and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 31, 2015 (80 FR 

17092). The supplemental letter dated 

July 29, 2015, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 30, 

2015. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo 

Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 

1 and 2, and Docket No. 72–26 for 

Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel 

Storage Installation (ISFSI), San Luis 

Obispo County, California 

Date of application for amendments: 

September 24, 2013, as supplemented 

by letters dated December 18, 2013, and 

May 15, 2014. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments modified the licenses to 

reflect a grant of Section 161A of the 

Atomic Energy Act, to authorize the 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
5504 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Notices 

licensee the authority to possess and use 

certain firearms, ammunition, and other 

devices such as large-capacity 

ammunition feeding devices, and to 

implement the NRC-approved security 

plan for Diablo Canyon Power Plant and 

Diablo Canyon ISFSI. 

Date of issuance: January 5, 2016. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 20 days. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—222; Unit 

2—224, ISFSI–4. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under package 

Accession No. ML15029A249; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

80 and DPR–82 and Special Nuclear 

Materials License No. SNM–2511: The 

amendments revised the Facility 

Operating Licenses and Special Nuclear 

Materials License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 18, 2015 (80 FR 

8706). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 5, 2016. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 

Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–028, Virgil 

C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) 

Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South 

Carolina 

Date of amendment request: 

September 18, 2014, and supplemented 

by letter dated May 28, 2015. 

Description of amendment: The 

amendment authorizes a departure from 

VCSNS, Units 2 and 3 plant-specific 

AP1000 Design Control Document 

(DCD) Tier 2* material contained within 

the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report by relocating fire 

area rated fire barriers due to changes to 

the layout of the switchgear rooms and 

office area in the turbine building. 

Date of issuance: December 17, 2015. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 38. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15313A052; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF– 

93 and NPF–94: Amendment revised the 

Facility Combined Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 6, 2015 (80 FR 526). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in the 

Safety Evaluation dated December 17, 

2015. The supplemental letter dated 

May 28, 2015, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern California Edison Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–361, 50–362, and 

72–41, San Onofre Nuclear Generating 

Station, Units 2 and 3, and Independent 

Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), 

San Diego County, California 

Date of amendment request: August 

28, 2013, as supplemented by letters 

dated December 31, 2013, May 15, 2014, 

and February 10, 2015. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

conforming amendments would permit 

the security personnel at San Onofre 

Nuclear Generating Station to transfer, 

receive possess, transport, import, and 

use certain firearms and large capacity 

ammunition feeding devices not 

previously permitted to be owned or 

possessed under NRC authority, 

notwithstanding certain local, state, or 

federal firearms laws, including 

regulations that prohibit such actions. 

Date of issuance: January 5, 2016. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 20 days. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 2–232 and 

Unit 3–225: A publicly-available version 

is in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML15027A221; documents related to 

these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

10 and NPF–15: The amendments 

revised the Facility Operating Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 18, 2015 (80 FR 

8701). The supplemental letter dated 

February 10, 2015, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 5, 2016. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: Yes, addressed in 

Safety Evaluation. 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), 

Docket No. 50–296, Browns Ferry 

Nuclear Plant (BFN), Unit 3, Limestone 

County, Alabama 

Date of amendment request: January 

27, 2015, as supplemented by letters 

dated August 13 and October 23, 2015. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) for Limiting 

Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.4.9, 

‘‘RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure 

and Temperature (P/T) Limits.’’ The 

amendment also revised Note 1 of TS 

Surveillance Requirement 3.4.9.1 to 

change the vessel pressure from less 

than 312 pounds per square inch gauge 

(psig) to less than 313 psig to conform 

to the modified P/T limit curves. The 

amendment satisfied TVA’s 

commitment to submit revised BFN, 

Unit 3, P/T limits prior to the start of the 

period of extended operation, as 

discussed in NRCs Safety Evaluation 

Report dated April 2006 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML061030032), related to 

the license renewal of BFN, Units 1, 2, 

and 3. 

Specifically, the amendment revised 

the current sets of TS Figures 3.4.9–1, 

‘‘Pressure/Temperature Limits for 

Mechanical Heatup, Cooldown 

following Shutdown, and Reactor 

Critical Operations,’’ and 3.4.9–2, 

‘‘Pressure/Temperature Limits for 

Reactor In-Service Leak and Hydrostatic 

Testing.’’ The amendment replaced the 

current set valid up to 20 effective fullpower years (EFPYs) with a new set 

valid up to 38 EFPYs, and replaced the 

current set valid up to 28 EFPYs with 

a new set valid up to 54 EFPYs. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 60 

days from the date of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 278. A publicly 

available version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML15344A321; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–68: Amendment revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating License and 

TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 5, 2015 (80 FR 25720). 

The supplemental letters dated August 

13 and October 23, 2015, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated January 7, 2016. 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Notices 5505 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: Yes. The comment 

received on Amendment No. 278 is 

addressed in the Safety Evaluation 

dated January 7, 2016. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day 

of January 2016. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Anne T. Boland, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01771 Filed 2–1–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT 

CORPORATION 

[OPIC–162, OMB 3420–0019] 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comments Request 

AGENCY: Overseas Private Investment 

Corporation (OPIC). 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35), agencies are required to 

publish a Notice in the Federal Register 

notifying the public that the agency is 

modifying an existing information 

collection for OMB review and approval 

and requests public review and 

comment on the submission. Comments 

are being solicited on the need for the 

information; the accuracy of OPIC’s 

burden estimate; the quality, practical 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and ways to minimize 

reporting the burden, including 

automated collection techniques and 

uses of other forms of technology. 

The proposed change to OPIC–162 

clarifies existing questions, incorporates 

sector-specific development impact 

questions and eliminates ineffective 

questions in an effort to harmonize 

development impact indicators with 

other Development Finance Institutions 

(‘‘DFIs’’). OPIC is a signatory to a 

‘‘Memorandum of Understanding’’ with 

25 partnering DFIs to harmonize 

development impact metrics where 

possible. The goal of this effort is to 

reduce the reporting burden on clients 

that receive financing from multiple 

DFIs and to instill best practices in the 

collection and the reporting on OPIC’s 

developmental impacts. To minimize 

the reporting burden on respondents, 

OPIC has designed OPIC–162 as an 

electronic form with questions 

populating only if they relate to a 

project. 

DATES: Comments must be received 

within sixty (60) calendar days of 

publication of this Notice. 

ADDRESSES: Mail all comments and 

requests for copies of the subject form 

to OPIC’s Agency Submitting Officer: 

James Bobbitt, Overseas Private 

Investment Corporation, 1100 New York 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20527. 

See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

other information about filing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

OPIC Agency Submitting Officer: James 

Bobbitt, (202) 336–8558. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All mailed 

comments and requests for copies of the 

subject form should include form 

number OPIC–162 on both the envelope 

and in the subject line of the letter. 

Electronic comments and requests for 

copies of the subject form may be sent 

to James.Bobbitt@opic.gov, subject line 

OPIC–162. 

SUMMARY FORM UNDER REVIEW 

Type of Request: Revision of a 

currently approved information 

collection. 

Title: Self-Monitoring Questionnaire. 

Form Number: OPIC–162. 

Frequency of Use: One per investor 

per project annually. 

Type of Respondents: Business or 

other institutions and individuals. 

Standard Industrial Classification 

Codes: All. 

Description of Affected Public: U.S. 

companies or citizens investing 

overseas. 

Reporting Hours: 2,186 (4.7 hours per 

form). 

Number of Responses: 465 per year. 

Federal Cost: $48,518. 

Authority for Information Collection: 

Sections 231, 231A, 239(d), and 240A of 

the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 

amended. 

Abstract (Needs and Uses): The SelfMonitoring Questionnaire is the 

principal document used by OPIC to 

monitor the developmental effects of 

OPIC’s investment projects, monitor the 

economic effects on the U.S. economy, 

and collect information on compliance 

with environmental and labor policies. 

Dated: January 27, 2016. 

Nichole Skoyles, 

Administrative Counsel, Department of Legal 

Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01859 Filed 2–1–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3210–01–P 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY POLICY 

Nanotechnology Commercialization 

Success Stories 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this Request 

for Information (RFI) is to seek examples 

of commercialization success stories 

stemming from U.S. Governmentfunded nanotechnology research and 

development (R&D) since the inception 

of the National Nanotechnology 

Initiative (NNI) in 2001. The 

information gathered in response to this 

RFI may be used as examples to 

highlight the impact of the Initiative or 

to inform future activities to promote 

the commercialization of federally 

funded nanotechnology R&D. 

Depending on the nature of the 

feedback, responses may be used to 

shape the agenda for a workshop to 

share best practices and showcase 

commercial nanotechnology-enabled 

products and services. Commercial 

entities, academic institutions, 

government laboratories, and 

individuals who have participated in 

federally funded R&D; collaborated with 

Federal laboratories; utilized federally 

funded user facilities for nanoscale 

fabrication, characterization, and/or 

simulation; or have otherwise benefited 

from NNI agency resources are invited 

to respond. 

DATES: Responses are requested by 

February 29, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit responses 

by any of the following methods (email 

is preferred): 

• Email: NNISuccessStories@

nnco.nano.gov. Include [NNI Success 

Story] in the subject line of the message. 

• Mail: Mike Kiley, National 

Nanotechnology Coordination Office, 

ATTN: RFI0116, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 

Stafford II, Suite 405, Arlington, VA 

22230. If submitting a response by mail, 

allow sufficient time for mail 

processing. 

Instructions: Submissions are limited 

to five pages, one of which we strongly 

recommend be an overview slide using 

the template provided at www.nano.gov/ 

NNISuccessStories. Responses must be 

unclassified and should not contain any 

sensitive personally identifiable 

information (such as home address or 

social security number), or information 

that might be considered proprietary or 

confidential). Please include a contact 

name, email address, and/or phone 

number in case clarification of details in 

your submission is required. 

Disclaimer: Federal agencies may or 

may not use any responses to this RFI 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES