28962 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 116 / Thursday, June 18, 2009 / Notices 

The petitioner also stated that other 

divisions of Kenworth Truck Company 

and a supplier of interior components 

for heavy duty trucks have been recently 

certified for TAA and thus workers of 

the subject facility should also be 

eligible for TAA. 

The Kenworth Truck Company 

divisions indicated by the petitioner 

were certified eligible for TAA in 

January 2009 since the company shifted 

production of cabs for Class 8 trucks to 

Mexico. The certifications of these 

divisions are not relevant to this 

investigation as certified workers 

engaged in production of cabs are 

separately identifiable from workers of 

the subject firm who are engaged in 

production of Class 8 heavy duty trucks. 

The certification of a company 

supplying interior components for 

heavy duty trucks is also not relevant to 

this investigation. 

When assessing eligibility for TAA, 

the Department exclusively considers 

shift in production of articles like or 

directly competitive with the ones 

manufactured at the subject firm during 

the relevant period (one year prior to the 

date of the petition). The issue of a shift 

in production by the subject firm to a 

foreign country was addressed during 

the initial investigation. It was revealed 

that the subject firm did not shift 

production of Class 8 heavy duty trucks 

during the relevant period. 

The petitioner did not supply facts 

not previously considered; nor provide 

additional documentation indicating 

that there was either (1) a mistake in the 

determination of facts not previously 

considered or (2) a misinterpretation of 

facts or of the law justifying 

reconsideration of the initial 

determination. 

After careful review of the request for 

reconsideration, the Department 

determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not 

been met. 

Conclusion 

After review of the application and 

investigative findings, I conclude that 

there has been no error or 

misinterpretation of the law or of the 

facts which would justify 

reconsideration of the Department of 

Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the 

application is denied. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 19th day of 

May 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–14323 Filed 6–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,979] 

Fiberweb, PLC, Simpsonville, SC; 

Notice of Negative Determination on 

Reconsideration 

On May 12, 2009, the Department 

issued an Affirmative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration for the workers and 

former workers of the subject firm. The 

notice will soon be published in the 

Federal Register. 

The initial investigation resulted in a 

negative determination based on the 

finding that imports of filtration media 

did not contribute importantly to 

worker separations at the subject firm 

and no shift of production to a foreign 

source occurred. 

In the request for reconsideration, the 

petitioner alleged that the workers of the 

subject firm also produced non-filtration 

products, specifically nonwoven fabrics 

used in medical applications, hygiene 

applications and nonwoven rolled 

goods. The petitioner also alleged that 

the subject firm shifted production of 

non-filtration products abroad and that 

there was an increase in imports of nonfiltration products. 

The Department of Labor contacted a 

company official to verify this 

information. The company official 

stated that the subject firm ceased 

production of the non-filtration 

products at the end of 2006 and that 

none of the articles outlined by the 

petitioner were manufactured by 

workers of the subject firm since 2006. 

When assessing eligibility for TAA, 

the Department exclusively considers 

production and import impact during 

the relevant time period (one year prior 

to the date of the petition). Therefore, 

events occurring prior to January 22, 

2008 are outside of the relevant period 

and are not relevant in this 

investigation. 

Conclusion 

After reconsideration, I affirm the 

original notice of negative 

determination of eligibility to apply for 

worker adjustment assistance for 

workers and former workers of 

Fiberweb, PLC, Simpsonville, South 

Carolina. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of 

June 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–14332 Filed 6–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425; NRC– 

2009–0241] 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company; 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards, Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing, and 

Order Imposing Procedures for Access 

to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information (SUNSI) for 

Contention Preparation 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission) is 

considering issuance of an amendment 

to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

68 and NPF–81 issued to Southern 

Nuclear Operating Company (the 

licensee) for operation of the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

located in Burke County, Georgia. 

The proposed amendment would 

revise Technical Specification (TS) 

5.5.9, ‘‘Steam Generator (SG) Program,’’ 

to exclude portions of the tubes within 

the tubesheet from periodic SG 

inspections. In addition, this 

amendment proposes to revise TS 

5.6.10, ‘‘Steam Generator Tube 

Inspection Report’’ to remove reference 

to previous interim alternate repair 

criteria and provide reporting 

requirements specific to the permanent 

alternate repair criteria. The proposed 

change defines the safety significant 

portion of the tube that must be 

inspected and repaired. The amendment 

application dated May 19, 2009, 

contains sensitive unclassified nonsafeguards information (SUNSI). 

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. 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. Under 

the Commission’s regulations in Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR), Section 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 116 / Thursday, June 18, 2009 / Notices 28963 

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 previously analyzed accidents are 

initiated by the failure of plant structures, 

systems, or components. The proposed 

change that alters the steam generator 

inspection criteria and the steam generator 

inspection reporting criteria does not have a 

detrimental impact on the integrity of any 

plant structure, system, or component that 

initiates an analyzed event. The proposed 

change will not alter the operation of, or 

otherwise increase the failure probability of 

any plant equipment that initiates an 

analyzed accident. 

Of the applicable accidents previously 

evaluated, the limiting transients with 

consideration to the proposed change to the 

steam generator tube inspection and repair 

criteria are the steam generator tube rupture 

(SGTR) event and the feedline break (FLB) 

postulated accidents. 

During the SGTR event, the required 

structural integrity margins of the steam 

generator tubes and the tube-to-tubesheet 

joint over the H* distance will be 

maintained. Tube rupture in tubes with 

cracks within the tubesheet is precluded by 

the constraint provided by the tube-totubesheet joint. This constraint results from 

the hydraulic expansion process, thermal 

expansion mismatch between the tube and 

tubesheet, and from the differential pressure 

between the primary and secondary side. 

Based on this design, the structural margins 

against burst, as discussed in Regulatory 

Guide (RG) 1.121, ‘‘Bases for Plugging 

Degraded PWR Steam Generator Tubes,’’ 

(Reference 10) are maintained for both 

normal and postulated accident conditions. 

The proposed change has no impact on the 

structural or leakage integrity of the portion 

of the tube outside of the tubesheet. The 

proposed change maintains structural 

integrity of the steam generator tubes and 

does not affect other systems, structures, 

components, or operational features. 

Therefore, the proposed change results in no 

significant increase in the probability of the 

occurrence of a SGTR accident. 

At normal operating pressures, leakage 

from primary water stress corrosion cracking 

below the proposed limited inspection depth 

is limited by both the tube-to-tubesheet 

crevice and the limited crack opening 

permitted by the tubesheet constraint. 

Consequently, negligible normal operating 

leakage is expected from cracks within the 

tubesheet region. The consequences of an 

SGTR event are affected by the primary-tosecondary leakage flow during the event. 

However, primary-to-secondary leakage flow 

through a postulated broken tube is not 

affected by the proposed changes since the 

tubesheet enhances the tube integrity in the 

region of the hydraulic expansion by 

precluding tube deformation beyond its 

initial hydraulically expanded outside 

diameter. Therefore, the proposed changes do 

not result in a significant increase in the 

consequences of a SGTR. 

The consequences of a steam line break 

(SLB) are also not significantly affected by 

the proposed changes. During a SLB 

accident, the reduction in pressure above the 

tubesheet on the shell side of the steam 

generator creates an axially uniformly 

distributed load on the tubesheet due to the 

reactor coolant system pressure on the 

underside of the tubesheet. The resulting 

bending action constrains the tubes in the 

tubesheet thereby restricting primary-tosecondary leakage below the midplane. 

Primary-to-secondary leakage from tube 

degradation in the tubesheet area during the 

limiting accident (i.e., a SLB) is limited by 

flow restrictions. These restrictions result 

from the crack and tube-to-tubesheet contact 

pressures that provide a restricted leakage 

path above the indications and also limit the 

degree of potential crack face opening as 

compared to free span indications. 

The leakage factor of 2.02 for Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), for a 

postulated SLB/FLB, has been calculated as 

shown in Table 9–7 of Reference 5. The 

leakage factor of 2.03 is a bounding value for 

all steam generators, both hot and cold legs, 

in Table 9–7 of Reference 5. Specifically, for 

the condition monitoring (CM) assessment, 

the component of leakage from the prior 

cycle from below the H* distance will be 

multiplied by a factor of 2.03 and added to 

the total leakage from any other source and 

compared to the allowable accident induced 

leakage limit. For the operational assessment 

(OA), the difference in the leakage between 

the allowable leakage and the accident 

induced leakage from sources other than the 

tubesheet expansion region will be divided 

by 2.03 and compared to the observed 

operational leakage. 

The probability of a SLB is unaffected by 

the potential failure of a steam generator tube 

as the failure of the tube is not an initiator 

for a SLB event. SLB leakage is limited by 

leakage flow restrictions resulting from the 

leakage path above potential cracks through 

the tube-to-tubesheet crevice. The leak rate 

during postulated accident conditions 

(including locked rotor) has been shown to 

remain within the accident analysis 

assumptions for all axial and or 

circumferentially orientated cracks occurring 

13.1 inches below the top of the tubesheet. 

The accident induced leak rate limit is 1.0 

gpm. The TS operational leak rate is 150 gpd 

(0.1 gpm) through any one steam generator. 

Consequently, there is significant margin 

between accident leakage and allowable 

operational leakage. The SLB/FLB leak rate 

ratio is only 2.03 resulting in significant 

margin between the conservatively estimated 

accident leakage and the allowable accident 

leakage (1.0 gpm). 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

(2) Does the change create the possibility 

of a new or different kind of accident from 

any accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change that alters the steam 

generator inspection criteria and the steam 

generator inspection reporting criteria does 

not introduce any new equipment, create 

new failure modes for existing equipment, or 

create any new limiting single failures. Plant 

operation will not be altered, and all safety 

functions will continue to perform as 

previously assumed in accident analyses. 

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 change involve a significant 

reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change that alters the steam 

generator inspection criteria and the steam 

generator inspection reporting criteria 

maintains the required structural margins of 

the steam generator tubes for both normal 

and accident conditions[.] NEI 97–06, 

Revision 2, ‘‘Steam Generator Program 

Guidelines’’ (Reference 6) and RG 1.121, are 

used as the bases in the development of the 

limited tubesheet inspection depth 

methodology for determining that steam 

generator tube integrity considerations are 

maintained within acceptable limits. RG 

1.121 describes a method acceptable to the 

NRC for meeting GDC 14, ‘‘Reactor Coolant 

Pressure Boundary,’’ GDC 15, ‘‘Reactor 

Coolant System Design,’’ GDC 31, ‘‘Fracture 

Prevention of Reactor Coolant Pressure 

Boundary,’’ and GDC 32, ‘‘Inspection of 

Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary,’’ by 

reducing the probability and consequences of 

a SGTR. RG 1.121 concludes that by 

determining the limiting safe conditions for 

tube wall degradation the probability and 

consequences of a SGTR are reduced. This 

RG uses safety factors on loads for tube burst 

that are consistent with the requirements of 

Section III of the American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code. 

For axially oriented cracking located 

within the tubesheet, tube burst is precluded 

due to the presence of the tubesheet. For 

circumferentially oriented cracking, WCAP– 

17071–P, ‘‘H*: Alternate Repair Criteria for 

the Tubesheet Expansion Region in Steam 

Generators with Hydraulically Expanded 

Tubes (Model F),’’ defines a length of 

degradation free expanded tubing that 

provides the necessary resistance to tube 

pullout due to the pressure induced forces, 

with applicable safety factors applied. 

Application of the limited hot and cold leg 

tubesheet inspection criteria will preclude 

unacceptable primary-to-secondary leakage 

during all plant conditions. The methodology 

for determining leakage provides for large 

margins between calculated and actual 

leakage values in the proposed limited 

tubesheet inspection depth criteria. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in any 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 

28964 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 116 / Thursday, June 18, 2009 / Notices 

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. 

Written comments may be submitted 

by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking and 

Directives Branch, TWB–05–B01M, 

Division of Administrative 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. Documents 

may be examined, and/or copied for a 

fee, at the NRC’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 

North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. 

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. 

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 person(s) should consult a 

current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 

available at the Commission’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Public 

File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a 

request for a hearing or petition for 

leave to intervene is filed by the above 

date, 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 identify the specific 

contentions which the petitioner/ 

requestor 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 petitioner/requestor 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 petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner/requestor 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. 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 petitioner to relief. A 

petitioner/requestor 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. 

If a hearing is requested, 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, any hearing held would 

take place before the issuance of any 

amendment. 

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 E-Filing rule, 

which the NRC promulgated in August 

2007, 72 FR 49139 (Aug. 28, 2007). The 

E-Filing 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 

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 ten 

(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the 

petitioner/requestor should contact the 

Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by calling 

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

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/or (2) creation of an 

electronic docket for the proceeding 

(even in instances in which the 

petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or 

representative) already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Each 

petitioner/requestor will need to 

download the Workplace Forms 

ViewerTM to access the Electronic 

Information Exchange (EIE), a 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 116 / Thursday, June 18, 2009 / Notices 28965 

1See footnote 6. While a request for hearing or 

petition to intervene in this proceeding must 

comply with the filing requirements of the NRC’s 

‘‘E-Filing Rule,’’ the initial request to access SUNSI 

under these procedures should be submitted as 

described in this paragraph. 

component of the E-Filing system. The 

Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and 

is available at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. 

Information about applying for a digital 

ID certificate is available on NRC’s 

public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

site-help/e-submittals/applycertificates.html. 

Once a petitioner/requestor has 

obtained a digital ID certificate, had a 

docket created, and downloaded the EIE 

viewer, it 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 public Web site at 

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

complete at the time the filer submits its 

documents through EIE. To be timely, 

an electronic filing must be submitted to 

the EIE 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 e-mail notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

EIE system also distributes an e-mail 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC 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 agency’s adjudicatory e-filing system 

may seek assistance through the 

‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the NRC 

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals.html or by calling the 

NRC electronic filing Help Desk, which 

is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. The 

toll-free help line number is (866) 672– 

7640. A person filing electronically may 

also seek assistance by sending an email to the NRC electronic filing Help 

Desk at MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov. 

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. 

Non-timely requests and/or petitions 

and contentions will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the 

Commission the presiding officer or the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that 

the request and/or petition should be 

granted and/or the contentions should 

be admitted, based on a balancing of the 

factors specified in 10 CFR 

2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http:// 

ehd.nrc.gov/ehd_proceeding/home.asp, 

unless excluded pursuant to an order of 

the Commission, an Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board, or a 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. 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 

submissions. 

For further details with respect to this 

license amendment application, see the 

application for amendment dated May 

19, 2009, which is available for public 

inspection at the Commission’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, File 

Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville 

Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who 

do not have access to ADAMS or who 

encounter problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS, should 

contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by 

telephone at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Order Imposing Procedures for Access 

to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information (SUNSI) for 

Contention Preparation 

1. This order contains instructions 

regarding how potential parties to this 

proceeding may request access to 

documents containing sensitive 

unclassified information. 

2. Within ten (10) days after 

publication of this notice of opportunity 

for hearing, any potential party as 

defined in 10 CFR 2.4 who believes 

access to SUNSI is necessary for a 

response to the notice may request 

access to such information. A ‘‘potential 

party’’ is any person who intends or 

may intend to participate as a party by 

demonstrating standing and the filing of 

an admissible contention under 10 CFR 

2.309. Requests submitted later than ten 

(10) days will not be considered absent 

a showing of good cause for the late 

filing, addressing why the request could 

not have been filed earlier. 

3. The requester shall submit a letter 

requesting permission to access SUNSI 

to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, 

and provide a copy to the Associate 

General Counsel for Hearings, 

Enforcement and Administration, Office 

of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 

20555–0001. The expedited delivery or 

courier mail address for both offices is 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 

20852. The e-mail address for the Office 

of the Secretary and the Office of the 

General Counsel are 

Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and 

OGCMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov, 

respectively.1 The request must include 

the following information: 

a. A description of the licensing 

action with a citation to this Federal 

Register notice of opportunity for 

hearing; 

b. The name and address of the 

potential party and a description of the 

potential party’s particularized interest 

that could be harmed by the potential 

licensing; 

c. The identity of the individual 

requesting access to SUNSI and the 

28966 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 116 / Thursday, June 18, 2009 / Notices 

2 If a presiding officer has not yet been 

designated, the Chief Administrative Judge will 

issue such orders, or will appoint a presiding officer 

to do so. 

3Parties/persons other than the requester and the 

NRC staff will be notified by the NRC staff of a 

favorable access determination (and may participate 

in the development of such a motion and protective 

order) if it concerns SUNSI and if the party/person’s 

interest independent of the proceeding would be 

harmed by the release of the information (e.g., as 

with proprietary information). 

4As of October 15, 2007, the NRC’s final ‘‘E– 

Filing Rule’’ became effective. See Use of Electronic 

Submissions in Agency Hearings (72 FR 49139; 

Aug. 28, 2007). Requesters should note that the 

filing requirements of that rule apply to appeals of 

NRC staff determinations (because they must be 

served on a presiding officer or the Commission, as 

applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI requests 

submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures. 

requester’s need for the information in 

order to meaningfully participate in this 

adjudicatory proceeding, particularly 

why publicly available versions of the 

application would not be sufficient to 

provide the basis and specificity for a 

proffered contention; 

4. Based on an evaluation of the 

information submitted under items 2 

and 3.a through 3.c above, the NRC staff 

will determine within ten days of 

receipt of the written access request 

whether (1) there is a reasonable basis 

to believe the petitioner is likely to 

establish standing to participate in this 

NRC proceeding, and (2) there is a 

legitimate need for access to SUNSI. 

5. A request for access to SUNSI will 

be granted if: 

a. The request has demonstrated that 

there is a reasonable basis to believe that 

a potential party is likely to establish 

standing to intervene or to otherwise 

participate as a party in this proceeding; 

b. The proposed recipient of the 

information has demonstrated a need for 

SUNSI; 

c. The proposed recipient of the 

information has executed a NonDisclosure Agreement or Affidavit and 

agrees to be bound by the terms of a 

Protective Order setting forth terms and 

conditions to prevent the unauthorized 

or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI; and 

d. The presiding officer has issued a 

protective order concerning the 

information or documents requested.2

Any protective order issued shall 

provide that the petitioner must file 

SUNSI contentions 25 days after receipt 

of (or access to) that information. 

However, if more than 25 days remain 

between the petitioner’s receipt of (or 

access to) the information and the 

deadline for filing all other contentions 

(as established in the notice of hearing 

or opportunity for hearing), the 

petitioner may file its SUNSI 

contentions by that later deadline. 

6. If the request for access to SUNSI 

is granted, the terms and conditions for 

access to such information will be set 

forth in a draft protective order and 

affidavit of non-disclosure appended to 

a joint motion by the NRC staff, any 

other affected parties to this 

proceeding,3 and the petitioner(s). If the 

diligent efforts by the relevant parties or 

petitioner(s) fail to result in an 

agreement on the terms and conditions 

for a draft protective order or nondisclosure affidavit, the relevant parties 

to the proceeding or the petitioner(s) 

should notify the presiding officer 

within five (5) days, describing the 

obstacles to the agreement. 

7. If the request for access to SUNSI 

is denied by the NRC staff, the NRC staff 

shall briefly state the reasons for the 

denial. The requester may challenge the 

NRC staff’s adverse determination with 

respect to access to SUNSI (including 

with respect to standing) by filing a 

challenge within five (5) days of receipt 

of that determination with (a) the 

presiding officer designated in this 

proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer 

has been appointed, the Chief 

Administrative Judge, or if he or she is 

unavailable, another administrative 

judge, or an administrative law judge 

with jurisdiction pursuant to § 2.318(a); 

or (c) if another officer has been 

designated to rule on information access 

issues, with that officer. 

In the same manner, a party other 

than the requester may challenge an 

NRC staff determination granting access 

to SUNSI whose release would harm 

that party’s interest independent of the 

proceeding. Such a challenge must be 

filed within five (5) days of the 

notification by the NRC staff of its grant 

of such a request. 

If challenges to the NRC staff 

determinations are filed, these 

procedures give way to the normal 

process for litigating disputes 

concerning access to information. The 

availability of interlocutory review by 

the Commission of orders ruling on 

such NRC staff determinations (whether 

granting or denying access) is governed 

by 10 CFR 2.311.4

8. The Commission expects that the 

NRC staff and presiding officers (and 

any other reviewing officers) will 

consider and resolve requests for access 

to SUNSI, and motions for protective 

orders, in a timely fashion in order to 

minimize any unnecessary delays in 

identifying those petitioners who have 

standing and who have propounded 

contentions meeting the specificity and 

basis requirements in 10 CFR Part 2. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day 

of June 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

Attachment 1—General Target 

Schedule for Processing and Resolving 

Requests for Access to Sensitive 

Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information (SUNSI) in This 

Proceeding 

Day Event 

0 ............................................................ Publication of FEDERAL REGISTER notice, including order with instructions for access requests. 

10 .......................................................... Deadline for submitting requests for access to SUNSI with information: supporting the standing of a potential party identified by name and address; and describing the need for the information in order for 

the potential party to participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding. 

60 .......................................................... Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i) Demonstration of standing; (ii) all contentions whose formulation does not require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; 

+7 petitioner/requestor reply). 

20 .......................................................... NRC staff informs the requester of the staff’s determination whether the request for access provides a 

reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. NRC staff also 

informs any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed 

by the release of the information. If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of 

standing, NRC staff begins document processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted 

documents). 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 116 / Thursday, June 18, 2009 / Notices 28967 

Day Event 

25 .......................................................... If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI or likelihood of standing, the deadline for petitioner/requester to 

file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s grant of access. 

30 .......................................................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s). 

40 .......................................................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline 

for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI. 

A ........................................................... If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a final adverse determination by the NRC staff. 

A+3 ....................................................... Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective order. 

A+28 ..................................................... Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, 

if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the information and the 

deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. 

A+53 (Contention receipt +25) ............. Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. 

A+60 (Answer receipt +7) .................... Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers. 

B ........................................................... Decision on contention admission. 

[FR Doc. E9–14305 Filed 6–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the 

Materials, Metallurgy, and Reactor 

Fuels Subcommittee; Notice of 

Meeting 

The ACRS Subcommittee on the 

Materials, Metallurgy and Reactor Fuels 

will hold a meeting on July 7, 2009, 

11545 Rockville Pike, Room T2–B3, 

Rockville, Maryland. 

The entire meeting will be open to 

public attendance. The agenda for the 

subject meeting shall be as follows: 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009—1:30 p.m.–5 p.m. 

The Subcommittee will discuss the 

technical approach and programmatic 

justification for the Materials and 

Metallurgy research projects, sponsored 

by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory 

Research. The Subcommittee will hear 

presentations by and hold discussions 

with representatives of the NRC staff 

and other interested persons regarding 

this matter. The Subcommittee will 

gather information, analyze relevant 

issues and facts, and formulate 

proposed positions and actions, as 

appropriate, for deliberation by the full 

Committee. 

Members of the public desiring to 

provide oral statements and/or written 

comments should notify the Designated 

Federal Official, Christopher Brown 

(Telephone: 301–415–7111) five days 

prior to the meeting, if possible, so that 

appropriate arrangements can be made. 

Electronic recordings will be permitted. 

Detailed procedures for the conduct of 

and participation in ACRS meetings 

were published in the Federal Register 

on October 6, 2008 (73 FR 58268– 

58269). 

Further information regarding this 

meeting can be obtained by contacting 

the Designated Federal Official between 

6:45 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. (ET). Persons 

planning to attend this meeting are 

urged to contact the above named 

individual at least two working days 

prior to the meeting to be advised of any 

potential changes to the agenda. 

Dated: June 12, 2009. 

Cayetano Santos, 

Chief, Reactor Safety Branch A, Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. E9–14304 Filed 6–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. IC–28767; File No. 812– 

13495] 

Nationwide Life Insurance Company, et 

al. 

June 12, 2009. 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of application for an 

order pursuant to Section 26(c) of the 

Investment Company Act of 1940 (the 

‘‘1940 Act’’) and an order of exemption 

pursuant to Section 17(b) of the 1940 

Act from Section 17(a) of the 1940 Act. 

Applicants: Nationwide Life 

Insurance Company (‘‘NWL’’), 

Nationwide Variable Account—II 

(‘‘Account II’’), Nationwide Variable 

Account—7 (‘‘Account 7’’), Nationwide 

Variable Account—9 (‘‘Account 9’’), 

Nationwide Variable Account—14 

(‘‘Account 14’’), Nationwide Multi-Flex 

Variable Account (‘‘Flex Account’’), 

Nationwide VLI Separate Account—2 

(‘‘Account 2’’), Nationwide VLI Separate 

Account—4 (‘‘Account 4’’), Nationwide 

VLI Separate Account—7 (‘‘VLI Account 

7’’), Nationwide Life and Annuity 

Insurance Company (‘‘NLAIC’’), 

Nationwide VL Separate Account—G 

(‘‘Account G’’), Nationwide Life 

Insurance Company of America 

(‘‘NLICA’’), Nationwide Provident VLI 

Separate Account 1 (‘‘Account 1’’), 

Nationwide Life and Annuity Company 

of America (‘‘NLACA’’ and together 

with NWL, NLAIC and NLICA, 

‘‘Insurance Company Applicants’’), 

Nationwide Provident VA Separate 

Account A (‘‘Account A’’), and 

Nationwide Provident VLI Separate 

Account A (‘‘VLI Account A’’ and 

together with Account II, Account 7, 

Account 9, Account 14, Flex Account, 

Account 2, VLI Account 7, Account G, 

Account 1, and Account A, ‘‘Separate 

Accounts’’ and, together with Insurance 

Company Applicants, ‘‘Section 26 

Applicants’’), and Nationwide Variable 

Insurance Trust (‘‘NVIT’’ and together 

with Section 26 Applicants, ‘‘Section 17 

Applicants’’). 

SUMMARY: Summary of Application: 

Section 26 Applicants seek an order 

pursuant to Section 26(c) of the 1940 

Act, approving the substitutions of 

certain securities (the ‘‘Substitutions’’) 

issued by certain management 

investment companies and held by 

Separate Accounts to support certain