Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Notices 12505

a Presidential permit issued pursuant to

Executive Order 10485, as amended by

Executive Order 12038.

On January 12, 1981, the Department

of Energy (DOE), in Presidential Permit

PP–68, authorized San Diego Gas &

Electric Company (SDG&E) to construct,

operate, maintain, and connect a

230,000-volt (230-kV) electric

transmission line from its Miguel

Substation, located approximately 10

miles north of the United States border

with Mexico, to Tijuana, Mexico, where

it interconnects with similar facilities at

the Comision Federal de Electricidad’s

Tijuana Substation. SDG&E is a

regulated public utility and a whollyowned subsidiary of Sempra Energy. On

November 8, 1982, in Docket PP–68–1,

DOE amended Presidential permit PP–

68 to permit SDG&E to add a second set

of conductors to the towers authorized

in the original Presidential permit.

On February 8, 2001, SDG&E filed an

application with the Office of Fossil

Energy (FE) of DOE to again amend the

existing Presidential permit to authorize

it to make certain changes to the

existing transmission line to provide for

the connection of the 510-megawatt

(MW) Otay Mesa merchant powerplant

being developed 1.5 miles north of the

border. To interconnect the new

powerplant to the existing PP–68

international transmission facilities,

SDG&E proposes to construct a 5-acre

switchyard within the fenced boundary

of the powerplant and to construct

approximately 0.1 miles of new 230kV

transmission line to interconnect with

the 230-kV Miguel-Tijuana transmission

line.

SDG&E also proposes to reconductor

that portion of the existing transmission

line from the new 5-acre switchyard,

north to the Miguel Substation, a

distance of approximately 8.5 miles.

SDG&E proposes to bundle each circuit

by adding a second set of conductors to

each phase (i.e., 12 total conductors

versus 6 that currently exist). The 1.5

mile portion of SDG&E’s Miguel-Tijuana

international transmission line south of

the Otay Mesa powerplant will remain

unchanged.

Since the restructuring of the electric

power industry began, resulting in the

introduction of different types of

competitive entities into the

marketplace, DOE has consistently

expressed its policy that cross-border

trade in electric energy should be

subject to the same principles of

comparable open access and nondiscrimination that apply to

transmission in interstate commerce.

DOE has stated that policy in export

authorizations granted to entities

requesting authority to export over

international transmission facilities.

Specifically, DOE expects transmitting

utilities owning border facilities

constructed pursuant to Presidential

permits to provide access across the

border in accordance with the

principles of comparable open access

and non-discrimination contained in the

FPA and articulated in Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission Order No. 888,

as amended (Promoting Wholesale

Competition Through Open Access

Non-Discriminatory Transmission

Services by Public Utilities). In

furtherance of this policy, DOE intends

to condition any Presidential permit

issued in this proceeding on compliance

with these open access principles.

Procedural Matters

Any person desiring to become a

party to this proceeding or to be heard

by filing comments or protests to this

application should file a petition to

intervene, comment or protest at the

address provided above in accordance

with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the

FERC’s Rules of Practice and Procedures

(18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen

copies of each petition and protest

should be filed with the DOE on or

before the date listed above.

Additional copies of such petitions to

intervene or protests also should be

filed directly with: James F. Walsh,

Sempra Energy, 101 Ash Street, HQ11B,

San Diego, CA 92124 and Pat Fleming,

Sempra Energy, 101 Ash Street, HQ14A,

San Diego, CA 92124.

Before a Presidential permit may be

issued or amended, the DOE must

determine that the proposed action will

not adversely impact on the reliability

of the U.S. electric power supply

system. In addition, DOE must consider

the environmental impacts of the

proposed actions pursuant to the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969. DOE also must obtain the

concurrence of the Secretary of State

and the Secretary of Defense before

taking final action on a Presidential

permit application.

Copies of this application will be

made available, upon request, for public

inspection and copying at the address

provided above. In addition, the

application may be reviewed or

downloaded from the Fossil Energy

Home Page at: http://www.fe.doe.gov.

Upon reaching the Fossil Energy Home

page, select ‘‘Electricity’’ from the

option’s menu, and then ‘‘Pending

Proceedings.’’

Issued in Washington, DC., on February 21,

2001.

Anthony J. Como,

Deputy Director, Electric Power Regulation,

Office of Coal & Power Im/Ex, Office of Coal

& Power Systems, Office of Fossil Energy.

[FR Doc. 01–4732 Filed 2–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and

Technology; Small Modular Nuclear

Power Units

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of public interest.

SUMMARY: The United States Department

of Energy plans to undertake a study to

determine the feasibility of and issues

associated with the deployment of small

modular nuclear reactors for preparation

of a report to Congress by May 2001.

This report is being prepared as directed

by the Senate Committee on

Appropriations (S.R. Report no. 106–

395, at 107(2000)) on the Energy and

Water Development Appropriations Act,

2001 (Public Law 106–377). The

Committee report specifically states the

following:

The committee is aware of recent

improvements in reactor design that make

feasible small modular reactors with

attractive characteristics for remote

communities that otherwise must rely on

shipments of relatively expensive and

sometimes environmentally undesirable fuels

for their electric power. To be acceptable,

such a reactor would have to be inherently

safe, be relatively cost effective, have

intrinsic design features which would deter

sabotage or efforts to divert nuclear materials,

have infrequent refuelings, and be largely

factory constructed and deliverable to remote

sites. The Committee recommendation

provides $1,000,000 for the Department to

undertake a study to determine the feasibility

of and issues associated with the deployment

of such small reactors and provide a report

to Congress by May 2001.

This notice hereby announces the

Department’s interest in receiving

information from the nuclear technology

community on small modular power

unit concepts that should be considered

in the study. Such concepts must

generally meet the criteria previously

mentioned and may be entirely, or

almost entirely, factory fabricated for

transport to remote communities such

as islands and should be no larger than

50 megawatts-electric (MWe).

DATES: Concept information must be

submitted by 4:30 p.m., edt, March 15,

2001, to be accepted for review and to

permit timely consideration for

inclusion within the report.

12506 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Notices

ADDRESSES: All concept information

should be forwarded to Argonne

National Laboratory by U.S. Postal

Service Express Mail or any commercial

mail delivery service, or hand carried by

the applicant to: Roald Wiegland,

‘‘Small Modular Reactor Study,’’

Argonne National Laboratory, 9700

South Cass Avenue, Building 208,

Argonne, Illinois 60439–4842.

Individuals who wish to submit concept

information electronically should

forward their information to

smr@anl.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth Chuck Wade, Nuclear Industry

Analysis, NE–80, Office of Nuclear

Energy, Science and Technology, U.S.

Department of Energy, Germantown,

Maryland 20874–1290, (301) 903–1031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Department of Energy is interested in

receiving information on small modular

nuclear power unit concepts that should

be considered in a study to determine

the feasibility of this technology.

Concepts that will be considered in this

study must generally meet the following

criteria: inherent safety, relative cost

effectiveness, intrinsic design features

which would deter sabotage or efforts to

divert nuclear materials; and infrequent

refueling. These design concepts may be

entirely, or almost entirely, factory

fabricated for transport to remote

communities such as islands and should

be no larger than 50 megawatts-electric

(MWe). All information in response to

this request should include detailed

plans in the following areas:

Licensing Prospects

Concept participants must identify

any unique regulatory issues associated

with siting and licensing small modular

power units. The information on issues

identified should include suggested

modifications to existing Nuclear

Regulatory Commission requirements,

potential licensing barriers to be

resolved, basis for safety analysis

requirements, the need for reactor

containment, and methods for

implementing risk-based analysis

techniques. These regulatory initiatives

should be limited to reactor concepts

that are useful in remote areas.

Concept Technology

Technical information should include

an overall description of the concept

and detailed information about major

elements of the concept, including

dimensions and capacity. Information

on reactor fuel, fuel characteristics, fuel

fabrication experience and irradiation

history for the particular fuel type is

desirable. Any novel features of the

reactor concept, either for the reactor

core or other components of the system,

should be clearly identified, especially

those related to safety and nonproliferation. Any relationship or

similarity to other existing or planned

reactors should also be stated. Features

of the concept that would facilitate both

factory fabrication and the ability to

transport units to more remote areas

should also be identified.

Economic Viability

The elements of cost and performance

parameters that are desired for this

study are: capital; operation and

maintenance; fuel; decommissioning

costs; thermal power; thermal

efficiency; projected capacity factor;

construction time; and financial

parameters. Since design concept may

still be in a preliminary stage, the

Department would like for concept

designers to submit any available

information regarding the projected cost

and performance values.

Each proposed design concept

participant should address the issues

mentioned above in as much detail as

possible to enable fair and accurate

statements regarding its prospects for

future deployment. The Department

recognizes that some of the information

requested may not be readily available

and will accept whatever information is

available. Please note that proprietary

information received in response to this

notice will be kept confidential.

The report resulting from this study

will not make any recommendation

regarding a particular concept

technology, but only assess the

practicality of deploying small modular

nuclear power units in remote locations

within the U.S.

Issued in Washington, DC on February 16,

2001.

John M. Stamos,

Acting Associate Director for Nuclear Industry

Analysis, NE–80, Office of Nuclear Energy,

Science and Technology.

[FR Doc. 01–4733 Filed 2–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy Information Administration

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Submission for OMB

Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Energy Information

Administration (EIA), Department of

Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Agency information collection

activities: Submission for OMB review;

comment request.

SUMMARY: The EIA has submitted the

energy information collections listed at

the end of this notice to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

review and a three-year extension under

section 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–

13) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before March 29, 2001. If you anticipate

that you will be submitting comments

but find it difficult to do so within that

period, you should contact the OMB

Desk Officer for DOE listed below as

soon as possible.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the OMB

Desk Officer for DOE, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, 726

Jackson Place NW., Washington, DC

20503. The OMB DOE Desk Officer may

be telephoned at (202) 395–7318. (A

copy of your comments should also be

provided to EIA’s Statistics and

Methods Group at the address below.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information

should be directed to Grace Sutherland,

Statistics and Methods Group (EI–70),

Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of

Energy, Washington, DC 20585–0670.

Ms. Sutherland may be contacted by

telephone at (202) 287–1712, FAX at

(202) 287–1705, or e-mail at

Grace.Sutherland@eia.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

section contains the following

information about the energy

information collection submitted to

OMB for review: (1) The collection

numbers and title; (2) the sponsor (i.e.,

the Department of Energy component);

(3) the current OMB docket number (if

applicable); (4) the type of request (i.e,

new, revision, extension, or

reinstatement); (5) response obligation

(i.e., mandatory, voluntary, or required

to obtain or retain benefits); (6) a

description of the need for and

proposed use of the information; (7) a

categorical description of the likely

respondents; and (8) an estimate of the

total annual reporting burden (i.e., the

estimated number of likely respondents

times the proposed frequency of

response per year times the average

hours per response).

1. Forms EIA–886, ‘‘Annual Survey of

Alternative Fueled Vehicle Suppliers

and Users.’’

2. Energy Information Administration.

3. OMB Number 1905–0191.

4. Three-year extension with revisions

of a currently approved collection.

5. Mandatory.

6. EIA’s ‘‘Annual Survey of

Alternative Fueled Vehicle Suppliers