Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC; Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC; Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, 36275-36276 [E9-17386]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices Generating Station, Final Report—Main Report.’’ Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on May 4, 2009, the NRC staff consulted with the New Jersey State official, Ron Zak of the Department of Environmental Protection, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee’s letter dated March 3, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090630132). 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. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the 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 or 301– 415–4737, or send an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of July 2009. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. G. Edward Miller, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I– 2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E9–17385 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES [Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318; NRC– 2009–0321] Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. (the licensee) VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:04 Jul 21, 2009 Jkt 217001 to withdraw its October 1, 2008, application for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR–53 and DPR–69 for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Calvert County, Maryland. The proposed amendments would introduce new license conditions requiring the reporting of reactor vessel (RV) inservice inspection (ISI) information and analyses as specified in Federal Register Notice (72 FR 56275) dated October 3, 2007, ‘‘Alternate Fracture Toughness Requirements for Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events.’’ These amendments were a required part of a code relief request, submitted by the licensee on October 1, 2008, to extend the RV ISI 10-year inspection interval for RV weld examinations. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on December 16, 2008 (73 FR 76409). However, by letter dated July 8, 2009, the licensee withdrew the proposed change. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated October 1, 2008, and the licensee’s letter dated July 8, 2009, which withdrew the application for license amendment. 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. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (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, or 301–415–4737 or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of July 2009. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Douglas V. Pickett, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I–1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E9–17382 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 36275 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–247 and 50–286; NRC– 2009–0322] Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC; Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC; Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–26 and DPR–64, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee) to withdraw its July 8, 2008 application for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–26 and DPR–64 for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, located in Westchester County, New York. The proposed amendments would have added license conditions to support implementation of an extended inservice inspection interval for reactor vessel weld inspections. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on September 9, 2008 (73 FR 52416). However, by letter dated July 1, 2009, the licensee withdrew the proposed change. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated July 8, 2008, and the licensee’s letter dated July 1, 2009, which withdrew the application for a license amendment. 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. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, http:// www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.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, or 301–415–4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of July 2009. E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 36276 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. John P. Boska, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I–1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E9–17386 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. CP2009–46 and CP2009–47; Order No. 249] New Competitive Postal Product Postal Regulatory Commission. Notice. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service request to add two additional Global Plus 1 contracts to the Competitive Product List. This notice addresses procedural steps associated with these filings. DATES: Comments are due July 23, 2009. ADDRESSES: Submit comments electronically via the Commission’s Filing Online system at http:// www.prc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 202–789–6820 and stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Notice of Filing III. Ordering Paragraphs I. Background jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES On July 13, 2009, the Postal Service filed a notice, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3633 and 39 CFR 3015.5, announcing that it has entered into two additional Global Plus 1 contracts, which it states fits within the previously established Global Plus Contracts product.1 The Postal Service states that the instant contracts are functionally equivalent to previously submitted Global Plus 1 contracts, are filed in accordance with Order No. 85, and are supported by Governors’ Decision No. 08–8 filed in Docket No. CP2008–8.2 Notice at 1. The Notice also states that in Docket No. CP2008–8, the Governors have established prices and classifications for competitive products not of general applicability for Global Plus Contracts.3 1 Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing Two Functionally Equivalent Global Plus 1 Contracts Negotiated Service Agreements, July 13, 2009 (Notice). 2 See Docket No. CP2008–8 through CP2008–10, PRC Order No. 85, Order Concerning Global Plus Negotiated Service Agreements, June 27, 2008. 3 See Docket No.CP2008–8, Notice of United States Postal Service of Governors’ Decision VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:04 Jul 21, 2009 Jkt 217001 The Postal Service states that the instant contracts are the immediate successor contracts to those in Docket Nos. CP2008–9 and CP2008–10, both of which are to expire soon, which the Commission found to be functionally equivalent in Order No. 85. The Postal Service contends that the instant contracts should be included within the Global Plus 1 product on the Competitive Product List. Id. In support, the Postal Service has also filed redacted versions of each contract and related materials as Attachments 1– A and 1–B. Redacted versions of the certified statements required by 39 CFR 3015.5 are included as Attachments 2– A and 2–B, respectively. The Postal Service states that the contracts should be included within the Global Plus 1 product and requests that the instant contracts be considered the ‘‘baseline contracts for future functional equivalency analyses concerning this product.’’ Id. at 2. The instant contracts. The Postal Service filed the instant contracts pursuant to 39 CFR 3015.5. The contracts become effective August 1, 2009, unless regulatory reviews affect that date, and have a one-year term. The Postal Service maintains that certain portions of each contract and certified statement required by 39 CFR 3015.5(c)(2), containing names and identifying information of the Global Plus 1 customers, related financial information, as well as the accompanying analyses that provide prices, terms, conditions, and financial projections should remain under seal. Id. at 3. The Postal Service asserts the contracts are functionally equivalent because they share similar cost and market characteristics and should be classified as a single product. Id. at 3. It states that while the precursor contracts filed in Docket Nos. CP2008– 9 and CP2008–10 exhibited minor distinctions based on differences in customers’ negotiations, business needs or relationship with the Postal Service, the new versions of the agreements differ primarily in the method used for structuring the discounts offered. Id. at 4. The Postal Service also states that the instant contracts’ customers are the same Postal Qualified Wholesalers (PQWs) as the parties to the contracts in Docket Nos. CP2008–9 and CP2008–10. The essence of the service to the PQW customers is offering price-based incentives to commit large amounts of mail volume or postage revenue for International Priority Airmail (IPA), Establishing Prices and Classifications for Global Plus Contracts, June 2, 2008, at 1. PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 International Surface Air Lift (ISAL), Express Mail International (EMI), and Priority Mail International (PMI).4 The Postal Service indicates that the instant contracts have material differences which include removing retroactivity provisions; clarifying aspects subject to regulatory oversight; expanding entry locations; restructuring price incentives, commitments, and penalties; and clarifying the parties’ obligations in the event of termination. Id. at 4–7. The Postal Service maintains these differences only add detail or amplify processes included in prior Global Plus 1 contracts. It contends because the contracts have the same cost attributes and methodology as well as similar cost and market characteristics, the differences do not affect the fundamental service being offered or the essential structure of the contracts. Id. at 7–8. It states the contracts are substantially similar both to one another and to the precursor Global Plus 1 contracts. Therefore, it asserts these contracts are ‘‘functionally equivalent in all pertinent respects.’’ Id. at 8. II. Notice of Filing The Commission establishes Docket Nos. CP2009–46 and CP2009–47 for consideration of the matters related to the contract identified in the Postal Service’s Notice. Interested persons may submit comments on whether the instant contracts are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3622, or 3642. Comments are due no later than July 23, 2009. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission’s Web site (http://www.prc.gov). The Commission appoints Michael J. Ravnitzky to serve as Public Representative in these dockets. III. Ordering Paragraphs It is Ordered: 1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. CP2009–46 and CP2009–47 for consideration of the issues raised in these dockets. 2. Comments by interested persons on issues in these proceedings are due no later than July 23, 2009. 3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Michael J. Ravnitzky is appointed to serve as officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the 4 The Postal Service states the commitments also account for Global Bulk Economy and Global Direct items mailed under a separate but related Global Plus 2 contract with each customer. The Global Plus 2 contracts are the subject of a separate competitive products proceeding. E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36275-36276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17386]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286; NRC-2009-0322]


Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC; Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 
3, LLC; Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of 
Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and 
DPR-64, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted 
the request of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee) to 
withdraw its July 8, 2008 application for proposed amendment to 
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64 for Indian Point 
Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, located in Westchester County, 
New York.
    The proposed amendments would have added license conditions to 
support implementation of an extended inservice inspection interval for 
reactor vessel weld inspections.
    The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on September 9, 
2008 (73 FR 52416). However, by letter dated July 1, 2009, the licensee 
withdrew the proposed change.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated July 8, 2008, and the licensee's letter 
dated July 1, 2009, which withdrew the application for a license 
amendment. 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. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically 
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.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, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of July 2009.


[[Page 36276]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John P. Boska,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of 
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-17386 Filed 7-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P