Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of the Connecticut Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 1 p.m. and adjourn at 5 p.m. on Thursday, April 3, 2003, at the Family Services Woodfield, 475 Clinton Ave., Bridgeport, CT 06605. The purpose of this meeting will be orientation and planning future program activities.

Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact Ki-Taek Chun, Director of the Eastern Regional Office, 202-376-7533 (TDD 202-376-8116) or Patrick Johnson, Jr., chair, (860) 242-2274 ext 3801. Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.

Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspension of investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), may request, in accordance with § 351.213(2002) of the Department of Commerce (the Department) Regulations, that the Department conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.

Opportunity to Request a Review: Not later than the last day of April 2003, interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in April for the following periods:

In accordance with § 351.213 (b) of the regulations, an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review, and the requesting party must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which were produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.

Seven copies of the request should be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The Department also asks parties to serve a copy of their requests to the Office of Antidumping/ Countervailing Enforcement, Attention: Sheila Forbes, in room 3065 of the main Commerce Building. Further, in accordance with section 351.303(f)(l)(i) of the regulations, a copy of each request must be served on every party on the Department's service list.

The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of “Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation” for requests received by the last day of April 2003. If the Department does not receive, by the last day of April 2003, a request for review of entries covered by an order, finding, or suspended investigation listed in this notice and for the period identified above, the Department will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or bond for) estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered.

This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

On January 6, 2003, a notice inviting applications for grants to support education research was published in the Federal Register (68 FR 656). On page 656, in the table, the column Project Period states that the duration of the project period is “up to 36 months” for the Teacher Quality Research program (84.305M). The Project Period for grants awarded under the Teacher Quality Research program is corrected to read “up to 48 months.”

Take notice that on March 20, 2003, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company (CEGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of May 1, 2003:

CEGT states that the purpose of this filing is to adjust CEGT's fuel percentages and Electric Power Costs Tracker pursuant to section 27 and 28 of its General Terms and Conditions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.314 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “FERRIS” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.

Comment Date: April 1, 2003.

The Clark Fork and Blackfoot, L.L.C. (“Clark Fork”) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with accompanying tariff. The proposed market-based rate tariff provides for the wholesale sales of electric power, energy and certain ancillary services. Clark Fork also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, Clark Fork requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Clark Fork.

On March 21, 2003, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—South, granted the request for blanket approval under part 34, subject to the following:

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Clark Fork should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214).

Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protests, as set forth above, is April 21, 2003.

Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above, Clark Fork is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Clark Fork, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.

The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approval of Clark Fork's issuances of securities or assumptions of liability.

Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov , using the “FERRIS” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

1. This order directs Enron Power Marketing, Inc. and Enron Energy Services, Inc. (collectively, Enron Power Marketers) to show cause to the Commission in a paper hearing why their authority to sell power at market-based rates  1 should not be revoked by the Commission in light of their apparent engagement in gaming, in violation of Section 205(a) of the Federal Power Act's (FPA) requirement that rates be just and reasonable, as well as their apparent failure to disclose changes in their market shares to the Commission in violation of their market-based rate authority. 2 This order also initiates a proceeding under Section 206 of the FPA, 3 in Docket No. EL03-77-000, where the show cause filing will be considered.

2. This order also directs Bridgeline Gas Marketing L.L.C., Citrus Trading Corporation, ENA Upstream Company, LLC, Enron Canada Corp., Enron Compression Services Company, Enron Energy Services, Inc., Enron MW, L.L.C., and Enron North America Corp. (collectively, Enron Gas Marketers) to show cause to the Commission in a paper hearing why the Commission should not terminate their blanket marketing certificates under Section 284.402 of the Commission's regulations  4 to make sales for resale at negotiated rates in interstate commerce of categories of natural gas subject to the Commission's Natural Gas Act (NGA) jurisdiction. 5 This order also institutes a proceeding under Sections 5 and 7 of the NGA, in Docket No. RP03-311-000, where the show cause filings will be considered.

3. This order is necessary to fulfill the Commission's obligation to monitor competitive markets in order to protect wholesale electricity and natural gas customers from unjust and unreasonable rates.

4. On February 13, 2002, the Commission directed a Staff fact-finding investigation into whether any entity manipulated prices in electricity or natural gas markets in the West or otherwise exercised undue influence over wholesale electricity prices in the West, since January 1, 2000. 6

5. On August 13, 2002, Staff released its Initial Report in Docket No. PA02-2-000. 7 In that Report, Staff recommended the initiation of various company-specific proceedings  8 to further investigate possible misconduct, and recommended several generic changes to market-based tariffs to prohibit the deliberate submission of false information or the deliberate omission of material information and to provide for the imposition of both refunds and penalties for violations.

6. As noted in Staff's Final Report, being publicly released concurrently with this order, 9 evidence indicates that the Enron Power Marketers appear to have engaged in gaming and misrepresentation, and also failed to disclose significant changes in their market shares to the Commission. In addition, the Staff's Final Report identifies evidence which indicates that certain Enron Gas Marketers apparently engaged in the manipulation of prices in natural gas markets.

7. We find that the Enron Power Marketers, based on the evidence discussed in the Final Report appear to have engaged in gaming, and failed to disclose significant changes in their market shares to the Commission.

8. The Commission's grant of authority to sell power at market-based rates, as opposed to at cost-based rates, depends on a functioning, competitive market for wholesale power unimpaired by market manipulation. Moreover, implicit in Commission orders granting market-based rates is a presumption that a company's behavior will not involve fraud, deception or misrepresentation. Companies failing to adhere to such standards are subject to revocation of their market-based rate authority. 10 In addition, the Enron Power Marketers were directed, when they were granted market-based rate authority, to inform the Commission promptly of changes in status that reflect a departure from the characteristics that the Commission relied upon in granting market-based rate authority. 11

9. The information in Staff's Final Report indicates that the Enron Power Marketers appear to have violated FPA Section 205(a) by engaging in gaming. It also indicates that Enron Power Marketers appear to have acted inconsistently with their market-based rate authority, not only by engaging in gaming, but also by failing to inform the Commission in a timely manner of significant changes in their market shares by gaining influence/control over others' facilities. In view of the foregoing, we are therefore requiring the Enron Power Marketers to show cause why the Commission should not revoke their market-based rate authority. The Commission will institute a Section 206 proceeding and direct Enron Power Marketers to show cause to the Commission in a paper hearing in that proceeding.

10. In cases where, as here, the Commission institutes a Section 206 proceeding on its own motion, Section 206(b) requires that the Commission establish a refund effective date that is no earlier than 60 days after publication of notice of the Commission's investigation in the Federal Register , and no later than five months subsequent to expiration of the 60-day period. In order to give maximum protection to customers, we will establish the statutorily-directed effective date, in this context the date that we would revoke their market-based rate authorities, at the earliest date allowed, 12 60 days after publication of the order initiating the Commission's investigation in Docket No. EL03-77-000 in the Federal Register . In addition, Section 206 requires that, if no final decision has been rendered by that date, the Commission must provide its estimate as to when it reasonably expects to make such a decision. Given the times for filing identified in this order, and the nature and complexity of the matters to be resolved, the Commission estimates that it will be able to reach a final decision by July 31, 2003.

11. The Enron Gas Marketers are affiliates of Transwestern Pipeline Company, Citrus Corp., and/or Northern Plains Natural Gas Company. 13 Section 284.402 of the Commission's regulations grants any person who is not an interstate pipeline a blanket certificate of public convenience and necessity pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act to make sales for resale at negotiated rates in interstate commerce of any category of natural gas that is subject to the Commission's NGA jurisdiction. 14 The Commission's NGA sales jurisdiction currently extends to sales for resale of natural gas that are made by pipelines, local distribution companies, and their affiliates. 15 Thus, natural gas marketers who fall into those categories, including the Enron Gas Marketers, require the blanket marketing certificate in order to make sales for resale.

12. The Commission adopted Section 284.402 of its regulations, granting a blanket marketing certificate, in Order No. 547. 16 The purpose of Order No. 547 was to “foster a truly competitive market for natural gas sales for resale in interstate commerce, giving purchasers of natural gas access to multiple sources of natural gas and the opportunity to make gas purchasing decisions in accord with market conditions.” 17 Although the order was independent of Order Nos. 636 and 636-A, it was promulgated for the same reasons, including the promotion of an active and viable spot market for natural gas. 18 The Commission permitted affiliated gas marketers to sell gas at negotiated rates based on a finding that the sale of gas as a commodity would be sufficiently competitive to prevent affiliated gas marketers from exercising market power, that is, controlling prices or excluding competition. NGA Sections 4 and 5 require that jurisdictional gas sales be made at rates that are just and reasonable. 19 The Commission also stated in Order No. 547 that it would monitor the operation of the market. 20

13. The evidence developed in Staff's investigation indicates that certain Enron Gas Marketers apparently misused their authority under their blanket marketing certificates to make sales to and purchases from gas markets serving California at rates that were unjust and unreasonable from the summer of 2000 through the winter of 2000-2001. This evidence indicates that the Enron Gas Marketers, through their electronic trading platform, EnronOnline (EOL), 21 apparently manipulated the price of natural gas at the Henry Hub located in Louisiana on at least one occasion to profit from positions taken in the over-the-counter (OTC) financial derivatives markets (OTC markets). Although the price change in the physical markets was only about $.10/MMBtu, Enron Gas Marketers nevertheless profited due to the effect that this small change in the physical price had on its large financial position; Enron Gas Marketers earned approximately $3.2 million from this apparent manipulation.

14. On July 19, 2001 a number of traders entered relatively large short positions in the financial markets through OTC swaps and Gas Daily financial swaps. These traders continued to increase the short positions throughout the initial phase of the manipulation, which was the period when the EOL market maker (who was, at times, the desk manager) quickly and steadily raised prices on EOL, resulting in the purchase of a very large amount of next-day physical gas. This purchasing caused prices in the financial markets to rise, but by a lesser amount.

15. The financial traders stopped increasing their short positions near the end of the EOL market maker's buying streak, at a point when the EOL market maker stopped raising prices and began to hold prices steady at the high levels. Once the EOL market maker leveled out prices, the OTC swap began to fall. The EOL market maker then began to lower the prices and sold a very large amount of gas at rapidly falling prices. The falling of the physical price then further pushed down the OTC swap price, generating significant profits for the financial traders. These profits greatly exceeded the losses that were generated from the impatient buying and selling of the physical gas.

16. The Commission granted a blanket marketing certificate after a finding that the gas commodity market was sufficiently competitive to prevent certificate holders from manipulating prices. The Commission now has evidence that certain Enron Gas Marketers have apparently participated in practices that manipulate prices so as to charge unjust and unreasonable rates.

17. The Commission has discretion to implement remedies when it finds conduct that has violated its policies or regulations. The agency is at its zenith in fashioning such remedies. 22 Its discretion extends to denial of participation in a government program generally extended to business managers for the purpose of maintaining the fairness, equity, and efficiency of the program. 23 Given the Enron Gas Marketers' conduct and their adverse effects on gas prices, the Enron Gas Marketers are directed to show cause why it still serves the public convenience and necessity for the Enron Gas Marketers to have blanket marketing certificates and why the Commission should not terminate their blanket marketing certificates. The Commission will institute a proceeding pursuant to the Commission's authority under NGA Sections 5 and 7, 24 and direct the Enron Gas Marketers to show cause to the Commission in a paper hearing in that proceeding

The Commission orders:

(A) The Enron Power Marketers are hereby directed, within 21 days of the date of this order, to show cause to the Commission in a paper hearing, in Docket No. EL03-77-000, why they should not be found to have violated Section 205(a) of the Federal Power Act and their market-based rate authorizations and why their market-based rate authority should no be revoked.

(B) The effective date in Docket No. EL03-77-000 will be 60 days following publication of this order in the Federal Register .

(C) Pursuant to the authority contained in and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Section 402(a) of the department of Energy Organization Act and the Federal Power Act, particularly Section 206 thereof, and pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure and the regulations under the Federal Power Act (18 CFR chapter I), the Commission hereby institutes an investigation of the Enron Power Marketers' market-based rates, in Docket No. EL03-77-000, as discussed in the body of this order.

(D) The Enron Gas Marketers are hereby directed, within 21 days of the date of this order, to show cause to the Commission in a paper hearing, in Docket No. RP03-311-000, why the Commission should not terminate its blanket marketing certificate under 18 CFR 284.402 (2002), as discussed in the body of this order.

(E) Pursuant to the authority contained in and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Section 402(a) of the Department of Energy Organization Act and the Natural Gas Act, particularly Sections 5 and 7 thereof, and pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure and the regulations under the Federal Power Act (18 CFR chapter I), the Commission hereby institutes an investigation of the Enron Gas Marketers' blanket marketing certificates, in Docket No. RP03-311-000, as discussed in the body of this order.

(F) Any interested person desiring to be heard in these proceedings should file notices of intervention or motions to intervene with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214) within 21 days of the date of this order.

(G) Responses to the show cause submissions filed pursuant to Ordering Paragraphs (A) and (D) above may be submitted within 15 days of the date of filing of the show cause submissions.

(H) The Secretary shall promptly publish a copy of this order in the Federal Register .

Take notice that on March 19, 2003, Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. (Iroquois) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets proposed to become effective November 1, 2002:

Iroquois asserts that the purpose of this filing is to insert inadvertently omitted language which should have been included when these sheets were submitted as part of the December 2, 2002, compliance filing.

Iroquois states that copies of its filing were served on all jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory agencies and all parties to the proceeding.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “FERRIS” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.

Protest Date: March 31, 2003.

Take notice that on March 21, 2003, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (Natural) filed its Final Reconciliation Report on Account No. 858.

Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to all of its customers, interested state commissions and all parties in Docket No. RP03-257.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.314 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “FERRIS” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.

Comment Date: April 1, 2003.

NM Colton Genco LLC, NM Mid-Valley Genco LLC, and NM Milliken Genco LLC (together, “Applicants”) filed a petition for acceptance of initial tariffs for each Applicant, waivers and blanket authority. The petition requests the Commission authorize the Applicants to engage in wholesale sales of electric power, energy and certain ancillary services, and for the reassignment and resale of firm transmission rights. Applicants also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, Applicants requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by the Applicants.

On March 21, 2003, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—South, granted the request for blanket approval under part 34, subject to the following:

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by the Applicants should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214).

Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protests, as set forth above, is April 21, 2003.

Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above, the Applicants are authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Applicants, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.

The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approval of the Applicants' issuances of securities or assumptions of liability.

Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov , using the “FERRIS” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

Take notice that on March 20, 2003, PG&E Gas Transmission, Northwest Corporation (GTN) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Third Revised Sheet No. 6, with an effective date of January 1, 2003.

GTN states that the filing is being made to reflect in its tariff the incremental fuel surcharge that was approved by Commission order issued March 4, 2003 in Docket No. RP02-331-002.

GTN further states that a copy of this filing has been served on GTN's jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory agencies.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “FERRIS” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.

Protest Date: April 1, 2003.

1. This order directs Reliant Energy Services, Inc. (Reliant) and BP Energy Company (BP Energy) to show cause to the Commission in paper hearings why their authority to sell power at market-based rates  1 should not be revoked by the Commission in light of their apparent manipulation of electricity prices at the Palo Verde, Arizona trading hub, in violation of section 205(a) of the Federal Power Act's (FPA) requirement that rates be just and reasonable. 2 This order also initiates proceedings under section 206 of the FPA, 3 in Docket Nos. EL03-59-000 (for Reliant) and EL03-60-000 (for BP Energy), where the show cause filings will be considered.

2. This order is necessary to fulfill the Commission's obligation to monitor competitive markets in order to protect wholesale electricity customers from unjust and unreasonable rates.

3. On February 13, 2002, the Commission directed a Staff fact-finding investigation into whether any entity manipulated prices in electricity or natural gas markets in the West or otherwise exercised undue influence over wholesale electricity prices in the West, since January 1, 2000. 4

4. On August 13, 2002, Staff released its Initial Report in Docket No. PA02-2-000. 5 In that Report, Staff recommended the initiation of various company-specific proceedings  6 to further investigate possible misconduct, and recommended several generic changes to market-based tariffs to prohibit the deliberate submission of false information or the deliberate omission of material information and to provide for the imposition of both refunds and penalties for violations.

5. In Staff's Final Report, being publicly released concurrently with this order, 7 Staff notes evidence that indicates that Reliant and BP Energy appear to have engaged in coordinated efforts to manipulate electricity prices.

6. Specifically, Staff points to three occasions where a BP Energy trader called a Reliant trader and asked him to buy power from an offer he was going to place on an electronic trading platform (Bloomberg). The Reliant trader would then sell the power back to the BP Energy trader at the same price, but the transaction would not take place on the electronic trading platform.

7. On one of the occasions the BP Energy trader with the aid of Reliant's trader appears to have manipulated the price of electricity delivered at Palo Verde, a trading hub in Arizona to affect the value of his trading position (such that a higher price raises the value of the trader's portfolio).

8. Recorded telephone conversations and transcripts provided to Staff by Reliant in Docket No. PA02-2-000 document the manipulation. 8 The BP trader contacted the Reliant trader and offered a transaction. The BP trader would offer to sell electricity on the Bloomberg electronic platform, the Reliant trader would buy at the posted price, and the BP trader would then buy back the power (off the Bloomberg electronic platform) at the same price to undo the sale. The BP trader goes on to explain that he is trying to move the market price up to $43.10 but no one will buy it at that price, so he needs the Reliant trader to “lift his offer' 9 in order to increase the price.

9. Several days later the same BP trader contacted the same Reliant trader and offered a similar proposal, again, apparently to manipulate the price in order to increase the value of his trading position under the company's mark-to-market accounting.

10. The BP trader goes on to explain that they are marking their books on the October Palo Verde price. He notes that power for delivery in October at Palo Verde had traded as high as $44, and he wants to move the price even higher because of his long position. He indicates that he will post an offer to sell at $44.15 and asks the Reliant trader to lift that offer and then he will buy it back from him at the same price. The BP trader then posts the offer on the Bloomberg electronic platform. Shortly thereafter, the BP trader asks the Reliant trader to lift the offer because he senses the market beginning to move. The Reliant trader lifts the offer and asks the BP trader what they should do next. The evidence indicates that the BP trader informed the Reliant trader that he will buy the power back at the same price.

11. We find that BP Energy and Reliant, in the transactions identified above, appear to have manipulated electricity prices at Palo Verde, an important trading hub. 10

12. The Commission's grant of authority to sell power at market-based rates, as opposed to at cost-based rates, depends on a functioning, competitive market for wholesale power unimpaired by market manipulation. Moreover, implicit in Commission orders granting market-based rates is a presumption that a company's behavior will not involve fraud or deception. Companies failing to adhere to such standards are subject to revocation of their market-based rate authority. 11

13. The information in Staff's Final Report indicates that BP Energy and Reliant appear to have violated FPA section 205(a)'s requirement that rates be just and reasonable by manipulating the electricity prices at Palo Verde. 12 In view of the foregoing, we are therefore requiring Reliant and BP Energy to show cause to the Commission in a paper hearing why the Commission should not revoke their market-based rate authority. The Commission will institute FPA section 206 proceedings and direct BP Energy and Reliant to show cause in those proceedings why their market-based rate authorizations should not be revoked.

14. In cases where, as here, the Commission institutes section 206 proceedings on its own motion, section 206(b) requires that the Commission establish effective dates that are no earlier than 60 days after publication of notice of the Commission's investigation in the Federal Register , and no later than five months subsequent to expiration of the 60-day period. In order to give maximum protection to customers, we will establish the statutorily-directed effective dates, in this context the dates that we would revoke their market-based rate authorities, at the earliest date allowed, 13 60 days after publication of the order initiating the Commission's investigations in Docket Nos. EL03-59-000 and EL03-60-000 in the Federal Register . In addition, section 206 requires that, if no final decision has been rendered by that date, the Commission must provide its estimate as to when it reasonably expects to make such a decision. Given the times for filing identified in this order, and the nature and complexity of the matters to be resolved, the Commission estimates that it will be able to reach a final decision by July 31, 2003.

The Commission orders:

(A) Reliant is hereby directed, within 21 days of the date of this order, to show cause to the Commission in a paper hearing, in Docket No. EL03-59-000, why it should not be found to have violated section 205 of the FPA and why its market-based rate authority should not be revoked.

(B) BP Energy is hereby directed, within 21 days of the date of this order, to show cause to the Commission in a paper hearing, in Docket No. EL03-60-000, why it should not be found to have violated section 205 of the FPA and why its market-based rate authority should not be revoked.

(C) The Secretary shall promptly publish a copy of this order in the Federal Register .

(D) The effective dates in Docket Nos. EL03-59-000 and EL03-60-000 will be 60 days following publication in the Federal Register of the order discussed in Ordering Paragraph (C) above.

(E) Pursuant to the authority contained in and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by section 402(a) of the Department of Energy Organization Act and the Federal Power Act, particularly section 206 thereof, and pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure and the regulations under the Federal Power Act (18 CFR chapter I), the Commission hereby institutes investigations of BP Energy's and Reliant's market-based rates, in Docket Nos. EL03-59-000 and EL03-60-000, respectively, as discussed in the body of this order.

(F) Any interested person desiring to be heard in these proceedings should file notices of intervention or motions to intervene with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214) within 21 days of the date of this order.

(G) Responses to the show cause submissions filed pursuant to Ordering Paragraphs (A) and (B) above may be submitted within 15 days of the date of filing of the show cause submissions.

Take notice that on March 12, 2003, Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Stingray) tendered for filing a refund report to comply with Article 2.4 of the Stipulation and Agreement approved by the Commission on December 24, 2002. 1

Stingray states that on September 19, 2002, it filed a stipulation and agreement (Settlement) to resolve all issues pending in this proceeding. By letter order dated December 24, 2002, the Commission approved the settlement and directed Stingray to notify the Commission within 30 days after making a lump-sum payment in the amount of $4.5 million to the Indicated Shippers. As directed by the Commission, Stingray is submitting the statement of compliance with the Commission as notification that such payment has been forwarded to the Indicated Shippers.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “FERRIS” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.

Comment Date: April 1, 2003.

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for major license for the proposed Marseilles Hydroelectric Project located in the town of Marseilles, on the Illinois River in La Salle County, Illinois, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.

The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “FERRIS” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll-free at (866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202)502-8659.

Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice and should be addressed to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please affix Project No. 12020-000 to all comments. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( http://www.ferc.gov ) under the “e-Filing” link.

For further information, contact Steve Kartalia at (202) 502-6131 or by E-mail at stephen.kartalia@ferc.gov.

Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

a. Type of Application: Preliminary permit.

b. Project No.: 12452-000.

c. Date filed: March 3, 2003.

d. Applicant: United Power Corporation.

e. Name and Location of Project: The Bryant Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project would use flows from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's D and J Canals and would be built on federal lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in Klamath County, Oregon. No tribal lands would be involved.

f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

g. Applicant Contact: Mr. Bart M. O'Keeffe, United Power Corporation, P.O. Box 1916, Byron, CA 94514, (925) 634-1550.

h. FERC Contact: James Hunter, (202) 502-6086.

i. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.

The Commission's rules of practice and procedure require all interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

j. Description of Project: The proposed pumped storage project would consist of: (1) An upper reservoir, an enlargement of the existing Pope Reservoir, with a surface area of 550 acres and a storage capacity of 60,000 acre-feet at a water surface elevation of 5,500 feet msl, (2) a 4,000-foot-long, 310-foot-high earthen upper dam, (3) a 1,500-foot-long, 30-foot-diameter concrete low pressure tunnel, (4) a 270-foot-deep, 30-foot-diameter concrete surge shaft, (5) a 1,100-foot-long, 30-foot diameter vertical concrete power shaft, (6) a 3,800-foot-long, 24-foot-diameter concrete power tunnel, (7) a powerhouse containing four reversible generating units with a total installed capacity of 1,000 megawatts, (8) a lower reservoir with a surface area of 1,480 acres and a storage capacity of 110,000 acre-feet at a water surface elevation of 4,220 feet msl, (9) a 21,500-foot-long, 135-foot-high earthen lower dam, (10) a 4-mile-long, 500-kilovolt transmission line, and (11) appurtenant facilities.

Water for the project would be obtained from the D canal by an intake and pumping plant to be located 1.5 miles east of the town of Malin and a 5,700-foot-long, 36-inch-diameter pipeline to the lower reservoir, and from the J canal by an intake and pumping plant to be located one mile south of Malin and a 17,000-foot-long, 36-inch-diameter pipeline to the lower reservoir. The D and J canals convey water diverted from the Lost River in southern Oregon for irrigation. The applicant proposes to fill the project reservoirs when the canals are not being used to capacity for irrigation.

k. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “FERRIS” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov . For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

l. Competing Preliminary Permit—Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application ( see 18 CFR 4.36). Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.

m. Competing Development Application— Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.

n. Notice of Intent—A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.

o. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit—A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project.

p. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

q. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing an original and eight copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.

Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

r. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(h), of the receipt of exempt and prohibited off-the-record communications.

Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive an exempt or a prohibited off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested on-the-record proceeding, to deliver a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication, to the Secretary.

Prohibited communications will be included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such requests only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication should serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

Exempt off-the-record communications will be included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).

The following is a list of exempt and prohibited off-the-record communications recently received in the Office of the Secretary. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers. These filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “FERRIS” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll-free at (866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202)502-8659.

Notice is hereby given that a petition dated March 27, 2002 was received from the State of New Jersey requesting a determination by the Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), pursuant to section 312(f) of Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Law 95-217 and Public Law 100-4 (the Clean Water Act), that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the waters of the Barnegat Bay, Ocean County, New Jersey. This petition was made by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in cooperation with the Barnegat Bay Estuary Program, New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium, Ocean County Planning Board and Ocean County Vacation and Technical School. Upon receipt of an affirmative determination in response to this petition, NJDEP would completely prohibit the discharge of sewage, whether treated or not, from any vessel in the Barnegat Bay Complex in accordance with section 312(f)(3) of the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 140.4(a).

Barnegat Bay is a shallow, lagoon-type estuary characteristic of a back bay system of a barrier island coastline. Barnegat Bay is bordered by two barrier islands, Island Beach and Long Beach Island. These islands are approximately 64 km in total length, are oriented north-south and separate the bay from the Atlantic Ocean. The No Discharge Zone (NDZ) will include Barnegat Bay Complex and its navigable tributaries. The boundary lines have been defined for the Point Pleasant Canal, Barnegat Inlet and Egg Harbor Inlet as lines between the following points:

Barnegat Bay provides recreational, economic, and aesthetic benefits to the coastal users of New Jersey. The estuary is productive for shellfish harvesting, recreational activities such as fishing, kayaking, swimming and boating. The bay supports hard clam harvest and blue crab landings. NJDEP Bureau of Marine Water Classification and Analysis has divided the State into 36 Shellfish growing water reaches. The bay complex is identified as Reaches 7 through 13 which are as follows:

Information submitted by the State of New Jersey indicate that there are sixty-six existing pumpout facilities and two pumpout boats available to service vessels throughout the Barnegat Bay Complex. The typical facility is available to the boating community from April through November with hours of operation from 8 am until 5 pm, seven days a week. Seven facilities are available all year. Sixty-three of the existing pumpout facilities are connected to municipal sewage lines. Sewage from these facilities is routed to the Ocean County Municipal Utilities Authority where it undergoes secondary treatment. Three pumpout facilities (Ocean Gate Yacht Basin, Ocean Beach South and Causeway Boat Rental and Marina) store their waste in holding tanks for disposal by a septic waste hauler.

According to the State's petition, the vessel population for the waters of Barnegat Bay Complex is approximately 15,587 vessels which are docked at private residences and 12,900 vessels docked or moored at marinas or yacht clubs. The total vessel population is 28,487. The ratio of boats to pumpout facilities has been based on the total number of vessels which could be expected. With sixty-six shore-side pumpout facilities and two pumpout vessel available to boaters, the ratio of docked or moored boats (including transients) is approximately 420 vessels per pumpout. Standard guidelines refer to acceptable ratios falling in the range of 300 to 600 vessels per pumpout. If the EPA calculation is employed (as listed in the guidance manual entitled, “Protecting Coastal Waters from Vessel and Marina Discharges: A Guide for State and Local Officials—April 1994”), it estimates that twenty-four pumpouts are needed to provide adequate facilities.

Commercial vessels which operate in and around the harbor are engaged in fishing activities exclusively. Most of the operators will use the facilities where they dock or obtain fuel. The larger fishing vessels do not operate in the bay, but dock in the vicinity of Barnegat Light and fish the Atlantic Ocean.

The EPA hereby makes a tentative affirmative determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the Barnegat Bay Complex in Ocean County, New Jersey. A final determination on this matter will be made following the 30-day period for public comment regarding a New Jersey State prohibition of any sewage discharges from marine vessels in the Barnegat Bay Complex.

Comments and views regarding this petition and EPA's tentative determination may be filed on or before May 1, 2003. Comments or requests for information or copies of the applicant's petition should be addressed to Walter E. Andrews, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Water Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Telephone: (212) 637-3880.

The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq. ) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 25, 2003.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Sue Costello, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:

1. Triangle Financial Group, Inc. , Loganville, Georgia; to become a bank holding by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of The Community Bank, Loganville, Georgia.

This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the charter for the Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health (ICSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period, through March 20, 2005.

For further information, contact Dana Shelton, Executive Secretary, Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control Prevention, of the Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, N.E., M/S K-50, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3717 telephone: 770-488-5709 or fax: 770/488-5767.

The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

The Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on December 12, 2002 at 67 FR 76418, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. No comments were received by the INS on this proposed information collection.

The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until May 1, 2003. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Department of Homeland Security Desk Officer, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20530; 202-395-5887.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Overview of this information collection:

(1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of currently approved collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Applicant Survey.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: Form G-942, Human Resources Branch, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or Households. This form is required to ensure compliance with Federal laws and regulations which mandate equal opportunity in the recruitment of applicants for Federal employment.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: 75,000 responses at 4 minutes (.066 hours) per response.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 4,950 annual burden hours.

If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please contact Richard A. Sloan 202-514-3291, Director, Regulations and Forms Services Division, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Room 4034, 425 I Street, NW., Washington, DC 20536. Additionally, comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time may also be directed to Mr. Richard A. Sloan.

These brokers hold multiple Customs broker licenses. They continue to hold other valid Customs broker licenses.

The Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on November 29, 2002, at 67 FR 71204. The notice allowed for a 60-day public review and comment period. No public comment was received by the agency.

The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until May 1, 2003. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Department of Homeland Security Desk Officer, 725—17th Street, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20530.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Overview of this information collection:

(1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Title of the Form/Collection: Biographical Information/Program Eligibility Questionnaire and Practitioner Fraud Pilot Program Initial Interview Form.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: Forms I-908 and I-909. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This information collection will be used by the agency to identify unscrupulous immigration practitioners who intentionally defraud undocumented alien victims.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: 5,000 responses at 1 hour per response.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 5,000 annual burden hours.

If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please contact Richard A. Sloan 202-514-3291, Director, Regulations and Forms Services Division, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Room 4034, 425 I Street, NW., Washington, DC 20536. Additionally, comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time may also be directed to Mr. Richard A. Sloan.

On the basis of the record  1 developed in the subject investigation, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports from China of non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings, provided for in subheadings 7307.11.00 and 7307.19.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The Commission further determines that it would not have found material injury but for the suspension of liquidation.

The Commission instituted this investigation effective February 21, 2002, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Anvil International, Inc., Portsmouth, NH, and Ward Manufacturing, Inc., Blossburg, PA. The final phase of the investigation was scheduled by the Commission following notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings from China were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigation and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of October 24, 2002 (67 FR 65360). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on February 11, 2003, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

The Commission transmitted its determination in this investigation to the Secretary of Commerce on March 24, 2003. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3586 (March 2003), entitled Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-990 (Final).

Notice is hereby given that, on March 6, 2003, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), the Gaming Standards Association (GSA) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identifies of the parties are: 3M Touch Systems, Methuen, MA; Acres Gaming, Las Vegas, NV; Aristocrat Technologies, Inc., Las Vegas, NV; AstroSys International Ltd, Las Vegas, NV; Atronic Americas, LLC, Scottsdale, AZ; Austrian Gaming Industries GMbH, Lower Austria, AUSTRIA; Bally Gaming & Systems, Inc., Sparks, NV; Boyd Gaming Corporation, Las Vegas, NV; CashCode, Inc., Concord, Ontario, CANADA; Casino Management Association (CMA), St. Louis, MO; Coin Mechanisms, Inc., Glendale Heights, IL; Elo Touchsystems, Fremont, CA; Ensico d.o.o., Ljubljana, SLOVENIA; European Gaming Organisation (EGO), Lelystad, THE NETHERLANDS; Foxwoods Resort Casino, Mashantucket, CT; Friedberg & Associates, Woodinville, WA; Gaming Consultants International, Dingley, Victoria, AUSTRALIA; Global Payment Technologies, Hauppauge, NY; Gold Club, Sezana, SLOVENIA; Harrah's Entertainment, Las Vegas, NV; Himecs Co., Ltd, Tokyo, JAPAN; IDX, Inc., El Dorado, AR; IGT-International Game Technology, Reno, NV; Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc., Biloxi, MS: JCM American, Inc., Las Vegas, NV; Konami Gamin, Inc., Las Vegas, NV; Mandalay Resort Group, Jean, NV; Mars Electronics, West Chester, PA; Mikohn Gaming Corporation, Las Vegas, NV; MIS-Group, Grambach, AUSTRIA; Money Controls/ARDAC, Inc., Eastlake, OH; Park Place Entertainment, Las Vegas, NV; Scientific Games Corporation, Las Vegas, NV; Shuffle Master Gaming, Inc., Las Vegas, NV; Sierra Design Group, Reno, NV; Sigma Game, Inc., Las Vegas, NV; Spielo Manufacturing, Inc., Dieppe, New Brunswick, CANADA; Station Casinos, Las Vegas, NV; TransAct Technologies, Inc., Ithaca, NY; Unidesa, Barcelona, SPAIN; Universal Distributing, Las Vegas, NV; University of Nevada-Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV; and WMS Gaming, Inc., Chicago, IL. The nature and objectives of the venture are to identify, define, develop, promote, and implement open standards to enable innovation, education, and communication for the benefit of the gaming industry.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, (OJP) National Institute of Justice has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “60 days” until June 2, 2003. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact William Ballweber, (202) 305-2975, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, 810 Seventh Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531.

Request written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Overview of this information collection:

(1) Type of Information Collection: DOJ requests three year extension of generic clearance to conduct customer satisfaction surveys.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: NCJRS Customer Satisfaction Surveys.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Forms Numbers: NCJ-CR-01-00 thorough NCJ-CR-01-07. Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond to survey request, as well as a brief abstract: Respondents will be current and potential users of agency products and services. Respondents may represent Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal governments, members of private organizations, research organizations, the media, non-profit organizations, international organizations, as well as faculty and students. The purpose of such surveys is to assess needs, identifying problems, and plan for programmatic improvements in the delivery of agency products and services.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: There are an estimated 7,526 respondents who complete a survey. It will take the average respondent 10 minutes to respond by mail, 6 minutes to respond using the World Wide Web, 4 minutes to respond by telephone, 90 minutes to respond by teleconference, and 90 minutes for a focus group to respond.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 25,313 annual burden hours associated with this collection.

If additional information is required contact: Brenda E. Dyer, Department Deputy Clearance Officer, Information Management and Security Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register Volume 67, Number 195, page 62817 on October 8, 2002, allowing for a 60 day comment period.

The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until May 1, 2003. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-7285.

Request written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

(1) Type of Information Collection: New collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Bureau of Justice Assistance, Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: None. Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: State and local government. This information will assist BJA in determining program eligibility and payment levels for select units of general government in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California. It will also provide contact and banking information for purposes of ongoing communication and Federal payments resulting from submitting and approved online, Internet-based applications. The respondents will be the chief executive officers or their designees from local governments located in the four States.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: There will be an estimated 250 respondents who will complete an application for benefits. The estimated amount of time required for the average respondent to respond is between 2 and 10 hours.

(6) An estimate of the total burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 1,500 burden hours annually associated with this information collection.

If additional information is required contact: Mrs. Brenda E. Dyer, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Information Management and Security Staff, Justice Management Division, Suite 1600, Patrick Henry Building, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530.

This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address: http://www.nrc.gov.

There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 14, 2003.

There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 21, 2003.

There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 28, 2003.

There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of May 5, 2003.

The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)—(301) 415-1292.

By a vote of 5-0 on march 25, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and § 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that “Affirmation of Final Rule: part 2, subpart G, rules of General Applicability, ‘Availability of Official Records’ ” be held on March 27, and on less than one week's notice to the public.

The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html.

This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov.

Pursuant to Public Law 97-415, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. Public Law 97-415 revised section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), to require the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, under a new provision of section 189 of the Act. This provision grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license 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 March 7, 2003 through March 20, 2003. The last biweekly notice was published on March 18, 2003 (68 FR 12946).

The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. 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 the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received before action is taken. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing 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, Rules and Directives Branch, 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. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.

By May 1, 2003, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714, 1 which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 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 an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

If 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.

A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the above date. Because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that petitions for leave to intervene and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for a hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 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. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

Date of amendment request: May 10, 2002, as supplemented March 12, 2003.

Description of amendment request: Carolina Power & Light Company (the licensee) is proposing changes to Appendix A, Technical Specifications (TS), and appendix B, Additional Conditions, of Facility Operating License No. DPR-23 for the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (HBRSEP2). These changes will revise the licensing basis for HBRSEP2 to implement the Alternative Source Term (AST) described in Regulatory Guide 1.183, “Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors.” Implementation of the AST will allow for removal of the cycle operating length restriction from appendix B, Additional Conditions, of the Operating License, as the AST radiological consequence analyses support operation for an entire cycle at the increased power level approved in License Amendment No. 196. The AST is used by the licensee in evaluating the radiological consequences of the following Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Chapter 15 accidents:

• Main Steam Line Break,

• Reactor Coolant Pump Shaft Seizure,

• Single Rod Control Cluster Assembly Withdrawal,

• Steam Generator Tube Rupture,

• Large Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident, and

• Waste Gas Decay Tank Rupture.

In addition, revised atmospheric dispersion factors for onsite and offsite dose consequences have been calculated and incorporated in the reanalysis of these events.

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:

An evaluation of the proposed change has been performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(a)(1) regarding no significant hazards considerations using the standards in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A discussion of these standards as they relate to this amendment request follows:

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: Steven R. Carr, Associate General Counsel—Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-1551.

NRC Section Chief: Allen G. Howe.

Date of amendment request: February 17, 2003.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would revise the Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 3.10.1.9 to require that the Standby Shutdown Facility (SSF) diesel generator (DG) be loaded to at least 3280 kilowatts during the surveillance. The current requirement is that the SSF DG be loaded to at least 3000 kilowatts during the surveillance. The change supports resolution of an Oconee design basis issue associated with SSF pressurizer heater capacity.

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:

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: Anne W. Cottington, Winston and Strawn, 1200 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.

NRC Section Chief: John A. Nakoski.

Date of amendment request: January 31, 2003.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would revise Appendix A, Technical Specifications (TS) 3.4.11, “RCS Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits,” to incorporate revised P/T curves. The revised P/T curves are based on calculations performed in accordance with General Electric (GE) Topical Report NEDC-32983P, “General Electric Methodology for Reactor Pressure Vessel Fast Neutron Flux Evaluation.” The NEDC-32983P methodology is consistent with the guidance contained in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.190, “Calculational and Dosimetry Methods for Determining Pressure Vessel Neutron Fluence,” dated March 2001.

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:

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: Mr. Edward J. Cullen, Deputy General Counsel, Exelon BSC—Legal, 2301 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19101.

NRC Section Chief : Anthony J. Mendiola.

Date of amendment request: February 27, 2003.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments revise the Technical Specifications to reflect a one-time deferral of the primary containment Type A leak rate test to no later than July 22, 2009, for Unit 1 and no later than May 16, 2008, for Unit 2.

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:

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: Mr. Edward J. Cullen, Deputy General Counsel, Exelon BSC—Legal, 2301 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19101.

NRC Section Chief: Anthony J. Mendiola.

Date of amendment request: February 27, 2003.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments add a surveillance requirement to perform a quarterly trip unit calibration of the reactor protection system scram discharge volume water level—high differential pressure switches.

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:

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: Mr. Edward J. Cullen, Deputy General Counsel, Exelon BSC—Legal, 2301 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19101.

NRC Section Chief: Anthony J. Mendiola.

Date of amendment request: January 14, 2003.

Description of amendment request: This license amendment request proposes a change to Technical Specifications (TSs) 5.1.1, 5.4.1, and 5.5.1 that would replace the requirement for the plant manager to approve administrative procedures and the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual. The plant manager approval signature would be replaced with the signature of a procedurally authorized individual who would be a more appropriate authority for approval of the activity.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by Section 50.91(a) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration which is presented below:

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: Mary E. O'Reilly, Attorney, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.

NRC Section Chief: Anthony J. Mendiola.

Date of amendment request: January 30, 2003.

Description of amendment request: This license amendment request would modify the existing minimum critical power ratio (MCPR) safety limit contained in Technical Specification (TS) 2.1.1.2. Specifically, the change modifies the MCPR safety limit values, as calculated by Global Nuclear Fuel (GNF), by decreasing the limit for two recirculation loop operation from 1.10 to 1.07, and decreasing the limit for single recirculation loop operation from 1.11 to 1.08. The change resulted from the core reload analysis performed for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) fuel cycle 10.

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:

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: Mary E. O'Reilly, Attorney, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.

NRC Section Chief: Anthony J. Mendiola.

Date of amendment request: December 10, 2002.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would revise the Unit 2 reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure-temperature curves in Technical Specification (TS) Figures 3.4-2 and 3.4-3 and associated TS Bases. The revised curves will bound operation of the unit for the remainder of its current license duration and bound operation with planned license amendments to increase the power level at which the unit is allowed to operate. In support of this proposed amendment, Indiana Michigan Power (I&M) has submitted a request, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.60, “Acceptance Criteria for Fracture Prevention Measures for Lightwater Nuclear Power Reactors for Normal Operation,” for exemption from requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, “Fracture Toughness Requirements.”

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:

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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Esq., 500 Circle Drive, Buchanan, MI 49107.

NRC Section Chief: L. Raghavan.

Date of amendment request: February 25, 2003.

Description of amendment request: The proposed Technical Specification (TS) changes will add an allowed outage time (AOT) for Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation channels to be out of service in a bypassed state.

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:

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: Thomas G. Eppink, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina 29218.

NRC Section Chief: John A. Nakoski.

Date of amendment request: February 13, 2003.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specifications (TSs) 4.2.1, Fuel Assemblies, to modify the fuel design description to encompass Framatome Advanced Nuclear Power (FANP) fuel assemblies and also to modifiy TS 4.3, Fuel Storage, to remove nomenclature specific to Global Nuclear Fuels analysis methods. The proposed TS changes are needed to allow the receipt and storage of Framatome fuel assemblies.

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 in accordance with the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), which are presented below:

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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.

NRC Section Chief: Allen G. Howe.

Date of amendment request: December 19, 2002.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specifications (TSs) Chapter 5.0, “Administrative Controls,” to incorporate three approved TS Task Force (TSTF) changes: TSTF-258, Revision 4; TSTF-299, Revision 0; and TSTF-308, Revision 1. These changes have been incorporated in Revision 2 of NUREG 1431, “Standard Technical Specifications Westinghouse Plants.”

In addition, the amendment proposes two editorial changes. These changes either update personnel titles with the titles currently used at WBN and TVA's other nuclear units or clarify required staffing levels.

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 in accordance with the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), which are presented below:

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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 10H, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.

NRC Section Chief: Allen G. Howe.

Date of amendment request: February 14, 2003.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TS) for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1. The proposed TS change would allow WBN Unit 1 to be refueled and operated using the Westinghouse 17x17 Robust Fuel Assembly-2 (RFA-2) design commencing with Cycle 6 in September 2003.

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:

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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 10H, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.

NRC Section Chief: Allen G. Howe.

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.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, 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 51.12(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 are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible 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/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

Date of application for amendment: April 10, 2002.

Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) to relocate emergency diesel generator maintenance inspection requirements from Section 4.7 to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.

Date of Issuance: March 7, 2003.

Effective date: March 7, 2003 shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance, except the relocation of the emergency diesel generator maintenance requirements of Technical Specification 4.7, which shall be incorporated into the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in accordance with the schedule specified by 10 CFR 50.71.

Amendment No.: 236.

Facility Operating License No. DPR-16: Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register : May 28, 2002 (67 FR 36926).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 7, 2003.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Date of application for amendment: August 30, 2002, as supplemented November 21 and December 16, 2002, and January 23, 2003.

Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises the Technical Specifications by eliminating the requirements to perform response time testing for several reactor protection system and engineered safety feature functions in conformance with previously approved topical reports.

Date of issuance: March 7, 2003.

Effective date: March 7, 2003.

Amendment No.: 112.

Facility Operating License No. NPF-63: Amendment revises the Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register : November 1, 2002(67 FR 61676).

The November 21 and December 16, 2002, and January 23, 2003, letters provided clarifying information and did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination or expand the scope of the initial application.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 7, 2003.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Date of application for amendment: August 28, 2002.

Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.9.9, “Containment Ventilation Isolation System,” to allow the same administrative controls for this TS as were approved previously by the NRC in Amendment No. 104 to the HNP TS for TS 3/4.9.4, “Containment Building Penetrations,” to provide consistency between the two TS.

Date of issuance: March 12, 2003.

Effective date: March 12, 2003.

Amendment No.: 113.

Facility Operating License No. NPF-63: Amendment revises the Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register : October 1, 2002 (67 FR 61676).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 12, 2003.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Date of application for amendments: October 10, 2002, as supplemented by letters dated February 7 and February 26, 2003.

Brief description of amendments: The amendment authorizes the licensee to continue to use, for operational cycle 13 beginning in March 2003, and subsequent cycles of operation, the reactor coolant system cold leg elbow tap flow coefficients that were approved by the NRC on an interim basis for cycle 12 in Amendment No. 186.

Date of issuance: March 19, 2003.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance.

Amendment Nos.: 199.

Facility Operating License No. NPF-52: Amendment authorizes revision of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register : November 26, 2002 (67 FR 70765).

The supplements dated February 7 and February 26, 2003, provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the October 10, 2002, application nor the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 19, 2003.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Date of application for amendments: May 29, 2002, as supplemented by letters dated September 25 and November 12, 2002, and January 8 and January 29, 2003.

Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Technical Specifications to allow a one-time change in the Appendix J, Type A containment integrated leakage rate test interval from the currently required 10-year interval to a test interval of 15 years.

Date of issuance: March 12, 2003.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance.

Amendment Nos.: 205/198.

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register : July 9, 2002 (67 FR 45563).

The supplements dated September 25 and November 12, 2002, and January 8 and January 29, 2003, provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the May 29, 2002, application or the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 12, 2003.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Date of application for amendments: May 29, 2002, as supplemented by letters dated September 25 and November 12, 2002, and January 8 and January 29, 2003.

Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Technical Specifications to allow a one-time change in the Appendix J, Type A containment integrated leakage rate test interval from the currently required 10-year interval to a test interval of 15 years.

Date of issuance: March 12, 2003.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance.

Amendment Nos.: 211/192.

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register : July 9, 2002 (67 FR 45563).

The supplements dated September 25 and November 12, 2002, and January 8 and January 29, 2003, provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the May 29, 2002, application or the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 12, 2003.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Date of amendment request: April 24, 2002, as supplemented by letters dated July 18, December 18 and 20, 2002, and February 19, 2003.

Brief description of amendment: The amendment reflects a full-scope implementation of the alternative source term, as described in Regulatory Guide 1.183, “Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,” pursuant to 10 CFR 50.67, “Accident source term.”

Date of issuance: March 14, 2003.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 60 days from the date of issuance.

Amendment No.: 132.

Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register : June 11, 2002 (67 FR 40021).

The July 18, December 18 and 20, 2002, and February 19, 2003, supplemental letters provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the original Federal Register notice or the original no significant hazards consideration determination.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 14, 2003.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Date of amendment request: May 14, 2002, as supplemented by letters dated February 12 and 28, 2003.

Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the surveillance requirements (SRs) pertaining to the testing of the Division 3 standby emergency diesel generator (EDG). The change allows performance of some required surveillance tests for the Division 3 EDG during any mode of plant operation (previously allowed only in Modes 4 (Cold Shutdown) and 5 (Refueling)).

Date of issuance: March 14, 2003.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 30 days from the date of issuance.

Amendment No.: 133.

Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications and Surveillance Requirements.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register : June 25, 2002 (67 FR 42824).

The February 12, 2003, supplemental letter provided clarifying information and the February 28, 2003, supplemental letter withdrew the requested change to the Note associated with SR 3.8.1.8. The supplemental letters did not change the scope of the original Federal Register notice or the original no significant hazards consideration determination.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 14, 2003.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Date of application for amendment: June 5, 2002, as supplemented on January 9 and March 4, 2003.

Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical Specifications (TSs) to implement the alternate source term methodology for the fuel-handling accident analysis. Specifically, the amendment revises TS 3.9.3, “Containment Penetrations,” to: (1) Permit the equipment closure hatch opening and the personnel airlock doors to be capable of being closed during movement of irradiated fuel, (2) allow use of administrative controls for unisolating containment penetrations during movement of irradiated fuel, (3) delete the containment purge and containment pressure relief requirements and associated surveillances with the reactor subcritical for less than 550 hours, and (4) eliminate the TS applicability “during core alterations.” In this regard, the amendment adopts TS Task Force (TSTF) Standard TS Change Travelers TSTF-68, “Containment Personnel Airlock Doors Open During Fuel Movement,” TSTF-312, “Administratively Control Containment Penetrations,” and, in part, TSTF-51, “Revise Containment Requirements During Handling Irradiated Fuel and Core Alterations.” The amendment also revises the Applicability Statements for Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.3.8 for the fuel storage building emergency ventilation system (FSBEVS) actuation instrumentation and LCO 3.7.13 for the FSBEVS to also add the term “recently” before “irradiated fuel assemblies.” In addition, the LCO Required Action would likewise be modified to add the term “recently” to now require the suspension of movement of recently irradiated fuel in the FSB.

Date of issuance: March 17, 2003.

Effective date: March 17, 2003.

Amendment No.: 215.

Facility Operating License No. DPR-64: Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register : July 9, 2002 (67 FR 45567).

The January 9 and March 4 letters provided clarifying information that did not expand the scope of the proposed amendment or change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 17, 2003.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Date of application for amendment: August 16, 2002.

Brief description of amendment: The amendment relocates certain Control Rod Block functions from Technical Specifications 3/4.2.C, “Control Rod Block Actuation,” Tables 3.2.C.1, 3.2.C-2, and 4.2.C to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.

Date of issuance: March 17, 2003.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 60 days.

Amendment No.: 196.

Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register : November 12, 2002 (67 FR 68735).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 17, 2003.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Date of amendment request: October 24, 2002, as supplemented by letter dated February 4, 2003.

Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical Specifications (TSs) relating to positive reactivity additions while in shutdown modes by clarifying TSs involving positive reactivity additions. In addition, the borated water volume requirements in TS 3.1.2.7 is now presented in “percent level” units and an obsolete reference from Surveillance Requirement 4.8.2.2 is deleted.

Date of issuance: March 7, 2003.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 60 days from the date of issuance.

Amendment No.: 185.

Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register : December 10, 2002 (67 FR 75874).

The February 4, 2003, supplemental letter provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the original Federal Register notice or the original no significant hazards consideration determination.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 7, 2003.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Date of amendment request: April 2, 2001, as supplemented by letters dated September 24, 2001, and February 27, July 31, and December 19, 2002.

Brief description of amendment: The Refueling Water Storage Pool (RWSP) purification system is aligned to the RWSP to maintain the purity and clarity of the borated water contained in the pool. It is also one of two means of makeup to the Spent Fuel Pool, with the Condensate Storage Pool being the primary makeup source. Entergy Operations Inc. has proposed to revise its Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to allow the manual valves (FS-423 and FS-404) that isolate the RWSP from the RWSP purification system and provide the boundary between the seismically qualified, safety related RWSP and the non-seismic, non-safety related RWSP purification system to be maintained open.

Date of issuance: March 12, 2003.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 60 days from the date of issuance.

Amendment No.: 186.

Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the UFSAR.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register : May 16, 2001 (66 FR 27176).

The September 24, 2001, and February 27, July 31, and December 19, 2002, supplemental letters provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the original Federal Register notice or the original no significant hazards consideration determination.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 12, 2003.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Date of application for amendments: November 27, 2002.

Brief description of amendments: These amendments delete technical specification (TS) 5.5.3, “Post Accident Sampling,” and thereby eliminate the requirements to have and maintain the post accident sampling system at the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3. The amendments also address related changes to TS 5.5.2, “Primary Coolant Sources Outside Containment.”

Date of issuance: March 11, 2003.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days.

Amendment Nos.: 197/190.

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25: The amendments revised the Technical Specifications.