Notices. Amendment 1

12,888 words·~59 min read·/register/2005/04/04/05-6574·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4410-18-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-382] Entergy Operations, Inc.; Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a final environmental assessment as its evaluation of a request by Entergy Operations, Inc., Entergy, the licensee) for a license amendment to increase the maximum thermal power at the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3) from 3441 megawatts thermal

(MWt)to 3716 MWt. This represents a power increase of approximately 8 percent for Waterford 3. The NRC staff has the option of preparing an environmental impact statement if it believes a power uprate will have a significant impact on the human environment. The NRC staff did not identify any significant impact from the information provided in the licensee's extended power uprate

(EPU)application for Waterford 3 or the NRC staff's independent review; therefore, the NRC staff is documenting its environmental assessment. The final environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact is being published in the **Federal Register** . Environmental Assessment Background Plant Site and Environs The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-38, issued to Entergy for Waterford 3 which has been in operation since March 4, 1985. The facility is located on the west (right descending) bank of the Mississippi River, approximately 40 kilometers (25 miles) west of New Orleans on Louisiana Highway 18 (River Road) in St. Charles Parish, in the city of Killona, Louisiana. The plant's topography, except for the levee along the Mississippi River, is generally flat with an elevation of 8 to 16 feet above mean sea level. Electricity is generated using a pressurized water reactor and steam turbine with a maximum generating capacity of 1,104 Megawatts electric. The fuel source for the unit is enriched Uranium-235. The exhaust steam is condensed using a once-through circulating water system with the Mississippi River as a heat sink. Additionally, the component cooling water system serves as the station's ultimate heat sink and is designed to remove heat from the plant during normal operation, shutdown, or emergency shutdown. Three-quarters of a mile downstream from the Waterford 3 site is the Bonnet Carré Spillway. The Bonnet Carré Spillway is a vital element of the comprehensive plan for flood control in the Lower Mississippi Valley. It is located on the east bank of the Mississippi River, approximately 25 miles above New Orleans and was constructed to divert approximately 250,000 cubic feet per second of floodwaters from the Mississippi River to Lake Pontchartrain to prevent overtopping of levees at and below New Orleans, assuring the safety of New Orleans and the downstream delta area during major floods on the Lower Mississippi. Identification of the Proposed Action By letter dated November 13, 2003, Entergy proposed to increase the maximum thermal power level of Waterford 3 by approximately 8 percent, from 3441 MWt to 3716 MWt. The change is considered an EPU because it would raise the reactor core power level more than 7 percent above the originally licensed maximum power level. The NRC originally licensed Waterford 3 on March 16, 1985, for operation at a reactor core power not to exceed 3390 MWt. On March 29, 2002, the NRC staff approved a power increase of approximately 1.5 percent allowing Waterford 3 to operate at a core power level not to exceed 3441 MWt. Therefore, this proposed action would result in a total increase of approximately 9.6 percent over the originally licensed maximum power level. The amendment would allow the heat output of the reactor to increase, which would increase the flow of steam to the turbine. This would allow the turbine generator to increase the production of power as well as increase the amount of heat dissipated by the condenser. Moreover, this would result in an increase in temperature of the water being released into the Mississippi River. Need for the Proposed Action Entergy is requesting an amendment to the operating license for Waterford 3 to increase the maximum thermal power level, thereby increasing the electric power generation. The increase in electric power generation provides Entergy with lower cost power than can be obtained in the current and anticipated energy market. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action This assessment summarizes the non-radiological and radiological impacts on the environment that may result from the licensee's amendment request application dated November 13, 2003. Non-Radiological Impacts Land Use Impacts The potential impacts associated with land use for the proposed action include impacts from construction and plant modifications. The Waterford 3 property is made up of 52 percent wetlands and 22 percent of the land is used for agriculture. There is no residential or recreational land on the property. There is no plan to construct any new facilities or expand buildings, roads, parking lots, equipment storage, or laydown areas. No changes to the onsite transmission and distribution equipment, including power line rights-of-way, are anticipated to support this action. No new construction outside of the existing facilities will be necessary. The proposed EPU will require a modification to the high pressure turbine. The turbine is located within the turbine building, and the modification will not require any land disturbance. The EPU would not significantly affect material storage, including chemicals, fuels, and other materials stored aboveground or underground. There is no modification to land use at the site, and no impact on the lands with historic or archeological significance. The proposed EPU would not modify the current land use at the site significantly over that described in the Final Environmental Statement (FES). The licensee has stated that the proposed EPU will not change the character, sources, or energy of noise generated at the plant. Modified structures, systems, and components necessary to implement the power uprate will be installed within existing plant buildings and no noticeable increase in ambient noise levels within the plant is expected. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental impacts of the proposed EPU are bounded by the impacts previously evaluated in the FES. Transmission Facility Impacts The potential impacts associated with transmission facilities for the proposed action include changes in transmission line corridor right-of-way maintenance and electric shock hazards due to increased current. The proposed EPU would not require any physical modifications to the transmission lines. Entergy's transmission line right-of-way maintenance practices, including the management of vegetation growth, would not be affected. No new requirements or changes to onsite transmission equipment, operating voltages, or transmission line rights-of-way would be necessary to support the EPU. The main plant transformers will be modified and replaced to support the uprate; however, replacement of the transformers would have been required before the end of plant life as part of the licensee's ongoing maintenance program. Therefore, no significant environmental impact beyond that considered in the FES is expected from this kind of replacement of onsite equipment. The National Electric Safety Code

(NESC)provides design criteria that limit hazards from steady-state currents. The NESC limits the short-circuit current to ground to less than 5 milli-ampere. There will be an increase in current passing through the transmission lines associated with the increased power level of the proposed EPU. The increased electrical current passing through the transmission lines will cause an increase in electromagnetic field strength. Since the increase in power level is approximately 8 percent, the increase in the electromagnetic field will not be significant. The licensee's analysis shows that the transmission lines will continue to meet the applicable shock prevention provisions of the NESC. Therefore, even with the slight increase in current attributable to the EPU, adequate protection is provided against hazards from electric shock. The impacts associated with transmission facilities for the proposed action will not change significantly over the impacts associated with current plant operation. There are no physical modifications to the transmission lines; transmission line right-of-way maintenance practices will not change. There are no changes to transmission line rights-of-way or vertical clearances and the electric current passing through the transmission lines will increase only slightly. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant impacts associated with transmission facilities for the proposed action. The transmission lines are designed and constructed in accordance with the applicable shock prevention provisions of the NESC. Water Use Impacts Potential water use impacts from the proposed action include hydrological alterations to the Mississippi River and changes to the plant water supply. The Mississippi River is the source of water for cooling and most auxiliary water systems at Waterford 3. The cooling water is withdrawn from the Mississippi River via an intake canal approximately 49 meters

(m)(162 feet (ft)) long leading from the river to an intake structure containing four water pumps. The cooling water for the circulating water system

(CWS)is pumped through the condenser to condense the turbine exhaust steam to water. The water then flows to the discharge canal approximately 29 m (95 ft) long and is returned to the river through the discharge structure. The water from the CWS is also used in the turbine system heat exchangers and the steam generator blowdown system. The Mississippi River is the principal water source of all municipal, industrial, and agricultural use for towns and water districts downstream of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. All of the water required for plant operation, except potable water, will be withdrawn from the Mississippi River. The rate of withdrawal will not increase as a result of the EPU. As a result, operation of Waterford 3 will not affect the availability of water to downstream water users. Groundwater is not used in plant operations; therefore, there are no impacts to onsite groundwater use. The NRC staff concludes that the EPU would not have a significant impact on water usage as a result of hydrological alterations or changes in the plant water supply. Discharge Impacts The potential impacts to the Mississippi River from the plant discharge include turbidity, scouring, erosion, and sedimentation. These impacts can occur as a result of significant changes in the thermal discharge, sanitary waste discharge, and chemical discharge. 1. *Thermal Discharge:* Surface water and wastewater discharges at Waterford 3 are regulated by the State of Louisiana via a Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (LPDES) Permit. This permit is periodically reviewed and renewed by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). The EPU is expected to increase the temperature of the water discharged to the Mississippi River. The LPDES Permit

(1)restricts the temperature rise in the discharge water to five degrees Fahrenheit over the temperature of the river water and

(2)limits the temperature of the discharge water to 118 degrees Fahrenheit. The licensee has calculated the increased heat load delivered to the CWS under EPU conditions and estimated an expected increase in the discharge water temperature of 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit. Based on this expected temperature increase from power uprate, the temperature limits defined in the LPDES Permit are adequate, and no changes to the LPDES Permit are necessary. 2. *Chemical Discharge:* Wastewater treatment chemicals that are currently regulated and approved by the State of Louisiana through the LPDES Permit for use in the once-through cooling water will not change as a result of the power uprate. The concentration of pollutants in the once-through effluent stream will remain the same and have insignificant impact. 3. *Sanitary Waste Discharge:* Sanitary wastes at the Waterford 3 facility are discharged at two different locations. Sanitary wastes from the training center are collected and discharged from an onsite sewage treatment plant that is regulated through LPDES Permit LA0007374. Sanitary wastes from all other site facilities are collected in one of seven sewage lift stations located around the plant site and then ultimately transferred to St. Charles Parish Killona sewage treatment facility. Since there will be no increase in the Waterford 3 staffing levels as a result of the power uprate, there will also be no increase in sanitary waste. The use of chemicals will not change as a result of the power uprate, and the power uprate will have no impact on current water chemical usage. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental impacts associated with the plant discharge will not be significant. Impacts on Aquatic Biota The potential impacts to aquatic biota from the proposed actions include impingement and entrainment, thermal discharge effects, and changes associated with the transmission line rights-of-way. Aquatic species found in the vicinity of Waterford 3 are associated with the Mississippi River. The river near the Waterford 3 site region supports aquatic biota ranging from microorganisms and various plankton to large commercial finfish. The more abundant fish near the site area include blue catfish, channel catfish, freshwater drum, and striped mullet. There are no unique fish habitats in the river near Waterford 3. 1. *Impingement and Entrainment:* Fish and other organisms removed from the cooling water by the traveling water screens are washed to a trough to a point downstream of the intake. The EPU will not increase the withdrawal rate or change current pumping operations. Therefore, the water velocity through the traveling screens will not change as a result of the EPU. The flowrate of water being withdrawn from the intake canal at the intake structure would not increase and no change would be made in the design of the intake structure screens. Therefore, changes in the entrainment of aquatic organisms or in the impingement of fish are not anticipated as a result of the EPU. 2. *Thermal Discharge Effects (Heat Shock):* Entergy has conducted thermal studies in the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the Waterford 3 discharge for over 25 years and no adverse impacts on fish have been observed. The temperature of the water discharged to the river will remain within the limits of the LPDES Permit. The LPDES Permit states that the bounding thermal limit adequately regulates the amount of heat discharged to the Mississippi River from this facility such that it protects the balanced indigenous population. 3. *Transmission Line Rights-of-Way:* There will not be changes in transmission line right-of-way maintenance practices associated with the EPU. Therefore, no changes are expected in the amount of water or in the water quality of the water run-off to the streams or the river. The EPU will not increase the flow of the water withdrawn from the river, and the amount of heat discharged to the Mississippi River will remain within the thermal limit specified by the LPDES Permit. There are no changes in transmission line right-of-way maintenance practices associated with the proposed action. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant impacts to aquatic biota for the proposed action. Impacts on Terrestrial Biota The potential impacts to terrestrial biota from the proposed action include construction activities and changes associated with the transmission line right-of-way maintenance. The power uprate will not disturb land, and no construction activities are planned for the EPU. The proposed EPU will not change the land use at Waterford 3, and no habitat of any terrestrial plant or animal species will be disturbed as a result of this power uprate. In addition, none of Entergy's transmission line rights-of-way maintenance practices will change. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there will be no significant impact to the habitat of any terrestrial plant or animal species as a result of the EPU. Threatened and Endangered Species Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species from the proposed action include the impacts assessed in the aquatic and terrestrial biota sections of this environmental assessment. These impacts include impingement and entrainment, thermal discharge effects, and impacts due to transmission line right-of-way maintenance for aquatic species, and impacts to terrestrial species from transmission line right-of-way maintenance and construction activities. There are five species listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act within St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. These are the bald eagle ( *Haliaeetus leucocephalus* ), brown pelican ( *Pelecanus occidentalis* ), gulf sturgeon ( *Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi* ), pallid sturgeon ( *Scaphirhynchus albus* ), and the West Indian manatee ( *Trichechu manatus* ). There have been reported sightings of the bald eagle ( *H. leucocephalus* ), gulf sturgeon ( *A. oxyrinchus desotoi* ), and the pallid sturgeon ( *S. albus* ) in St. Charles Parish. Thermal studies documented in the LPDES fact sheet found that no threatened or endangered species were present near Waterford 3. In a letter dated March 15, 2004, the Louisiana Fish and Wildlife Service

(LFWS)commented on the endangered species in the vicinity of the station. The pallid sturgeon was identified as an endangered fish found in both the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers. The West Indian manatee ( *T. manatus* ) was also listed as a federally protected species known to inhabit Lakes Pontchartrain and Maurepas and associated coastal waters and stream during summer months. The LFWS did not identify any critical habitat in the vicinity of the site. According to Entergy, the impacts from the Waterford 3 EPU to these species is insignificant because:

(1)The EPU for Waterford 3 will not result in a decline of suitable habitat for these species; and

(2)sightings of these species are rare and infrequent. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed EPU would not affect threatened and endangered species significantly over the effects described in the FES. Social and Economic Impacts Potential social and economic impacts due to the proposed action include changes in tax revenue for St. Charles Parish and changes in the size of the workforce at Waterford 3. The NRC staff has reviewed information provided by the licensee regarding socioeconomic impacts. Waterford 3 is a major employer in the community with approximately 750 full-time employees. Entergy is also a major contributor to the local tax base. Entergy personnel also contribute to the tax base by paying sales taxes. Because the plant modifications needed to implement the EPU would be minor, any increase in sales tax and additional revenue to local and national business will be negligible relative to the large tax revenues generated by Waterford 3. It is expected that the proposed uprate will reduce incremental operating costs, enhance the value of Waterford 3 as a power-generating asset, and lower the probability of early plant retirement. Early plant retirement would be expected to have a significant negative impact on the local economy and the community as a whole by reducing tax revenues and limiting local employment opportunities, although these effects could be mitigated by decommissioning activities in the short term. The proposed EPU would not significantly affect the size of the Waterford 3 labor force and would have no material effect upon the labor force required for future outages after all stages of the modifications needed to support the EPU are completed. Summary In summary, the proposed EPU would not result in a significant change in non-radiological impacts in the areas of site, land use, transmission facility operation, water use, discharge, aquatic biota, terrestrial biota, threatened and endangered species, or social and economic factors. No other non-radiological impacts were identified or would be expected. Table 1 summarizes the non-radiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at Waterford 3. Table 1.—Summary of Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts Land Use No change in land use or aesthetics; will not impact lands with historic or archeological significance. No significant impact due to noise. Transmission Facilities No physical modifications to the transmission lines and facilities; no changes to rights-of-way; no significant change in electromagnetic field around the transmission lines; shock safety requirements will be met. Water Use Surface Water No increase in the water withdrawal rate from the river. Water withdrawal rate remains consistent with previous levels. Groundwater No change in groundwater use. Discharge Thermal Discharge No significant increase in temperature or heat load. Current LPDES Permit has adequate limits to accommodate any expected temperature and heat load increases. Chemical and Sanitary Discharge No expected change to chemical use and subsequent discharge, or sanitary waste systems; no change in pollutants to once-through cooling water effluent. No changes to sanitary waste discharges. Aquatic Biota No expected increased impact on aquatic biota. Thermal Discharge (Heat Shock) Historically not a problem. Additional heat is not expected to affect frequency of heat shock events or significantly increase the impact to aquatic biota. Terrestrial Biota No additional impact on terrestrial biota. Threatened and Endangered Species No expected increased impact on threatened and endangered species as a result of the EPU. Social and Economic No significant change in size of Waterford 3 workforce. Radiological Impacts Radioactive Waste Systems Waterford 3 uses Waste Treatment Systems designed to collect, process, and dispose of radioactive gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix I. The NRC staff concludes that the proposed power uprate will not result in changes to the operation or design of equipment used in the radioactive gaseous, liquid, or solid waste systems. Gaseous Radioactive Waste The Waterford 3 Gaseous Waste Treatment System is designed to collect, process, and dispose of radioactive gaseous waste in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix I. The licensee calculated that the EPU will increase the potential doses to the public from gaseous effluents by less than 0.1 millirem per year over current doses, which are less than one millirem per year. These potential doses are well within the dose design objectives of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix I and the annual doses projected in the FES. Therefore, the estimated increase in the offsite dose from gaseous effluents due to the EPU will be small with no significant impact on human health. Liquid Radioactive Waste The Waterford 3 Liquid Waste Treatment System is designed to collect, process, and dispose of radioactive liquid waste in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix I. The licensee calculated that the EPU will increase the potential doses to the public from liquid effluents by approximately 10 percent over the current doses, which are less than 0.01 millirem per year. These potential doses are well within the dose design objectives of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix I and the annual doses projected in the FES. Therefore, the estimated increase in the offsite dose from liquid effluents due to the EPU will be small with no significant impact on human health. Solid Radioactive Waste The Solid Radioactive Waste System collects, monitors, processes, packages, and provides temporary storage facilities for radioactive solid wastes prior to offsite shipment and permanent disposal. From 1998 through 2002, approximately 22,520 cubic feet of low level radioactive waste was generated, for an average of about 4,500 cubic feet per year. There are three types of solid radioactive waste: wet waste, dry waste, and irradiated reactor components. The typical contributors to solid radioactive wet waste are secondary and primary resin, contaminated filters, oil, and sludge from various plant systems. The EPU will not change either reactor water cleanup flow rates or filter performance. However, the increased core inventory of radionuclides may lead to slightly more frequent replacement of filters and resins. Therefore, implementation of the EPU will not have a significant impact on the volume or activity of solid radioactive wet waste generated at Waterford 3. Dry radioactive waste consists primarily of air filters, paper products, rags, clothing, tools, equipment parts that cannot be effectively decontaminated, and solid laboratory wastes. No significant change in the amount of dry waste is expected as a result of the EPU. Irradiated reactor components such as in-core detectors and fuel assemblies must be replaced periodically. The volume and activity of waste generated from spent fuel assemblies and in-core detectors will increase slightly with the EPU conditions. The EPU would increase the number of fresh fuel bundles needed during each refueling cycle by four. This increase in the number of bundles will result in a slight increase in spent fuel discharge to the spent fuel pool. The NRC staff concludes that any projected increases in solid waste generation under the EPU conditions will not be significant. Direct Radiation Dose The licensee evaluated the direct radiation dose to the unrestricted area and concluded that it is not a significant exposure pathway. Since the EPU will slightly increase the core inventory of radionuclides and the amount of solid radioactive wastes, the NRC staff concludes that direct radiation dose will not be significantly affected by the EPU and will continue to meet the limits in 10 CFR part 20. Occupational Dose Occupational exposures from in-plant radiation primarily occur during routine maintenance, special maintenance, and refueling operations. An increase in power at Waterford 3 could increase the radiation levels in the reactor coolant system. However, plant programs and administrative controls such as shielding, plant chemistry, and the radiation protection program will help compensate for these potential increases. The average collective worker dose at Waterford 3 over the five-year period from 1998 to 2002 was 80.3 person-rem/yr. Conservatively assuming a linear increase in the occupational exposure due to the EPU, the projected in-plant occupational exposure would increase to approximately 88 person-rem/yr, which is well below the 1300 person-rem/yr estimated in the Waterford 3 FES. The increase is based on the power uprate ratio of .096 ((3716-3390) MWt/3390 MWt). Therefore, no significant occupational dose impacts will occur as a result of the EPU. The EPU will not result in a significant increase in normal operational radioactive gaseous and liquid effluent levels, direct doses offsite, or occupational exposure. Potential doses to the public from effluents will continue to be well within the dose design objectives of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix I and the annual doses projected in the FES. Any increase in direct doses offsite will continue to be within the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and the slight potential increase in occupational exposure will be well within the FES estimate. Postulated Accident Doses As a result of implementation of the proposed EPU, there will be an increase in the source term used in the evaluation of some of the postulated accidents in the FES. The inventory of radionuclides in the reactor core is dependent on power level; therefore, the core inventory of radionuclides could increase by as much as 9.6 percent. The concentration of radionuclides in the reactor coolant may also increase by as much as 9.6 percent; however, this concentration is limited by the Waterford 3 Technical Specifications and is more dependent on the degree of leakage occurring through the fuel cladding. The overall quality of fuel cladding has improved since the FES was published and Waterford 3 has been experiencing very little fuel cladding leakage in recent years. Therefore, the reactor coolant concentration of radionuclides would not be expected to increase significantly. This coolant concentration is part of the source term considered in some of the postulated accident analyses. For those postulated accidents where the source term increased, the calculated potential radiation dose to individuals at the site boundary (the exclusion area) and in the low population zone would be increased over the values presented in the FES. However, the calculated doses would still be below the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR part 100, “Reactor Site Criteria,” and the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the increased environmental impact in terms of potential increased doses from the postulated accidents are not significant. Fuel Cycle and Transportation The environmental impacts of the fuel cycle and transportation of fuels and wastes are described in Tables S-3 and S-4 of 10 CFR 51.51 and 10 CFR 51.52, respectively. An additional NRC generic environmental assessment (53 FR 30355, dated August 11, 1988, as corrected by 53 FR 32322, dated August 24, 1988) evaluated the applicability of Tables S-3 and S-4 to higher burnup cycle. The assessment concluded that there is no significant change in environmental impacts for fuel cycles with uranium enrichments up to 5.0 weight-percent U-235 and burnups less than 60 gigawatt-day per metric ton of uranium (GWd/MTU) from the parameters evaluated in Tables S-3 and S-4. In an amendment dated July 10, 1998, Waterford 3 was granted the ability to increase the fuel enrichment from 4.9 percent to 5.0 percent. Since the fuel enrichment for the power uprate will not exceed 5.0 weight-percent U-235 and the rod average discharge exposure will not exceed 60 GWd/MTU, the environmental impacts of the proposed power uprate will remain bounded by these conclusions and will not be significant. Summary The proposed EPU would not result in a significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure, would not significantly increase the potential doses from postulated accidents, and would not result in significant additional fuel cycle environmental impacts. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Table 2 summarizes the radiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at Waterford 3. Table 2.—Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts Radiological Waste Stream No change in design or operation of waste streams. Gaseous Waste Slight increase in amount of radioactive material in gaseous effluents; within FES estimate; offsite doses would continue to be well within NRC criteria. Liquid Waste Slight increase in amount of radioactive material in liquid effluents; within FES estimate; offsite doses would continue to be well within NRC criteria. Solid Waste No significant change in radioactive resins; no significant changes in dry waste; no significant changes in irradiated components. Dose Impacts Occupational Dose Up to 9.6 percent increase in collective occupational dose possible; well within FES estimate. Offsite Direct Dose Slight increase possible; not significant; offsite doses would continue to be within NRC criteria. Postulated Accidents Up to 9.6 percent increase in calculated doses from some postulated accidents; calculated doses within NRC criteria. Fuel Cycle and Transportation Increase in bundle average enrichment. Fuel enrichment and burnup would continue to be within bounding assumptions for Tables S-3 and S-4 in 10 CFR Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions;” conclusions of tables regarding impact would remain valid. Alternatives to Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered denial of the proposed EPU ( *i.e.* , the “no-action alternative”). Denial of the application would result in no change in the current environmental impacts; however, other fossil-fuel generating facilities may need to be built in order to maintain sufficient power-generating capacity. As an alternative, the licensee could purchase power from power generating facilities outside the service area. The additional power would likely also be generated by fossil fuel facilities. Construction and operation of a fossil-fueled plant would create impacts in air quality, land use, and waste management significantly greater than those identified for the EPU at Waterford 3. Implementation of the proposed EPU would have less impact on the environment than the construction and operation of a new fossil-fueled generating facility or the operation of fossil facilities outside the service area. Furthermore, the EPU does not involve environmental impacts that are significantly different from those presented in the 1981 FES for Waterford 3. Alternative Use of Resources This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the 1981 FES for Waterford 3. Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on December 21, 2004, the NRC staff consulted with the Louisiana State official, Ms. Nan Calhoun of the LDEQ, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the following:

(1)The FES, dated September 1981 (NUREG-0779),

(2)the EPU application dated November 13, 2003 (ADAMS Accession No. ML040260317), and

(3)the April 15, 2004 (ML041110527), response to the request for additional information dated March 6, 2004. Documents may be examined and/or copied for a fee at the NRC's Public Document Room, at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC Public Document Room Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at *pdr@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N. Kalyanam, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Mail Stop O-7D1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at

(301)415-1480, or by e-mail at *nxk@nrc.gov.* Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of March, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Michael K. Webb, Acting Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-1478 Filed 4-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Meeting on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste

(ACNW)will hold a Planning and Procedures meeting on April 18, 2005, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and

(6)to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of ACNW, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Monday, April 18, 2005—8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m. The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW activities and related matters. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Richard K. Major (Telephone: 301/415-7366) between 8 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. (e.t.) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 8:30 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda. March 29, 2005. Michael L. Scott, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. [FR Doc. E5-1477 Filed 4-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-51441; File No. SR-FICC-2005-06] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Change the Minimum Margin Deficiency Call Amount for Participants in Its Mortgage-Backed Securities Division March 28, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 notice is hereby given that on March 11, 2005, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared primarily by FICC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested parties. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The purpose of this proposed rule change is to change the minimum margin deficiency call amount for participants in the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (“MBSD”) of FICC. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, FICC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and

(C)below, of the most significant aspects of these statements. 2 2 The Commission has modified the text of the summaries prepared by FICC.

(A)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change The purpose of the proposed rule change is to change the minimum margin deficiency call amount for MBSD participants to the lesser of $250,000 or 25 percent of the value of a participant's margin deposit. Currently, the MBSD's procedures establish a minimum margin deficiency call amount of $1,000. Upon review, FICC has determined that the minimum margin deficiency call amount creates unnecessary operational burdens and allocation of resources for a collection of margin calls that FICC believes is insubstantial from a risk perspective. On average, the MBSD makes 17 margin calls per day of which approximately five are for amounts under $250,000. FICC seeks to harmonize the rules of its two divisions, the Government Securities Division (“GSD”) and Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (“MSBD”), wherever prudent and possible. The rules of the GSD provide for a minimum Clearing Fund deficiency call amount for margin requirement increases of the lesser of $250,000 or 25 percent of the value of the member's collateral deposits. 3 Under the proposed rule, the minimum margin deficiency call amount for MBSD participants would be the lesser of $250,000 or 25 percent of the value of a participant's margin deposit. FICC believes this would eliminate the operational burdens associated with the collection of *de minimis* margin amounts and would harmonize the rules of FICC's two divisions. 4 3 There is no minimum amount for deficiency calls where the subject member is subject to enhanced monitoring on what is known as the “watch list.” 4 As proposed and consistent with the applicable GSD rule, a minimum amount would not apply to deficiency calls where the subject participant is on the “watch list.” FICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act 5 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to FICC because it allows for a less burdensome application of its margin call process without presenting material risk to FICC or its participants. As such, FICC believes the proposed rule assures the safeguarding of securities and funds that are in the custody and control of FICC or for which it is responsible. 5 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.

(B)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact or impose any burden on competition.

(C)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by FICC. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period:

(i)As the Commission may designate up to ninety days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding; or

(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

(A)By order approve such proposed rule change or

(L)of NASD Rule 3010(b)(2) (“Taping Rule” or “Rule”) to

(1)require member firms that are seeking an exemption from the Rule to submit their exemption requests to NASD within 30 days of receiving notice from NASD or obtaining actual knowledge that they are subject to the provisions of the Rule and

(2)clarify that firms that trigger application of the Taping Rule for the first time can elect to either avail themselves of the one-time “opt out provision” or seek an exemption from the Rule, but they may not seek both options. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets. 3010. Supervision

(a)No Change.

(b)Written Procedures.

(1)No Change.

(2)Tape recording of conversations.

(A)Each member that either is notified by NASD [Regulation] or otherwise has actual knowledge that it meets one of the criteria in paragraph (b)(2)(H) relating to the employment history of its registered persons at a Disciplined Firm as defined in paragraph (b)(2)(J) shall establish, maintain, and enforce special written procedures for supervising the telemarketing activities of all of its registered persons.

(B)The member must establish and implement the supervisory procedures required by this paragraph within 60 days of receiving notice from NASD [Regulation] or obtaining actual knowledge that it is subject to the provisions of this paragraph. A member that meets one of the criteria in paragraph (b)(2)(H) for the first time may reduce its staffing levels to fall below the threshold levels within 30 days after receiving notice from NASD [Regulation] pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(2)(A) or obtaining actual knowledge that it is subject to the provisions of the paragraph, provided the firm promptly notifies the Department of Member Regulation, NASD [Regulation], in writing of its becoming subject to the Rule. Once the member has reduced its staffing levels to fall below the threshold levels, it shall not rehire a person terminated to accomplish the staff reduction for a period of 180 days. On or prior to reducing staffing levels pursuant to this paragraph, a member must provide the Department of Member Regulation, NASD [Regulation] with written notice, identifying the terminated person(s).

(C)No Change.

(D)The member shall establish reasonable procedures for reviewing the tape recordings made pursuant to the requirements of this paragraph to ensure compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations and applicable rules of [the Association] *NASD* . The procedures must be appropriate for the member's business, size, structure, and customers.

(E)through

(F)No Change.

(G)By the 30th day of the month following the end of each calendar quarter, each member firm subject to the requirements of this paragraph shall submit to [the Association] *NASD* a report on the member's supervision of the telemarketing activities of its registered persons.

(H)No Change.

(I)For purposes of this Rule, the term “registered person” means any person registered with [the Association] *NASD* as a representative, principal, or assistant representative pursuant to the Rule 1020, 1030, 1040, and 1110 Series or pursuant to Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) Rule G-3.

(J)through

(K)No Change.

(L)Pursuant to the Rule 9600 Series, [the Association] *NASD* may in exceptional circumstances, taking into consideration all relevant factors, exempt any member unconditionally or on specified terms and conditions from the requirements of this paragraph. *A member seeking an exemption must file a written application pursuant to the Rule 9600 Series within 30 days after receiving notice from NASD or obtaining actual knowledge that it meets one of the criteria in paragraph (b)(2)(H). A member that meets one of the criteria in paragraph (b)(2)(H) for the first time may elect to reduce its staffing levels pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(2)(B) or, alternatively, to seek an exemption pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(L), as appropriate; such a member may not seek relief from the Rule by both reducing its staffing levels pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(B) and requesting an exemption* .

(3)through

(4)No Change.

(c)through

(g)No Change. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose According to the NASD, the Taping Rule, which has been in effect since 1998, is designed to ensure that members with a significant number of registered persons that previously were employed by firms that have been expelled from membership or have had their registration revoked for sales practice violations (“Disciplined Firms”) have proper supervisory procedures in place relating to telemarketing activities to prevent fraudulent and improper sales practices or other customer harm. Under the Rule, member firms that hire a specified number of registered persons from Disciplined Firms must establish, maintain, and enforce special written procedures for supervising the telemarketing activities of all their registered persons. Such procedures must include tape-recording all telephone conversations between such firms' registered persons and both existing and potential customers. The Rule provides firms up to 60 days from the date they receive notice from NASD or obtain actual knowledge that they are subject to the provisions of the Rule to establish and implement the required supervisory procedures, including installing taping systems. Such firms also are required to review the tape recordings, maintain appropriate records, and file quarterly reports with NASD. The Taping Rule permits member firms that become subject to the Rule for the first time a one-time opportunity to adjust their staffing levels to fall below the prescribed threshold levels and thus avoid application of the Rule (often referred to as the “opt out provision”). A firm that elects this one-time option must reduce its staffing levels to fall below the applicable threshold levels within 30 days after receiving notice from NASD or obtaining actual knowledge that it is subject to the provisions of the Rule. Once a firm has made the reductions, the firm is not permitted to rehire the terminated individuals for at least 180 days. NASD also has the authority to grant exemptions from the Rule in “exceptional circumstances.” In reviewing exemption requests, NASD generally has required a firm to establish that it has alternative procedures to assure supervision at a level functionally equivalent to a taping system. The Rule currently is silent on the time frame for submitting an exemption request. However, because a firm has a total of 60 days from the date it receives notice from NASD or obtains actual knowledge that it is subject to the provisions of the Rule to implement the required supervisory procedures, a firm implicitly has that 60-day period to submit an exemption request. A firm that submits an exemption request is not required to establish and implement the required supervisory procedures, including the taping system ( *i.e.* , such requirements are “tolled”) while the staff is reviewing the request and during the course of any subsequent appeals to NASD's National Adjudicatory Council (“NAC”). NASD tolls the Taping Rule's requirements during the exemption appeal process primarily due to the significant costs involved with installing a taping system and the possibility that the staff or NAC will grant the exemption. At the same time, it has been NASD's experience that firms often wait until the 60th day (or shortly before) to request the exemption, which, assuming the exemption is not granted, only further prolongs the establishment and implementation of the required supervisory procedures. To reduce these possible delays in implementation of the Taping Rule requirements, NASD is proposing to amend NASD Rule 3010(b)(2)(L) to require firms that are seeking an exemption from the provisions of the Rule to submit their exemption requests to NASD within 30 days of receiving notice from NASD or obtaining actual knowledge that they are subject to the provisions of the Rule. NASD believes that specifying a time frame for submitting an exemption request is consistent with the investor protection concerns that the Rule is intended to address, in particular given that the requirement to establish and implement the appropriate supervisory procedures is tolled upon the submission of an exemption request. Moreover, based on NASD's experience, 30 days would provide ample time for firms to decide whether to seek an exemption and to submit their requests to NASD. Some firms also have inquired whether they could elect to use the “opt out” while simultaneously seeking an exemption, with the goal being that the firm would be granted an exemption and be able to immediately rehire the persons whose employment was terminated as part of the “opt out” (rather than waiting the requisite 180 days). It is NASD's belief, however, that firms should not be able to pursue these two alternatives simultaneously. NASD believes that a core purpose of the “opt out provision” is to provide relief to those firms that may have inadvertently or unintentionally become subject to the Taping Rule for the first time due, for example, to sudden turnover among registered persons or other events beyond the firm's control. In contrast, exemptions, which are granted only in “exceptional circumstances,” are for those situations where the firm has demonstrated that it has supervisory procedures that are equivalent to a taping system or is otherwise in a truly unique situation. NASD believes it would be inconsistent with the purposes of these two provisions to permit a firm to pursue both options with NASD, either simultaneously or one after the other. For instance, NASD believes that it would be inconsistent with the purposes of these provisions for a firm that chooses to submit an exemption request pursuant to NASD Rule 3010(b)(2)(L) and is denied the exemption to then employ the NASD Rule 3010(b)(2)(B) “opt out” as its second option. Therefore, NASD also is proposing to amend NASD Rule 3010(b)(2)(L) to clarify that firms that trigger application of the Taping Rule for the first time must elect to either avail themselves of the one-time “opt out provision” ( *i.e.* , make the staff adjustment to fall below the thresholds of the Rule) or seek an exemption from the Rule, but they may not elect to do both. Accordingly, under the proposed rule change, firms that become subject to the Taping Rule for the first time would have 30 days to decide on one option and may pursue only that option. Finally, NASD no longer refers to itself or its subsidiary, NASD Regulation, Inc., using its full corporate name, “the Association,” “the NASD,” or “NASD Regulation.” Instead, NASD uses the name “NASD” unless otherwise appropriate for corporate or regulatory reasons. Accordingly, the proposed rule change replaces, as a technical change, several references to “Association” and “NASD Regulation” in NASD Rule 3010(b)(2) with the name “NASD.” NASD will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a Notice to Members (“ *NtM* ”) to be published no later than 60 days following Commission approval. The effective date will be 30 days following publication of the *NtM* announcing Commission approval. 2. Statutory Basis NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 3 which requires, among other things, that NASD rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. NASD believes that the proposed rule change will ensure that members with a significant number of registered persons from Disciplined Firms have proper supervisory procedures over telemarketing activities to prevent fraudulent and improper sales practices or other customer harm, and will ensure that members use the “opt out” and exemption provisions in a manner that is consistent with the intent of the Rule. 3 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period

(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or

(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

(A)By order approve such proposed rule change; or

(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NASD-2005-033 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-033. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NASD. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to the File Number SR-NASD-2005-033 and should be submitted on or before April 25, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 4 4 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-1479 Filed 4-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-51438; File No. SR-NYSE-2004-32] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto by the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Relating to NYSE Liquidity Quote SM March 28, 2005. I. Introduction On June 24, 2004, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to include additional display requirements to the existing terms and conditions pursuant to which vendors may distribute to their customers NYSE Liquidity Quote SM information. On July 16, 2004, the NYSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for public comment in the **Federal Register** on July 27, 2004. 4 The Commission has received one comment letter on the proposed rule change 5 and two responses from the NYSE. 6 This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* letter from Darla C. Stuckey, Corporate Secretary, NYSE, to Nancy J. Sanow, Assistant Director, Division of Market Regulation (“Division”), SEC, dated July 16, 2004 (“Amendment No. 1”). In Amendment No. 1, the NYSE clarified that the entire proposed Exhibit C represented new text. 4 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50040 (July 20, 2004), 69 FR 44701. 5 *See* letters from Thomas F. Secunda, Bloomberg, L.P. (“Bloomberg”) to Annette L. Nazareth, Director, Division, SEC, (“Bloomberg Letter) dated July 7, 2004; and Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, SEC, dated August 13, 2004. The letter dated August 13, 2004 merely resubmitted the July 7, 2004 Bloomberg Letter for Commission consideration. 6 *See* letter from Mary Yeager, Assistant Secretary, NYSE, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, SEC (“NYSE Response Letter”) dated November 11, 2004, and letter from Ronald Jordan, Senior Vice President, Market Data, NYSE, to Kelly Riley, SEC, dated January 26, 2005 (“NYSE 2nd Response Letter”). II. Background The NYSE Liquidity Quote represents aggregated Exchange trading interest at a specific price interval below the NYSE best bid (in the case of a liquidity bid) or at a specific price interval above the NYSE best offer (in the case of a liquidity offer). The specific price interval above or below the NYSE best bid and offer (“BBO”), as well as the minimum size of the liquidity bid or offer, is established by the specialist in the subject security. Liquidity bids and offers include orders on the limit order book, trading interest of brokers in the trading crowd, and the specialist's dealer interest, at prices ranging from the best bid (offer) to the liquidity bid (liquidity offer). NYSE distributes Liquidity Quote data as part of its OpenBook data feed service 7 and requires recipients to execute existing NYSE vendor agreements and subscriber agreements. Specifically, in order for a vendor to receive NYSE Liquidity Quote data from the Exchange for redistribution to its customers or subscribers, the Exchange requires the vendor to enter into its standard form of “Agreement for Receipt and Use of Market Data” ( *i.e.* , “Consolidated Vendor Form”). According to the Exchange, the Consolidated Vendor Form is the same form that vendors must execute to receive market data under the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) Plan and the Consolidated Quotation (“CQ”) Plan. The Exchange describes the Consolidated Vendor Form as a generic, one-size-fits-all agreement that consists of a standard set of basic provisions that apply to all data recipients and accommodates a number of different types of market data, a number of different means of receiving access to market data, and a number of different uses of market data. Because the Consolidated Vendor Form is not specific to types and uses of certain market data, paragraph 19(a) of the Consolidated Vendor Form provides that “Exhibit C, if any, contains additional provisions applicable to any non-standard aspects of Customer's Receipt and Use of Market Data.” Accordingly, NYSE has drafted a proposed Liquidity Quote Exhibit C to provide certain display requirements for Liquidity Quote data. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45138 (December 7, 2001) 66 FR 66491 (December 14, 2001). In the original approval order, the Commission conditionally approved NYSE Liquidity Quote 8 because the Commission had substantial concerns about the display restrictions NYSE had drafted in its Exhibit C to the Consolidated Vendor Form for Liquidity Quote. 9 Specifically, as originally drafted, the Liquidity Quote Exhibit C would have prohibited data feed recipients from enhancing, integrating, or consolidating NYSE Liquidity Quote data with data from other market centers for retransmission. In addition, pursuant to the terms of the original Liquidity Quote Exhibit C, NYSE would have imposed a “window requirement,” which would have required Liquidity Quote data to be displayed as a separate window or with a line drawn between Liquidity Quote data and other markets' data. 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47614 (April 2, 2003), 68 FR 17140 (April 8, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2002-55) (“April Order”). 9 The NYSE did not file the original Exhibit C to the Consolidated Vendor Form for Liquidity Quote with the Commission. However, as described above, the Commission did consider the terms of the original Liquidity Quote Exhibit C and the issues raised by commenters to its terms in the April Order. In the April Order, the Commission stated that it believed that the terms and conditions set forth in the original Liquidity Quote Exhibit C that prohibited data feed recipients from enhancing, integrating, or consolidating NYSE Liquidity Quote data with data from other market centers for retransmission to be inconsistent with sections 6(b)(5) 10 and 6(b)(8) 11 of the Act. Accordingly, the Commission approved the Liquidity Quote data product on the condition that the proposal would not be effective until NYSE removed from its contracts the prohibitions on the ability of data feed recipients, including vendors, to integrate Liquidity Quote data with the display of other markets' data. The Commission did, however, state that it “believe[d] that it would be reasonable and consistent with the statute for the NYSE to require that data feed recipients who choose to provide a value-added [L]iquidity [Q]uote data package to:

(i)Give NYSE attribution next to any integrated quote that includes NYSE data; and

(ii)make available to customers NYSE [L]iquidity [Q]uote product as a separate branded package.” 12 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 12 *See* April Order footnote 53. The Commission later stated in the April Order that “NYSE may require that vendors provide the NYSE attribution in any display that includes Liquidity Quote.” Thereafter, on April 9, 2003, NYSE informed the Commission that it agreed to the conditions set forth in the April Order to remove the prohibitions on integration in the Liquidity Quote Exhibit C to the Consolidated Vendor Form. In their place, NYSE drafted a new Liquidity Quote Exhibit C that permitted integration but imposed new display requirements. These display requirements were challenged by Bloomberg LP as constituting a denial of access to services under Sections 19(d) 13 and 19(f) 14 of the Act. 13 15 U.S.C. 78s(d). 14 15 U.S.C. 78s(f). In January 2004, the Commission held that the Exchange's actions of imposing the new display requirements on vendors' use of the Liquidity Quote data and its rejection of certain proposed displays of such data based on the display requirements were a denial of access. Therefore, the Commission set aside the Exchange's actions. 15 Specifically, the Commission held that the contractual display requirements were Exchange rules that were required to be filed and approved pursuant to section 19(b) of the Act 16 and because they were not so filed and approved, could not provide a basis for the Exchange's denial of access to Liquidity Quote data. 15 *See* In the Matter of the Application of Bloomberg L.P., For Review of Action taken by the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., Admin. Proc. File No 3-11129, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49076 (January 14, 2004). 16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b). The Exchange filed this proposed rule change, pursuant to section 19(b) of the Act, 17 to adopt display requirements for Liquidity Quote data that will be set forth in the Liquidity Quote Exhibit C to the Consolidated Vendor Form. 17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b). III. Description of the NYSE's Proposal The NYSE filed a proposed Liquidity Quote Exhibit C to the Consolidated Vendor Form to set forth additional display requirements pursuant to which vendors may distribute to their customers or subscribers NYSE Liquidity Quote data. Specifically, if a vendor wishes to provide Liquidity Quote data to its customers or subscribers, the vendor must execute and comply with the terms of the proposed Liquidity Quote Exhibit C to the Consolidated Vendor Form. The proposed Exhibit C defines what is considered “Liquidity Quote information” 18 and what is considered “Other Bids and Offers.” 19 The proposed Exhibit C provides that the vendor may only use and display Liquidity Quote information to the extent provided in the agreement and only for as long as the agreement is in effect. 20 Vendors also are required, pursuant to the terms of proposed Exhibit C, to provide its customers or subscribers with a notice or agreement specified by NYSE and to have its customers or subscribers either acknowledge receipt of such notice or assent to such agreement as directed by NYSE. 21 18 “Liquidity Quote information” is proposed to be defined as “any depth information and other information that NYSE makes available pursuant to the NYSE Liquidity Quote Service, including Liquidity Quote bids and offers, and any modified version of that information and any information derived from that information.” *See* proposed Exhibit C 21(a)(i). 19 “Other Bids and Offers” is proposed to be defined as “bids and offers other than Liquidity Quote bids and offers. For example, Other Bids and Offers include the NYSE best bid or offer, another market center's best bid or offer and a national best bid or offer.” *See* proposed Exhibit C 21(a)(ii). 20 *See* proposed Exhibit C 21(b). 21 *See* proposed Exhibit C 21(c). The proposed Liquidity Quote Exhibit C contains display requirements for Liquidity Quote information. Specifically, proposed Exhibit C sets forth requirements regarding “Aggregated Displays,” “Montages,” “Attribution,” “Liquidity Quote-Only Displays,” and “Screen Shots.” For “Aggregated Displays,” NYSE proposes that if a vendor aggregates Liquidity Quote bids and offers with Other Bids and Offers in its displays ( *i.e.* , an “Aggregated Display”), then the vendor is required to indicate the number of shares attributable to the Liquidity Quote bids and offers. 22 For “Montages,” NYSE proposes that if a vendor includes a Liquidity Quote bid or offer in a montage that includes an NYSE BBO, then the vendor must exclude the size of the NYSE BBO from any calculation of cumulative size within the montage. 23 NYSE also proposes that vendors identify each element or line of Liquidity Quote information that it includes in an Aggregated Display, Montage, or other integrated display with either “NYSE Liquidity Quote “ or “NYLQ.” 24 22 *See* proposed Exhibit C 21(d)(i). 23 *See* proposed Exhibit C 21(d)(ii). 24 *See* proposed Exhibit C 21(d)(iii). Proposed Exhibit C also requires vendors to offer its customers or subscribers a non-integrated Liquidity Quote product, which would be a product separate and apart from information products that include other market centers' information. 25 Further, NYSE proposes that vendors provide it with sample screen shots of displays that include Liquidity Quote information at the time the vendor commences to provide the display to customers or subscribers. 26 Finally, proposed Exhibit C provides that the display requirements do not apply to vendors' internal Liquidity Quote displays. 27 25 *See* proposed Exhibit C 21(d)(iv). 26 *See* proposed Exhibit C 21(d)(v). 27 *See* proposed Exhibit C 21(e). IV. Summary of Comments The Commission received one comment letter on the proposal. 28 In its letter, Bloomberg argued that the Aggregated Display requirement, which requires vendors to indicate the number of shares attributable to NYSE Liquidity Quote, is not necessary to prevent investor confusion or to differentiate between NYSE Liquidity Quote data and other data it may wish to present in a quotation montage. Furthermore, Bloomberg noted that the Aggregated Display requirement would prevent Bloomberg from presenting a summary screen it currently provides to its customers. Bloomberg believes that its summary screen, which allows viewers to toggle to a detail screen that identifies Liquidity Quote data, has not caused any investor confusion. 28 *See supra* note 5. Bloomberg also raised concerns regarding the NYSE's proposed Attribution requirement. Bloomberg stated that the NYSE's proposed Attribution requirement, if adopted, would require vendors to place the NYSE's identifier on analytics, including charts, graphs, and other derived presentations, regardless of whether the identifier would be necessary to prevent investor confusion. Bloomberg argued that the Attribution requirement would be unduly burdensome and anticompetitive and would provide NYSE with more attribution than what is given to other exchanges or market centers, therefore disadvantaging other market centers, and blocking entry of would-be competitors by denying them necessary screen space. In its response, the Exhange argued that it believes that the proposed display requirements are minimal and comply with the Commission's orders on the display of Liquidity Quote. 29 NYSE believes that the display requirements assure that vendor displays identify the amount and source of liquidity so investors can make informed trading and order routing decisions. 30 The Exchange further argued that the display requirements afford market quality transparency, and enables markets to differentiate themselves on the basis of market quality and data products, which NYSE believes will invigorate inter-market competition. 31 29 *See* NYSE Response Letter, *supra* note 6. 30 *Id* . 31 *Id* . In response to Bloomberg's comment regarding attribution of analytics, NYSE confirmed that the proposed Exhibit C would require vendors to associate the identifier “NYLQ” or “NYSE Liquidity Quote” with information that a vendor may include in analytics, charts, graphs, and other derived data. 32 NYSE described the required attribution by way of example as follows: “For example, if a user displays a line graph of information on the bid prices for all markets (including NYLQ), the page that displays the graph must delineate and identify the relevant contribution of NYSE to the graph.” 33 32 *See* NYSE 2nd Response Letter, *supra* note 6. 33 *Id* . V. Discussion The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 34 In the April Order, the Commission conditioned approval of Liquidity Quote on the NYSE's agreement to remove from its contract those terms that strictly prohibited integration of Liquidity Quote data with other markets' data. The Commission found that the restrictions on integration were inconsistent with sections 6(b)(5) 35 and 6(b)(8) 36 of the Act. With this proposed rule change, NYSE has removed those terms that restricted integration. Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the proposed Exhibit C, vendors will be permitted to enhance, integrate, or consolidate Liquidity Quote data with other markets' data. Therefore, the Commission finds that the removal of the terms that restricted integration of Liquidity Quote data with other markets' data to be consistent with the requirements of section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 37 which requires that an exchange's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest and Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, 38 which requires that an exchange's rules not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 34 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 35 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 36 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 37 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 38 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). The Commission also determined in the April Order that it would be reasonable and consistent with the Act for the NYSE to require those data feed recipients who choose to provide a value-added Liquidity Quote data package to:

(i)Give the NYSE attribution next to any integrated quote that includes NYSE data; and

(ii)make available to customers NYSE's Liquidity Quote product as a separate branded package. 39 The Commission believes that the proposed Exhibit C implements what the Commission has determined to be acceptable identification of NYSE Liquidity Quote data. Liquidity Quote bids and offers are not comparable to regular bids and offers. 40 Accordingly, the Commission determined that attribution next to an integrated quote would be permissible to alert investors that the quote they may be seeing reflects a quote that has been integrated with a Liquidity Quote and thus may include other price points. In proposed Exhibit C, NYSE requires vendors to provide it with attribution on each element or line that includes Liquidity Quote information and to indicate the number of shares attributable to Liquidity Quote in an Aggregated Display. The Commission believes that this attribution is consistent with the April Order. 39 *See supra* note 12 and accompanying text. 40 NYSE has indicated that in some instances Liquidity Quotes and NYSE BBOs could be the same and that at such times both Liquidity Quotes and NYSE BBOs would be disseminated via the CTA/CQ Plan and via the NYSE Liquidity Quote data service. The Commission notes that this order only approves the filing submitted by the Exchange for the proposed Exhibit C associated with the NYSE Liquidity Quote data. While Liquidity Quote data is distributed as part of the NYSE's OpenBook data service, the terms of the proposed Exhibit C for Liquidity Quote do not apply and have not been considered or approved by the Commission as acceptable for the distribution of NYSE OpenBook data. 41 41 On December 7, 2001, the Commission approved a proposed rule change to establish fees for the NYSE OpenBook service. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44138 (December 7, 2004), 66 FR 64895 (December 14, 2004) (SR-NYSE-2001-42). On August 11, 2004, the NYSE filed a proposed rule change to establish fees for the NYSE OpenBook service on a real-time basis. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50275 (August 26, 2004), 69 FR 53760 (September 2, 2004) (SR-NYSE-2004-43). The NYSE has not filed the proposed restrictions on vendor redissemination of OpenBook data. VI. Conclusion It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act 42 the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2004-32), as amended, is approved. 42 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 43 43 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-1475 Filed 4-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 10031] Kentucky Disaster Number KY-00001 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 1. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Kentucky (FEMA-1578-DR), dated 02/08/2005. *Incident:* Severe Winter Storm and Record Snow. *Incident Period:* 12/21/2004 through 12/23/2004. DATES: *Effective Date:* 03/10/2005. Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 04/11/2005. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area Office 1, 360 Rainbow Blvd. South 3rd Floor, Niagara Falls, NY 14303. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Kentucky dated 02/08/2005, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster. Primary Counties: Marshall Todd Trigg All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. 05-6574 Filed 4-1-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 10

Traces to 10 documents

CFR

U.S. Code