Notices. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

17,246 words·~78 min read·/register/2005/08/02/05-15215·

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

BILLING CODE 7590-01-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations I. Background Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and 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 July 8, 2005, to July 21, 2005. The last biweekly notice was published on July 19, 2005 (70 FR 41442). Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing 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. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, 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. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, 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 O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, 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 2.309, 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 within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:

(1)The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;

(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;

(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and

(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, 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 by:

(1)First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;

(2)courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;

(3)E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, *HearingDocket@nrc.gov;* or

(4)facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at

(301)415-1101, verification number is

(301)415-1966. 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 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 requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii). 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 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 PDR Reference staff at 1

(800)397-4209,

(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Duke Energy Corporation, *et al.* , Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina and Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina *Date of amendment request:* July 7, 2005. *Description of amendment request:* The amendments would revise Technical Specification 3.9.1, “Boron Concentration,” to clarify the technical requirements for boron concentration when the refueling canal and the refueling cavity are not connected to the reactor coolant system. *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: 1. Would implementation of the changes proposed in this LAR [License Amendment Request] involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? No. This LAR clarifies Technical Specification [TS] 3.9.1 regarding the applicability of boron concentration limits when the refueling canal and refueling cavity are not connected to the reactor coolant system [RCS]. When the refueling canal and the refueling cavity are isolated from the RCS, no potential path for boron dilution of the RCS exists, thus there is no significant increase in the probability of an accident that has been previously evaluated, nor would there be a significant increase in the consequences of an accident that has been previously evaluated. 2. Would implementation of the changes proposed in this LAR create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? No. The change proposed in this LAR clarifies the applicability of TS 3.9.1 when the refueling canal and refueling cavity are not connected to the reactor coolant system. When the refueling canal and the refueling cavity are isolated from the RCS, no potential path for boron dilution of the RCS exists, thus there is no means to initiate an accident that is new or different from any accident that has been previously evaluated. 3. Would implementation of the changes proposed in this LAR involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? No. The change proposed in this LAR only clarifies the applicability of TS 3.9.1 when the refueling canal and the refueling cavity are not connected to the reactor coolant system. [TS 3.9.1 limits the boron concentrations of the reactor coolant system], the refueling canal, and the refueling cavity to ensure that the reactor remains subcritical during Mode 6 plant conditions. However, when the refueling canal and the refueling cavity are isolated from the reactor coolant system, no potential for boron dilution of the RCS exists. Therefore, in this condition it is not necessary to place a limit on the boron concentration in the refueling canal and the refueling cavity, thus there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety since no specific boron limits are being changed. 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:* Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Legal Department (PB05E), Duke Energy Corporation, 422 South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006. *NRC Section Chief:* Evangelos C. Marinos. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas *Date of amendment request:* January 31, 2005. *Description of amendment request:* Entergy Operations, Inc.

(EOI)has requested a change which would revise the requirements associated with the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2) containment overcurrent protection devices. EOI proposes to amend Operating License NPF-6 to eliminate Technical Specifications

(TSs)section 3.8.2.5, ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS-Containment Penetration Conductor Overcurrent Protection Devices. The proposed change would relocate the requirements for containment penetration conductor overcurrent protective devices to the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM). *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: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? The proposed changes to relocate the requirements for containment penetration conductor overcurrent protective devices from Technical Specifications to the TRM will have no adverse effect on plant operation, or the availability or operation of any accident mitigation equipment. The plant response to the design basis accidents will not change. Operation of the containment penetration conductor overcurrent protective devices is not an accident initiator and can not cause an accident. Whether the requirements for the containment penetration conductor overcurrent protective devices are located in Technical Specifications or the TRM will have no effect on the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the removal of overcurrent protection devices from the TS does *not* involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? The proposed changes to relocate the requirements from Technical Specifications to the TRM will not alter the plant configuration (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or require any new or unusual operator actions. The proposed changes will not introduce any new failure modes that could result in a new accident. Also, the response of the plant and the operators following the design basis accidents is unaffected by the changes. Therefore, this change does *not* create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? The proposed changes will relocate the requirements for containment penetration conductor overcurrent protective devices from Technical Specifications to the TRM. Any future changes to the relocated requirements will be in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 and approved station procedures. The proposed changes will have no adverse effect on plant operation, or the availability or operation of any accident mitigation equipment. The plant response to the design basis accidents will not change. In addition, the relocated requirements do not meet any of the 10 CFR 50.36c(2)(ii) criteria on items for which Technical Specifications must be established. Therefore, this change does *not* involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire, Winston and Strawn, 1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817. *NRC Section Chief:* David Terao. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania *Date of application for amendment:* July 6, 2005. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed changes extend the use of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3, pressure-temperature (P-T) limits specified in the Technical Specifications

(TSs)from 22 to 32 effective full power years. *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: 1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed changes to the technical specifications to extend the use of the existing pressure-temperature (P-T) limits does not affect the operation or configuration of any plant equipment. Thus, no new accident initiators are created by this change. The proposed P-T limits are based on the projected reactor vessel neutron fluence at 32 effective full power years

(EFPY)of operation. A bounding calculation of reactor vessel 32 EFPY fast neutron fluence has been completed for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 3, using the methodology described in a General Electric

(GE)Company Licensing Topical Report (LTR), which adheres to the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.190, “Calculational and Dosimetry Methods for Determining Pressure Vessel Neutron Fluence.” The three-dimensional spatial distribution of neutron flux was modeled by combining the results of two separate two-dimensional neutron transport calculations. The latest available cross section libraries for the important components of Boiling Water Reactor

(BWR)neutron flux calculations, *i.e.,* oxygen, hydrogen and individual iron isotopes, were included. The resulting reactor vessel fast neutron fluence value was then used in concert with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (Code), Section XI, Case -640 and ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G, paragraph G-2214.1 to develop updated P-T curves. A comparison of the updated P-T curves with the existing PBAPS, Unit 3 curves indicates that the existing curves are bounding through 32 EFPY. This provides sufficient assurance that the PBAPS, Unit 3, reactor vessel will be operated in a manner that will protect it from brittle fracture under all operating conditions. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed changes to the technical specifications to extend the use of the existing P-T limits do not affect the operation or configuration of any plant equipment. The proposed P-T limits will remain valid and conservative throughout the proposed extension. Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The proposed changes extend the use of the existing P-T limits. The proposed P-T limits are based on the projected reactor vessel neutron fluence at 32 EFPY of operation. A bounding calculation of reactor vessel 32 EFPY fast neutron fluence has been completed for PBAPS, Unit 3, using the NRC approved methodology in a GE LTR, which adheres to the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.190. The three-dimensional spatial distribution of neutron flux was modeled by combining the results of two separate two-dimensional neutron transport calculations. The latest available cross section libraries for the important components of BWR neutron flux calculations, i.e., oxygen, hydrogen and individual iron isotopes, were included. The resulting reactor vessel fast neutron fluence value was then used in concert with ASME Code Case -640 and ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G, paragraph G-2214.1 to develop updated P-T curves. A comparison of the updated P-T curves with the existing PBAPS, Unit 3 curves indicates that the existing curves are bounding through 32 EFPY. This provides sufficient margin such that the PBAPS, Unit 3, reactor vessel will be operated in a manner that will protect it from brittle fracture under all operating conditions. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for Licensee:* Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate and General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. *NRC Section Chief:* Darrell J. Roberts. Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska *Date of amendment request:* July 1, 2005. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed change will amend the design and licensing basis of the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1, by revising the updated safety analysis report

(USAR)to describe an existing Emergency Operating Procedure

(EOP)operator action to isolate steam generator blowdown within 15 minutes of reactor trip during a loss of main feedwater event. *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: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change to the USAR clarifies reliance on operator action which has been utilized since implementation of the EOPs. It does not affect an accident initiator previously evaluated in the USAR or Technical Specifications and will not prevent safety systems from performing their accident mitigating function as discussed in the USAR or Technical Specifications. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change provides clarification to the existing USAR accident analysis of record. The change does not modify or install any safety related equipment. It does not alter any design or licensing basis assumptions and does not alter any operating procedures other than the explicit specification [of] the time constraint of the 15 minutes. Presently the action is included in EOP-00 without a time constraint. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The proposed change provides clarification to the USAR section 14.10.1 and has no effect on safety margins. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* James R. Curtiss, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-3502. *NRC Section Chief:* Daniel S. Collins, Acting. STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas *Date of amendment request:* July 4, 2005. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed changes would extend the allowed outage time for Technical Specification

(TS)3/4.7.4, “Essential Cooling Water System,” and the associated TSs for those systems supported by Essential Cooling Water, from 7 days to 14 days. *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: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. Since only one train of components is affected by the condition and single failure is not considered while a plant is in an LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation] ACTION, the operable ESF [Engineered Safety Feature] trains are adequate to maintain the plant's design basis. Thus, this condition will not alter assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient event. Considering compensatory action and risks involved in a plant shutdown, STPNOC [STP Nuclear Operating Company] has determined that there is no significant risk associated with extending the Allowed Outage Time for the Essential Cooling Water System and the systems it supports for an additional 7 days. Additionally, the proposed change to remove the one-time note from TS 3.7.4 is considered an administrative change and does not impact the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated. Based on this evaluation, there is no significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. This proposed change only extends an Allowed Outage Time and will not physically alter the plant. No new or different type of equipment will be installed by this action. The changes in methods governing normal plant operation are consistent with current safety analysis assumptions. No change to the system[s] as evaluated in the South Texas Project safety analysis is proposed. The proposed change to remove the one-time note from TS 3.7.4 is considered an administrative change and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously evaluated. Therefore, this proposed change[ does not] create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. Considering compensatory action and risks involved in a plant shutdown, STPNOC has determined that there is no significant risk associated with extending the Allowed Outage Time for the Essential Cooling Water System and the systems it supports for an additional 7 days. Based on the availability of redundant systems, the compensatory actions that will be taken, and the extremely low probability of an accident that could not be mitigated by the available systems, STPNOC concludes that there is no significant reduction in the margin of safety. The proposed change to remove the one-time note from TS 3.7.4 is considered an administrative change and does not impact any margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. *NRC Section Chief:* David Terao. STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas *Date of amendment request:* July 4, 2005. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed change to Technical Specification 4.0.5 would add a reference to the NRC-approved exemption of selected pumps, valves, and other components from special treatment requirements. As an editorial change, references to Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Section 50.55a(f) and 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.55a(f)(6)(i) would be added to the paragraph for inservice testing, similar to the existing references for inservice inspection. In addition, “inservice testing” and “inservice inspection” would be reordered for consistency with the sequence of the regulations in 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.55a. *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: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? No. Including the reference to the exemption in the Technical Specifications establishes consistency between the surveillance requirements for inservice inspection and testing and the exemption as approved by the NRC. There are no changes in the inspection and testing procedures as a result of adding the reference because the exemption already removes low safety significance and non-risk significant components from the requirements for special treatment. The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not have a significant adverse effect on plant operation or personnel safety. Consequently, the changes will not affect the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? No. Including the reference to the exemption in the Technical Specifications establishes consistency between the surveillance requirements for inservice inspection and testing and the exemption as approved by the NRC. There are no changes in the inspection and testing procedures as a result of adding the reference because the exemption already removes low safety significance and non-risk significant components from the requirements for special treatment. The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not have a significant adverse effect on plant operation or personnel safety. Consequently, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? No. Including the reference to the exemption in the Technical Specifications establishes consistency between the surveillance requirements for inservice inspection and testing and the exemption as approved by the NRC. There are no changes in the inspection and testing procedures as a result of adding the reference because the exemption already removes low safety significance and non-risk significant components from the requirements for special treatment. The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not have a significant adverse effect on plant operation or personnel safety. Consequently, the changes do not significantly reduce a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. *NRC Section Chief:* David Terao. Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The following notices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration. For details, see the individual notice in the **Federal Register** on the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period of the original notice. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-259 , Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama *Date of application for amendments:* June 28, 2004, as supplemented February 23 and April 25, 2005. *Description of amendments request:* The proposed amendment would change the operating license to increase the maximum authorized power level from 3293 megawatts thermal

(MWt)to 3952 MWt; an increase of approximately 20 percent. The amendment would also change the licensing bases and any associated Technical Specifications for containment overpressure, the maximum ultimate heat sink temperature, and the upper bound peak cladding temperature. *Date of publication of individual notice in the* **Federal Register:** July 11, 2005 (70 FR 39803). *Expiration date of individual notice:* August 10, 2005 (Public comments) and September 9, 2005 (Hearing requests). Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-260 and 50-296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama *Date of application for amendments:* June 25, 2004, as supplemented February 23 and April 25, 2005. *Description of amendments request:* The proposed amendments would change the operating licences to increase the maximum authorized power level from 3458 megawatts thermal

(MWt)to 3952 MWt; an increase of approximately 15 percent. The amendment would also change the licensing bases and any associated Technical Specifications for containment overpressure. *Date of publication of individual notice in the* **Federal Register** : July 12, 2005 (70 FR 40064). *Expiration date of individual notice:* August 11, 2005 (Public comments) and September 12, 2005 (Hearing requests). Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses 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 (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 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 PDR Reference staff at 1

(800)397-4209,

(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, *et al.* , Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey *Date of application for amendment:* March 25, 2005, as supplemented on June 10, 2005. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised Section 3.7, “Auxiliary Electrical Power,” of the Technical Specifications to reflect the capability upgrade of one of the offsite power supply lines from 69 kilovolts

(KV)to 230 KV. *Date of Issuance:* July 14, 2005. *Effective date:* July 14, 2005 and shall be implemented as soon as the upgraded offsite supply line is placed in service. *Amendment No.:* 256. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-16:* Amendment revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* **Federal Register** : April 12, 2005 (70 FR 19113). The June 10, 2005, letter provided clarifying information within the scope of the original application and did not change the staff's initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 14, 2005. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina *Date of application for amendment:* October 15, 2004. *Brief description of amendment:* This amendment revises Technical Specifications by extending the inspection interval for reactor coolant pump flywheels to 20 years. *Date of issuance:* June 21, 2005. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 119. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-63.* Amendment revises the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : March 1, 2005 (70 FR 9988). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 21, 2005. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina *Date of application of amendments:* February 14, 2005. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised the Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 3.3.7.1 to extend the frequency of the channel functional test for the Engineered Safeguards Protective System digital actuation logic channels from once every 31 days to once every 92 days. *Date of Issuance:* May 19, 2005. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 345, 347 and 346. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:* Amendments revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : March 15, 2005 (70 FR 12745). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 19, 2005. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina *Date of application of amendments:* March 14, 2005. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments deleted Technical Specification 5.5.4, “Post Accident Sampling.” *Date of Issuance:* July 12, 2005. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 346, 348, and 347. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:* Amendments revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : May 10, 2005 (70 FR 24649) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 12, 2005. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County, Mississippi *Date of application for amendment:* December 17, 2004. *Brief description of amendment:* The proposed change revises the air lock surveillance test acceptance criteria to be consistent with the NRC approved Industry Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF)change to the Standard Technical Specifications TSTF-52, entitled, “Implement 10 CFR [Part] 50, Appendix J, Option B.” By letter dated April 6, 1998, the NRC Staff issued amendment number 135 to the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station license permitting the implementation of the containment leak rate testing provisions of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Option B. *Date of issuance:* July 12, 2005. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. *Amendment No:* 168. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-29:* The amendment revises the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : February 1, 2005 (70 FR 5242). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 12, 2005. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire *Date of amendment request:* February 4, 2004, as supplemented by letter dated March 16, 2005. *Description of amendment request:* The amendment modified the Seabrook Station Technical Specification

(TS)Index; TS Table 3.3-10, “Accident Monitoring Instrumentation”; TS Table 4.4-2, “Steam Generator Tube Inspection”; TS 6.0, “Administrative Controls”; and Appendix B to Facility Operating License

(FOL)No. NPF-86, “Environmental Protection Plan”. *Date of issuance:* July 18, 2005. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 90 days. *Amendment No.:* 104. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-86:* The amendment revised the TSs and Appendix B to the FOL. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : March 2, 2004 (69 FR 9861). The March 16, 2005, supplement provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the proposed amendment as described in the original notice of proposed action published in the **Federal Register** , and did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 18, 2005. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, California *Date of application for amendments:* June 29, 2004, as supplemented by letter dated June 14, 2005. *Brief description of amendments:* The proposed changes revise the Technical Specifications

(TSs)to implement the following miscellaneous TS changes: Revise TS 2.2.5 Safety Limit Violations Licensee Event Report reporting period from 30 days to 60 days; revise 3.4.3.1.2 Pressurizer Heatup/Cooldown Limits Surveillance Requirements frequency to reflect pressurizer spray cyclic limits being governed by the temperature differentials between the spray nozzle and the spray line; revise TS 5.5.2.11 Steam Generator Tube Surveillance requirements to correct typographical errors; remove TS 5.5.2.14 Configuration Risk Management Program in accordance with **Federal Register** Notice Vol. 64, No. 137 (64 FR 38551, July 19, 1999); and revise TS 5.7.1.5 Core Operating Limits Report

(COLR)to delete revision numbers and dates from the referenced documents in this section, consistent with the NRC approved industry Technical Specifications Task Force

(TSTF)Standard Technical Specifications Traveler number TSTF-363, “Revise Topical Report References in ITS (Improved Technical Specifications) 5.6.5 COLR.” *Date of issuance:* July 19, 2005. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 197, 188. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : August 3, 2004 (69 FR 46588). The supplemental letter dated June 14, 2005, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 19, 2005. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. TXU Generation Company LP, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas *Date of amendment request:* October 13, 2004. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revise Technical Specification

(TS)5.6.5b by adding two topical reports

(TRs)into the list of approved analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits, deleting four TRs for analytical methods no longer used to determine the core operating limits, and sequentially renumbering the remaining approved analytical methods in TS 5.6.5b. *Date of issuance:* July 13, 2005. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 119, 119. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : December 21, 2004 (69 FR 76495). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 13, 2005. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia *Date of application for amendment:* July 1, 2004, as supplemented by letters dated and October 28, 2004, and November 16, 2004. *Brief description of amendment:* These amendments revise the reactor coolant pressure and temperature limits, low-temperature overpressure protection system (LTOPS) setpoint values, and LTOPS enable temperatures that are valid for 50.3 effective full-power years

(EFPY)and 52.3 EFPY of operation for North Anna, Units 1 and 2, respectively. *Date of issuance:* July 8, 2005. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 6 months from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 242 and 223. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7:* Amendments change the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : August 31, 2004 (69 FR 53114). The supplements dated October 28, 2004, and November 16, 2004, contained clarifying information only and did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination or expand the scope of the initial application. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 8, 2005. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Virginia Electric and Power Company, *et al.* , Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia *Date of application for amendments:* November 4, 2004, as supplemented on February 21 and June 2, 2005. *Brief Description of amendments:* These amendments revise the Technical Specifications

(TS)to delete the Inservice Inspection

(ISI)and Inservice Testing

(IST)requirements in TS 4.0.5; relocate the IST requirements to the administrative section of the TS as a program; revise the TS to reference the IST program instead of TS 4.0.5; delete the individual TS references to the ISI program; and add a TS Bases Control Program to the TS Administrative Controls section. *Date of issuance:* July 15, 2005. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 30 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 243 and 242. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:* Amendments change the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : February 15, 2005 (70 FR 7771). The February 21 and June 2, 2005, supplements contained clarifying information only 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 amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 15, 2005. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of July 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ledyard B. Marsh, Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-4067 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [EA-05-006] In the Matter of Certain Licensees Authorized To Possess and Transfer Items Containing Radioactive Material Quantities of Concern; Order Imposing Additional Security Measures (Effective Immediately) I. The Licensees identified in Attachment A 1 to this Order, hold licenses issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) or an Agreement State, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR parts 30, 32, 70 and 71, or equivalent Agreement State regulations. The licenses authorize them to possess and transfer items containing radioactive material quantities of concern. This Order is being issued to all such Licensees who may transport radioactive material quantities of concern under the NRC's authority to protect the common defense and security, which has not been relinquished to the Agreement States. The Orders require compliance with specific additional security measures to enhance the security for transport of certain radioactive material quantities of concern. 1 Attachment A contains sensitive unclassified information and will not be released to the public. II. On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to Licensees in order to strengthen Licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on this regulated activity. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to assess the adequacy of the current security measures. In addition, the Commission commenced a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements. As a result of its initial consideration of current safeguards and security requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has determined that certain security measures are required to be implemented by Licensees as prudent, interim measures to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment B 2 of this Order, on all Licensees identified in Attachment A of this Order. These additional security measures, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These additional security measures will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. 2 Attachment B contains Safeguards Information and will not be released to the public. The Commission recognizes that Licensees may have already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachment B to this Order in response to previously issued Safeguards and Threat Advisories or on their own. It is also recognized that some measures may not be possible or necessary for all shipments of radioactive material quantities of concern, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the Licensees' specific circumstances to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe transport of radioactive material quantities of concern. Although the security measures implemented by Licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories have been adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of common defense and security, in light of the continuing threat environment, the Commission concludes that the security measures must be embodied in an Order, consistent with the established regulatory framework. The Commission has determined that the security measures contained in Attachment B of this Order contains Safeguards Information and will not be released to the public as per Order entitled, “Issuance of Order Imposing Requirements for Protecting Certain Safeguards Information,” issued on November 5, 2004. To provide assurance that Licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, all licensees identified in Attachment A to this Order shall implement the requirements identified in Attachment B to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in light of the common defense and security matters identified above, which warrant the issuance of this Order, the public health and safety require that this Order be immediately effective. III. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 63, 81, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR parts 30, 32, 70 and 71, *it is hereby ordered* , effective immediately, that all licensees identified in attachment a to this order shall comply with the following: A. All Licensees shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission or Agreement State regulation or license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described in Attachment B to this Order. The Licensees shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment B to the Order and shall complete implementation by January 17, 2006, or before the licensee's next shipment after the 180 day implementation period of this Order. This Order supersedes the additional transportation security measures prescribed in the Manufacturer and Distributor Order issued January 12, 2004. B.1. All Licensees shall, within twenty

(20)days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission,

(1)if they are unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment B,

(2)if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in their specific circumstances, or

(3)if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the Licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission or Agreement State regulation or its license. The notification shall provide the Licensees' justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement. 2. Any Licensee that considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment B to this Order would adversely impact the safe transport of radioactive material quantities of concern must notify the Commission, within twenty

(20)days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment B requirement in question, or a schedule for modifying the activity to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, the Licensee must supplement its response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required in Condition B.1. C. All Licensees shall report to the Commission when they have achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment B.D. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Commission's or an Agreement State's regulations to the contrary, all measures implemented or actions taken in response to this order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. Licensee responses to Conditions B.1, B.2, and C above shall be submitted to the Document Control Desk, ATTN: Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. In addition, Licensee submittals that contain sensitive security related information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with Licensees' Safeguards Information or Safeguards Information—Modified Handling program. The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the Licensee of good cause. IV. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty

(20)days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the Licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement, to the Office of Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region I, II, III, or IV, at the respective addresses specified in Appendix A to 10 CFR part 73, appropriate for the specific facility, and to the Licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the Licensee. Because of possible disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers 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* and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov.* If a person other than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by the Licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the Licensee, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty

(20)days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission,

(1)if they are unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 2,

(2)if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in their specific circumstances, or

(3)if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide the licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement. 2. Any licensee that considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 2 to this Order would adversely impact the safe transport of spent fuel must notify the Commission, within twenty

(20)days of the date of this Order, submit to the Commission a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 2. 2. All licensees shall report to the Commission when they have achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 2. D. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Commission's regulations to the contrary, all measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. Licensee responses to Conditions B1, B2, C1, and C2 above, shall be submitted to the NRC to the attention of the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation under 10 CFR 50.4. In addition, licensee submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the licensee of good cause. IV. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty

(301)415-1101 or by e-mail to *hearingdocket@nrc.gov,* and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to

(301)415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov* . If a person other than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by the licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(I), the licensee may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty

(20)days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of July 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. R.W. Borchardt, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-4097 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 1-12282 Correction] Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of Corrpro Companies, Inc. To Withdraw Its Common Stock, No Par Value, From Listing and Registration on the American Stock Exchange LLC July 26, 2005. On June 29, 2005, Corrpro Companies, Inc., an Ohio corporation (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 12d2-2(d) thereunder, 2 to withdraw its common stock, no par value (“Security”), from listing and registration on the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”). On July 21, 2005, the Commission issued a “Notice of Application of Corrpro Companies, Inc. to Withdraw its Common Stock, no par value, from Listing and Registration on the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Notice”)”. 1 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (d). 2 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d). Page one, paragraph two of the Notice states that, “On April 14, 2005, the Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Issuer approved resolutions to withdraw the Security from listing and registration on Amex.” The correct date is June 27, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 3 3 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(1). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4094 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 35-28004] Filings Under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, as Amended (“Act”) July 27, 2005. Notice is hereby given that the following filing(s) has/have been made with the Commission pursuant to provisions of the Act and rules promulgated under the Act. All interested persons are referred to the application(s) and/or declaration(s) for complete statements of the proposed transaction(s) summarized below. The application(s) and/or declaration(s) and any amendment(s) is/are available for public inspection through the Commission's Branch of Public Reference. Interested persons wishing to comment or request a hearing on the application(s) and/or declaration(s) should submit their views in writing by August 22, 2005, to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303, and serve a copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/or declarant(s) at the address(es) specified below. Proof of service (by affidavit or, in the case of an attorney at law, by certificate) should be filed with the request. Any request for hearing should identify specifically the issues of facts or law that are disputed. A person who so requests will be notified of any hearing, if ordered, and will receive a copy of any notice or order issued in the matter. After August 22, 2005, the application(s) and/or declaration(s), as filed or as amended, may be granted and/or permitted to become effective. PNM Resources, Inc., et al. (70-10280) PNM Resources, Inc. (“PNM Resources”), a registered holding company, PNMR Services Company (“Services”), a wholly-owned service company subsidiary of PNM Resources, and Public Service Company of New Mexico (“PNM”), a public utility company subsidiary of PNM Resources, all located at Alvarado Square (MS-0920), Albuquerque, New Mexico 87158 and Texas-New Mexico Power Company (“TNMP”), an electric public utility subsidiary of PNM Resources, 4100 International Plaza, Fort Worth, Texas 76109 (collectively, “Applicants”), have filed an application-declaration (“Application”) under sections 9, 10 and 13(b) of the Act and rules 54, 88, 90, 91 and 93 under the Act. I. Background PNM Resources is a holding company that has recently registered under the Act. 1 Prior to June 6, 2005, PNM Resource's active subsidiaries included PNM, Avistar Inc. (“Avistar”), a nonutility company engaged in developing and marketing power system technologies, and PNMR Development and Management Corporation (“PNMR Development”), a company engaged in contract administration concerning the Luna Energy power generation project. On June 6, 2005, the Commission issued an order (the “Acquisition Order”) authorizing PNM Resources to acquire all of the voting securities of TNP Enterprises, Inc. (“TNP Enterprises”), a public utility holding company then-claiming exemption by rule 2 under the Act. 2 The Acquisition Order authorized Services to provide services to TNP Enterprises and its active subsidiaries. The Acquisition Order also authorized transferring shared services employees and their functions from subsidiaries of TNP Enterprises to Services. As of June 6, 2005, the active subsidiaries of TNP Enterprises included TNMP, FCP Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and an intermediate subsidiary parent of First Choice Power Special Purpose, L.P. (“First Choice”), and First Choice, an energy-marketer. 3 The recipients of such services are referenced herein as “Service Recipients.” 1 PNM Resources filed a notice of registration under the Act on December 30, 2004. In *PNM Resources, Inc.,* Holding Co. Act Release No. 27934 (December 30, 2004), PNM Resources committed to file this application to qualify its service company under rule 88 within thirty days of registration; the Application was filed January 28, 2005. 2 Holding Co. Act Release No. 27979 (June 1, 2005). TNP Enterprises has since filed a notification of registration under the Act. 3 First Choice is a Texas limited partnership and a bankruptcy remote special purpose entity certificated retail electric (“REP”) provider in Texas to which the original REP certificate of First Choice Power was transferred pursuant to an Order of the Public Utility Commission of Texas. A new certificate was granted to First Choice Power, Inc., which is now First Choice Power, L.P., also a subsidiary of TNP Enterprises and FCP Enterprises, Inc. These entities are collectively called “First Choice.” II. Current Requests Applicants seek authorization for the continued operation of Services and for it to continue to provide services, at cost in accordance with the Commission's regulations, to PNM Resources and to PNM Resources' other active subsidiaries: PNM, Avistar, Inc., PNMR Development, 4 TNMP, FCP Enterprises, Inc. and First Choice. These services are to be provided in accordance with rules 90 and 91 under the Act. As of January 1, 2005, PNM Resources ceased providing services, which required personnel, to its affiliates and only retained its lessor and sub-lessor interest in office and office-related properties used in its subsidiaries operations. Services has entered into an administrative services agreement between PNM Resources and Services (“Services Agreement”). 5 Services requests authorization to provide services pursuant to rules 90 and 91 to authorized affiliate Service Recipients on terms substantially identical to the Services Agreement. PNM and Avistar have consented to the amendment and assignment from PNM Resources to Services of their previously existing service agreements so as to conform to the terms of the Services Agreement and enable PNM Resources to cease rendering affiliate services. 4 PNMR Development is engaged in contract administration concerning the Luna Energy power generation project. *PNM Resources,* Holding Co. Act Release No. 27934 ( December 30, 2004) describes the Luna energy project and authorizes the formation of subsidiaries for project development purposes. 5 The only service function that will remain at PNM Resources is the provision by it of access to offices to Services and PNM. Otherwise, Services proposes to provide its Serviced Recipients with all administrative, management, and support services as described in the Application. Applicants request authority under section 13(b) of the Act for TNMP to sublease and provide access to its existing offices and related facilities owned or leased by it at cost to Services and to First Choice. TNMP's leasehold interests were obtained by TNMP prior to the acquisition of TNP Enterprises by PNM Resources. Before the acquisition, TNMP provided certain shared services to First Choice and TNPE Enterprises. Prior to the acquisition, employees occupied TNMP's leased offices and related facilities which are leased from a non-affiliate. In connection with the acquisition closing, the services agreements between TNMP and First Choice and between TNMP and TNP Enterprises were terminated, and the new services agreements initiated with Services. The office space used by the discrete group of “shared services” employees at the TNMP office building will continue to be associated with those employees (who will not need to move physically), and the cost associated with the space specific to First Choice will be directly assigned to First Choice. In light of the transfer of shared services employees from TNMP to Services, TNMP requests authority to lease such offices and related facilities at cost to Services, and authority for Services to provide access at cost to a portion of such offices and related facilities to First Choice. PNM Resources requests authority to continue its practice of subleasing insubstantial space in its Alvarado Square office building to certain non-affiliates. PNM Resources subleases insubstantial space in its Alvarado Square office building to several non-affiliated tenants that are engaged in businesses that pertain to the functions of the complex. Applicants further request that the Commission authorize reporting under rule 93 that is consistent with the form of accounts required by rate regulatory agencies, including Federal Power Act Form 1, to the extent there is a conflict between such accounts and those prescribed pursuant to 17 CFR part 256. Applicants are not requesting relief from rule 94. Services' accounting and cost allocation methods and procedures are structured so as to comply with the Commission's standards for service companies in registered holding company systems. Services' billing system will use the “Uniform System of Accounts for Mutual Service Companies,” established by the Commission for holding company systems. Services will utilize the chart of accounts specified in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (“FERC”) Uniform System of Accounts for Public Utilities and Licensees (18 CFR 101). Finally, PNM requests authority to provide generating plant operating dispatch services to its affiliates at cost in compliance with rules 90 and 91. Specifically, PNM requests authority to provide joint dispatch services to its affiliates in connection with PNM's generation resources and affiliate generation resources at cost. PNM Resources' dispatch center supports its control area function and will be predominantly used to support PNM plant dispatch and related transactions. PNM provides electrical control services from much of New Mexico, including the services area of PNM and TNMP in New Mexico. III. Description of Services Services' capitalization consists of 1,000 shares of common stock, no par value. It is anticipated that Services will finance its business through working capital, equipment and assets contributed by PNM Resources and issuance of debt securities exempted under rule 52(b) to associate companies or unaffiliated parties or otherwise authorized by the Act, rules and Commission orders. PNM Resources has contributed to Services certain physical property and contract rights as are necessary for Services to succeed to the services function previously performed by PNM Resources. PNM Resources has contributed $5 million cash to Services. 6 Approximately six hundred employees have transferred to the payroll of Services from PNM Resources and its affiliates. In order to provide substantially the same services as were previously provided by PNM Resources, Services has entered into leases and subleases with PNM Resources to occupy essentially the same office space that PNM Resources used for corporate support services at rates established at cost. Applicants state that this arrangement avoids the transactional costs that would otherwise be incurred in transferring property rights. 6 PNM Resources further intends to loan funds to Services at the effective cost of capital as authorized by rule 52(b). Applicants commit that no material change in the organization of Services, the type and character of the companies to be serviced, the methods of allocating cost to Service Recipients, or in the scope or character of the services to be rendered subject to section 13 of the Act, or any rule or order under the Act, shall be made unless and until Services shall first have given the Commission written notice of the proposed change not less than 60 days prior to the proposed effectiveness of any such change. If, upon the receipt of any such notice, the Commission shall notify Services within the 60-day period that a question exists as to whether the proposed change is consistent with the provisions of section 13 of the Act, or of any rule under the Act, or Commission order, then the proposed change shall not become effective unless and until Services shall have filed with the Commission an appropriate declaration regarding such proposed change and the Commission shall have permitted such declaration to become effective. Applicants have determined that the existing methods of allocating costs presented in the Services Agreement are consistent with those approved by the NMPRC on June 28, 2001. Under these cost allocations, the costs for services will be assigned to the companies that cause or benefit from those services. All charges for service shall be distributed among Service Recipients, to the extent possible, based on direct assignment. Costs which cannot be directly charged will be allocated using an appropriate cost allocation methodology that will take into account the cost causation of the type of service to be allocated. The application of a specific allocation method will be determined based upon principles of cost responsibility traditionally applied in electric and gas utility accounting and regulation such that each functional area supported by Services bears a fair share of fixed costs in addition to paying the variable costs associated with specific activities. Charges for all services provided by Services to its Service Recipients under the Service Agreements will be on an “at cost” basis as determined under rules 90 and 91 of the Act. AGL Resources Inc. (70-10304) AGL Resources Inc. (“AGL”), Ten Peachtree Place, Suite 1000, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, a registered holding company has filed an application-declaration under sections 6(a), 7, 9(a), 10, 11 and 12(b) of the Act. Generally, AGL requests authority to organize and finance one or more direct or indirect subsidiaries to engage in certain gas- and energy-related nonutility businesses in Canada, Mexico and/or the United States. I. Background AGL distributes natural gas to more than 2.2 million end-use customers through public-utility company subsidiaries organized in Georgia (Atlanta Gas Light Company), Tennessee (Chattanooga Gas Company), Virginia (Virginia Natural Gas Inc. and Virginia Gas Distribution Company) and New Jersey (Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc.). Pivotal Utility Holdings owns and operates utility facilities in New Jersey, Florida and Maryland through the following divisions: Elizabethtown Gas, Florida City Gas, and Elkton Gas. AGL is also involved in various energy- and gas-related nonutility businesses, including: retail natural gas marketing to end-use customers in Georgia; natural gas asset management and related logistics activities for its own utilities as well as for other non-affiliated companies; operation of high deliverability underground natural gas storage; and construction and operation of telecommunications conduit and fiber infrastructure within select metropolitan areas. The common stock of AGL is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Through various subsidiaries, Sequent, LLC (“Sequent”), an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary company of AGL, is engaged in the optimization of natural gas assets, gas transportation and storage, producer and peaking services and the wholesale marketing of natural gas. Sequent's asset optimization business focuses on capturing value from idle or underutilized natural gas assets, which are typically amassed by companies via investments in, or contractual rights to, natural gas transportation and storage facilities. Margins are typically created in this business by participating in transactions that balance the needs of varying markets and time horizons. Sequent provides its customers with natural gas from the major producing regions and market hubs primarily in the Eastern and Mid-Continental United States. Sequent also purchases transportation and storage capacity to meet its delivery requirements and customer obligations in the marketplace. Sequent's customers benefit from its logistics expertise and ability to deliver natural gas at prices that are advantageous relative to the other alternatives available to its end-use customers. II. Requests for Authority AGL requests authority to acquire interests in energy- and gas-related nonutility businesses operating in Canada, Mexico and/or the U.S (“Foreign Nonutility Businesses”). 7 Typically, these investments would be made through one or more direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sequent and funded by acquisitions of equity and debt securities of Foreign Nonutility Businesses, borrowings from AGL's nonutility money pool by Foreign Nonutility Businesses, and guarantees. AGL would limit its direct and indirect investments in Foreign Nonutility Businesses to an aggregate amount not to exceed $300 million (“Investment Limit”) in the form of equity, debt and guarantees, including nonutility money pool borrowings, through September 31, 2008 (“Authorization Period”). AGL's public utility subsidiary companies would not directly or indirectly acquire any Foreign Nonutility Businesses and they would not provide funding for, extend credit to, or guarantee the obligations of, Foreign Nonutility Businesses. 7 Investments in gas- and energy-related businesses that may be acquired under rule 58 would be subject to the investment limits under that rule, not the limit described below. The specific nonutility businesses in which AGL seeks authorization to invest include:

(1)Energy management services and other energy conservation related businesses;

(2)the maintenance and monitoring of utility equipment;

(3)the provision of utility related or derived software and services;

(4)engineering, consulting and technical services, operations and maintenance services;

(5)brokering and marketing of natural gas, electricity and other energy commodities and providing incidental related services, such as fuel management, storage and procurement; and

(6)oil and gas exploration, development, production, gathering, transportation, storage, processing and marketing activities, and related or incidental activities. AGL does not seek authority to acquire any assets that would cause any subsidiary to be or become an “electric-utility company” or “gas-utility company,” as those terms are defined in sections 2(a)(3) and 2(a)(4) of the Act. AGL requests authority for all Foreign Nonutility Businesses to participate as borrowers and lenders in the nonutility money pool authorized by Commission order dated April 1, 2004 (Holding Co. Act Release No. 27828). Participation in the nonutility money pool would include unsecured short-term borrowing, contributing surplus funds, and lending and extending credit to other nonutility money pool participants. For the Commission by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority. Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4110 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52124; File No. SR-FICC-2005-09] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Collecting of Fees for Services Provided by Other Entities July 26, 2005. I. Introduction On May 3, 2005, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-FICC-2005-09 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”). 1 Notice of the proposal was published in the **Federal Register** on June 13, 2005. 2 No comment letters were received. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51789, (June 6, 2005), 70 FR 34169. II. Description The proposed rule change amends FICC's rules to allow FICC to collect fees for services provided by unregulated subsidiaries of The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (“DTCC” and by other entities. FICC is a subsidiary of DTCC. Members of FICC and their affiliates may from time to time utilize the services of DTCC subsidiaries that are not registered as clearing agencies with the Commission. Such subsidiaries include Global Asset Solutions LLC and DTCC Deriv/Serv LLC. In addition, members of FICC and their affiliates may utilize the services of other third parties. FICC has determined that it would be more efficient and less costly if the fees that members agree to pay for such services were collected by FICC rather than through independent billing mechanisms that would otherwise have to be established by each subsidiary of DTCC and third party that is not a registered clearing agency. FICC's rules currently allow for fee collection arrangements with respect to collection of fees from members. The proposed rule change further clarifies this practice and facilitates collection of fees with respect to affiliates of members. 3 FICC will enter into appropriate agreements with such subsidiaries and others regarding the collection of fees. 3 FICC currently has such fee collection arrangements with The Bond Market Association (“TMBA”) pursuant to specific rules provisions. FICC continues to collect fees on behalf of TBMA; however, pursuant to this filing, the existing rules provisions which govern the TBMA arrangement will be replaced with broader language intended to cover all such fee collection arrangements entered into by FICC. III. Discussion Section 17A(a)(1)(B) of the Act provides that inefficient procedures for clearance and settlement impose unnecessary costs on investors and persons facilitating transactions by and acting on behalf of investors. 4 Although the services provided by unregulated DTCC subsidiaries and by other third parties are not core clearance and settlement services, they are related to the clearance and settlement operations of FICC and of its members. By streamlining the fee collection process for these services so that FICC's members will pay these fees to FICC as a part of their normal monthly FICC bills, the proposed rule change should help to improve efficiency in the operations of FICC members and thereby should remove unnecessary cost for FICC members and for the persons ( *i.e.,* the DTCC subsidiaries and the other entities providing services to FICC members) facilitating transactions by and acting on behalf of investors. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of section 17A of the Act. 4 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(a)(A)(B). IV. Conclusion On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-FICC-2005-09) be and hereby is approved. For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 5 5 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4112 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52133; File No. SR-NASD-2005-068] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Regarding a New Order Type for the Pre-Market Trading Session July 27, 2005. On May 25, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“Nasdaq''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission'') a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act'') 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 to establish a new order type for Nasdaq-listed securities called the Total Good-till-Canceled order, which would be eligible for execution during the pre-market trading session and would be processed precisely as the Good-till-Canceled order. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on June 23, 2005. 3 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51859 (June 16, 2005), 70 FR 36428. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association, 4 the requirements of Section 15A of the Act, 5 in general, and Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 6 in particular, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities association be designed to facilitate transactions in securities and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market. In proposing to establish the new order type, Nasdaq seeks to provide market participants with more choices, thereby permitting them to represent their trading interest more completely than is currently possible on Nasdaq. The depth and liquidity of the market on Nasdaq could increase as a result of the enhanced interest and competition, which in turn could promote greater competition among market centers. 4 In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 5 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3. 6 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(6). *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 7 that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-2005-068) be, and it hereby is, approved. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4109 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52125; File No. SR-OCC-2005-09] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to OCC's Data Distribution Service July 26, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 notice is hereby given that on June 24, 2005, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared primarily by OCC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 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 the proposed rule change is to adopt a new DDS Supplement to support the conversion of OCC's data distribution service (“DDS”) 2 to the technology used by OCC's new clearing system, ENCORE. 2 OCC offers certain ancillary services to clearing members that are not set forth in OCC's By-laws and Rules. Examples of such services include different channels by which clearing members may elect to receive data processed by OCC or to communicate instructions to OCC. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and

(C)below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. 3 3 The Commission has modified parts of these statements.

(A)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change An OCC clearing member may subscribe to DDS in order to receive in a machine readable format a copy of data processed by OCC that is proprietary to that clearing member ( *e.g.* , position and post-trade entries) and that is “non-proprietary” ( *i.e.* , data not specific to the clearing member) produced by OCC, including series, prices, and other information. A subscribing clearing member may instruct OCC to provide data to its managing clearing member or to its service bureau. Parties that are not clearing members may also subscribe to DDS in order to receive certain non-proprietary data. Data provided as a part of ENCORE DDS is organized into different “message types” that a subscriber may elect to receive. ENCORE DDS has been developed to provide a secure, flexible framework for distributing messages to subscribers pursuant to their elections. 4 As is the case today, ENCORE DDS subscribers will be permitted to choose whether to access messages from OCC servers or to directly receive message transmissions from OCC. Subscribers may elect to receive messages on a real time basis (a new DDS offering) and/or on a batch basis (a current DDS offering) although not all message types will be made available under both methods. 5 For subscribers electing to receive DDS on a real time basis, an “end of day” message will alert them not to expect any further information from OCC for that day. ENCORE DDS will be available to subscribers through leased lines, the internet, or both. OCC will support the current DDS format and the ENCORE DDS format during a transition period. 4 Fees charged for DDS to clearing members and non-clearing members (as set forth in OCC's Schedule of Fees) will not be changed at this time. 5 For example, price messages currently are expected to be only offered on a batch basis. The DDS Supplement is structured to fit within OCC's existing framework for the Agreement for OCC Services and will replace the current form supplement between clearing members and OCC. 6 The DDS Supplement's provisions are generally self-explanatory, and they are intended to describe the respective responsibilities of OCC and the subscribing clearing member. Section 1 describes DDS and, if applicable, permits a clearing member to direct OCC to deliver messages to the clearing member's managing clearing member or service bureau, as applicable. Section 2 sets forth criteria associated with subscribing to DDS. Sections 3 through 5 set forth further responsibilities of the parties including limitations on warranties, liability, 7 and indemnification. Section 6 contains general terms regarding survival of certain provisions. Annex I provides an overview of message types offered as a part of ENCORE DDS. Annex II is a form which permits a clearing member to provide contact information regarding its managing clearing member and a certification of the managing clearing member with respect to DDS. Annex III is a comparable form for service bureaus. 6 The DDS Supplement to be entered into between OCC and clearing members subscribing to DDS is attached to the filing of proposed rule change as Exhibit 5. 7 The limitation of liability provision contained in the DDS Supplement is based on the comparable provisions of the Supplement for Internet Access, which was approved by the Commission in Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46152 (July 1, 2002) 67 FR 45166 (July 8, 2002) [File No. SR-OCC-2001-09]. OCC has filed a proposed rule change with the Commission to establish a standard of care by which any potential liability of OCC to its clearing members would be judged [File No. SR-OCC-2003-13]. If approved, that proposed rule change would amend supplements to the Agreement for OCC Services to the extent a standard of care is established therein to reference the standard as it would be set forth in OCC's By-laws. OCC believes that the proposed change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act because ENCORE DDS provides a more efficient and effective means to furnish machine readable clearing-related data to clearing members. The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the existing rules of OCC, including any other rules proposed to be amended.

(B)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would 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 were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) 9 promulgated thereunder because the proposal effects a change in an existing service of OCC that

(A)does not adversely affect the safeguarding of securities or funds in the custody or control of OCC or for which it is responsible and

(B)does not significantly affect the respective rights or obligations of OCC or persons using the service. At any time within sixty days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4). 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-OCC-2005-09 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-0609. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2005-09. 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 Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's Web site at *http://www.optionsclearing.com.* 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 File Number SR-OCC-2005-09 and should be submitted on or before August 23, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4111 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5145] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Style and Status: Imperial Costumes From Ottoman Turkey'' *Summary:* Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Style and Status: Imperial Costumes from Ottoman Turkey,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, from on or about October 29, 2005 to on or about January 22, 2006, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . *For Further Information Contact:* For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr R. Sulzynsky, the Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State, (telephone: 202-453-8050). The address is Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: July 26, 2005. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. 05-15215 Filed 8-1-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 20

Traces to 20 documents

CFR