Notices. Notice of opportunity for public comment

11,646 words·~53 min read·/register/2005/10/19/05-20897

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

BILLING CODE 6055-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 30-36974-ML, ASLBP No. 06-843-01-ML] Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC; Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, published in the **Federal Register** , 37 FR 28,710 (1972), and the Commission's regulations, *see* 10 CFR 2.104, 2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is being established to preside over the following proceeding:

Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC (Honolulu, Hawaii Irradiator Facility) A Licensing Board is being established pursuant to a July 26, 2005 notice of opportunity for hearing, 70 FR 44,396 (Aug. 2, 2005), regarding the June 27, 2005 application of Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC, for authorization to build and operate a commercial pool-type industrial irradiator in Honolulu, Hawaii, near the Honolulu International Airport. This proceeding concerns an October 3, 2005 request for hearing regarding the application submitted by the Concerned Citizens of Honolulu.

The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges: Thomas S. Moore, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Dr. Paul B. Abramson, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Dr. Anthony J. Baratta, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed with the administrative judges in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302.

Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of October 2005. G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. [FR Doc. E5-5751 Filed 10-18-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Proposed Generic Communication; Post-Fire Safe-Shutdown Circuit Analysis Spurious Actuations AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public comment. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is proposing to issue a generic letter

(GL)to:

(1)Request addressees to review their fire protection program to confirm compliance with existing applicable regulatory requirements regarding their assumptions of the phrase “one-at-a-time” in light of the information provided in this GL and, if appropriate, take additional actions to return to compliance. Specifically, although some licensees have performed their post-fire, safe-shutdown circuit analyses based on an assumption of only a single spurious actuation per fire event or that spurious actuations will occur “one-at-a-time,” recent industry cable fire test results demonstrated that these assumptions are not valid.

(2)Require addressees to submit a written response to the NRC in accordance with NRC regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.54(f) (10 CFR 50.54(f)). This **Federal Register** notice is available through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under accession number ML051650017. DATES: Comment period expires [60 days after FRN is published]. Comments submitted after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T6-D59, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Written comments may also be delivered to NRC Headquarters, 11545 Rockville Pike (Room T-6D59), Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Robert Wolfgang at 301-415-1624 or by e-mail *rjw1@nrc.gov* or Chandu Patel at 301-415-3025 or by e-mail at *cpp@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NRC Generic Letter 2005-Xx; Post-Fire Safe-Shutdown Circuit Analysis Spurious Actuations. Addresses All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors, except those who have permanently ceased operations and have certified that fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor vessel. Purpose The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is issuing this generic letter

(GL)to:

(NEI)cable fire tests showed a relatively high probability of multiple spurious actuations occurring simultaneously or in rapid succession during or after a fire (ref. EPRI Report No. 1006961, “Spurious Actuation of Electrical Circuits Due to Cable Fires: Results of an Expert Elicitation,” dated May 2002 and NUREG/CR-6776, “Cable Insulation Resistance Measurements Made During Cable Fire Tests,” dated June 2002). Some licensees have assumed only a single spurious actuation, and others have assumed that multiple spurious actuations can only occur “one-at-a-time,” with sufficient delay between actuations to allow for mitigation. The EPRI/NEI test data clearly show that the use of “one-at-a-time” spurious actuations assumption is not credible. If multiple spurious actuations occurring simultaneously or in rapid succession during or after a fire have not been considered by licensees in their post-fire safe-shutdown circuit analysis, it is possible that they are not in compliance with 10 CFR 50.48 and 10 CFR Part 50, General Design Criterion

(GDC)3. The licensees who conclude that they are no longer in compliance with 10 CFR 50.48 and 10 CFR Part 50, GDC 3, based on the information provided in this GL, are expected to come into compliance with 10 CFR 50.48 and 10 CFR Part 50, GDC 3, using risk-informed or deterministic methods as appropriate to their licensing basis. Background The regulatory requirements for post-fire safe shutdown are given in 10 CFR 50.48 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, GDC 3. Additionally, all nuclear power plants

(NPPs)licensed to operate before January 1, 1979, are required to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G, “Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability.” All NPPs licensed to operate after January 1, 1979, were evaluated against Section 9.5.1 of NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan (SRP). The fire protection plan

(FPP)and the associated safety evaluation report

(SER)are specifically incorporated into those plants' licensing bases. All NPP licensees are responsible for meeting fire protection commitments and license conditions made during the establishment of their fire protection program. The objective of the fire protection requirements and guidance is to provide reasonable assurance that one train of systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown is free of fire damage. This includes protecting circuits whose fire-induced failure could prevent the operation, or cause maloperation, of equipment necessary to achieve and maintain post-fire safe shutdown. As part of its fire protection program, each licensee performs a circuit analysis to identify these circuits and to provide adequate protection against fire-induced failures. Beginning in 1997, the NRC staff noticed that a series of licensee event reports

(LERs)identified plant-specific problems related to potential fire-induced electrical circuit failures that could prevent operation, or cause maloperation, of equipment necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown. The staff documented these problems in Information Notice 99-17, “Problems Associated With Post-Fire Safe-Shutdown Circuit Analysis.” Based on the number of similar LERs, the NRC treated the issue generically. In 1998 the NRC staff started to interact with interested stakeholders in an attempt to understand the problem and develop an effective risk-informed solution to the circuit analysis issue. NRC also issued Enforcement Guidance Memorandum

(EGM)98-002, Rev. 2 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003710123), to provide a process for treating inspection findings while the issues were being clarified. Due to the number of different stakeholder interpretations of the regulations, the NRC decided to temporarily suspend the associated circuit part of fire protection inspections. This decision is documented in an NRC memorandum from John Hannon (Chief, Plant Systems Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)) to Gary Holahan (Director, DSSA, NRR) dated November 29, 2000 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003773142). In 2001 EPRI and NEI did a series of cable functionality fire tests to further the nuclear industry's understanding of fire-induced circuit failures, particularly spurious equipment actuations initiated by hot shorts. EPRI coordinated this effort and issued the final report (EPRI Report No. 1006961). Additional analysis of the EPRI/NEI test results can be found in NUREG/CR-6776. Based on the test results, the NRC staff and NEI concluded that the probability of fire-induced circuit failures can be relatively high and that there can be a relatively high probability of multiple spurious actuations occurring simultaneously or in rapid succession. Discussion Although both the NRC and the industry have used the phrase “one-at-a-time” in connection with post-fire spurious actuations caused by hot shorts, it is not defined in 10 CFR 50 regulations or guidance documents for fire protection. The phrase has been interpreted in at least two different ways. Some licensees have interpreted “one-at-a-time” to mean that only one spurious actuation need be postulated for any single fire event. Other licensees have interpreted the term to mean that multiple spurious actuations do not occur simultaneously, and that there would be sufficient time between spurious actuations to allow operators to take corrective actions. NRC has issued SERs that accepted both interpretations for specific situations in specific plants (e.g., NUREG-0876, Supplement No. 6, “Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Byron Station, Units 1 and 2,” ADAMS Accession No. 8411200507). However, current NRC regulations only allow these interpretations with respect to the design of alternate shutdown capability. The EPRI/NEI cable fire testing conducted in 2001 demonstrated that neither interpretation conforms with the likely effects of a fire in an area containing safe-shutdown cables. Therefore, these interpretations do not ensure safe shutdown. In a S.J. Collins

(NRC)letter to R.E. Beedle

(NEI)dated March 11, 1997 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003716454), the NRC reiterated its position that multiple spurious actuations must be considered and evaluated. Subsequent to the Collins letter, the 2001 EPRI/NEI fire testing demonstrated that multiple spurious actuations can occur with a relatively high likelihood and that they can occur simultaneously or in rapid succession without sufficient time for mitigation between actuations. One of the key observations of the test report was that, “given that a hot short occurs in a multi-conductor cable, it is highly probable (over 80 percent) that multiple target conductors will be affected (i.e., multiple simultaneous dependent hot shorts).” The testing covered most of the types of cable insulation and jacketing materials and types of raceways commonly used in nuclear power plants. During the testing, numerous variables were introduced to investigate the impact of various factors on cable performance and failure characteristics. While the staff has maintained that post-fire multiple spurious actuations should be considered, the number of actuations that must be considered has not been defined. Since the deterministic approach to post-fire safe-shutdown analyses assumes that all cables in a fire area are damaged by the fire (except where protection is provided in accordance with Section III.G.2 of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix R), it follows that all possible spurious actuations, as well as the cumulative effect of the actuations, should be considered. The SERs incorporated into the licensing bases of some plants (for example, Byron and Braidwood) specifically allow a design assumption of a single spurious actuation per fire event when performing the post-fire safe-shutdown circuit analysis. However, most plants postulated in their licensing basis that multiple spurious actuations occur one-at-a-time. All plants must review their circuits analysis, assuming possible multiple spurious actuations occurring simultaneously from a fire. Depending on the results of this review, licensees may conclude that they are no longer in compliance with the fire protection regulations. Those licensees who determine that they are no longer in compliance will either have to make plant modifications to protect against possible multiple spurious actuations or request an exemption (or license amendment, as applicable) as described in the “METHODS OF COMPLIANCE” section of this GL. An NEI letter dated May 30, 1997, presents the industry's position on the phrase “one-at-a-time.” The industry's position is that “possible functional failure states from a single hot short in the component's control circuitry should be analyzed one-at-a-time (not sequentially nor with cumulative consequences) for a fire in a certain fire area.” As one basis for this position, the letter references the Response to Question 5.3.10 in GL 86-10, “Implementation of Fire Protection Requirements.” Although this response states that “the safe shutdown capability should not be adversely affected by any one spurious actuation or signal resulting from a fire in any plant area,” per Question 5.3.10, the response applies only to Appendix R, Section III.L, “Alternative and Dedicated Shutdown Capability.” The NRC emphasized this position in a letter from Dennis M. Crutchfield (Chief, Operating Reactors Branch #5, Division of Licensing) to P.B. Fiedler (Vice President & Director—Oyster Creek) dated April 30, 1982 (ADAMS Accession No. ML011150521) by stating that “it is essential to remember that these alternative requirements (i.e., III.G.3 and III.L) are not deemed to be equivalent” to III.G.2 protection. As noted in the attachment to a February 6, 1997, memorandum from L.B. Marsh (Chief, Plant Systems Branch, NRR) to J.F. Stolz (Director, Project Directorate I-2) regarding the NRC policy on the interpretation of NRC GL 86-10 guidance on spurious valve actuation, the reference to “any one spurious actuation” in the response to Question 5.3.10 is intended to provide a design basis for determining the capacity and capability of the alternative or dedicated shutdown train (e.g., size of the pump and the support systems needed to maintain reactor coolant inventory, the scope of onsite electrical power distribution and power needs, and an operational baseline and set of plant conditions to define the scope of initial manual actions to restore systems necessary to accomplish the required reactor performance goals). Again, these alternative requirements do not provide the same level of protection as III.G.2. NEI also stated in the May 30, 1997, letter that “any other interpretation leads to complex and costly analysis which is not justified for the very small safety benefit.” The NEI letter offered no assessment of the safety significance of multiple sequential and cumulative failures. It is important to note that the NEI letter of May 30, 1997, preceded the 2001 EPRI/NEI fire testing, and that before the testing, the industry had long claimed that spurious actuations were not credible. As noted above, the cable functionality fire testing demonstrated that multiple spurious actuations can occur and that they can occur in rapid succession without sufficient time for mitigation. Therefore, if a licensee does not account for multiple spurious actuations in their circuits analysis, they are not in compliance with 10 CFR 50.48 and 10 CFR part 50, GDC 3, which require that a licensee is to provide reasonable assurance that one train of systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown is free of fire damage. Methods of Compliance Based on the information provided in this GL, if a licensee concludes that they are no longer in compliance with the fire protection regulations, there are several acceptable methods for them to re-establish full regulatory compliance. One way is to re-perform the post-fire safe-shutdown circuit analysis based on guidance provided in this GL and make modifications necessary to come into compliance. Another method to address this issue is to perform either a risk-informed evaluation that considers defense-in-depth and safety margins or a deterministic evaluation: • If a licensee proposes to use a risk-informed approach to justify an exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, then this approach should follow the guidance of RG 1.174, “An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis.” • For those licensees who have adopted the standard fire protection license condition as promulgated in GL 86-10, changes to the approved fire protection program can be made without prior staff approval if those changes would not adversely affect the ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire. GL 86-10, “Implementation of Fire Protection Requirements,” provides guidance on performing and documenting these changes. Plants licensed after January 1, 1979, that use a risk-informed approach must submit a license amendment in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90. The exception to 10 CFR 50.90, provided in the standard license condition and in 10 CFR 50.48(f)(3), does not apply because the risk assessment approaches used by plants deviate from the approved deterministic approaches used in their licensing basis. Furthermore, the licensees' risk assessment tools have not been reviewed or inspected against quality standards found acceptable to the NRC staff. Consequently, the staff believes that the use of risk informed approaches without prior NRC approval may result in changes that could adversely affect safe shutdown. Fire modeling and risk techniques acceptable to the staff should be used when performing risk-informed evaluations. An additional method to achieve compliance is the adoption of a performance-based fire protection program in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), “National Fire Protection Association Standard NFPA 805.” The Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1139, “Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants,” dated September 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML042740308) and NEI 04-02, “Guidance for Implementing a Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection Program Under 10 CFR 50.48(c),” Rev. 0, dated May 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051440805), provide additional guidance to licensees who plan to use this option. Applicable Regulatory Requirements NRC regulations in 10 CFR 50.48 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, GDC 3, require each operating NPP (licensed before or after issuance of GDC 3) to have a FPP providing post-fire safe shutdown capability. That is, a means must be provided of ensuring that one of the redundant trains of safe shutdown structures, systems, and components must be protected so that it remains free of fire damage, allowing safe shutdown of the plant. The regulation in 10 CFR 50.90 requires a licensee who desires to amend their license, to submit an amendment request to the NRC. A NPP licensed to operate before January 1, 1979, may submit an exemption request in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12. All NPPs licensed to operate before January 1, 1979 (pre-1979 plants), are required to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, paragraph III.G, “Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability.” Paragraph III.G states, in part, that “one train of systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown conditions from either the control room or emergency control station(s) is free of fire damage.” Paragraph III.G.2 states, in part, “where cables or equipment, including associated non-safety circuits that could prevent operation or cause maloperation due to hot shorts, open circuits, or shorts to ground, of redundant trains of systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown conditions are located within the same fire area outside of primary containment, one of the following means of ensuring that one of the redundant trains is free of fire damage shall be provided:” All NPPs licensed to operate after January 1, 1979, are required to comply with 10 CFR 50.48(a), which requires that each operating NPP have a FPP that satisfies GDC 3. The FPP is incorporated into the operating license for post-1979 plants as a license condition. This license condition specifically cites the staff SER in the licensee's FPP, to demonstrate that the license condition has been met (although licensees may modify their FPP as long as there is no adverse effect on safe shutdown). Based on the new information provided by the EPRI/NEI cable fire tests, approved fire protection programs that do not include protection against possible multiple spurious actuations occurring simultaneously (including programs for plants with SERs that specifically approve an assumption of one-only spurious actuation per fire event) may not comply with these regulatory requirements. Applicable Regulatory Guidance Fire-induced hot shorts that cause spurious actuations can prevent a train from performing its post-fire safe-shutdown function. NRC regulations, while noting that spurious actuations must be considered, do not set a limit on the number of spurious actuations that can occur. In addition, NRC regulations do not state whether multiple spurious actuations should be assumed to occur simultaneously or sequentially. Any limits or assumptions used by the licensee in performing the post-fire safe-shutdown circuit analysis should be adequately justified. In order to demonstrate compliance with the regulatory requirement that one safe shutdown train remain free of fire damage, licensees must address the potential for multiple, concurrent spurious actuations by analyzing for these failures and providing adequate protection where required. Fire modeling techniques and risk analysis techniques which the staff has found acceptable are provided in Section 4.0 of Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1139, “Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants,” dated September 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML042740308) and may be used in the evaluations. The deterministic methodology in NEI 00-01, Rev. 1 (January 2005), “Guidance for Post-Fire Safe Shutdown Circuit Analysis,” Chapter 3, for analysis of post-fire safe-shutdown circuits, in conjunction with the guidance provided in this GL, is one acceptable approach to achieving regulatory compliance with post-fire safe-shutdown circuit protection requirements for multiple spurious actuations. Licensees should assume that the fire may affect all unprotected cables and equipment within the fire area and address all cable and equipment impacts affecting the required safe shutdown path in the fire area. All potential impacts within the fire area must be addressed. The risk significance analysis methodology provided in Chapter 4 of NEI 00-01 should not be applied as a basis for regulatory compliance, except where a National Fire Protection Association

(NFPA)805 licensing basis has been adopted in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c). Risk-informed or performance-based methodologies that use the methods and information provided in NEI 00-01 (e.g., Chapter 4 and Appendix B-1) may be used to support exemption requests for plants that have not adopted an NFPA licensing basis. Furthermore, regardless of the plant licensing basis, the NRC agrees with the NEI 00-01 guidance that “all failures deemed to be risk significant, whether they are clearly compliance issues or not, should be placed in the Corrective Action Program with an appropriate priority for action.” The remaining sections of NEI 00-01 provide acceptable circuit analysis guidance on both the deterministic approach and the risk-informed, performance-based approach. Requested Actions Within 90 days of the date of this letter, all addressees are requested to take the following actions:

(1)Assess plant post-fire safe-shutdown circuit analyses for regulatory compliance in accordance with the information contained in this GL. The NRC informed licensees of these compliance expectations in a public meeting in October 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML043290020).

(2)Take appropriate compensatory measures in accordance with plant fire protection programs if the addressees' interpretation and use of multiple spurious actuations in their circuits analysis leads to the conclusion that the addressee is no longer in compliance with the fire protection regulations.

(3)Submit licensee's plans for plant modifications, license amendments or exemption requests that the above evaluation identifies as necessary to re-establish compliance with regulatory requirements and the plant's licensing basis in accordance with the information contained in this GL. Requested Information All addressees are requested to provide the following information:

(1)Within 90 days of the date of this GL, provide a statement on whether or not you conclude you are in compliance with the regulatory requirements as described in the Applicable Regulatory Requirements section of this GL. Addressees who conclude that they continue to be in compliance with the regulatory requirements in light of the information provided in this GL should state the basis for their conclusion.

(2)Addressees who conclude that they are not in compliance with the regulatory requirements as described in the Applicable Regulatory Requirements section of this GL, provide the following information: a. An assessment of the functionality of affected structures, systems, and components that addresses the ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in light of multiple spurious hot shorts as a result of a fire. An acceptable assessment would be consistent with an evaluation performed for GL 91-18, Rev. 1. b. A detailed description of the compensatory measures in place to maintain the safe shutdown function of affected areas of the plant, and an explanation of how the compensatory measures provide adequate protection. c. A general description and planned schedule for any plant modifications made to ensure compliance with the regulatory requirements listed in the Applicable Regulatory Requirements section of this GL. d. A general description and planned schedule for any changes to the plant licensing bases resulting from any evaluation performed to ensure compliance with the regulatory requirements listed in the Applicable Regulatory Requirements section of this GL. Include a discussion and schedule for any license amendment or exemption requests needed to support changes to the plant licensing basis. e. Where the licensee plans no action under

(a)or

(b)or

(c)or (d), provide a justification for not assessing safety significance or taking compensatory and corrective actions. Required Response In accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(f), in order to determine whether a facility license should be modified, suspended, or revoked, or whether other action should be taken, an addressee is required to respond as described below. Within 30 days of the date of this GL, an addressee is required to submit a written response if it is unable to provide the information or it cannot meet the requested completion date. The addressee must address in its response any alternative course of action that it proposes to take, including the basis for the acceptability of the proposed alternative course of action. The required written responses should be addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, under oath or affirmation under the provisions of Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f). In addition, submit a copy of the response to the appropriate regional administrator. Reason for Information Request As discussed above, EPRI/NEI-performed cable fire testing in 2001 demonstrated that multiple spurious actuations can occur with relatively high likelihood and that they can occur simultaneously or in rapid succession without sufficient time for mitigation between actuations. However, many licensees' circuits analysis and/or safe-shutdown analysis did not consider this relatively high probability. The NRC staff will review the responses to this GL and will notify affected addressees if concerns are identified regarding compliance with NRC regulations. The staff may also conduct inspections to determine addressees' effectiveness in addressing the GL. Related Generic Communications GL 86-10, “Implementation of Fire Protection Requirements,” April 24, 1986. GL 91-18 Rev. 1, “Information to Licensees Regarding NRC Inspection Manual Section on Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions,” October 8, 1997. Information Notice

(IN)92-18, “Potential for Loss of Remote Shutdown Capability During a Control Room Fire,” February 28, 1992. RIS 2004-03, “Risk-Informed Approach for Post-Fire Safe-Shutdown Associated Circuit Inspections,” March 2, 2004. RIS 2004-03 Rev. 1, “Risk-Informed Approach for Post-Fire Safe Shutdown Circuit Inspections,” December 29, 2004. RIS 2005-XXX, “Clarification of Post-Fire Safe-Shutdown Circuit Regulatory Requirements” (Draft issued for public comment on May 13, 2005). Backfit Discussion Under the provisions of Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(I), and 10 CFR 50.54(f), this GL requests addressees to evaluate their facilities to confirm compliance with the existing applicable regulatory requirements as discussed in this GL. The fundamental regulatory requirement is that at least one safe-shutdown path be maintained free of fire damage in the event of fire. The NRC's position concerning this regulatory requirement has not changed. All NPPs licensed to operate before January 1, 1979, (pre-1979 plants) are required to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, paragraph III.G, “Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability,” including Paragraph III.G.2. Paragraph III.G states, in part, that “one train of systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown conditions from either the control room or emergency control station(s) is free of fire damage.” Paragraph III.G.2 states, in part, “where cables or equipment, including associated non-safety circuits that could prevent operation or cause maloperation due to hot shorts, open circuits, or shorts to ground, of redundant trains of systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown conditions are located within the same fire area outside of primary containment, one of the following means of ensuring that one of the redundant trains is free of fire damage shall be provided:” All NPPs licensed to operate after January 1, 1979, are required to comply with 10 CFR 50.48(a), which requires that each operating nuclear power plant have a FPP that satisfies GDC 3. The fire protection plan is incorporated into the operating license for post-1979 plant as a license condition. This license condition specifically cites the staff SER on the licensee's FPP, to demonstrate that the license condition has been met (although licensees may modify their FPP as long as there is no adverse effect on safe shutdown). All NPP licensees are required to implement their approved fire protection program, considering multiple spurious actuations, in accordance with the applicable regulatory requirements. Fire-induced hot shorts that cause spurious actuations can prevent a train from performing its post-fire safe shutdown function. The regulations note that spurious actuations must be considered. Prior to the EPRI/NEI cable fire tests in 2001, very little data was available to provide a basis for predicting the extent or behavior of spurious actuations during a fire. Based on the available data and expert opinion, the industry assumed and, in some specific cases, the NRC accepted that spurious actuations that could prevent safe shutdown were highly improbable. Consequently, some licensees assumed only a single spurious actuation per fire event. Others assumed multiple spurious actuations, but assumed that they would only occur “one-at-a-time” with time between actuations to take corrective actions. These assumptions were never included in the regulations or generally adopted by the NRC. The 2001 EPRI/NEI fire test program demonstrated that the previous assumptions regarding spurious actuations do not adequately address the potential risk to safe shutdown. The EPRI/NEI cable fire tests clearly showed, during and after a fire, a relatively high probability that multiple spurious actuations will occur simultaneously or in rapid succession. Consequently, to demonstrate compliance with the regulatory requirement that one safe shutdown train remain free of fire damage (which has always been the NRC's position), and with licensees' licensing bases, licensees must address the potential for multiple concurrent spurious actuations by analyzing these failures and providing adequate protection where required. The information requested by this GL is therefore considered a compliance exception to the rule in accordance with 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(I), as the staff's position set out in this GL regarding the term “one-at-a-time” is necessary for compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, Paragraph III.G (with respect to pre-1979 plants) and, with respect to post-1979 plants, is necessary for compliance with the plants' license conditions regarding fire protection. With regard to plants for which the NRC had in the past specifically accepted the assumption that only a single spurious actuation would occur per fire event, or that multiple spurious actuations would occur “one-at-a-time” with time between actuations to take corrective actions, this GL is considered a compliance exception to the backfit rule, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(I). New information from the 2001 EPRI/NEI cable fire tests has shown that multiple, simultaneous spurious actuations must be considered for these licensees to be in compliance with NRC's unchanged interpretation of its fire protection requirements, which require that one safe shutdown train remain free of fire damage. **Federal Register** Notification A notice of opportunity for public comment on this GL was published in the **Federal Register** (XX FR XXXXX) on October XX, 2005. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act The NRC has determined that this action is not subject to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This GL contains information collections that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). These information collections were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), clearance number 3150-0011, which expires on February 28, 2007. The burden to the public for these mandatory information collections is estimated to average 300 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the information collection. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the information collections contained in the GL and on the following issues: 1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the information will have practical utility? 2. Is the estimate of burden accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques? Send comments on any aspect of these information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Records and FOIA/Privacy Services Branch (T5-F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail to *BJS1@NRC.GOV;* *INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV;* and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202 (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Public Protection Notice The NRC may not conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number. Contact Please direct any questions about this matter to the technical contact or the Lead Project Manager listed below, or to the appropriate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

(NRR)project manager. Bruce A. Boger, Director, Division of Inspection Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Technical Contact: Robert Wolfgang, NRR, 301-415-1624, E-mail: *rjw1@nrc.gov.* Lead Project Manager: Chandu Patel, NRR, 301-415-3025, E-mail: *cpp@nrc.gov.* Note: NRC generic communications may be found on the NRC public Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov* under Electronic Reading Room/Document Collections. End of Draft Generic Letter Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html.* If you do not have access to ADAMS or if you have problems in accessing the documents in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of October 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Michael J. Case, Deputy Director, Division of Inspection Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-5752 Filed 10-18-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extension: Regulations 13D and 13G; Schedules 13D and 13G; OMB Control No. 3235-0145; SEC File No. 270-137. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. Schedules 13D and 13G are filed pursuant to sections 13(d) and 13(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Regulation 13D and 13G thereunder, to report beneficial ownership of equity securities registered under section 12 of the Exchange Act. Regulations 13D and 13G provide investors and the subject issuers with information about accumulations of securities that may have the potential to change or influence control of the issuer. Schedules 13D and Schedule 13G are used by persons, including small entities, to report their ownership of more than 5% of a class of equity securities registered under section 12. We estimate that it takes approximately 43,500 total burden hours to prepare a Schedule 13D and that it is filed by approximately 3,000 respondents. The respondent prepares 25% of the 43,500 annual burden hours for a total reporting burden of 10,875 hours. Schedule 13G takes approximately 98,800 total burden hours to prepare and is filed by an estimated 9,500 respondents. The respondent prepares 25% of the 98,800 annual burden hours for a total reporting burden of 24,700 hours. The information provided by respondents is mandatory. Schedule 13D or Schedule 13G is filed by a respondent only when necessary. All information provided to the Commission is public. However, Rules 0-6 and 24b-2 under the Exchange Act permit reporting persons to request confidential treatment for certain sensitive information concerning national security, trade secrets, or privileged commercial or financial information. An agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Written comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons:

(i)Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* ; and

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. October 10, 2005. J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-5743 Filed 10-18-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extension: Rule 12d2-1, SEC File No. 270-98, OMB Control No. 3235-0081; Rule 12d2-2, SEC File No. 270-86, OMB Control No. 3235-0080 Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget requests for extension of the previously approved collections of information discussed below. Rule 12d2-1 was adopted in 1935 pursuant to Sections 12 and 23 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”). Rule 12d2-1 provides the procedures by which a national securities exchange may suspend from trading a security that is listed and registered on the exchange. Under Rule 12d2-1, an exchange is permitted to suspend from trading a listed security in accordance with its rules, and must promptly notify the Commission of any such suspension, along with the effective date and the reasons for the suspension. Any such suspension may be continued until such time as the Commission may determine that the suspension is designed to evade the provisions of Section 12(d) of the Act and Rule 12d2-2 thereunder. 1 During the continuance of such suspension under Rule 12d2-1, the exchange is required to notify the Commission promptly of any change in the reasons for the suspension. Upon the restoration to trading of any security suspended under Rule 12d2-1, the exchange must notify the Commission promptly of the effective date of such restoration. 1 Rule 12d2-2 prescribes the circumstances under which a security may be delisted from an exchange and withdrawn from registration under Section 12(b) of the Act, and provides the procedures for taking such action. The trading suspension notices serve a number of purposes. First, they inform the Commission that an exchange has suspended from trading a listed security or reintroduced trading in a previously suspended security. They also provide the Commission with information necessary for it to determine that the suspension has been accomplished in accordance with the rules of the exchange, and to verify that the exchange has not evaded the requirements of Section 12(d) of the Act and Rule 12d2-2 thereunder by improperly employing a trading suspension. Without Rule 12d2-1, the Commission would be unable to fully implement these statutory responsibilities. There are nine national securities exchanges that are subject to Rule 12d2-1. The burden of complying with Rule 12d2-1 is not evenly distributed among the exchanges, however, since there are many more securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”) and the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”) than on the other exchanges. 2 However, for purposes of this filing, it is assumed that the number of responses is evenly divided among the exchanges. Since approximately 104 responses under Rule 12d2-1 are received annually by the Commission from the national securities exchanges, the resultant aggregate annual reporting hour burden would be, assuming on average one-half reporting hour per response, 52 annual burden hours for all exchanges. The related costs associated with these burden hours are $2886.00. 2 In fact, some exchanges do not file any trading suspension reports in a given year. Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25 were adopted in 1935 and 1952, respectively, pursuant to Sections 12 and 23 of the Act. Rule 12d2-2 sets forth the conditions and procedures under which a security may be delisted from an exchange and withdrawn from registration under Section 12(b) of the Act. The Commission has recently adopted amendments to Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25. 3 The amendments will become effective on August 22, 2005 and the compliance date of the amendments is April 24, 2006. Under the amended Rule 12d2-2, all issuers and national securities exchanges seeking to delist and deregister a security in accordance with the rules of an exchange will file the newly adopted version of Form 25 with the Commission. The Commission has also adopted amendments to Rule 19d-1 under the Act to require exchanges to file the newly adopted version of Form 25 as notice to the Commission under Section 19(d) of the Act. Finally, the Commission has adopted amendments to exempt options and security futures from Section 12(d) of the Act. These amendments are intended to simplify the paperwork and procedure associated with a delisting and to unify general rules and procedures relating to the delisting process. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52029 (July 14, 2005), 70 FR 42456 (July 22, 2005). The Form 25 is useful because it informs the Commission that a security previously traded on an exchange is no longer traded. In addition, the Form 25 enables the Commission to verify that the delisting has occurred in accordance with the rules of the exchange. Further, the Form 25 helps to focus the attention of delisting issuers to make sure that they abide by the proper procedural and notice requirements associated with a delisting. Without Rule 12d2-2 and the Form 25, as applicable, the Commission would be unable to fulfill its statutory responsibilities. There are seven national securities exchanges that trade equity securities that will be respondents subject to Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25. 4 The burden of complying with Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25 is not evenly distributed among the exchanges, however, since there are many more securities listed on the NYSE and the Amex than on the other exchanges. However, for purposes of this filing, the staff has assumed that the number of responses is evenly divided among the exchanges. Since approximately 648 responses under Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25 for the purpose of delisting equity securities are received annually by the Commission from the national securities exchanges, the resultant aggregate annual reporting hour burden would be, assuming on average one hour per response, 648 annual burden hours for all exchanges. In addition, since approximately 57 responses are received by the Commission annually from issuers wishing to remove their securities from listing and registration on exchanges, the Commission staff estimates that the aggregate annual reporting hour burden on issuers would be, assuming on average one reporting hour per response, 57 annual burden hours for all issuers. Accordingly, the total annual hour burden for all respondents to comply with Rule 12d2-2 is 705 hours. The related costs associated with these burden hours are $37,830.00. 4 We note that there are two additional national securities exchanges that only trade standardized options which, as noted above, are exempt from Rule 12d2-2. The collection of information obligations imposed by Rule 12d2-1, Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25 are mandatory. The response will be available to the public and will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. General comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons:

(i)Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, by sending an e-mail to: *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* ; and

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: October 10, 2005. J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-5744 Filed 10-18-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extension: Rule 15c1-5, SEC File No. 270-422 OMB, OMB Control No. 3235-0471. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget requests for extension on the previously approved collection of information discussed below. Rule 15c1-5 states that any broker-dealer controlled by, controlling, or under common control with the issuer of a security that the broker-dealer is trying to sell to or buy from a customer must give the customer written notification disclosing the control relationship at or before completion of the transaction. The Commission estimates that 360 respondents collect information annually under Rule 15c1-5 and that approximately 3,600 hours would be required annually for these collections. There is no retention period requirement under Rule 15c1-5. This Rule does not involve the collection of confidential information. Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Written comments regarding the information above should be directed to the following persons:

(i)the Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to: *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* ; and

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: October 11, 2005. J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-5745 Filed 10-18-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extension: Rule 15c1-6, SEC File No. 270-423, OMB Control No. 3235-0472 Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget request for approval of extension on the following rule: Rule 15c1-6 states that any broker-dealer trying to sell to or buy from a customer a security in a primary or secondary distribution in which the broker-dealer is participating or is otherwise financially interested must give the customer written notification of the broker-dealer's participation or interest at or before completion of the transaction. The Commission estimates that 725 respondents collect information annually under Rule 15c1-6 and that approximately 7,250 hours would be required annually for these collections. There is no retention period requirement under Rule 15c1-6. This Rule does not involve the collection of confidential information. Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Written comments regarding the estimated burden hours should be directed to:

(i)the Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or send an e-mail to: *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* ; and

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: October 11, 2005. J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-5746 Filed 10-18-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549-0004. Extension: Rule 32a-4; SEC File No. 270-473; OMB Control No. 3235-0530. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget requests for extension of the previously approved collections of information discussed below. Section 32(a)(2) of the Investment Company Act requires that shareholders of a registered investment management or face-amount certificate company (“fund”) ratify or reject the selection of a fund's independent public accountant. Rule 32a-4 exempts a fund from this requirement if

(i)the fund's board of directors establishes an audit committee composed solely of independent directors with responsibility for overseeing the fund's accounting and auditing processes, 1

(ii)the fund's board of directors adopts an audit committee charter setting forth the committee's structure, duties, powers and methods of operation, or sets out similar provisions in the fund's charter or bylaws, 2 and

(iii)the fund maintains a copy of such an audit committee charter permanently in an easily accessible place. 3 1 Rule 32a-4(a). 2 Rule 32a-4(b). 3 Rule 32a-4(c). Each fund that chooses to rely on rule 32a-4 incurs two collection of information burdens. The first, related to the board of directors' adoption of the audit committee charter, occurs once, when the committee is established. The second, related to the fund's maintenance and preservation of a copy of the charter in an easily accessible place, is an ongoing annual burden. The information collection requirement in rule 32a-4 enables the Commission to monitor the duties and responsibilities of an independent audit committee formed by a fund relying on the rule. Commission staff estimates that, on average, the board of directors takes 15 minutes to adopt the audit committee charter. Commission staff has estimated that with an average of 8 directors on the board, 4 total director time to adopt the charter is 2 hours. Combined with an estimated 1 hour of paralegal time to prepare the charter for board review, the staff estimates a total one-time collection of information burden of 3 hours for each fund. Once a board adopts an audit committee charter, a fund generally maintains it in a file cabinet or as a computer file. Commission staff has estimated that there is no annual hourly burden associated with maintaining the charter in this form. 5 4 See Management Practice Inc. Bulletin: Fund directors pay increases 17% in smaller complexes, 8% in larger

(2003)available at *http://www.mfgovern.com.* 5 No hour burden related to such maintenance of the charter was identified by the funds the Commission staff surveyed. Commission staff understands that many audit committee charters have been significantly revised after their adoption in response to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Pub. L. No. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745) and other developments. However, the costs associated with these revisions are not attributable to the requirements of rule 32a-4. Because virtually all funds extant have now adopted audit committee charters, the annual one-time collection of information burden associated with adopting audit committee charters in the future will be limited to the burden incurred by newly established funds. Commission staff estimates that fund sponsors establish approximately 400 new funds each year, 6 and that all of these funds will adopt an audit committee charter in order to rely on rule 32a-4. Thus, Commission staff estimates that the annual one-time hour burden associated with adopting an audit committee charter under rule 32a-4 going forward will be approximately 1200 hours. 7 6 See Investment Company Institute (“ICI”), Mutual Fund Factbook

(2005)(“ICI 2005 Factbook”), at 9. The total number of funds in the marketplace has remained approximately the same each year for the past three years. Although there has been some variation in the number of funds that are newly established and funds that has ceased operations each year, Commission staff has estimated that the total number of respondents will remain constant. Id at 9. 7 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (3.0 burden hours for establishing charter × 400 new funds = 1200 burden hours). As noted above, all funds that rely on rule 32a-4 are subject to the ongoing collection of information requirement to preserve a copy of the charter in an easily accessible place. This ongoing requirement, which Commission staff has estimated has no hourly burden, applies to the 400 new funds that adopt an audit committee charter each year and the 8044 funds that have previously adopted the charter and continue to maintain it. When funds adopt an audit committee charter in order to rely on rule 32a-4, they also may incur one-time costs related to hiring outside counsel to prepare the charter. Commission staff estimates that those costs average approximately $1000 per fund. 8 Commission staff understands that virtually all funds now rely on rule 32a-4 and have adopted audit committee charters, and thus estimates that the annual cost burden related to hiring outside legal counsel will, in the future, be limited to newly established funds. 8 Costs may vary based on the individual needs of each fund. However, based on the staff's conversations with outside counsel that prepare these charters, legal fees related to the preparation and adoption of an audit committee charter usually average $1000 or less. The Commission also understands that the ICI has prepared a model audit committee charter, which most legal professionals use when establishing audit committees, thereby reducing the costs associated with drafting a charter. As noted above, Commission staff estimates that approximately 400 new funds each year will adopt an audit committee charter in order to rely on rule 32a-4, and that an additional 8044 funds will continue to preserve their audit committee charters in order to rely on rule 32a-4. Thus, Commission staff estimates that the ongoing annual cost burden associated with rule 32a-4 in the future will be approximately $400,000. 9 9 This estimate is based on the following calculations: ($1000 cost of adopting charter × 400 newly established funds = $400,000). The estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. 10 10 These estimates are based on telephone interviews between Commission staff and fund representatives. The collections of information required by rule 32a-4 are necessary to obtain the benefits of the rule. The Commission is seeking OMB approval, because an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. General comments regarding the above information to the following persons:

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. September 12, 2005. J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-5747 Filed 10-18-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52596; File No. SR-ISE-2005-40] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Market Maker Quotation Obligations October 12, 2005. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on September 6, 2005, the International Securities Exchange, Inc. (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons and is approving the proposal on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to clarify the implementation of changes to Exchange Rule 804 regarding market maker quotation obligations. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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 III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose In file number SR-ISE-2005-18, the Exchange proposed to adopt rule changes on a pilot basis to allow Electronic Access Members to designate “Preferred Market Makers” on orders Electronic Access Members enter into the Exchange's systems. In Amendment No. 1 to SR-ISE-2005-18, the Exchange proposed to increase the quotation obligations of Competitive Market Makers under Exchange Rule 804, who are eligible to be designated as Preferred Market Makers. Specifically, in SR-ISE-2005-18, as amended, the Exchange proposed to amend Exchange Rule 804 to require that Competitive Market Makers maintain continuous quotes in all of the series of any options class the Competitive Market Maker is quoting. The Exchange also proposed to amend Exchange Rule 804 to limit to 60 the number of options classes a Competitive Market Maker is required to quote when there are more than 100 options classes in such Competitive Market Maker's appointed Group. The Commission approved SR-ISE-2005-18, as amended, on June 10, 2005, for a pilot period expiring on July 18, 2005. 3 The pilot period subsequently was extended to June 10, 2006. 4 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51818 (June 10, 2005), 70 FR 35146 (June 16, 2005). 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52066 (July 20, 2005), 70 FR 43479 (July 27, 2005). While the Exchange included the changes to Exchange Rule 804 as part of the Exchange's proposal to allow Competitive Market Makers to be designated as Preferred Market Makers, the Exchange did not intend that the proposed changes to Exchange Rule 804 be adopted on a pilot basis. The purpose of this rule filing is to clarify that the changes to Exchange Rule 804 were intended by the Exchange to be adopted on a permanent basis. The Exchange notes that SR-ISE-2005-18, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** , and no comments were received on the proposed changes to Exchange Rule 804. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is found in section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 5 in that the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, because the proposal clarifies that the amendments to Exchange Rule 804 were intended to be adopted on a permanent basis. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 5 15.U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit comments on the proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties. III. 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-ISE-2005-40 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 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2005-40. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-ISE-2005-40 and should be submitted on or before November 9, 2005. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of section 6 of the Act 6 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, 7 and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b)(5) of the Act. 8 Section 6(b)(5) requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f. 7 In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission previously approved, on a pilot basis, changes to Exchange Rule 804 that

(a)require Competitive Market Makers to maintain continuous quotes in all of the series of any options class the Competitive Market Maker is quoting and

(b)limit to 60 the number of options classes a Competitive Market Maker is required to quote when there are more than 100 options classes in such Competitive Market Maker's appointed Group (together, the “Exchange Rule 804 Changes”). 9 Although the Exchange Rule 804 Changes were part of the Exchange's proposals to allow, on a pilot basis, Electronic Access Members to designate “Preferred Market Makers” on orders such Electronic Access Members enter into the Exchange's systems, the Commission notes that the Exchange Rule 804 Changes apply to all Competitive Market Makers, even in cases in which a Competitive Market Maker does not receive a designated order. The Commission also notes that the Exchange stated that the proposed rule change clarifies the intent of the Exchange that the Exchange Rule 804 Changes be approved on a permanent basis. The Commission further notes that the Exchange Rule 804 Changes were published for comment in the **Federal Register** in connection with File Number SR-ISE-2005-18 and File Number ISE-2005-35, 10 and that no comments were received on such changes. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change would clarify that the obligations of Competitive Market Makers continue, regardless of whether the Preferred Market Maker pilot program is extended, and that such clarification does not raise any regulatory issues. For these reasons, the Commission believes that approving the Exchange Rule 804 Changes on a permanent basis is consistent with the Act. 9 *See supra* notes 3 and 4. 10 *Id.* The Exchange has requested that the Commission find good cause for approving the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after publication of notice thereof in the **Federal Register** . The Commission notes that no comments were received in connection with the approvals of the Exchange Rule 804 Changes on a pilot basis. The Commission believes that accelerating approval of the proposed rule change should allow for more efficient market operation by offering clarity to existing ISE rules. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, consistent with section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 11 for approving the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after publication of notice thereof in the **Federal Register** . 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 12 that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2005-40) is hereby approved on an accelerated basis. 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-5742 Filed 10-18-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary [Docket No. OST-95-950] Notice of Request for Extension of a Previously Approved Collection AGENCY: Office of the Secretary. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Department of Transportation's

(DOT)intention to request an extension of a previously approved information collection. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received December 19, 2005. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT-DMS Docket Number OST-95-950] by any of the following methods. • *Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number

(RIN)for this information collection. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information, see the Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://dms.dot.gov* including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notes. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to Room PL-401, on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Schmidt, Office of Aviation Analysis, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590,

(202)366-5420. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Passenger Manifest Information. *OMB Control Number:* 2105-0534. *Expiration Date:* January 31, 2006. *Type of Request:* Extension without change of a previously approved collection. *Abstract:* Public Law 101-604 (entitled the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990, or “ASIA 90”, and later codified as 49 U.S.C. 44909) requires that certificated air carriers and large foreign air carriers collect the full name of each U.S. citizen traveling on flight segments to or from the United States and solicit a contact name and telephone number. In case of an aviation disaster, airlines would be required to provide the information to the Department of State and, in certain instances, to the National Transportation Safety Board. Each carrier would develop its own collection system. The Passenger Manifest Information, Final Rule (14 CFR 243), was published in the **Federal Register** , Vol. 63, No. 32 (February 18, 1998). The rule was effective March 20, 1998. *Respondents:* U.S. air carriers, foreign air carriers, travel agents and air travelers. *Estimated Total Burden on Respondents:* 1.05 million hours. *Estimated Respondents:* 23,245 (excluding air travelers). *Comments are invited on:*

(a)Whether the continued collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the current information collection;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected, and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Issued in Washington, DC on October 13, 2005. Todd Homan, Acting Director, Office of Aviation Analysis. [FR Doc. 05-20897 Filed 10-18-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 14

Traces to 14 documents

CFR