Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-06-06 · NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION · Notices

Notices. Notice

30,918 words·~141 min read·/register/2006/06/06/06-5129·

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 May 12, 2006 to May 24, 2006. The last biweekly notice was published on May 23, 2006 (71 FR 29671). 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.* Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina *Date of amendments request:* April 26, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify technical specification
(TS)requirements for inoperable snubbers by adding Limiting Condition for Operation 3.0.8. The changes are consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved Industry/Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)standard TS change TSTF-372, Revision 4. The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model safety evaluation and model no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC)determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the **Federal Register** on May 4, 2005 (70 FR 23252). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its application dated April 26, 2006. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration 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 allows a delay time before declaring supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) cannot perform its required safety function. Entrance into Actions or delaying entrance into Actions is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The consequences of an accident while relying on the delay time allowed before declaring a TS supported system inoperable and taking its Conditions and Required Actions are no different than the consequences of an accident under the same plant conditions while relying on the existing TS supported system Conditions and Required Actions. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased by this change. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in 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? Response: No. The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. Thus, this 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. The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change restores an allowance in the pre-ISTS conversion TS that was unintentionally eliminated by the conversion. The pre-ISTS TS were considered to provide an adequate margin of safety for plant operation, as does the post-ISTS conversion TS. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel II—Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. *NRC Branch Chief:* Michael L. Marshall, Jr. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS), Vernon, Vermont *Date of amendment request:* April 22, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would relocate the Technical Specification
(TS)requirements for shock suppressors (snubbers) to the Technical Requirements Manual
(TRM)and add a new Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO)3.0.8. *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 relocate TS 3/4.6.1 to the TRM is administrative in nature and does not involve the modification of any plant equipment or affect basic plant operation. Snubber operability and surveillance requirements will be contained in the TRM to ensure design assumptions for accident mitigation are maintained. The proposed change to add LCO 3.0.8 allows a delay time before declaring supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) cannot perform the required safety function. Entrance into actions or delaying entrance into actions is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The station design and safety analysis assumptions included provisions for redundancy to provide for periods when redundant systems are out-of-service per the TS. The proposed snubber LCO ensures that out-of-service time is minimized and risk is managed per 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4). Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased by this change. 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 to relocate TS 3/4.6.1 to the TRM is administrative and does not involve any physical alteration of plant equipment. The proposed change does not change the method by which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety analysis assumptions. [* * *] The proposed change to add LCO 3.0.8 allows a delay time before declaring supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) cannot perform the required safety function. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. Therefore, this 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. The proposed change to relocate TS 3/4.6.1 to the TRM is administrative in nature, does not negate any existing requirement, and does not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analysis. As such, there are no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Margins of safety are unaffected by requirements that are retained, but relocated from the TS to the TRM. [* * *] The proposed change to add LCO 3.0.8 to TS allows a delay time before declaring supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) cannot perform the required safety function. The proposed change retains an allowance in the current VYNPS TS while upgrading it to be more conservative for snubbers supporting multiple trains or sub-systems of an associated system. The updated TS will continue to provide an adequate margin of safety for plant operation upon incorporation of LCO 3.0.8. The station design and safety analysis assumptions provide margin in the form of redundancy to account for periods of time when system capability is reduced. This proposed change does not reduce that margin. Therefore, this change does 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 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Travis C. McCullough, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. *Branch Chief:* Richard Laufer. Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC), Docket No. 50-374, LaSalle County Station, Unit 2, LaSalle County, Illinois *Date of amendment request:* April 21, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification
(TS)Section 5.5.13, “Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,” to reflect a one-time extension of the LaSalle County Station (LSCS), Unit 2 primary containment Type A integrated leak rate test
(ILRT)date from the current requirement of no later than December 7, 2008, to prior to startup following the twelfth LSCS, Unit 2 refueling outage (L2R12). *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 change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes will revise LSCS, Unit 2, TS 5.5.13, “Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,” to reflect a one-time extension of the primary containment Type A Integrated Leak Rate Test
(ILRT)date to “prior to startup following L2R12.” The current Type A ILRT interval of 15 years, based on past performance, would be extended on a one-time basis by approximately 2% of the current interval. The function of the primary containment is to isolate and contain fission products released from the reactor Primary Coolant System
(PCS)following a design basis Loss of Coolant Accident
(LOCA)and to confine the postulated release of radioactive material to within limits. The test interval associated with Type A ILRTs is not a precursor of any accident previously evaluated. Type A ILRTs provide assurance that the LSCS Unit 2 primary containment will not exceed allowable leakage rate values specified in the TS and will continue to perform their design function following an accident. The risk assessment of the proposed changes has concluded that there is an insignificant increase in total population dose rate and an insignificant increase in the conditional containment failure probability. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes for a one-time extension of the Type A ILRT for LSCS Unit 2 will not affect the control parameters governing unit operation or the response of plant equipment to transient and accident conditions. The proposed changes do not introduce any new equipment, modes of system operation or failure mechanisms. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. LSCS Unit 2 is a General Electric BWR/5 plant with a Mark II primary containment. The Mark II primary containment consists of two compartments, the drywell and the suppression chamber. The drywell has the shape of a truncated cone, and is located above the cylindrically shaped suppression chamber. The primary containment is penetrated by access, piping and electrical penetrations. The integrity of the primary containment penetrations and isolation valves is verified through Type B and Type C local leak rate tests (LLRTs) and the overall leak tight integrity of the primary containment is verified by a Type A ILRT, as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, “Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors.” These tests are performed to verify the essentially leak tight characteristics of the primary containment at the design basis accident pressure. The proposed changes for a one-time extension of the Type A ILRTs do not affect the method for Type A, B or C testing or the test acceptance criteria. EGC has conducted a risk assessment to determine the impact of a change to the LSCS Unit 2 Type A ILRT schedule from a baseline ILRT frequency of three times in ten years to once in 16.25 years (i.e., 15 years plus 15 months) for the risk measures of Large Early Release Frequency (i.e., LERF), Total Population Dose, and Conditional Containment Failure Probability (i.e., CCFP). This assessment indicated that the proposed LSCS ILRT interval extension has a minimal impact on public risk. 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 requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Assistant General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. *NRC Branch Chief:* Daniel S. Collins R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York *Date of amendment request:* May 1, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification
(TS)1.1, “Definitions,” TS 3.4.13, “RCS [reactor coolant system] Operational Leakage,” TS 5.5.8, “Steam Generator Program,” and add new specifications (TS 3.4.17) for “Steam Generator
(SG)Tube Integrity” and (TS 5.6.7) for “Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report.” The proposed changes are necessary in order to implement the guidance for the industry initiative on Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI)97-06, “Steam Generator Program Guidelines.” The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the **Federal Register** on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10298), on possible amendments adopting Technical Specification Task Force Change Traveller 449, including a model safety evaluation and model no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC)determination, using the consolidated line item improvement process. The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models for referencing in license amendment applications in the **Federal Register** on May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24126). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the following NSHC determination in its application dated May 1, 2006. *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: Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change requires an SG Program that includes performance criteria that will provide reasonable assurance that the SG tubing will retain integrity over the full range of operating conditions (including startup, operation in the power range, hot standby, cooldown and all anticipated transients included in the design specification). The SG performance criteria are based on tube structural integrity, accident induced leakage, and operational LEAKAGE. An SGTR [steam generator tube rupture] event is one of the design basis accidents that are analyzed as part of a plant's licensing basis. In the analysis of a SGTR event, a bounding primary to secondary LEAKAGE rate equal to the operational LEAKAGE rate limits in the licensing basis plus the LEAKAGE rate associated with a double-ended rupture of a single tube is assumed. For other design basis accidents such as MSLB [main steam line break], rod ejection, and reactor coolant pump locked rotor the tubes are assumed to retain their structural integrity (i.e., they are assumed not to rupture). These analyses typically assume that primary to secondary LEAKAGE for all SGs is 1 gallon per minute or increases to 1 gallon per minute as a result of accident induced stresses. The accident induced leakage criterion introduced by the proposed changes accounts for tubes that may leak during design basis accidents. The accident induced leakage criterion limits this leakage to no more than the value assumed in the accident analysis. The SG performance criteria proposed change to the TS identify the standards against which tube integrity is to be measured. Meeting the performance criteria provides reasonable assurance that the SG tubing will remain capable of fulfilling its specific safety function of maintaining reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity throughout each operating cycle and in the unlikely event of a design basis accident. The performance criteria are only a part of the SG Program required by the proposed change to the TS. The program, defined by NEI 97-06, Steam Generator Program Guidelines, includes a framework that incorporates a balance of prevention, inspection, evaluation, repair, and leakage monitoring. The proposed changes do not, therefore, significantly increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The consequences of design basis accidents are, in part, functions of the DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 in the primary coolant and the primary to secondary LEAKAGE rates resulting from an accident. Therefore, limits are included in the plant technical specifications for operational leakage and for DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 in primary coolant to ensure the plant is operated within its analyzed condition. The typical analysis of the limiting design basis accident assumes that primary to secondary leak rate after the accident is 1 gallon per minute with no more than [500 gallons per day or 720 gallons per day] in any one SG, and that the reactor coolant activity levels of DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 are at the TS values before the accident. The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs, their method of operation, or primary coolant chemistry controls. The proposed approach updates the current TSs and enhances the requirements for SG inspections. The proposed change does not adversely impact any other previously evaluated design basis accident and is an improvement over the current TSs. Therefore, the proposed change does not affect the consequences of a SGTR accident and the probability of such an accident is reduced. In addition, the proposed changes do not affect the consequences of an MSLB, rod ejection, or a reactor coolant pump locked rotor event, or other previously evaluated accident. Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated The proposed performance based requirements are an improvement over the requirements imposed by the current technical specifications. Implementation of the proposed SG Program will not introduce any adverse changes to the plant design basis or postulated accidents resulting from potential tube degradation. The result of the implementation of the SG Program will be an enhancement of SG tube performance. Primary to secondary LEAKAGE that may be experienced during all plant conditions will be monitored to ensure it remains within current accident analysis assumptions. The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs, their method of operation, or primary or secondary coolant chemistry controls. In addition, the proposed change does not impact any other plant system or component. The change enhances SG inspection requirements. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different [kind] of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in [a] Margin of Safety The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface between the primary and secondary systems such that residual heat can be removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes isolate the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant from the secondary system. In summary, the safety function of an SG is maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes. Steam generator tube integrity is a function of the design, environment, and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed change does not affect tube design or operating environment. The proposed change is expected to result in an improvement in the tube integrity by implementing the SG Program to manage SG tube inspection, assessment, repair, and plugging. The requirements established by the SG Program are consistent with those in the applicable design codes and standards and are an improvement over the requirements in the current TSs. For the above reasons, the margin of safety is not changed and overall plant safety will be enhanced by the proposed change to the TS. The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Daniel F. Stenger, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, 601 13th Street, NW., Suite 1000 South, Washington, DC 20005. *NRC Branch Chief:* Richard J. Laufer. 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 amendment requests:* April 28, 2006. *Description of amendment requests:* The proposed change will increase the minimum allowed boron concentration of the spent fuel pool and allow credit for soluble boron, guide tube inserts (GT-Inserts) made from borated stainless steel, and fuel storage patterns in place of Boraflex. *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. Dropped Fuel Assembly There is no significant increase in the probability of a fuel assembly drop accident in the spent fuel pool when assuming a complete loss of the Boraflex panels in the spent fuel pool racks and considering the presence of soluble boron in the spent fuel pool water for criticality control. Neither the presence of soluble boron in the spent fuel pool water, nor the placement of borated stainless steel guide tube inserts (GT-Inserts) in the fuel assemblies for criticality control, will increase the probability of a fuel assembly drop accident. The handling of the fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool has always been performed in borated water, and the quantity of Boraflex remaining in the racks or GT-Inserts placed in the fuel assemblies, has no affect on the probability of such a drop accident. Southern California Edison
(SCE)has performed a criticality analysis which shows that the consequences of a fuel assembly drop accident in the spent fuel pool are not affected when considering a complete loss of the Boraflex in the spent fuel racks and the presence of soluble boron. The rack K <sup>eff</sup> remains less than or equal to 0.95. The fuel, the fuel rack, and the fuel pool qualifications have been evaluated and determined to be unaffected by the installation of the GT-Inserts. The mechanical design configuration of the GT-Inserts is similar to the shape, size, and weight of a control element assembly
(CEA)finger. Each of the GT-Inserts are approximately 0.78 inch outside diameter
(OD)solid stainless steel, with a boron content of approximately 2 weight percent (w/o). A small counterbore is machined at the top for handling and a rounded bottom is machined. The OD of these GT-Inserts is less than that of a CEA finger. The material (borated stainless steel) is American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM)approved and has been licensed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)for use in spent fuel storage technologies and spent fuel pools. The structural effect of the weight of the GT-Inserts on the fuel, the fuel rack, and the fuel pool structural interfaces and drop qualifications are unaffected. This is because the addition of five GT-Inserts (which increases the dry weight of a fuel assembly by 110 lbs.) brings the total weight to 1551 lbs. which is enveloped by the 2904 lbs. assumed in the calculation for fuel rack design. Fuel Misloading There is no significant increase in the probability of the accidental misloading of spent fuel assemblies into the spent fuel racks when assuming a complete loss of the Boraflex panels and considering the presence of soluble boron in the pool water for criticality control. Fuel assembly placement will continue to be controlled pursuant to approved fuel handling procedures and will be in accordance with Technical Specification
(TS)3.7.18[,] “Spent Fuel Assembly Storage[,]” and Licensee Controlled Specification
(LCS)4.0.100, “Fuel Storage Patterns,” which will specify spent fuel rack storage configuration limitations. There is no increase in the consequences of the accidental misloading of a spent fuel assembly into the spent fuel racks. The criticality analysis, performed by SCE, demonstrates that the pool K <sup>eff</sup> will be maintained less than or equal to 0.95 following an accidental misloading by the boron concentration of the pool. The proposed TS 3.7.17[,] “Fuel Storage Pool Boron Concentration[,]” will ensure that an adequate spent fuel pool boron concentration is maintained. Change in Spent Fuel Temperature There is no significant increase in the probability of either the loss of normal cooling to the spent fuel pool water or a decrease in pool water temperature from a large emergency makeup when assuming a complete loss of the Boraflex panels and considering the presence of soluble boron in the spent fuel pool water. A high proposed concentration (>2000 parts per million (ppm)) of soluble boron is consistent with current operating practices maintained in the spent fuel pool water. The proposed minimum boron concentration of 2000 ppm in TS 3.7.17 will ensure that an adequate concentration is maintained in the spent fuel pools. A loss of normal cooling to the spent fuel pool water causes an increase in the temperature of the water passing through the stored fuel assemblies. This causes a decrease in the water density, and when coupled with the assumption of a complete loss of Boraflex, may result in a positive reactivity addition. However, the additional negative reactivity provided by the boron concentration limit in the proposed TS 3.7.17 will compensate for the increased reactivity which could result from a loss of spent fuel pool cooling. Because adequate soluble boron will be maintained in the spent fuel pool water to maintain K <sup>eff</sup> less than or equal to 0.95, the consequences of a loss of normal cooling to the spent fuel pool will not be increased. The thermal considerations of the fuel are unaffected by the presence of the GT-Inserts because the guide tube is designed for the presence of a CEA; therefore, it is not a primary coolant flow area. The fuel rack normal thermal cooling and malfunctioned blocked cooling scenarios are unaffected by the presence of the GT-Inserts in the fuel assemblies. The proposed change does not involve an increase in 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? Response: No. The consideration of criticality accidents in the spent fuel pool are not new or different. They have been analyzed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and in previous submittals to the NRC. Specific accidents considered and evaluated include fuel assembly drop, fuel assembly misloading in the racks, and spent fuel pool water temperature changes. The possibility for creating a new or different kind of accident is not credible. Neither Boraflex [n]or soluble boron are accident initiators. The proposed change takes credit for soluble boron in the spent fuel pool while maintaining the necessary margin of safety. Because soluble boron has always been present in the spent fuel pool, a dilution of the spent fuel pool soluble boron has always been a possibility. However, a criticality accident resulting from a dilution accident was not considered credible. For this proposed amendment, SCE performed a spent fuel pool dilution analysis, which demonstrated that a dilution of the boron concentration in the spent fuel pool water which could increase the rack K <sup>eff</sup> to greater than 0.95 (constituting a reduction of the required margin to criticality) is not a credible event. The requirement to maintain boron concentration in the spent fuel pool water for reactivity control will have no effect on normal pool operations and maintenance. There are no changes in equipment design or plant configuration. The possibility of accidentally withdrawing a GT-Insert is minimized because special tooling is required to remove it, and it is completely contained within the guide tubes of the designated assemblies. Potential misloading of the GT-Inserts is minimized due to the design of the installation equipment, procedural controls, and double verification that will be in place to ensure the GT-Inserts are installed properly. The possibility of accidentally withdrawing a CEA is minimized because specialized tooling is required for withdrawing a CEA from a fuel assembly. It is physically possible for the spent fuel handling tool to bind on a CEA after ungrappling from a fuel assembly and raising the tool. However, existing SONGS [San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station] procedures require that the operator validate “tool weight only” on the spent fuel handling machine's load cell read out after ungrappling from a fuel assembly and raising the hoist slightly, and to report this information to the engineer directing the fuel movement. Therefore, the proposed change will not result in 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. The TS changes proposed by this license amendment request and the resulting spent fuel storage operation limits will provide adequate safety margin to ensure that the stored fuel assembly array will always remain subcritical. Those limits are based on a San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Units 2 and 3 plant specific analysis that was performed in accordance with a methodology previously approved by the NRC. The proposed change takes partial credit for soluble boron in the spent fuel pool. SCE's analyses show that spent fuel storage requirements meet the following NRC acceptance criteria for preventing criticality outside the reactor.
(1)The neutron multiplication factor, K <sup>eff</sup> , including all uncertainties, shall be less than 1.0 when flooded with unborated water, and
(2)The neutron multiplication factor, K <sup>eff</sup> , including all uncertainties, shall be less than or equal to 0.95 when flooded with borated water. The criticality analysis utilized credit for soluble boron to ensure K <sup>eff</sup> will be less than or equal to 0.95 under normal circumstances, and storage configurations have been defined using a 95/95 K <sup>eff</sup> calculation to ensure that the spent fuel rack will be less than 1.0 with no soluble boron. Soluble boron credit is used to provide safety margin by maintaining K <sup>eff</sup> less than or equal to 0.95 including uncertainties, tolerances[,] and accident conditions in the presence of spent fuel pool soluble boron. SCE evaluated the loss of a substantial amount of soluble boron from the spent fuel pool water which could lead to K <sup>eff</sup> exceeding 0.95 and showed that it was not credible. Also, the spent fuel rack K <sup>eff</sup> will remain less than 1.0 with the spent fuel pool flooded with unborated water. Decay heat, radiological effects, and seismic loads are unchanged by the absence of Boraflex. The mechanical properties and the weight of the fuel assemblies remain essentially unchanged with the inclusion of the weight of five GT-Inserts per assembly. The original mechanical and thermal analysis of the fuel assembly/fuel rack and fuel pool building interfaces currently approved remain valid and conservative. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the plant's 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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770. *NRC Branch 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:* March 30, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments revise Technical Specification 3.3.3.6, “Accident Monitoring Instrumentation,” with respect to the required action for inoperable Wide Range Reactor Coolant Temperature, Wide Range Steam Generator Water Level, and Auxiliary Feedwater
(AFW)Flow. *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 increase in the allowed outage times for the Reactor Coolant Outlet Temperature—Wide Range, Reactor Coolant Inlet Temperature—Wide Range, Steam Generator [Water] Level—Wide Range, and the AFW Flow does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated because these are accident monitoring functions that have no effect on the potential for accident initiation. The proposed deletion of the existing requirements in ACTION 38 is an administrative change. Since these requirements are not currently applied to any plant equipment, this change cannot affect the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed increase in the allowed outage times for the Reactor Coolant Outlet Temperature—Wide Range, Reactor Coolant Inlet Temperature—Wide Range, Steam Generator [Water] Level—Wide Range, and AFW Flow does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the availability of redundant and diverse indications provides adequate assurance that the operator will be able to determine the post-accident status of the secondary heat sink. The proposed deletion of the existing requirements in ACTION 38 is an administrative change. Since these requirements are not currently applied to any plant equipment, this change cannot affect the consequence 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 increase in the allowed outage times for the Reactor Coolant Outlet Temperature—Wide Range, Reactor Coolant Inlet Temperature—Wide Range, Steam Generator [Water] Level—Wide Range, and the AFW Flow does not create the possibility of a new or different kind accident from any accident previously evaluated because the proposed change affects only the allowed outage time for accident monitoring instrumentation and involves no changes to plant design, plant configuration or operating procedures. The proposed deletion of the existing requirements in ACTION 38 is an administrative change. Since these requirements are not currently applied to any plant equipment, this change cannot create the possibility of any kind of accident.
(3)Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed increase in the allowed outage times for the Reactor Coolant Outlet Temperature—Wide Range, Reactor Coolant Inlet Temperature— Wide Range, Steam Generator [Water] Level—Wide Range, and AFW Flow does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety because the availability of redundant and diverse indications provides adequate assurance that the operator will be able to determine the post-accident status of the secondary heat sink. The proposed deletion of the existing requirements in ACTION 38 is an administrative change. Since these requirements are not currently applied to any plant equipment, this change cannot affect the 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 Branch Chief:* David Terao. TXU Generation Company LP, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas *Date of amendment request:* February 21, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revise Technical Specification
(TS)5.6.5 entitled, “Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),” to revise the listed Loss-of-Coolant Accident
(LOCA)and non-LOCA analysis methodologies used at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change involves an administrative change only. Designation of the accident analysis methodologies, described in ERX-04-004 and ERX-04-005, as approved analytical methods is required to maintain the accuracy of the Technical Specification 5.6.5 (Core Operating Limits Report) and to maintain consistency with the resolution of issues as prescribed in 10 CFR 50.46. 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 change involves an administrative change only. Technical Specification 5.6.5 is being changed to reference the revised accident analysis methodologies currently under NRC review. No actual plant equipment will be affected by the proposed change. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel and fuel cladding, Reactor Coolant System pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. This request involves an administrative change (subject to NRC approval) only to incorporate the NRC-approved methodologies into the allowable analysis methodologies specified in Technical Specification 5.6.5. No actual plant equipment will be affected by the proposed change. The compliance of the revised methodology with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K will be addressed through the NRC staff's review of the topical reports. Therefore, it is concluded that the use of the proposed methodology will not degrade the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. Therefore the proposed change does not involve a 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:* George L. Edgar, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. *NRC Branch Chief:* David Terao. TXU Generation Company LP, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas *Date of amendment request:* February 21, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments would revise Technical Specifications
(TS)3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.5, 3.4.6, and 3.4.7, “Reactor Trip System
(RTS)Instrumentation,” “Engineered Safety Feature System Actuation (ESFAS) Instrumentation,” “RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Mode 3,” “RCS Loops-Mode 4,” and “RCS Loops-Mode 5, Loops Filled,” respectively. The revisions reflect the different steam generator water level trip setpoints and steam generator inventory requirements associated with the planned replacement of the steam generators in Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1. *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 TS changes affect the protective and mitigative capabilities of the plant; none of the changes impact the initiation or probability of occurrence of any accident. The consequences of accidents evaluated in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report] that could be affected by this proposed change are those in which the steam generator water level trip functions are credited for initiating a protective or mitigative function. These transients and accidents have been analyzed and all relevant event acceptance criteria were shown to be satisfied. The radiological dose consequences are unaffected. Therefore, there is no increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The actual proposed setpoint values were determined using an uncertainty methodology previously approved by the NRC for this application. These values provide adequate assurance that required protective and mitigative functions will be initiated as assumed in the transient and accident analyses. Therefore, there is no increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed revisions to the Δ76 steam generator inventory, required to ensure that the steam generators can provide an effective heat sink, are consistent with the current design requirements. 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. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of these changes. There will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result of these changes. There are no changes which would cause the malfunction of safety-related equipment, assumed to be operable in the accident analyses, as a result of the proposed Technical Specification changes. No new equipment performance burdens are imposed. The possibility of a new or different malfunction of safety-related equipment is not created. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes to the Steam Generator Water Level-Low-Low and Steam Generator Water Level-High-High trip function setpoints protect the assumed safety analysis limits established in the transient and accident analyses. When used in the transient and accident analyses, all relevant event acceptance criteria are satisfied. Therefore, these proposed changes do not result in the reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed changes to the Δ76 steam generator inventory requirements, which ensure the steam generators can function as an effective heat sink during required shutdown operating modes, are consistent with the existing design and licensing bases. Therefore, these proposed changes do not result in the 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:* George L. Edgar, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. *NRC Branch 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. Georgia Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia *Date of amendment request:* March 17, 2006. *Brief description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would add a license condition to Section 2.C of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Operating Licenses. This license condition will authorize the licensee to credit administering potassium iodide
(KI)to reduce the 30-day post-accident thyroid radiological dose to the operators in the main control room for an interim period of approximately 4 years. In addition, the design-basis accident analysis section of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports will be updated to reflect crediting of KI. *Date of publication of individual notice in* Federal Register: March 27, 2006 (71 FR 15223). *Expiration date of individual notice:* 30-day date April 26, 2006; 60-day date May 26, 2006. 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.* Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana *Date of amendment request:* December 19, 2005. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised the Technical Specification
(TS)to make permanent the temporary changes to TS Table 3.3.8.1-1 previously approved by Amendment No. 147. TS Table 3.3.8.1-1 is revised to delete the temporary note, correct the number of Required Channels per Division for the Loss of Power
(LOP)time delay functions, and delete the requirement to perform Surveillance Requirement 3.3.8.1.2, the monthly Channel Functional Test, on certain LOP time delay functions. *Date of issuance:* May 17, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to expiration of the temporary change on June 1, 2006, provided by Amendment No. 147. *Amendment No.:* 151. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-47:* The amendment revised the Technical Specfications. *Date of initial notice in * Federal Register: March 14, 2006 (71 FR 13173). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 17, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. 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, as supplemented March 15 and April 7, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* 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. *Date of issuance:* May 12, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 263. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-56:* The amendment revised the TSs. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: August 2, 2005 (70 FR 44402). The supplements dated March 15, 2006, and April 7, 2006, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 12, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida *Date of application for amendment:* October 21, 2005, as supplemented February 28, March 28 and April 24, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised the Operating License and Technical Specifications to allow operation of St. Lucie Unit 2 with a reduced reactor coolant system flow rate of 300,000 gpm and a reduction in the maximum thermal power to 89 percent of the rated thermal power. The flow rate of 300,000 gpm conservatively bounds an analyzed steam generator tube plugging level of 42 percent per steam generator. *Date of Issuance:* May 16, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 145. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-16:* Amendment revised the TS. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: December 20, 2005 (70 FR 75492). The February 28, March 28 and April 24, 2006, supplements did not affect the original proposed no significant hazards determination, or expand the scope of the request as noticed in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 16, 2006. 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:* September 22, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated March 24, 2006, and April 28, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment revised the Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 Technical Specifications
(TSS)to increase the licensed thermal power level by 1.7% to 3648 megawatts thermal. *Date of issuance:* May 22, 2006. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 12 months. *Amendment No.:* 110. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-86:* The amendment revised the Tss and the License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67748). The licensee's letters dated March 24, 2006, and April 28, 2006, 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 May 22, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California *Date of application for amendments:* July 29, 2005. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised Technical Specification 3.7.5, “Auxiliary Feedwater
(AFW)System,” to change the frequency of Surveillance Requirement 3.7.5.6 from 92 days to 24 months. *Date of issuance:* May 17, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 186 and 188. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: October 11, 2005 (70 FR 59086). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 17, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina *Date of application for amendment:* November 29, 2005. *Brief description of amendment:* This amendment for V. C. Summer revises TSs by eliminating the requirements to submit monthly operating reports and certain annual reports. *Date of issuance:* May 19, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 175. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12:* Amendment revises the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: March 14, 2006 (71 FR 13178). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 19, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee *Date of application for amendment:* December 13, 2005. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment changes the steam generator
(SG)level requirement for Limiting Condition for Operation 3.4.7.b and Surveillance Requirements 3.4.5.2, 3.4.6.3 and 3.4.7.2 from greater than or equal (≥) to 6 percent (%) to ≥ 32% following replacement of the SGs during the Unit 1, Cycle 7 refueling outage. *Date of issuance:* May 5, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to entering Mode 5 upon restart from the Unit 1 Cycle 7
(U1C7)Refueling Outage. *Amendment No.:* 61. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-90:* Amendment revises the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7814). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 5, 2006. 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:* March 8, 2005. *Brief description of amendments:* These amendments revised the auxiliary feedwater
(AFW)requirements of Technical Specifications
(TSs)3.6, “Turbine Cycle,” and 4.8, “Auxiliary Feedwater System,” to eliminate the inconsistency between the AFW pump requirements and the required actions, establish consistency with the Improved TSs, and add an AFW flowpath allowed outage time along with required actions. *Date of issuance:* February 23, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 246 and 245. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:* Amendments change the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: April 26, 2005 (70 FR 21465). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 23, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency Circumstances) 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 for the amendment 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. Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing. For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a **Federal Register** notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used local media to provide notice to the public in the area surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the public comments. In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has been consulted by telephone whenever possible. Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved. The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective 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 application for amendment,
(2)the amendment to Facility Operating License, 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 System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1
(800)397-4209,
(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to the issuance of the amendment. 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, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/* . If there are problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1
(800)397-4209,
(301)415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, 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 identify 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 intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. 1 Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. 1 To the extent that the applications contain attachments and supporting documents that are not publicly available because they are asserted to contain safeguards or proprietary information, petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the applicant or applicant's counsel and discuss the need for a protective order. Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha designation within one of the following groups: 1. Technical—primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the applications. 2. Environmental—primarily concerns/issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the applications. 3. Miscellaneous—does not fall into one of the categories outlined above. As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a petitioner/requestor seeks to adopt the contention of another sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the petitioner/requestor who seeks to adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring petitioner/requestor shall act as the representative with respect to that contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring petitioner/requestor a representative who shall have the authority to act for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. 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. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect. 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 or 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). Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket No. 50-362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3, San Diego County, California *Date of amendment request:* May 4, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* Allowed repairing a line in the shutdown cooling
(SDC)system with the unit in Mode 4. This repair plan caused Unit 3 to be out of compliance with the licensing basis of the SDC system for the limited duration of the repair, but not to exceed 7 days. *Date of issuance:* May 5, 2006. *Effective date:* Immediate. *Amendment No.:* 194. *Facility Operating License No. (NPF-15):* Amendment revised the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 5.4.7.1.2.C. with a note that states that the change is only applicable from the date of issuance of the amendment until the repair is completed on the SDC line or 7 days, whichever occurs first. *Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC):* No. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated May 5, 2006. *Attorney for licensee:* Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770. *NRC Branch Chief:* David Terao. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of May 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-8450 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)has issued a new guide in the agency's Regulatory Guide Series. This series has been developed to describe and make available to the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses. Regulatory Guide 1.205, “Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants,” provides guidance for use in complying with the requirements that the NRC has promulgated for risk-informed, performance-based fire protection programs that meet the requirements of Title 10, § 50.48(c), of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR 50.48(c)) and the referenced 2001 Edition of the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA)standard, NFPA 805, “Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light-Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants.” In accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(a), each operating nuclear power plant must have a fire protection plan that satisfies General Design Criterion
(GDC)3, “Fire Protection,” of Appendix A, “General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,” to 10 CFR part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.” In addition, plants that were licensed to operate before January 1, 1979, must meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix R, “Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior to January 1, 1979,” except to the extent provided for in 10 CFR 50.48(b). Plants licensed to operate after January 1, 1979, are required to comply with 10 CFR 50.48(a), as well as any plant-specific fire protection license condition and technical specifications. Section 50.48(c), which the NRC adopted in 2004 (69 FR 33536, June 16, 2004), incorporates NFPA 805 by reference, with certain exceptions, and allows licensees to voluntarily adopt and maintain a fire protection program that meets the requirements of NFPA 805 as an alternative to meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(b) or the plant-specific fire protection license conditions. Licensees who choose to comply with 10 CFR 50.48(c) must submit a license amendment application to the NRC, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90. Section 50.48(c)(3) describes the required content of the application. The Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI)has developed NEI 04-02, “Guidance for Implementing a Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection Program Under 10 CFR 50.48(c),” Revision 1, dated September 2005, to assist licensees in adopting 10 CFR 50.48(c) and making the transition from their current fire protection program
(FPP)to one based on NFPA 805. This regulatory guide endorses NEI 04-02, Revision 1, because it provides methods acceptable to the NRC for implementing NFPA 805 and complying with 10 CFR 50.48(c), subject to the additional regulatory positions contained in Section C of this regulatory guide and the approval authority that 10 CFR 50.48(c) grants to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The regulatory positions in Section C include clarification of the guidance provided in NEI 04-02, as well as any NRC exceptions to the guidance. The regulatory positions in Section C take precedence over the NEI 04-02 guidance. All references to NEI 04-02 in this regulatory guide refer to Revision 1 of NEI 04-02. All references to NFPA 805 in this regulatory guide refer to the 2001 Edition of NFPA. The NRC previously solicited public comment on this new guide by publishing a **Federal Register** notice (69 FR 60192) concerning Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1139 on October 7, 2004. Following the closure of the public comment period on December 15, 2004, the staff considered all stakeholder comments in the course of preparing Regulatory Guide 1.205. The NRC staff's responses to public comments received on the draft regulatory guide are available electronically in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* , under Accession #ML061100235. In particular, the revisions in this new guide include additional guidance regarding the plant change process, including risk acceptance thresholds for changes that may be made without prior NRC review and approval. In addition, this new guide includes guidance for the fire probabilistic safety analyses that licensees use to risk-inform the fire protection program. The NRC staff encourages and welcomes comments and suggestions in connection with improvements to published regulatory guides, as well as items for inclusion in regulatory guides that are currently being developed. You may submit comments by any of the following methods. Mail comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand-deliver comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Fax comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at
(301)415-5144. Requests for technical information about Regulatory Guide 1.205 may be directed to Paul W. Lain at
(301)415-2346 or via e-mail to *PWL@nrc.gov* . Regulatory guides are available for inspection or downloading through the NRC's public Web site in the Regulatory Guides document collection of the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections* . Regulatory Guide 1.205 is also available electronically in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* , under Accession #ML061100174. In addition, regulatory guides are available for inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland; the PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached by telephone at
(301)415-4737 or
(800)397-4205, by fax at
(301)415-3548, and by e-mail to *PDR@nrc.gov.* Requests for single copies of draft or final guides (which may be reproduced) or for placement on an automatic distribution list for single copies of future draft guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services Section; by e-mail to *DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov* ; or by fax to
(301)415-2289. Telephone requests cannot be accommodated. Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and Commission approval is not required to reproduce them. (5 U.S.C. 552(a)) Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of May, 2006. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Brian W. Sheron, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. [FR Doc. E6-8706 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Draft Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)has issued for public comment a draft of a revised guide in the agency's Regulatory Guide Series. This series has been developed to describe and make available to the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses. The draft Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.193, “ASME Code Cases Not Approved for Use,” is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1135, which should be mentioned in all related correspondence. Like its predecessors, this proposed revision lists the Code Cases that the NRC has determined are not acceptable for generic use as specified in Section III, “Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components,” and Section XI, “Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components,” of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel
(BPV)Code promulgated by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). (In so doing, this guide complements Revision 34 of Regulatory Guide 1.84, “Design, Fabrication, and Materials Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section III,” and Revision 15 of Regulatory Guide 1.147, “Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1,” which list the Code Cases that the NRC has determined to be acceptable alternatives to applicable provisions of Section III and Section XI, respectively.) Licensees may request NRC approval to implement one or more of the Code Cases listed in Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.193, as provided in 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3), which permits the use of alternatives to the Code requirements referenced in 10 CFR 50.55a, provided that the proposed alternatives result in an acceptable level of quality and safety. To do so, a licensee must submit a plant-specific request that addresses the NRC's concern about the given Code Case. The NRC staff is soliciting comments on Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1135, and comments may be accompanied by relevant information or supporting data. Please mention DG-1135 in the subject line of your comments. Comments on this draft regulatory guide submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available to the public in their entirety through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). Personal information will not be removed from your comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods. Mail comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. E-mail comments to: *NRCREP@nrc.gov* . You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov* . Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol A. Gallagher
(301)415-5905; e-mail *CAG@nrc.gov* . Hand-deliver comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Fax comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
(301)415-5144. Requests for technical information about Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1135 may be directed to Wallace E. Norris, at
(301)415-6796 or *WEN@nrc.gov* . Comments would be most helpful if received by July 14, 2006. Comments received after that date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time. Electronic copies of the draft regulatory guide are available through the NRC's public Web site under Draft Regulatory Guides in the Regulatory Guides document collection of the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/* . Electronic copies are also available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* , under Accession #ML061210425. In addition, regulatory guides are available for inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland; the PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached by telephone at
(301)415-4737 or
(800)397-4205, by fax at
(301)415-3548, and by e-mail to *PDR@nrc.gov* . Requests for single copies of draft or final guides (which may be reproduced) or for placement on an automatic distribution list for single copies of future draft guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services Section; by e-mail to *DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov* ; or by fax to
(301)415-2289. Telephone requests cannot be accommodated. Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and Commission approval is not required to reproduce them. (5 U.S.C. 552(a)) Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of May, 2006. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, James T. Wiggins, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. [FR Doc. E6-8709 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Excepted Service ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This gives notice of OPM decisions granting authority to make appointments under Schedules A, B, and C in the excepted service as required by 5 CFR 6.6 and 213.103. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Guilford, Center for Leadership and Executive Resources Policy, Strategic Human Resources Policy Division, 202-606-1391. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Appearing in the listing below are the individual authorities established under Schedules A, B, and C between April 1, 2006, and April 30, 2006. Future notices will be published on the fourth Tuesday of each month, or as soon as possible thereafter. A consolidated listing of all authorities as of June 30 is published each year. Schedule A No Schedule A appointments were approved for April 2006. Schedule B No Schedule B appointments were approved for April 2006. Schedule C The following Schedule C appointments were approved during April 2006: Section 213.3303 Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget BOGS00151 Deputy Press Secretary to the Press Secretary. Effective April 18, 2006. Office of National Drug Control Policy QQGS60089 Associate Director Office of Legislative Affairs to the Chief of Staff. Effective April 13, 2006. Section 213.333 Office of Science and Technology Policy TSGS60039 Assistant to the Director for Legislative Affairs to the Chief of Staff. Effective April 03, 2006. Section 213.334 Department of State DSGS61070 Special Advisor to the Assistant Secretary. Effective April 04, 2006. DSGS61061 Protocol Officer (Gifts) to the Chief of Protocol. Effective April 07, 2006. DSGS61062 Foreign Affairs Officer (Visits) to the Chief of Protocol. Effective April 07, 2006. DSGS61071 Public Affairs Specialist to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. Effective April 07, 2006. DSGS61073 Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees and Migration. Effective April 07, 2006. DSGS61074 Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. Effective April 07, 2006. DSGS61076 Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective April 10, 2006. DSGS61077 Special Assistant to the Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism. Effective April 14, 2006. DSGS61078 Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Western Hemispheric Affairs. Effective April 18, 2006. DSGS61081 Foreign Affairs Officer to the Director, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Effective April 25, 2006. DSGS61084 Staff Assistant to the Director, Policy Planning Staff. Effective April 27, 2006. Section 213.335 Department of the Treasury DYGS00250 Director, Public Affairs to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. Effective April 03, 2006. DYGS00469 Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs to the Assistant Secretary (Public Affairs). Effective April 03, 2006. DYGS60404 Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary (Financial Institutions). Effective April 27, 2006. Section 213.336 Office of the Secretary of Defense DDGS16930 Defense Fellow to the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for White House Liaison. Effective April 10, 2006. DGS16932 Defense Fellow to the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for White House Liaison. Effective April 13, 2006. DDGS16936 Special Assistant to the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Management Reform). Effective April 14, 2006. DDGS16937 Foreign Affairs Specialist to the Director, Administration and Management. Effective April 14, 2006. DDGS16942 Staff Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Negotiations Policy). Effective April 19, 2006. DDGS16929 Assistant for Research, Analysis and Special Projects to the Special Assistant to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense. Effective April 25, 2006. Section 213.3310 Department of Justice DJGS00187 Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division. Effective April 07, 2006. DJGS00392 Policy Coordinator and Special Assistant to the Director, Executive Office for the United States Attorneys. Effective April 12, 2006. DJGS00390 Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General (Legal Counsel). Effective April 17, 2006. Section 213.3311 Department of Homeland Security DMGS00498 Advisor to the Director for Intergovernmental. Effective April 03, 2006. DMGS00499 Confidential Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective April 03, 2006. DMGS00495 Assistant Director to the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs. Effective April 05, 2006. DMGS00501 Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective April 06, 2006. DMGS00502 Confidential Assistant to the Deputy White House Liaison and Advisor to the Chief of Staff. Effective April 06, 2006. DMGS00505 Confidential Assistant to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Effective April 7, 2006. DMGS00488 Press Officer to the Assistant Commissioner for Public Affairs. Effective April 13, 2006. DMGS00506 Policy Analyst to the Assistant Secretary for Private Sector. Effective April 14, 2006. DMGS00507 Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Policy. Effective April 14, 2006. DMGS00508 Public Affairs Specialist to the Director of Communications, Office of Domestic Preparedness. Effective April 14, 2006. DMGS00510 Policy Analyst to the Assistant Secretary for International Affairs. Effective April 14, 2006. DMGS00511 Senior Advisor for Management to the Under Secretary for Management. Effective April 14, 2006. DMGS00509 Legislative Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs. Effective April 19, 2006. DMGS00503 Director of Strategic Communications to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. Effective April 24, 2006. DMGS00517 Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective April 26, 2006. Section 213.3314 Department of Commerce DCGS00656 Confidential Assistant to the Director of Advance. Effective April 13, 2006. DCGS00558 Confidential Assistant to the Director of Advance. Effective April 14, 2006. DCGS00623 Public Affairs Specialist to the Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Services. Effective April 28, 2006. Section 213.3315 Department of Labor DLGS60089 Special Assistant to the Director of Operations. Effective April 6, 2006. DLGS60045 Staff Assistant to the Special Assistant, Office of Public Affairs. Effective April 12, 2006. DLGS60126 Special Assistant to the Solicitor of Labor. Effective April 14, 2006. DLGS60225 Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. Effective April 26, 2006. Section 213.3316 Department of Health and Human Services DHGS60030 Special Assistant to the General Counsel. Effective April 7, 2006. DHGS60006 Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. Effective April 12, 2006. DHGS60032 Special Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner for Policy. Effective April 12, 2006. DHGS60374 Confidential Assistant to the Executive Secretary. Effective April 12, 2006. DHGS60033 Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management. Effective April 14, 2006. DHGS60035 Confidential Assistant to the Administrator Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Effective April 21, 2006. DHGS60689 Director of Media Affairs to the Director, Office of External Affairs. Effective April 21, 2006. DHGS60007 Special Assistant to the Associate Commissioner for External Relations. Effective April 26, 2006. Section 213.3317 Department of Education DBGS00514 Special Assistant to the Director, Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Center. Effective April 3, 2006. DBGS00510 Special Assistant to the Director, Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective April 7, 2006. DBGS00285 Special Assistant (Education Attache to the United States Mission to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) to the Secretary. Effective April 18, 2006. DBGS00519 Confidential Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Media Relations and Strategic Communications. Effective April 21, 2006. DBGS00513 Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. Effective April 24, 2006. Section 213.3318 Environmental Protection Agency EPGS06010 Senior Advance Specialist to the Deputy Chief of Staff (Operations). Effective April 20, 2006. Section 213.3325 United States Tax Court JCGS60069 Trial Clerk to the Chief Judge. Effective April 7, 2006. JCGS60074 Trial Clerk to the Chief Judge. Effective April 7, 2006. Section 213.3327 Department of Veterans Affairs DVGS60011 Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective April 7, 2006. DVGS60036 Protocol Liaison Officer to the Secretary. Effective April 19, 2006. Section 213.3331 Department of Energy DEGS005182 Legislative Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective April 21, 2006. DEGS00515 Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health. Effective April 24, 2006. DEGS00519 Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective April 24, 2006. DEGS00521 Special Assistant to the White House Liaison. Effective April 24, 2006. Section 213.3332 Small Business Administration SBGS00598 Special Assistant to the Associate Administrator for Strategic Alliances. Effective April 12, 2006. SBGS60112 Special Assistant to the Deputy Administrator. Effective April 12, 2006. SBGS00597 Director of Scheduling to the Chief of Staff and Chief Operating Officer. Effective April 14, 2006. SBGS00599 Assistant Administrator for Policy and Planning to the Associate Administrator for Policy. Effective April 28, 2006. Section 213.3337 General Services Administration GSGS00174 Senior Advisor to the Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective April 6, 2006. GSGS00176 Senior Advisor to the Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective April 19, 2006. Section 213.3339 United States International Trade Commission TCGS60019 Staff Assistant (Legal) to a Commissioner. Effective April 12, 2006. TCGS00013 Staff Assistant (Economics) to the Vice Chairman. Effective April 13, 2006. Section 213.3348 National Aeronautics and Space Administration NNGS00170 Program Specialist to the Deputy Administrator, Office of Program and Institutional Integration. Effective April 25, 2006. Section 213.3379 Commodity Futures Trading Commission CTGS00091 Chief Economist to the Chairperson. Effective April 21, 2006. Section 213.3384 Department of Housing and Urban Development DUGS60410 Special Assistant to the General Counsel. Effective April 5, 2006. DUGS60543 Staff Assistant to the Director, Center for Faith Based and Community Initiatives. Effective April 14, 2006. DUGS60176 Staff Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective April 26, 2006. Section 213.3391 Office of Personnel Management PMGS00059 Congressional Relations Officer to the Director, Office of Congressional Relations. Section 213.3394 Department of Transportation DTGS60357 Special Assistant for Scheduling and Advance to the Director for Scheduling and Advance. Effective April 10, 2006. Section 213.3396 National Transportation Safety Board TBGS60107 Confidential Assistant to a Member. Effective April 25, 2006. Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218. Office of Personnel Management. Dan G. Blair, Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E6-8720 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53903; File No. SR-ISE-2005-49] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Relating to Complex Order Execution May 31, 2006. 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 October 4, 2005, the International Securities Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “ISE”) 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 by the ISE. The ISE filed Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to the proposal on February 1, 2006, and April 20, 2006, respectively. 3 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 2 replaced the initial filing and Amendment No. 1 in their entirety. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange is proposing to amend ISE Rule 722, “Complex Orders,” with respect to complex order execution. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in *italics* ; proposed deletions are in [brackets]. Rule 722. Complex Orders.
(a)no change.
(b)Applicability of Exchange Rules. Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, complex orders shall be subject to all other Exchange Rules that pertain to orders generally.
(1)*Minimum Increments.* Bids and offers on complex orders may be expressed in any decimal price, and the [option] leg(s) of a [stock-option] *complex* order may be executed in one cent increments, regardless of the minimum increments otherwise applicable to the individual [options] legs of the order. [Complex orders expressed in net price increments that are not multiples of the minimum increment are not entitled to the same priority under subparagraph (b)(2) of this Rule as such orders expressed in increments that are multiples of the minimum increment.]
(2)*Complex Order Priority.* Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 713, a complex order, as defined in paragraph
(a)of this Rule, may be executed at a total credit or debit price with one other Member without giving priority to bids or offers established in the marketplace that are no better than the bids or offers comprising such total credit or debit; provided, however, that if any of the bids or offers established in the marketplace consist of a Public Customer limit order, the price of at least one leg of the complex order must trade at a price that is better than the corresponding bid or offer in the marketplace *by at least one minimum trading increment as defined in Rule 710.* Under the circumstances described above, the option leg of a stock-option order, as defined in subparagraph (a)(5)(i)(A) of this Rule, or SSF-option order as defined in subparagraph (a)(5)(ii)(A) of this Rule, has priority over bids and offers established in the marketplace by Non-Customer orders and market maker quotes that are no better than the price of the options leg, but not over such bids and offers established by Public Customer Orders. The option legs of a stock-option order as defined in subparagraph (a)(5)(ii)(B), or SSF-option order as defined in subparagraph (a)(5)(ii)(B), consisting of a combination order with stock or single stock futures, as the case may be, may be executed in accordance with the first sentence of this subparagraph (b)(2).
(3)through
(5)no change. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, 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 IV 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 The Exchange proposes to allow the legs of an options-only complex order to be executed in penny increments. Currently under ISE Rule 722, the options leg of a stock-option order may be executed in penny increments, but the legs of an options-only complex order must be executed at the standard trading increments. The Exchange proposes to allow the legs of all complex orders to trade in penny increments. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will provide investors with flexibility in pricing the complex orders and create more opportunities for complex orders to receive an execution. Under ISE Rule 722, a complex order may be executed at a total credit or debit price with one other Member without giving priority to bids or offers established in the marketplace that are no better than the bids or offers comprising such total credit or debit, provided that if any of the bids or offers established in the marketplace consist of a Public Customer limit order, the price of at least one leg of the complex order must trade at a price that is better than the corresponding bid or offer in the marketplace. While the Exchange proposes to allow the legs of complex orders to be executed in penny increments, it does not propose to change the existing requirement that to have priority over Public Customer limit orders, at least one leg of the complex order must trade at a price that is better than the corresponding bid or offer in the marketplace by at least one minimum trading increment. 4 Thus, Public Customer limit orders will maintain their existing priority under ISE Rule 722. 4 A minimum trading increment is defined in ISE Rule 710, “Minimum Trading Increments,” as $0.05 if the options contract is trading at less than $3.00 and $0.10 if the options contract is trading at or above $3.00. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is found in Section 6(b)(5), in that the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove 5 impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will provide investors with more flexibility in pricing complex orders and increase the opportunity for complex orders to be executed. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 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. 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 this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
(A)By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, 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-2005-49 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2005-49. 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 the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. 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-2005-49 and should be submitted on or before June 27, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 6 6 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-8717 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53879; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-03] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto To Establish a Public Disclosure Program May 26, 2006. 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 April 6, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” 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. On May 9, 2006, NYSE Arca filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. On May 17, 2006, NYSE Arca filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons and is approving the proposal on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NYSE Arca proposes to implement a new rule, NYSE Arca Rule 10.17, that would institute and govern a program (“Public Disclosure Program”) in which certain disciplinary actions involving Option Trading Permit Holders (“OTP Holders”), Option Trading Permit Firms (“OTP Firms”), and associated persons thereof would be publicized. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in *italics.* Rules of the NYSE Arca, Inc. Rule 10 Disciplinary Proceedings and Appeals Release of Disciplinary Information Through the Public Disclosure Program *Rule 10.17(a) The Exchange shall, in response to a request, release a copy of any identified disciplinary decision issued by the Exchange or any Committee thereof; provided, however, that each copy of:*
(1)*A decision that is released prior to the expiration of the time period provided under NYSE Arca Rule 10.8 for appeal or while such an appeal is pending shall be accompanied by a statement that the findings and sanctions imposed in the decision may be increased, decreased, modified, or reversed by the Exchange;*
(2)*A final decision of the Exchange that is released prior to the time period provided under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for appeal to the Securities and Exchange Commission or while such an appeal is pending shall be accompanied by a statement that the findings and sanctions of the Exchange are subject to review and modification by the Securities and Exchange Commission; and*
(3)*A final decision of the Exchange that is released after the decision is appealed to the Securities and Exchange Commission shall be accompanied by a statement as to whether the effectiveness of the sanctions has been stayed pending the outcome of proceedings before the Securities and Exchange Commission.* * (b)(1) The Exchange shall release to the public information with respect to any disciplinary decision issued pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 10 imposing:
(i)A suspension, cancellation or expulsion upon an OTP Holder or OTP Firm; or
(ii)suspension or revocation of the registration of an associated person of an OTP Holder or OTP Firm; or
(iii)suspension or barring of an OTP Holder or OTP Firm or associated person from association with all OTP Holders or OTP Firms; or
(iv)imposition of monetary sanctions of $10,000 or more upon an OTP Holder or OTP Firm or associated person; or
(v)containing an allegation of a violation of a Designated Rule; and may also release to the public such information with respect to any disciplinary decision or group of decisions that involve a significant policy or enforcement determination where the release of information is deemed by the President of the Exchange to be in the public interest. The Exchange may, in its discretion, determine to waive the requirement to release information with respect to a disciplinary decision under those extraordinary circumstances where the release of such information would violate fundamental notions of fairness or work as an injustice. The Exchange may release to the public information on any disciplinary or other decision issued pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 10 not specifically enumerated in this paragraph, regardless of sanctions imposed, so long as the names of the parties and other identifying information is redacted. * *A “Designated Rule” means
(i)SEC Rule 10b-5,
(ii)NYSE Arca Rule 11.5, or
(iii)NYSE Arca Rule 11.2.*
(A)*The Exchange shall release to the public, in unredacted form, information with respect to any disciplinary decision issued pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 10.8 that does not meet one or more of the criteria in section (b)(1) for the release of information to the public, provided that the underlying decision issued pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 10.7 meets one or more of the criteria in section (b)(1) for the release of information to the public, and information regarding such decision has been released to the public in unredacted form.*
(B)*In the event there is more than one respondent in a disciplinary decision issued pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 10 and sanctions imposed on one or more, but not all, of the respondents meets one or more of the criteria in section (b)(1) for the release of information to the public, the Exchange shall release to the public, in unredacted form, information with respect to the respondent(s) who meet such criteria, and may release to the public, in redacted form, information with respect to the respondent(s) who do not meet such criteria. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Exchange shall release to the public, in unredacted form, information with respect to any respondent in a disciplinary decision issued pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 10.8 if the sanctions imposed on such respondent in the underlying decision issued pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 10.7 meet one or more of the criteria for release of information to the public, and information with respect to that respondent has been released in unredacted form.*
(2)*Information released to the public pursuant to subparagraph (b)(1) shall be accompanied by a statement to the extent required for that type of information under subparagraphs (a)(1)-(3).* *(c) Information regarding any sanctions imposed pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 10.6 shall be released to the public pursuant to paragraph
(b)immediately upon such approval.* *(d) If a decision of the Exchange imposing monetary sanctions of $10,000 or more or a penalty of expulsion, revocation, suspension and/or barring of an OTP Holder or OTP Firm from being associated with all OTP Holders or OTP Firms is appealed to the Securities and Exchange Commission, notice thereof shall be given to all OTP Holders and OTP Firms and to the press as soon as possible after receipt by the Exchange of notice from the Securities and Exchange Commission of such appeal and the Exchange's notice shall state whether the effectiveness of the Exchange's decision has been stayed pending the outcome of proceedings before the Securities and Exchange Commission.* *(e) In the event an appeal to the Federal courts is filed from a decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission in a case previously appealed to it from a decision of the Exchange, involving the imposition of monetary sanctions of $10,000 or more or a penalty of expulsion, revocation, suspension and/or barring of an OTP Holder or OTP Firm from being associated with all OTP Holders or OTP Firms, notice thereof shall be given to the OTP Holders or OTP Firms as soon as possible after receipt by the Exchange of a formal notice of appeal. Such notice shall include a statement whether the order of the Securities and Exchange Commission has been stayed.* *(f) Any order issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission of
(i)revocation or suspension of an OTP Holder's or OTP Firm's broker/dealer registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission; or
(ii)the suspension or expulsion of an OTP Holder or OTP Firm from the Exchange; or
(iii)the suspension or barring of an OTP Holder or OTP Firm or an associated person from association with all broker/dealers or OTP Holders or OTP Firms; or
(iv)the imposition of monetary sanctions of $10,000 or more shall be released to the public through a notice containing the effective date thereof sent as soon as possible after receipt by the Exchange of the order of the Securities and Exchange Commission.* *(g) Cancellations of Option Trading Permits or registration pursuant to the Exchange's Rules and interpretative material shall be released to the public as soon after the effective date of the cancellation as possible.* *(h) Releases to the public referred to in paragraph
(b)above shall identify the Exchange Rule(s) or the SEC Rule(s) violated, and shall describe the conduct constituting such violation. Releases may also identify the OTP Holder or OTP Firm with which an individual was associated at the time the violations occurred if such identification is determined by the Exchange to be in the public interest.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NYSE Arca included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below, and is set forth in Sections A, B, and C below. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Under the proposed Public Disclosure Program, the Exchange would release to the public certain information concerning the disciplinary history of OTP Holders, OTP Firms, and associated persons. The Exchange is instituting such procedures in order to provide investors with information regarding final disciplinary decisions related to such OTP Holders, OTP Firms, and associated persons. The primary purpose of the Public Disclosure Program is to help investors make informed choices about the individuals and firms with whom they may wish to do business. Currently, the Exchange does not have rules related to the release of disciplinary decisions to members of the public. Proposed NYSE Arca Rule 10.17 would allow the Exchange to release such information upon request and when certain other circumstances exist, as explained in greater detail below. *Disciplinary Decisions.* If a member of the public requests a copy of an identified disciplinary decision issued by the Exchange or any committee thereof, a copy of the decision will be provided to the requesting member of the public. The Exchange's practice will be to provide such information on a per-OTP Holder, OTP Firm, or associated person basis. The Exchange will not charge the public for this service. The Exchange will also release information to the public with respect to disciplinary decisions that:
(i)Impose a suspension, cancellation, or expulsion of an OTP Holder or OTP Firm;
(ii)impose the suspension or revocation of the registration of an associated person of an OTP Holder or OTP Firm;
(iii)impose the suspension or barring of an OTP Holder, OTP Firm, or associated person from association with all OTP Holders or OTP Firms;
(iv)impose monetary sanctions of $10,000 or more upon an OTP Holder, OTP Firm, or associated person; or
(v)contain an allegation of a violation of a Designated Rule. 3 The Exchange will release unredacted information concerning decisions issued by the Board Appeals Committee that do not meet one or more of the criteria in proposed NYSE Arca Rule 10.17(b)(1), provided that the underlying decision meets one or more of the criteria in proposed NYSE Arca Rule 10.17(b)(1), and the information regarding the underlying decision was released to the public in unredacted form. 3 A “Designated Rule” means
(i)Commission Rule 10b-5 under the Act,
(ii)NYSE Arca Rule 11.5 (Manipulation), or
(iii)NYSE Arca Rule 11.2 (Prohibited Acts). *See* proposed NYSE Arca Rule 10.17(b)(1). In the event that there is more than one respondent in a disciplinary decision and sanctions are imposed on one or more of the respondents, but not all of the respondents meet one or more of the criteria in proposed NYSE Arca Rule 10.17(b)(1) for the release of information, the Exchange will release to the public unredacted information with respect to the respondents who meet such criteria. In addition, the Exchange may release redacted information to the public with respect to the respondents who do not meet the criteria in proposed NYSE Arca Rule 10.17(b)(1). The Exchange may release information to the public concerning disciplinary decisions that involve significant policy or enforcement determinations where the release of such information is deemed by the President of the Exchange to be in the public interest. In addition, the Exchange may exercise its discretion and waive the requirement to release information with respect to a disciplinary decision under extraordinary circumstances where the release of the information would violate fundamental notions of fairness or work as an injustice. Finally, the Exchange may release public information concerning any disciplinary or other decision issued pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 10 that is not specifically enumerated in proposed NYSE Arca Rule 10.17(b)(1), regardless of the sanctions imposed, so long as the names of the parties and other identifying information are redacted. *Notices.* Decisions that are released to a member of the public must include certain notices. Decisions that are released prior to the period in which a respondent may request an appeal pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 10.8 (Review) or while an appeal is pending must include a statement that the findings and sanctions imposed in the decision may be increased, decreased, modified, or reversed by the Exchange. In addition, a final decision by the Exchange that is released prior to the period in which a respondent may appeal to the Commission or while such appeal is pending will include a statement that the findings and sanctions of the Exchange are subject to review and modification by the Commission. Lastly, a final decision of the Exchange that is released after the decision is appealed to the Commission will include a statement as to whether the effectiveness of the sanctions has been stayed pending the outcome of proceedings before the Commission. *Appeals.* In the instance that the Exchange's decisions are appealed to the Commission or the federal courts, the Exchange will notify all OTP Holders, OTP Firms, and the press. This includes all Exchange decisions imposing monetary sanctions of $10,000 or more or a penalty of expulsion, revocation, suspension, and/or barring of an OTP Holder or OTP Firm from being associated with all OTP Holders or OTP Firms. *Commission Orders.* The Exchange will release through a notice to the public information with respect to any order issued by the Commission:
(i)Revoking or suspending an OTP Firm's or OTP Holder's broker-dealer registration;
(ii)suspending or expelling an OTP Firm or OTP Holder from the Exchange;
(iii)suspending or barring an OTP Holder, OTP Firm, or an associated person from associating with all broker-dealers, OTP Holders, or OTP Firms; or
(iv)imposing monetary sanctions of $10,000 or more. *Offers of Settlement.* The Exchange will release information regarding sanctions imposed pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 10.6 (Offers of Settlement) upon the approval of offers of settlement. *Cancellation of Option Trading Permits.* In cases where the Exchange cancels an Options Trading Permit or registration, the Exchange will notify the public as soon after the effective date of the cancellation as possible. While proposed NYSE Arca Rule 10.17 is based substantially on NASD Rule 8310 (Sanctions for Violation of the Rules) and IM-8310-2 (Release of Disciplinary and Other Information Through the Public Disclosure Program), it does not incorporate all aspects of such NASD Rule. For example, proposed NYSE Arca Rule 10.17 excludes public disclosure of disciplinary complaints and arbitrations. The Exchange's intention is for public disclosure not to apply to disciplinary complaints that involve undecided issues or arbitrations between parties. The Exchange plans to notify OTP Holders, OTP Firms, and associated persons of the effectiveness of this proposed rule change through the Exchange's Internet Web site and a regulatory bulletin. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act 4 in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) 5 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, 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. 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b). 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, 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-NYSEArca-2006-03 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-03. 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-NYSEArca-2006-03 and should be submitted on or before June 27, 2006. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 6 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 7 which requires that an exchange have rules designed, among other things, 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 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission believes that the proposal to institute the Public Disclosure Program, which is substantially based on NASD Rule 8310 and IM-8310-2, 8 serves the interest of investor protection because it allows NYSE Arca members and the general public to promptly learn of final disciplinary decisions involving its broker-dealer members or associated persons of such members. By notifying the public of a final decision issued by the Exchange or any committee of the Exchange that results in the suspension, cancellation, expulsion, and/or barring of an OTP Holder or OTP Firm or the imposition of monetary sanctions of $10,000 or more, for example, the Commission believes that the Public Disclosure Program should provide important information to the public, create additional incentives for members of the Exchange to comply with its rules, and help investors make informed choices and decisions about the individuals and firms with whom they may wish to conduct business. As such, the Commission finds that the proposed program promotes just and equitable principles of trade, encourages the prevention of fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, and seeks to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market. 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35138 (December 22, 1994), 59 FR 67362 (December 29, 1994) (approving the NASD program to publish final disciplinary decisions involving its members). The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposed rule change, as amended, before the thirtieth day after the publication of notice thereof in the **Federal Register** . As noted earlier, prompt disclosure of final disciplinary decisions serves the interest of protecting investors and the general public. 9 Therefore, accelerating approval of the proposed rule change should benefit investors because they will have access to the NYSE Arca disciplinary information sooner. The Public Disclosure Program should foster compliance with NYSE Arca rules, heighten awareness of the public investor with respect to the conduct of business on the Exchange, and, in general, improve the overall integrity of the market center. 9 *See id.* V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2006-03), as amended, is hereby approved on an accelerated basis. 10 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-8700 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53878; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-02] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto To Establish a Public Disclosure Program May 26, 2006. 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 April 6, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”), through its subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”), 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. On May 9, 2006, NYSE Arca filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. On May 17, 2006, NYSE Arca filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons and is approving the proposal on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NYSE Arca, through its subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities, proposes to implement a new rule, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.15, that would institute and govern a program (“Public Disclosure Program”) in which certain disciplinary actions involving Equity Trading Permit Holders (“ETP Holders”) and associated persons thereof would be publicized. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in *italics.* NYSE Arca Equities Rules RULE 10 DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, OTHER HEARINGS, AND APPEALS Release of Disciplinary Information Through the Public Disclosure Program *Rule 10.15(a) The Corporation shall, in response to a request, release a copy of any identified disciplinary decision issued by the Corporation or any Committee thereof; provided, however, that each copy of:*
(1)*a decision that is released prior to the expiration of the time period provided under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.8 for appeal or while such an appeal is pending shall be accompanied by a statement that the findings and sanctions imposed in the decision may be increased, decreased, modified, or reversed by the Corporation;*
(2)*a final decision of the Corporation that is released prior to the time period provided under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for appeal to the Securities and Exchange Commission or while such an appeal is pending shall be accompanied by a statement that the findings and sanctions of the Corporation are subject to review and modification by the Securities and Exchange Commission; and*
(3)*a final decision of the Corporation that is released after the decision is appealed to the Securities and Exchange Commission shall be accompanied by a statement as to whether the effectiveness of the sanctions has been stayed pending the outcome of proceedings before the Securities and Exchange Commission.* *(b)(1) The Corporation shall release to the public information with respect to any disciplinary decision issued pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10 imposing:
(i)a suspension, cancellation or expulsion upon an ETP Holder; or
(ii)suspension or revocation of the registration of an associated person of an ETP Holder; or
(iii)suspension or barring of an ETP Holder or associated person from association with all ETP Holders; or
(iv)imposition of monetary sanctions of $10,000 or more upon an ETP Holder or associated person; or
(v)containing an allegation of a violation of a Designated Rule; and may also release to the public such information with respect to any disciplinary decision or group of decisions that involve a significant policy or enforcement determination where the release of information is deemed by the President of the Corporation to be in the public interest. The Corporation may, in its discretion, determine to waive the requirement to release information with respect to a disciplinary decision under those extraordinary circumstances where the release of such information would violate fundamental notions of fairness or work as an injustice. The Corporation may release to the public information on any disciplinary or other decision issued pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10 not specifically enumerated in this paragraph, regardless of sanctions imposed, so long as the names of the parties and other identifying information is redacted.* *A “Designated Rule” means
(i)SEC Rule 10b-5,
(ii)NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.5, or
(iii)NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.2.*
(A)*The Corporation shall release to the public, in unredacted form, information with respect to any disciplinary decision issued pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.8 that does not meet one or more of the criteria in section (b)(1) for the release of information to the public, provided that the underlying decision issued pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.7 meets one or more of the criteria in section (b)(1) for the release of information to the public, and information regarding such decision has been released to the public in unredacted form.*
(B)*In the event there is more than one respondent in a disciplinary decision issued pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10 and sanctions imposed on one or more, but not all, of the respondents meets one or more of the criteria in section (b)(1) for the release of information to the public, the Corporation shall release to the public, in unredacted form, information with respect to the respondent(s) who meet such criteria, and may release to the public, in redacted form, information with respect to the respondent(s) who do not meet such criteria. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Corporation shall release to the public, in unredacted form, information with respect to any respondent in a disciplinary decision issued pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.8 if the sanctions imposed on such respondent in the underlying decision issued pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.7 meet one or more of the criteria for release of information to the public, and information with respect to that respondent has been released in unredacted form.*
(2)*Information released to the public pursuant to subparagraph (b)(1) shall be accompanied by a statement to the extent required for that type of information under subparagraphs (a)(1)-(3).* *(c) Information regarding any sanctions imposed pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.6 shall be released to the public pursuant to paragraph
(b)immediately upon such approval.* *(d) If a decision of the Corporation imposing monetary sanctions of $10,000 or more or a penalty of expulsion, revocation, suspension and/or barring of an ETP Holder from being associated with all ETP Holders is appealed to the Securities and Exchange Commission, notice thereof shall be given to all ETP Holders and to the press as soon as possible after receipt by the Corporation of notice from the Securities and Exchange Commission of such appeal and the Corporation's notice shall state whether the effectiveness of the Corporation's decision has been stayed pending the outcome of proceedings before the Securities and Exchange Commission.* *(e) In the event an appeal to the federal courts is filed from a decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission in a case previously appealed to it from a decision of the Corporation, involving the imposition of monetary sanctions of $10,000 or more or a penalty of expulsion, revocation, suspension and/or barring of an ETP Holder from being associated with all ETP Holders, notice thereof shall be given to the ETP Holders as soon as possible after receipt by the Corporation of a formal notice of appeal. Such notice shall include a statement whether the order of the Securities and Exchange Commission has been stayed.* *(f) Any order issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission of
(i)revocation or suspension of an ETP Holder's broker/dealer registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission; or
(ii)the suspension or expulsion of an ETP Holder from the Corporation; or
(iii)the suspension or barring of an ETP Holder or an associated person from association with all broker/dealers or ETP Holders; or
(iv)the imposition of monetary sanctions of $10,000 or more shall be released to the public through a notice containing the effective date thereof sent as soon as possible after receipt by the Corporation of the order of the Securities and Exchange Commission.* *(g) Cancellations of Equity Trading Permits or registration pursuant to the Corporation's Rules and interpretative material shall be released to the public as soon after the effective date of the cancellation as possible.* *
(h)Releases to the public referred to in paragraph
(b)above shall identify the Corporation's Rule(s) or the SEC Rule(s) violated, and shall describe the conduct constituting such violation. Releases may also identify the ETP Holder with which an individual was associated at the time the violations occurred if such identification is determined by the Corporation to be in the public interest. * II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NYSE Arca included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below, and is set forth in Sections A, B, and C below. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Under the proposed Public Disclosure Program, NYSE Arca Equities would release to the public certain information concerning the disciplinary history of ETP Holders and associated persons. NYSE Arca Equities is instituting such procedures in order to provide investors with information regarding final disciplinary decisions related to ETP Holders and associated persons. The primary purpose of the Public Disclosure Program is to help investors make informed choices about the individuals and firms with whom they may wish to do business. Currently, NYSE Arca Equities does not have rules related to the release of disciplinary decisions to members of the public. Proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.15 would allow NYSE Arca Equities to release such information upon request and when certain other circumstances exist, as explained in greater detail below. *Disciplinary Decisions.* If a member of the public requests a copy of an identified disciplinary decision issued by NYSE Arca Equities or any committee thereof, a copy of the decision will be provided to the requesting member of the public. NYSE Arca Equities' practice will be to provide such information on a per-ETP Holder or associated person basis. NYSE Arca Equities will not charge the public for this service. NYSE Arca Equities will also release information to the public with respect to disciplinary decisions that:
(i)Impose a suspension, cancellation, or expulsion of an ETP Holder;
(ii)impose the suspension or revocation of the registration of an associated person of an ETP Holder;
(iii)impose the suspension or barring of an ETP Holder or associated person from association with all ETP Holders;
(iv)impose monetary sanctions of $10,000 or more upon an ETP Holder or associated person; or
(v)contain an allegation of a violation of a Designated Rule. 3 NYSE Arca Equities will release unredacted information concerning decisions issued by the Board Appeals Committee that do not meet one or more of the criteria in proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.15(b)(1), provided that the underlying decision meets one or more of the criteria in proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.15(b)(1), and the information regarding the underlying decision was released to the public in unredacted form. 3 A “Designated Rule” means
(i)Commission Rule 10b-5 under the Act,
(ii)NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.5 (Manipulation), or
(iii)NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.2 (Prohibited Acts). *See* proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.15(b)(1). In the event that there is more than one respondent in a disciplinary decision and sanctions are imposed on one or more of the respondents, but not all of the respondents meet one or more of the criteria in proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.15(b)(1) for the release of information, NYSE Arca Equities will release to the public unredacted information with respect to the respondents who meet such criteria. In addition, NYSE Arca Equities may release redacted information to the public with respect to the respondents who do not meet the criteria in proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.15(b)(1). NYSE Arca Equities may release information to the public concerning disciplinary decisions that involve significant policy or enforcement determinations where the release of such information is deemed by the President of NYSE Arca Equities to be in the public interest. In addition, NYSE Arca Equities may exercise its discretion and waive the requirement to release information with respect to a disciplinary decision under extraordinary circumstances where the release of the information would violate fundamental notions of fairness or work as an injustice. Finally, NYSE Arca Equities may release public information concerning any disciplinary or other decision issued pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10 that is not specifically enumerated in proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.15(b)(1), regardless of the sanctions imposed, so long as the names of the parties and other identifying information are redacted. *Notices.* Decisions that are released to a member of the public must include certain notices. Decisions that are released prior to the period in which a respondent may request an appeal pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.8 (Review) or while an appeal is pending must include a statement that the findings and sanctions imposed in the decision may be increased, decreased, modified, or reversed by NYSE Arca Equities. In addition, a final decision by NYSE Arca Equities that is released prior to the period in which a respondent may appeal to the Commission or while such appeal is pending will include a statement that the findings and sanctions of NYSE Arca Equities are subject to review and modification by the Commission. Lastly, a final decision of NYSE Arca Equities that is released after the decision is appealed to the Commission will include a statement as to whether the effectiveness of the sanctions has been stayed pending the outcome of proceedings before the Commission. *Appeals.* In the instance that NYSE Arca Equities' decisions are appealed to the Commission or the federal courts, NYSE Arca Equities will notify all ETP Holders and the press. This includes all NYSE Arca Equities decisions imposing monetary sanctions of $10,000 or more or a penalty of expulsion, revocation, suspension, and/or barring of an ETP Holder from being associated with all ETP Holders. *Commission Orders.* NYSE Arca Equities will release through a notice to the public information with respect to any order issued by the Commission:
(i)Revoking or suspending an ETP Holder's broker-dealer registration;
(ii)suspending or expelling an ETP Holder from NYSE Arca Equities;
(iii)suspending or barring an ETP Holder or an associated person from associating with all broker-dealers or ETP Holders; or
(iv)imposing monetary sanctions of $10,000 or more. *Offers of Settlement.* NYSE Arca Equities will release information regarding sanctions imposed pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.6 (Offers of Settlement) upon the approval of offers of settlement. *Cancellation of Equity Trading Permits.* In cases where NYSE Arca Equities cancels an Equity Trading Permit or registration, NYSE Arca Equities will notify the public as soon after the effective date of the cancellation as possible. While proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.15 is based substantially on NASD Rule 8310 (Sanctions for Violation of the Rules) and IM-8310-2 (Release of Disciplinary and Other Information Through the Public Disclosure Program), it does not incorporate all aspects of such NASD Rule. For example, proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.15 excludes public disclosure of disciplinary complaints and arbitrations. NYSE Arca Equities's intention is for public disclosure not to apply to disciplinary complaints that involve undecided issues or arbitrations between parties. NYSE Arca Equities plans to notify ETP Holders and associated persons of the effectiveness of this proposed rule change through NYSE Arca Equities' Internet Web site and a regulatory bulletin. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 4 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) 5 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, 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. 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b). 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, 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-NYSEArca-2006-02 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-02. 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-NYSEArca-2006-02 and should be submitted on or before June 27, 2006. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 6 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 7 which requires that an exchange have rules designed, among other things, 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 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission believes that the proposal to institute the Public Disclosure Program, which is substantially based on NASD Rule 8310 and IM-8310-2, 8 serves the interest of investor protection because it allows NYSE Arca Equities members and the general public to promptly learn of final disciplinary decisions involving its broker-dealer members or associated persons of such members. By notifying the public of a final decision issued by the Exchange or any committee of the Exchange that results in the suspension, cancellation, expulsion, and/or barring of an ETP Holder or the imposition of monetary sanctions of $10,000 or more, for example, the Commission believes that the Public Disclosure Program should provide important information to the public, create additional incentives for members of the Exchange to comply with its rules, and help investors make informed choices and decisions about the individuals and firms with whom they may wish to conduct business. As such, the Commission finds that the proposed program promotes just and equitable principles of trade, encourages the prevention of fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, and seeks to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market. 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35138 (December 22, 1994), 59 FR 67362 (December 29, 1994) (approving the NASD program to publish final disciplinary decisions involving its members). The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposed rule change, as amended, before the thirtieth day after the publication of notice thereof in the **Federal Register** . As noted earlier, prompt disclosure of final disciplinary decisions serves the interest of protecting investors and the general public. 9 Therefore, accelerating approval of the proposed rule change should benefit investors because they will have access to the NYSE Arca Equities disciplinary information sooner. The Public Disclosure Program should foster compliance with NYSE Arca Equities rules, heighten awareness of the public investor with respect to the conduct of business on the Exchange, and, in general, improve the overall integrity of the market center. 9 *See id.* V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca- 2006-02), as amended, is hereby approved on an accelerated basis. 10 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-8716 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10480 and #10479] Maine Disaster #ME-00004 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Maine (FEMA-1644-DR), dated May 25, 2006. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:* May 13, 2006 and continuing. *Effective Date:* May 25, 2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* July 24, 2006. *Economic Injury
(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date:* February 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on May 25, 2006, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): York. Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only): Maine, Cumberland, Oxford New Hampshire, Carroll, Rockingham, and Strafford. The Interest Rates are: Percent *For Physical Damage:* Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere 5.875 Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.937 Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere 7.763 Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit Available Elsewhere 5.000 *For Economic Injury:* Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 104806 and for economic injury is 104790. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-8693 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10482 and #10481] Massachusetts Disaster #MA-00006 AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Masschusetts (FEMA-1642-DR), dated 05/25/2006. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 05/12/2006 and continuing. *Effective Date:* 05/25/2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 07/24/2006. *Economic Injury
(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date:* 02/26/2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 05/25/2006, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. *The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:* Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Essex, Middlesex, Suffolk. Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only): Massachusetts: Norfolk, Worcester. New Hampshire: Hillsborough, Rockingham. *The Interest Rates are:* Percent *For Physical Damage:* Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere 5.875 Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.937 Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere 7.763 Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit Available Elsewhere 5.000 *For Economic Injury:* Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 104826 and for economic injury is 104810. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-8686 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10478 and #10477] New Hampshire Disaster # NH-00002 AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-1643-DR), dated 05/25/2006. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 05/12/2006 and continuing. *Effective Date:* 05/25/2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 07/24/2006. *Economic Injury
(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date:* 02/26/2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 05/25/2006, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):* Belknap, Carroll, Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, Strafford. *Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):* New Hampshire: Cheshire, Coos, Grafton, Sullivan. Massachusetts: Essex, Middlesex, Worcester. Maine: Oxford, York. *The Interest Rates are:* Percent *For Physical Damage:* Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere 5.875 Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.937 Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere 7.763 Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit Available Elsewhere 5.000 *For Economic Injury:* Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 104786 and for economic injury is 104770. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-8685 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Wisconsin District Advisory Council; Public Meeting The U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA)Wisconsin District Advisory Council will be hosting an open meeting on Wednesday, June 21, 2006. The meeting will take place at the U.S. Small Business Administration, Wisconsin District-Milwaukee Office, 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 400, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss and provide an update on disaster loan processing; a report on our recently held lenders conference and small business awards breakfast; new and on-going initiatives. Information will be presented by the staff of the SBA, or others present. Anyone wishing to attend must contact Cindy Merrigan in writing or by fax. Cindy Merrigan, U.S. Small Business Administration, 740 Regent Street, Suite 100, Madison, Wisconsin 53715, telephone
(608)441-5560, fax
(202)481-0815, e-mail: *cindy.merrigan@sba.gov.* Matthew K. Becker, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E6-8689 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION National Advisory Council Public Meeting The U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA)National Advisory Council
(NAC)will hold a public meeting on Friday, June 30, 2006 at 3 p.m. The meeting will take place using an audio/web conference system. To participate, please call our toll free conferencing service at 1-866-740-1260 and enter access code 3711001 at the prompt. The purpose of the meeting is to provide and discuss recent updates pertaining to the delivery of the Agency's programs and services. Information will be presented by the staff of the SBA, members of the council or interested others. Anyone wishing to attend or to make a presentation must contact Balbina Caldwell in writing, phone or e-mail in order to be put on the agenda. Balbina Caldwell, Director, National Advisory Council, SBA Headquarters, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, phone
(202)205-6914, e-mail: *balbina.caldwell@sba.gov.* For more information about the National Advisory Council, see our Web site at *http://www.sba.gov/nac/index.html.* Matthew K. Becker, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E6-8688 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board Public Meeting The U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA)National Small Business Development Center
(SBDC)Advisory Board will be hosting a public annual meeting. The meeting will be held on Monday, June 26, 2006 from 4 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Pacific time. The meeting will take place at the SBA San Diego District Office, 550 West C Street, Suite 550, San Diego, California 92101. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss advisory board matters that may be presented by members, and the staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), with a view towards constructively advancing and improving national and local SBDC program operations. Anyone wishing to attend the National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board Meeting must contact Erika Fischer, Senior Program Analyst, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Small Business Development Centers, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, telephone
(202)205-7045 or fax
(202)481-0681. Matthew K. Becker, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E6-8687 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5434] Determination and Certification Related to Colombian Armed Forces Under Section 556 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2005 (Division D, Pub. L. 108-447) Pursuant to the authority vested in me as Secretary of State, including under section 556 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2005 (Division D, Pub. L. 108-447 “the Act”), I hereby determine and certify that the Colombian Armed Forces are, in accordance with the conditions contained in section 556(a)(3) of the Act, continuing to meet the conditions contained in
(A)through
(E)below and are conducting vigorous operations to restore government authority and respect for human rights in areas under the effective control of paramilitary and guerilla organizations. The above-mentioned conditions are that:
(A)The Commander General of the Colombian Armed Forces is suspending from the Armed Forces those members, of whatever rank who, according to the Minister of Defense or the Procuraduria General de la Nacion, have been credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights, including extra-judicial killings, or to have aided or abetted paramilitary organizations;
(B)the Colombian Government is vigorously investigating and prosecuting those members of the Colombian Armed Forces, of whatever rank, who have been credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights, including extra-judicial killings, or to have aided or abetted paramilitary organizations, and is promptly punishing those members of the Colombian Armed Forces found to have committed such violations of human rights or to have aided or abetted paramilitary organizations;
(C)the Colombian Armed Forces have made substantial progress in cooperating with civilian prosecutors and judicial authorities in such cases (including providing requested information, such as the identity of persons suspended from the Armed Forces and the nature and cause of the suspension, and access to witnesses, relevant military documents, and other requested information);
(D)the Colombian Armed Forces have made substantial progress in severing links (including denying access to military intelligence, vehicles, and other equipment or supplies, and ceasing other forms of active or tacit cooperation) at the command, battalion, and brigade level, with paramilitary organizations, especially in regions where these organizations have a significant presence;
(E)the Colombian Government is dismantling paramilitary leadership and financial networks by arresting commanders and financial backers, especially in regions where these networks have a significant presence. The Department of State has periodically consulted with internationally recognized human rights organizations regarding the Colombian Armed Forces' progress in meeting the abovementioned conditions, as provided in section 556(c) of the Act. This Determination shall be published in the **Federal Register** and copies shall be transmitted to the appropriate committees of Congress. Dated: May 26, 2006. Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State. [FR Doc. E6-8728 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-29-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5424] Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation Notice of Meeting *Summary:* The Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation will meet in the Department of State, Annex 1, 2401 E Street, NW., Washington, DC, June 19-20, 2006, in Conference Room 316. Prior notification and a valid government-issued photo ID (such as driver's license, passport, U.S. government or military ID) are required for entrance into the building. Members of the public planning to attend must notify Chris Tudda, Office of the Historian (202-663-3054) no later than June 12, 2006 to provide date of birth, valid government-issued photo ID (such as driver's license, passport, U.S. government ID number/agency or military ID number/branch), and relevant telephone numbers. If you cannot provide one of the enumerated forms of ID, please consult Chris Tudda for acceptable alternative forms of picture identification. The Committee will meet in open session from 1:30 p.m. through 3 p.m. on Monday, March 6, 2006, in Room 1105 to discuss declassification and transfer of Department of State records to the National Archives and Records Administration and the status of the *Foreign Relations* series. The remainder of the Committee's sessions from 3:15 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. on Monday, June 19, 2006, and 9 a.m. until 1 p.m. on Tuesday, June 20, 2006, will be closed in accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). The agenda calls for discussions of agency declassification decisions concerning the *Foreign Relations* series and other declassification issues. These are matters not subject to public disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and the public interest requires that such activities be withheld from disclosure. Questions concerning the meeting should be directed to Marc J. Susser, Executive Secretary, Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation, Department of State, Office of the Historian, Washington, DC 20520, telephone
(202)663-1123, (e-mail *history@state.gov* ). Dated: May 24, 2006. Marc Susser, Executive Secretary, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-8729 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-11-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5406] Overseas Security Advisory Council
(OSAC)Meeting Notice Closed Meeting The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. State Department—Overseas Security Advisory Council on June 28, 2006 at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC. Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 5 U.S.C. 552b[c][4], it has been determined that the meeting will be closed to the public. The meeting will focus on an examination of corporate security policies and procedures and will involve extensive discussion of proprietary commercial and financial information that is considered privileged and confidential. The agenda will include updated committee reports, a global threat overview, and other matters relating to private sector security policies and protective programs and the protection of U.S. business information overseas. *For More Information Contact:* Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security Advisory Council, Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-2008, phone: 571-345-2214. Dated: May 24, 2006. Joe D. Morton, Director of the Diplomatic Security Service, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-8730 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-43-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Petition for Waiver of Compliance In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA)received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief. City of Placentia, California [Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2006-24654] The City of Placentia, California
(City)has petitioned for temporary waiver of the deadline of June 24, 2006, provided for in 49 CFR 222.42 for continuation of an intermediate partial quiet zone. The City states that it is working with the BNSF Railway Company to establish a 24-hour quiet zone, that certain improvements have already been made to the benefit of safety, and that all necessary improvements will be completed by September 22, 2006. The City seeks to retain the current nighttime quiet zone in order to avoid disruption and confusion during the period permanent arrangements are being completed and states that safety will not be compromised. Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. Each comment shall set forth specifically the basis upon which it is made, and contain a concise statement of the interest of the commenter in the proceeding. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA within 15 days of the date of publication of this notice, in writing, and specify the basis for their request. All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the docket number set forth above and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Communications received within 30 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. FRA reserves the right to grant temporary relief to avoid lapse of the existing partial quiet zone while the comment period is open, after consideration of any comments filed prior to the initial date of decision. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site: *http://dms.dot.gov* . Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78). The Statement may also be found at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Issued in Washington, DC on May 26, 2006. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development. [FR Doc. E6-8733 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Petition for Waiver of Compliance In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA)received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief. Gettysburg & Northern Railroad Company [Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2005-23489] The Gettysburg & Northern Railroad Company
(GNRR)seeks a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Safety Glazing Standards, 49 CFR 223.11, that requires certified glazing for one locomotive. The GNRR is located in Peoria, IL, and operates over 25.5 miles of track at a speed not exceeding 15 miles per hour. The terrain is mostly rural with light residential and commercial surroundings. This locomotive is used primarily in passenger service during the summer excursion season. During the off season, this locomotive is stored inside a diesel shop. Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request. All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number ( *e.g.* , Waiver Petition Docket Number 2005-23489) and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78). The Statement may also be found at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Issued in Washington, DC on May 26, 2006. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development. [FR Doc. E6-8738 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Petition for Waiver of Compliance In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA)has received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief. Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum [Docket Number FRA-2006-24647] The Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum
(HVRM)seeks a permanent waiver of compliance from *Control of Alcohol and Drug Use* , 49 CFR Part 219 Subparts D through J, which require a railroad to conduct reasonable suspicion alcohol and/or drug testing, pre-employment drug testing, random alcohol and drug testing, and to have voluntary referral and co-worker report policies, and which also specify drug and alcohol testing procedures and record-keeping requirements. HVRM has less than 16 hours of service employees, and while it is not currently part of the general railroad system of transportation, it will begin operation of tourist trains on five to ten miles of the 33 miles of track owned by the Incorporated Town of North Judson, Indiana between North Judson and LaCrosse, IN. The Chesapeake & Indiana Railroad
(CKIN)conducts freight operations on 23 miles of this 33-mile rail line; however, the only common track use would be a wye track in LaCrosse. HVRM's tourist train operations would normally be conducted on weekends and would not operate at the same time as the CKIN freight trains. Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request. All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number ( *e.g.* , Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2006-24647) and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at *http://dms.dot.gov* . FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Issued in Washington, DC on May 26, 2006. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standard and Program Development. [FR Doc. E6-8737 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Petition for Waiver of Compliance In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA)received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation [Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2006-24562] The Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra), further identified herein as the railroad, seeks approval for a waiver of compliance with the requirements of the *Passenger Equipment Safety Standards* contained in 49 CFR 238.309(b)(3), *Periodic brake equipment maintenance* , which requires that brake equipment receive periodic maintenance at 736 days. Metra requests an extension of the time period to 1840 days for 26 new bi-level electric passenger MU's. The twenty-six new electric MU locomotives for which the relief is being requested are being built by Sumitomo Corporation of America/Nippon Sharyo and the air brake system is provided by Knorr Brake Corporation in Westminster, Maryland. The railroad explains that the brake application is transmitted electronically to each MU's Friction Brake Control Unit (FBCU). The FBCU then provides the requested brake application without drawing down brake pipe pressure. An Emergency Magnetic Valve
(EMV)is provided on each MU for an electronic emergency brake application. Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. Each comment shall set forth specifically the basis upon which it is made, and contain a concise statement of the interest of the commenter in the proceeding. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request. All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (FRA-2006-24562) and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Communications received within 30 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site: *http://dms.dot.gov* . Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78). The Statement may also be found at ­ *http://dms.dot.gov* . Issued in Washington, DC on May 26, 2006. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development. [FR Doc. E6-8735 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or Modification of a Railroad Signal System or Relief From the Requirements of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 236 Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)Part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA)seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 236 as detailed below. [Docket Number FRA-2006-24706] *Applicant:* MTA Long Island Rail Road, Mr. Brian J. Finn, Chief Engineer, Jamaica Station, Jamaica, New York 11435-4380. The Long Island Rail Road Company
(LIRR)seeks relief from the requirements of the Rules, Standard and Instructions, Title 49 CFR, Part 236, § 236.51, Track circuit requirements, to the extent that the LIRR be permitted to utilize single rail track circuits which do not provide for broken rail protection, in the vicinity of a new LIRR terminal called Vanderbilt Yard (VD Yard). The LIRR is working to rebuild the existing VD Yard and replace it with a modern interlocked yard. The location of the project is in Brooklyn, New York, on the LIRR's Atlantic Branch line, between existing Brook 1 and 2 Interlockings. Applicant's Justification for Relief
(1)The track speed for these circuits will be restricted to 5 mph.
(2)The signal aspect proposed for the affected tracks will be “Restricting.”
(3)The existing Brook 1 Interlocking at Flatbush Avenue contains existing single rail track circuits, permitted by the granting of a previous waiver application.
(4)Passenger service will not be provided on the yard tracks except for an emergency detour route that will allow a passenger train to bypass the main tracks if both main tracks are blocked. Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an application shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which the protest is made, and contain a concise statement of the interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed above. All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by the docket number and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by the FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the internet at the docket facility's Web site at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statements, an application may be set for public hearing. Issued in Washington, DC on May 26, 2006. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development. [FR Doc. E6-8736 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [Docket No. PHMSA-03-15852] RIN 2137-AD96 Request for Public Comments and Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Approval of a New Information Collection as Required by the Final Rule Titled “Pipeline Safety: Public Awareness Programs for Hazardous Liquid and Gas Pipeline Operators.” AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). SUMMARY: This notice requests public participation in the OMB approval process for a new PHMSA information collection related to a final rule requiring pipeline operators to establish public awareness programs. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request
(ICR)described below has been forwarded to OMB for an approval of a new collection. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and the expected burden. PHMSA received no comments in response to a request for comment on the information collection during the rulemaking. The final rule was published on May 19, 2005. The purpose of this notice is to allow the public an additional 30 days from the date of this notice to submit comments in the information collection. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaine Keener by phone at
(202)366-0970, or by e-mail at *blaine.keener@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA invites comments on whether the collection of information related to the final rule requiring pipeline operators to establish public awareness programs is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and 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. PHMSA solicited comments on this information collection request as part of the rulemaking but received no comments. PHMSA published a Final Rule on May 19, 2005 (70 FR 28833). As used in this notice, “information collection” includes all work related to preparing and disseminating information related to this recordkeeping requirement including completing paperwork, gathering information and conducting telephone calls. *Type of Information Collection Request:* New Collection. *Title of Information Collection:* Public Awareness Program. *Respondents:* 22,500 Hazardous liquid and natural gas pipeline operators. *Estimated Total Burden on Respondents:* 517,480 hours. Issued in Washington, DC on May 31, 2006. Florence L. Hamn, Director of Regulations, Office of Pipeline Safety. [FR Doc. E6-8696 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE Announcement of the 2006 Solicited Initiative Effective October 1, 2006 AGENCY: United States Institute of Peace. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agency Announces changes to its Upcoming Spring 2006 Solicited Grant Competition. The Solicited Initiative will focus on six countries as they relate to USIP's mandate and starting October 1, 2006, applications will be accepted throughout the year. The Solicited initiative is restricted to projects that fit specific themes or topics identified in advance by the Institute of Peace. The 2006 Solicited Initiative will focus on the six countries outlined below. The specific themes and topics for each country may be found at our Web site at: *http://www.usip.org/grants/solicited.html.* • Colombia • Iran • Iraq • Nigeria • Pakistan • Sudan *Deadline:* Starting October 1, 2006, USIP will accept solicited initiative applications throughout the year. Please visit our Web site at: *http://www.usip.org/grants/solicited.html* for specific information on the competition as well as instructions about how to apply. ADDRESSES: If you are unable to access our Web site, you may submit an inquiry to: United States Institute of Peace, Grant Program, Solicited Initiative, 1200 17th Street, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036-3011.
(202)429-3842 (phone).
(202)833-1018 (fax).
(202)457-1719 (TTY). E-mail: *grants@usip.org.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Grant Program. Phone
(202)429-3842. E-mail: *grants@usip.org.* Dated: June 1, 2006. Michael Graham, Vice President for Administration. [FR Doc. 06-5129 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 18
Traces to 18 documents
CFR
12 references not yet in our index
  • 10 CFR 2
  • 10 CFR 50
  • 5 CFR 6.6
  • 3 CFR 1954
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • Pub. L. 108-447
  • Pub. L. 92-463
  • 49 CFR 222.42
  • 49 CFR 223.11
  • 49 CFR 219
  • 49 CFR 238.309(b)(3)
  • 49 CFR 236
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
C.F.R.§ 50.92
C.F.R.§ 2.309
C.F.R.§ 50.91
C.F.R.§ 50.65
C.F.R.§ 50.46
C.F.R.§ 51.22
C.F.R.§ 51.12
C.F.R.§ 50.48
C.F.R.§ 50.90
Cite10 CFR 2
Cite10 CFR 50
Cite5 CFR 6.6
Cites 30 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.