Notices. Notice of application for an order under Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) granting exemptions from the provisions of Sections 2(a)(32), and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder
28,706 words·~130 min read·
/register/2006/06/20/06-5592A 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 25, 2006 to June 8, 2006. The last biweekly notice was published on June 6, 2006 (71 FR 32603). 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.* Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County, Mississippi *Date of amendment request:* May 8, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed change will add an NRC-approved topical report to the analytical methods referenced in Technical Specification
(TS)Section 5.6.5, “Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).” *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. Core operating limits are established each operating cycle in accordance with TS 3.2, “Power Distribution” and TS 5.6.5, “Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)”. These core operating limits ensure that the fuel design limits are not exceeded during any conditions of normal operation or in the event of any Anticipated Operational Occurrence (AOO). In addition, the Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (APLHGR) operating limits imposed by Technical Specification 3.2.1 also ensure that the Peak Cladding Temperature
(PCT)during the postulated design[-]basis LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] does not exceed the 2200 °F limit specified in 10 CFR 50.46. The APLHGR is a measure of the average linear heat generation rate of all the fuel rods in a fuel assembly at any axial location. The methods used to determine the operating limits are those previously found acceptable by the NRC and listed in TS Section 5.6.5.b. A change to TS Section 5.6.5.b is requested to include an updated LOCA analysis method, EXEM BWR-2000. The updated method will be used to determine the APLHGR operating limits imposed by Technical Specification 3.2.1. EXEM BWR-2000 has been reviewed and approved by the NRC and is applicable to the GGNS [Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1] plant design and the FRA-ANP [Framatome-Advance Nuclear Power] fuel being used at GGNS. The application of the LOCA analytical model will continue to ensure that the APLHGR operating limits are established to protect the fuel cladding integrity during normal operation, AOOs, and the design-basis LOCA. The requested TS changes concern the use of analytical methods and do not involve any plant modifications or operational changes that could affect any postulated accident precursors or accident mitigation systems and do not introduce any new accident initiation mechanisms. Therefore, the proposed 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 TS amendment will not change the design function, reliability, performance, or operation of any plant systems, components, or structures. It does not create the possibility of a new failure mechanism, malfunction, or accident initiators not considered in the design and licensing bases. Plant operation will continue to be within the core operating limits that are established using NRC[-]approved methods that are applicable to the GGNS design and the GGNS fuel. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The ECCS [emergency core cooling system] performance analysis methods are used to establish the APLHGR limits required by Technical Specification 3.2.1. The APLHGR limits are specified in the COLR and are the result of fuel design, design[-]basis accident (DBA), and transient analyses. Limits on the APLHGR are specified to ensure that the fuel design limits are not exceeded during anticipated operational occurrences
(AOOs)and that the peak cladding temperature
(PCT)during the postulated design[-]basis LOCA does not exceed the 2200 °F limit specified in 10 CFR 50.46. The EXEM BWR-2000 evaluation model is an updated LOCA analytical method that has been approved by the NRC and is applicable to the GGNS plant design and the fuel being used at GGNS. A GGNS plant[-]specific ECCS performance analysis has been performed with the EXEM BWR-2000 evaluation model. This evaluation concluded that the resulting PCT still afforded adequate margin to the 2200 °F limit of 10 CFR 50.46. Therefore, the proposed 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 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire, Winston and Strawn LLP, 1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006 *NRC Branch Chief:* David Terao. 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 amendment request:* May 24, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* This amendment revises TS 1.0, Definitions, TS 3/4.4.5, Steam Generator Tube Integrity, TS 3/4.4.6.2, Reactor Coolant System
(RCS)Operational LEAKAGE, adds a new specification TS 6.8.4.k for Steam Generator Program and adds a new TS 6.9.1.12, Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report. The proposed changes are necessary in order to implement the guidance for the industry initiative on NEI 97-06, “Steam Generator Program Guidelines.” 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 March 2, 2005, (70 FR 10298). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its application dated May 24, 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: 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 a 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. A SGTR 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, 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 1-131 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 1-131 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 150 gallons per day in any one SG, and that the reactor coolant activity levels of DOSE EQUIVALENT 1-131 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 type of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the 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. Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not involve a significant hazards consideration. 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:* J. Hagood Hamilton, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina 29218. *NRC Section Chief:* Evangelos C. Marinos. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee *Date of amendment request:* May 1, 2006 (TS-05-10). *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would extend the burnup limit of the Mark-BW fuel design with advanced alloy material referred to as M5 alloy. This proposed change affects Section 6.9.1.14.a of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Technical Specifications (TSs). The impact to Section 6.9.1.14.a includes adding an NRC-approved topical report
(TR)associated with M5 alloy fuel assemblies. This TR will be utilized, among others, in the determination of core operating limits for each fuel cycle. In addition, the proposed amendment includes the adoption of Industry/Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Traveler, TSTF-363, Revision 0, “Revised Topical Report References in Improved Technical Specification
(ITS)5.6.5, Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),” which removes any references to dates, revision numbers, and supplements in the TS listing of TRs. *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. In general, fuel assemblies and more specifically fuel rod cladding, of any burnup level, is not a precursor to accidents previously evaluated. An evaluation has been performed of the Mark-BW design fuel assembly for all loss-of-coolant accidents
(LOCA)and non-LOCA transient events. This evaluation confirmed and justified the use of Mark-BW fuel for operation in Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
(SQN)Units 1 and 2. The ability of the M5 fuel rod cladding material to provide a barrier against the release of radioactive fuel material has not been reduced with respect to the Zircaloy-4 material. The approved TR evaluated postulated accidents that involved adverse core conditions and the release of radionuclides, and found that higher burnup limits have very little impact on the overall radiological consequences. Radiological consequences, as well as other safety limits, are evaluated on a cycle-to-cycle basis to confirm that the analyses of record remain bounding. If a proposed extended burnup core design exceeds bounding safety analysis values, then either the core design would be changed, or the safety values would be changed. Rod cladding failures are assumed to occur in the fuel handling accident; however, the consequences of this event are independent of the properties of the fuel rod cladding. This is based on the fuel handling event assuming the rupture of all fuel rods regardless of the rod cladding material. No change is proposed to the established safety analysis fuel assembly inputs, specifically fuel assemblies are still limited to a maximum 1500 effective full power day
(EFPD)burnup and the reactor core average maximum burnup will remain at 1000 EFPD burnup ensuring the present accident analyses remain bounding. Based on above discussion, the proposed revision to extend the burnup limit of M5 fuel rod cladding material will not significantly increase the consequences of an accident and the potential for the release of radioactive material to the environment. Removing revision numbers, dates, and parenthetical information from the listed TRs has no impact on the actual analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits, nor does the change have impact on the calculations performed for the current or future reloads. This change is administrative in nature. This change has no impact on plant equipment operation nor does it affect the likelihood or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed 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. Mark-BW fuel design with M5 alloy has been demonstrated to have similar characteristics to that of the Mark-B fuel design. Extended burnup of the M5 material has not been shown to alter the functions of the rod cladding, which is to provide a barrier against the release of radioactive material. Initial plant conditions, which are considered in the accident analysis, will also be maintained such that no new plant conditions will exist that could affect the analysis results. Since plant functions and conditions are not impacted by the proposed revision and the higher burnup limit of the Mark-BW fuel design with M5 alloy material is not postulated to become an accident initiator based on the similarity with Mark-B fuel design and Zircaloy-4 material, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident is not created. The proposed changes will not alter the plant configuration or require any new or unusual operator actions. They do not alter the way any structure, system, or component functions and do not alter the manner in which the plant is operated. These changes do not introduce any new failure modes. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The margin of safety is established by the acceptance criteria used by NRC. Meeting the acceptance criteria assures that the consequences of accidents are within known and acceptable limits. The emergency core cooling system
(ECCS)acceptance criteria are not exceeded. Testing has been performed on M5 alloy with respect to criteria for peak cladding temperature
(PCT)and maximum cladding oxidation. These tests demonstrate that M5 alloy rod cladding remains within PCT of 2200 degrees Fahrenheit and conservatively bounded by the 17 percent limit for maximum cladding oxidation. M5 alloy oxidation rates are lower than that of Zircaloy at temperatures less than 2200 degrees Fahrenheit and have similar rates for temperatures up to about 2300 degrees Fahrenheit. High-temperature oxidation rates of M5 alloy remain equivalent to Zircaloy and, as such, respond as hydrogen generators to the same extent. Core geometry for amenable cooling is not directly related to rod cladding material; however, it applies equally well to all materials. The consequences of both thermal and mechanical deformation of fuel assemblies have been assessed, and the resultant deformations have been shown to maintain coolable core configurations. The ECCS is evaluated against the thermal power immediately after shutdown. The thermal power is largely a function of short-lived fission products which tend to saturate at relatively low burnup limits and are not appreciably affected by extended burnup. Therefore, with no system changes being proposed; long-term cooling is maintained. Additionally, the fuel storage cooling system is capable of supporting the long-term storage of the extended burnup fuel assemblies' decay heat. The changes to burnup limit have been evaluated against Departure from Nucleate Boiling
(DNB)events and all applicable acceptance criteria are met. In addition, the proposed revision to allow an increase in the burnup limit of the Mark-BW fuel design with M5 alloy will not impact plant setpoints that maintain the margin of safety. Based on these results, it is concluded that the margin of safety is not significantly reduced. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Removing revision numbers, dates, and parenthetical information from the listed TRs will not reduce a margin of safety because this information has no effect on any safety analysis assumption nor does it revise any setpoints assumed in the analysis of record. The proposed change is consistent with NUREG-1431, issued by the NRC staff, revising the TSs to reflect the approved level of detail, which indicates that there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. *NRC Branch Chief:* Michael L. Marshall, Jr. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee *Date of amendment request:* May 25, 2006 (TSC 06-02). *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise Section 6.2.1.6 of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
(SQN)Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). This change would revise the methodology used for containment sump debris transport analysis and affects SQN's current design and licensing basis described in Section 6.2.1.6 of the SQN UFSAR. *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 design function of the sump during accident conditions is to support emergency core cooling systems
(ECCS)and containment spray system operation for recirculation. The sump is a passive feature that does not act as an accident initiator, (i.e., failure of the sump would not initiate a design basis accident). The proposed change to the UFSAR regarding debris transport analysis provides an overall improvement in the analysis for recirculation operation and does not change the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The change in methodology is neutral with regard to probability. Consequently, the changes associated with the enclosed license amendment do not affect the frequency of occurrence for accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR. Accident dose as previously evaluated in the UFSAR is unaffected by the proposed license amendment. Based on the above discussion, the proposed 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 sump is a passive component and is not an accident initiator; i.e., failure of the sump will not initiate a design basis accident. The sump transport methodology is used to confirm the ability of the sump to perform all safety functions during normal and accident conditions. Consequently, this activity does not create a possibility of a new or different type of accident than any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The changes addressed in TVA's proposed amendment are associated with methodology for debris transport to the containment sump. The change does not affect specific safety limits, design limits, set points, or other critical parameters. The transport methodology is used to confirm that the ECCS and containment spray systems will perform their safety functions for all accident conditions within existing equipment performance capability margins. Therefore, the proposed 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 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. *NRC Branch Chief:* Michael L. Marshall, Jr. Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County, Missouri *Date of amendment request:* May 9, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specifications
(TSs)1.1, “Definitions,” and 3.4.16, “RCS [reactor coolant system] Specific Activity.” The revisions would replace the current Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO)3.4.16 limit on RCS gross specific activity with limits on RCS Dose Equivalent I-131 and Dose Equivalent Xe-133 (DEX). The conditions and required actions for LCO 3.4.16 not being met, and surveillance requirements for LCO 3.4.16, are being revised. The modes of applicability for LCO 3.4.16 would be extended. The current definition of Ē—Average Disintegration Energy in TS 1.1 would be replaced by the definition of DEX. In addition, the current definition of Dose Equivalent I-131 in TS 1.1 would be revised to allow alternate, NRC-approved thyroid dose conversion factors. *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 change[s] involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes would add new thyroid dose conversion factor reference[s] to the definition of DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131, eliminate the definition of Ē—AVERAGE DISINTEGRATION ENERGY, add a new definition of DOSE EQUIVALENT XE-133, replace the Technical Specification
(TS)3.4.16 limit on reactor coolant system
(RCS)gross specific activity with a limit on noble gas specific activity in the form of a Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO)on DOSE EQUIVALENT XE-133, increase the Completion Time for Required Action B.1, replace TS Figure 3.4.16-1 with a maximum limit on DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131, extend the Applicability of LCO 3.4.16, and make corresponding changes to TS 3.4.16 to reflect all of the above. The proposed changes are not accident initiators and have no impact on the probability of occurrence of any design basis accidents. The proposed changes will have no impact on the consequences of a design basis accident because they will limit the RCS noble gas specific activity to be consistent with the values assumed in the radiological consequence analyses. The changes will also limit the potential RCS [radio]iodine concentration excursion to the value currently associated with full power operation, which is more restrictive on plant operation than the existing allowable RCS [radio]iodine specific activity at lower power levels. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. [Do] the proposed change[s] create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes do not alter any physical part of the plant nor do they affect any plant operating parameters besides the allowable specific activity in the RCS. The changes which impact the allowable specific activity in the RCS are consistent with the assumptions assumed in the current radiological consequence analyses. [The proposed changes are also not accident initiators.] Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The acceptance criteria related to the proposed changes involve the allowable control room and offsite radiological consequences following a design basis accident. The proposed changes will have no impact on the radiological consequences of a design basis accident because they will limit the RCS noble gas specific activity to be consistent with the values assumed in the radiological consequence analyses. The changes will also limit the potential RCS [radio]iodine specific activity excursion to the value currently associated with full power operation, which is more restrictive on plant operation than the existing allowable RCS [radio]iodine specific activity at lower power levels. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* John O'Neill, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. *NRC Branch Chief:* David Terao. Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County, Missouri *Date of amendment request:* May 11, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise Surveillance Requirements 3.7.2.1, 3.7.3.1, and 3.7.3.3 on verifying the closure time of the main steam isolation valves (MSIVs), main feedwater regulating valves (MFRVs), main feedwater regulating valve bypass valves (MFRVBVs), and main feedwater isolation valves (MFIVs) in the Technical Specifications (TSs). These valves are the Main Steam and Main Feedwater System isolation valves. The revisions would replace
(1)the specified maximum acceptable valve closure time for the MSIVs, MFRVs, and MFRVBVs, and
(2)TS Figure 3.7.3-1, which shows acceptable valve closure times for the MFIVs, by the reference to the valve closure time, is verified to be “within limits.” The maximum acceptable valve closure times for the MFRVs and MFRVBVs, and TS Figure 3.7.3-1 will be relocated to the TS Bases. The maximum acceptable valve closure time for the MSIV is already in the TS Bases. *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. Because the proposed change[s remove] specific isolation times from the TS and [relocate] the specific values to the TS Bases, there are no design or physical changes to the facility or to the Main Steam and Main Feedwater System isolation valves themselves. The design and functional performance requirements, operational characteristics, and reliability of these components remain unchanged. There is[,] therefore[,] no impact on the design safety function of the valves to close (as an accident mitigator), nor is there any change with respect to inadvertent closure (as a potential transient initiator). Since no failure mode or initiating condition that could cause an accident (including any plant transient) evaluated per the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report]-described safety analyses is created or affected, the change cannot involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The probability of an accident is not affected. The Main Steam and Main Feedwater System isolation valves are assumed to function to mitigate some accidents (for example, SLB [steam line break] and FWLB [main feedwater line break]). The proposed change[s] only [affect] the level of detail included in the TS. The TS requirements continue to provide the same level of assurance as before that the Main Steam and Main Feedwater System isolation valves are capable of performing their intended safety function. These isolation valves will continue to be verified operable in the same manner as before. As such, the proposed change[s do] not affect the ability of the isolation valves to perform their assumed mitigation function. 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[s] only [affect] the level of detail included in the TS. The TS requirements [are not being changed and they will] continue to provide the same level of assurance as before that the Main Steam and Main Feedwater System isolation valves are capable of performing their intended safety function. The Main Steam and Main Feedwater System isolation valves will continue to be verified operable in the same manner. As such, the proposed change[s do] not involve a modification to the physical configuration of the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change[s] will not impose any new or different requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism. Additionally, there is no change in the types or increases in the amounts of any effluent that may be released off-site and there is no increase in individual or cumulative occupational exposure. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change[s do] not reduce the margin of safety. The proposed change[s] only [affect] the level of detail included in the TS. The TS requirements [are not being changed and will] continue to provide the same level of assurance as before that the Main Steam and Main Feedwater System isolation valves will continue to be verified operable in the same manner as before. As such, the proposed change[s do] not affect the assumptions of any accident analysis or the availability or operability of any plant equipment. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* John O'Neill, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. *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. Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia *Date of amendment request:* February 14, 2006. *Brief description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments would add a requirement to the Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* , (10 CFR) part 50 license to restrict the minimum cooling time and burnup of spent fuel assemblies that will be placed into storage in the NUHOMS HD spent fuel dry storage system at Surry starting in the summer of 2006. *Date of publication of individual notice in* Federal Register: May 16, 2006 (71 FR 28390). *Expiration date of individual notice:* 30 day expiration date, June 15, 2006, and 60 day expiration date, July 17, 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* . AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois *Date of application for amendment:* April 26, 2004, as supplemented April 18 and October 11, 2005, and May 19, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised Technical Specification 3.8.7, “Inverters—Operating” to change the completion time for restoration of an inoperable Division 1 or 2 inverter from the current 24 hours to 7 days. *Date of issuance:* May 26, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 174. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-62:* The amendment revised the Technical Specifications and License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: June 8, 2004 (69 FR 32072). The supplements dated April 18 and October 11, 2005, and May 19, 2006, provided additional information that clarified the application, but did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 26, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona *Date of application for amendments:* June 3, 2005, as supplemented by letter dated March 7, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to incorporate the description of the approved changes associated with the plant modifications made to the diesel generator cooling water system for each emergency diesel generator as described in the amendment application of June 3, 2005, as supplemented by letter dated March 7, 2006. *Date of issuance:* May 25, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 1-160, Unit 2—160, Unit 3 -160. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74:* The amendments revise the Operating Licenses and the UFSAR for all three units. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: July 5, 2005 (70 FR 38715). The March 7, 2006, supplemental letter provided additional clarifying information, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 25, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina *Date of application of amendments:* August 20, 2004, supplemented January 31, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised Technical Specification
(TS)3.3.8, “Post Accident Monitoring
(PAM)Instrumentation,” to eliminate TS requirements associated with the reactor building spray flow instruments commensurate with the importance of their post-accident function. *Date of Issuance:* June 1, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 350/352/351. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:* Amendments revised the Licenses and the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: September 28, 2004 (69 FR 57983). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 1, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Pope County, Arkansas *Date of amendment request:* September 19, 2005. *Brief description of amendment:* The proposed changes would revise Technical Specification
(TS)3.1.1.5, “Minimum Temperature for Criticality.” The request proposes to change the current Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO)for TS 3.1.1.5 by raising the minimum temperature for criticality from the current value of ≥ 525 °F to ≥ 540 °F; to change the current Action statement for LCO 3.1.1.5 to reflect this change; and to delete the current statement in Surveillance Requirement 4.1.1.5 and replace the statement with wording consistent with NUREG-1432, “Standard Technical Specifications Combustion Engineering Plants.” Also, changes will be made to the ANO-2 TS Bases in accordance with the Technical Specifications
(TS)Bases Control Program (ANO-2 TS 6.5.14). *Date of issuance:* May 30, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 264. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6:* The amendment revised the Technical Specifications and Surveillance Requirements. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: December 6, 2005, (70 FR 72672). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 30, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida *Date of application for amendments:* January 20, 2005, as supplemented July 5, 2005. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised several Technical Specifications
(TSs)using six TS Task Force
(TSTF)generic changes. The six TSTFs (nos. 5, 93, 258, 299, 308, and 361) delete redundant safety limit violation notification requirements; extend the pressurizer heater surveillance frequency from 92 days to 18 months; remove redundant requirements and add other requirements to the Administrative Controls section of the TSs; clarify the requirements regarding the frequency of testing for cumulative and projected dose contributions from radioactive effluents; and add a note to the residual heat removal requirements during Mode 6 low water level operations that allows one required residual heat removal
(RHR)loop to be inoperable for up to 2 hours for surveillance testing provided the other RHR loop is operable and in operation. The amendments represent partial approval of the January 20, 2005, application for the proposed amendments. The Commission has granted the request of Florida Power and Light Company (the licensee) to withdraw portions of its January 20, 2005, application for the proposed amendment. The application also included TSTF-95, which would extend the completion time for reducing the Power Range High trip setpoint from 8 to 72 hours and TSTF-101, which would change the auxiliary feedwater pump test frequency to be consistent with the inservice test program frequency. However, by letter dated March 22, 2005, the licensee withdrew the request to adopt TSTF-95 and by letter dated October 13, 2005, the licensee withdrew the request to adopt TSTF-101. *Date of issuance:* May 26, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos:* 229 and 225. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41:* Amendments revised the TSs. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: March 15, 2005 (70 FR 12747). The supplement dated July 5, 2005, 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 as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 26, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Nuclear Management Company, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota *Date of application for amendment:* June 29, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated April 25 (two letters), May 4, and May 12, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment converts the current Technical Specifications
(CTSs)to the Improved Technical Specifications
(ITSs)format and relocates certain requirements to other licensee-controlled documents. The ITSs are based on NUREG-1433, “Standard Technical Specifications General Electric Plants BWR/4,” Revision 3, dated June 2004; the Commission's Final Policy Statement, “NRC Final Policy Statement on Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,” dated July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132); and 10 CFR 50.36, “Technical specifications.” The purpose of the conversion is to provide clearer and more readily understandable requirements in the TSs for MNGP to ensure safer operation of the unit. In addition, the amendment includes a number of issues that are considered beyond the scope of NUREG-1433. *Date of issuance:* June 5, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented by September 30, 2006. *Amendment No:* 146. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-22: * Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: November 16, 2005 (70 FR 70889). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 5, 2006. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. *Amendment No:* 146. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-22:* Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: November 16, 2005 (70 FR 70889). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 5, 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:* October 19, 2005, as supplemented by letter dated December 23, 2005. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments updated the Technical Specification (TS)5.3, “Unit Staff Qualifications,” operator minimum qualification requirements contained in the March 28, 1980, NRC letter to all licensees with the more recent NRC-approved operator qualification requirements contained in American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS) 3.1-1993. In addition, the changes removed the TS 5.3.1 plant staff retraining and replacement training program requirements, which have been superseded by requirements contained in 10 CFR 50.120. *Date of issuance:* May 26, 2006. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 1—187 ; Unit 2—189. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: December 20, 2005 (70 FR 75495). The December 23, 2005, supplemental letter provided additional information that clarified the application, and did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 26, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket No. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 and 2), Luzerne County, Pennsylvania *Date of application for amendments:* February 28, 2006, as supplemented on April 7, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revise the SSES 1 and 2 Technical Specification
(TS)Surveillance Requirements 3.8.4.7 and 3.8.4.8 to clarify that Diesel Generator “E” (DG E) electrical power subsystem testing does not require a mode restriction when the DG E diesel is not aligned to the Class 1E distribution system. *Date of issuance:* May 30, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and to be implemented within 30 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 235 and 212. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22:* The amendments revised the TSs and license. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: March 28, 2006 (71 FR 15485). The supplement dated 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 amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 30, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50 311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey *Date of application for amendments:* February 10, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated July 14, 2005, and October 20, 2005. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments modified Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 4.5.3.2 b to allow safety injection and charging pumps to run in a recirculation flow path, provided that two independent means are used to prevent injection into the reactor coolant system. *Date of issuance:* May 31, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented in 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 273 and 254. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: April 12, 2005 (70 FR 19116). The supplements dated July 14, 2005 and October 20, 2005 provided clarifying information only and did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey *Date of application for amendments:* August 31, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated December 8, 2005, and April 10, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments changed the Technical Specifications
(TSs)to move the requirements for the containment area high-range radiation monitors from TS 3/4.3.3.1, “Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation,” to TS 3/4.3.3.7, “Accident Monitoring Instrumentation,” and correct a typographical error in Surveillance Requirement 4.2.2. *Date of issuance:* May 25, 2006. *Effective date:* May 25, 2006. *Amendment Nos.:* 272 and 253. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75:* The amendments revised the TSs. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: January 17, 2006 (71 FR 2594). The April 10, 2006 supplement did not expand the scope of the application, as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 25, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York *Date of application for amendment:* April 29, 2005, as supplemented on August 15 and December 9, 2005, and January 11 and 25, and May 9, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises Technical Specification
(TS)3.5.1, “Accumulators,” and TS 3.5.4, “Refueling Water Storage Tank,” to reflect the results of revised analyses performed to accommodate the proposed extended power uprate and revises TS 5.6.4, “Core Operating Limits Report,” to permit the use of approved methodology for large-break and small-break loss-of-coolant accident analyses. *Date of issuance:* May 31, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance to be implemented prior to restart from the fall 2006 refueling outage. *Amendment No.:* 96. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18:* Amendment revised the Technical Specifications and the license. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: June 7, 2005 (70 FR 33219). The August 15 and December 9, 2005, and January 11 and 25, and May 9, 2006, letters 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 as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia *Date of application for amendments:* March 17, 2006, as supplemented on April 14, 2006. The supplemental letter dated April 14, 2006, provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the March 17, 2006, application nor the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments authorized the licensee to credit administering potassium iodide
(KI)to reduce the 30-day post-accident thyroid dose to the occupants of the main control room for an interim period of 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 issuance:* May 25, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 249 and 193. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5:* Amendments revised the Operating Licenses. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: March 27, 2006 (71 FR 15223). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 25, 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:* July 21, 2005. *Brief Description of amendments:* These amendments revised the Technical Specifications
(TSs)to change the accident monitoring instrumentation listing, allowed outage times, requirements, and surveillances to be consistent with the requirements of the Improved TSs for post-accident monitoring instrumentation. *Date of issuance:* May 31, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 247/246. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:* Amendments change the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: January 3, 2006 (71 FR 155). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this June 12, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-9434 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Rel. No. IC-27393; File No. 812-13263] ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company, et al.; Notice of Application June 13, 2006. AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”). ACTION: Notice of application for an order under Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) granting exemptions from the provisions of Sections 2(a)(32), and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder. Applicants: ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company (“ING USA”), Separate Account B of ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company (“Account B”), ReliaStar Life Insurance Company of New York (“RLNY”) (ING USA and RLNY collectively, the “Life Companies”), Separate Account NY-B of ReliaStar Life Insurance Company of New York (“Account NY-B”) (Account B and Account NY-B collectively, the “Accounts”), and Directed Services, Inc. (“DSI”). Summary of the Application: The Applicants request an order pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act exempting them from the provisions of Sections 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder to the extent necessary to permit recapture of certain bonuses applied to purchase payments with respect to:
(1)The deferred variable annuity contracts and certificates described herein that the Life Companies intend to issue (the “Current Contracts”);
(2)deferred variable annuity contracts and certificates, substantially similar to the Current Contracts that the Life Companies may issue in the future (the “Future Contracts”) (Current Contracts and Future Contracts collectively, the “Contracts”);
(3)any other separate accounts of the Life Companies and their successors in interest (“Future Accounts”) that support the Contracts; and
(4)any National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) member broker-dealers controlling, controlled by, or under common control with any Applicant, whether existing or created in the future, that in the future, may act as principle underwriter for the Contracts (“Future Underwriters”). The circumstances under which the Contracts would allow the recapture of all or a portion of certain bonus credits (previously applied to premium payments) are where the bonus credits were applied and:
(1)The contract owner exercises his or her “free look” right;
(2)the contract owner dies within twelve months of the bonus credit being applied (unless the Contract is continued under the spousal benefit continuation option); or
(3)the contract owner takes a partial withdrawal or surrenders the contract in the first seven or four contract years, as applicable, pursuant to the bonus credit recapture schedule set forth below. Filing Date: The application was filed on February 28, 2006 and amended and restated on May 3, 2006. Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the Commission and serving the Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests must be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on July 7, 2006, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the Applicants in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons may request notification of a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, c/o Nicole J. Starr, Counsel, ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company, 1475 Dunwoody Drive, West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison White, Senior Counsel, or Joyce M. Pickholz, Branch Chief, Office of Insurance Products, Division of Investment Management, at
(202)551-6795. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the Application. The complete Application is available for a fee from the Public Reference Branch of the Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549. Applicants' Representations 1. ING USA is an Iowa stock life insurance company, which was originally incorporated in Minnesota on January 2, 1973. ING USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lion Connecticut Holdings, Inc. (“Lion Connecticut”) which in turn is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of ING Groep N.V. (“ING Group”), a global financial services holding company based in The Netherlands. ING USA is authorized to sell insurance and annuities in all states, except New York, and the District of Columbia. ING USA is the depositor and sponsor for Account B. ING USA also serves as depositor for several currently existing Future Accounts, one or more of which may support obligations under the Contracts. ING USA may establish one or more additional Future Accounts for which it will serve as depositor. 2. ING USA established Account B as a segregated investment account under Delaware law on July 14, 1988. Account B is registered with the Commission as a unit investment trust (File No. 811-5626), and interests in Account B offered through the Contracts will be registered under the Securities Act of 1933 on form N-4. 3. RLNY is a New York stock life insurance company originally incorporated on June 11, 1917 under the name, The Morris Plan Insurance Society. RLNY is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of ING Group. RLNY is authorized to transact business in all states, the District of Columbia, the Dominican Republic, and the Cayman Islands and is principally engaged in the business of providing individual life insurance and annuities, employee benefit products and services, retirement plans, and life and health reinsurance. RLNY is the depositor and sponsor for Account NY-B. RLNY also serves as depositor for several currently existing Future Accounts, one or more of which may support obligations under the Contracts. RLNY may establish one or more additional Future Accounts for which it will serve as depositor. 4. Account NY-B was established as a separate account of First Golden American Life Insurance Company of New York (“First Golden”) on June 13, 1996. It became a separate account of RLNY as a result of the merger of First Golden into RLNY effective April 1, 2002. Account NY-B is registered with the Commission as a unit investment trust (File No. 811-7935). 5. The Accounts currently are divided into a number of subaccounts. Each subaccount invests exclusively in shares representing an interest in a separate corresponding investment portfolio of one of several series-type open-end management investment companies. The assets of the Accounts support one or more varieties of variable annuity contracts, including the Contracts. 6. DSI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lion Connecticut Holdings, Inc., which is in turn a wholly owned subsidiary of ING Group. It serves as the principal underwriter of a number of RLNY and ING USA separate accounts registered as unit investment trusts under the Act, including the Accounts, and is the distributor of the variable life insurance contracts and variable annuity contracts issued through such separate accounts, including the Contracts. DSI is registered as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is a member of the NASD. DSI may act as principal underwriter for Future Accounts of the Life Companies and as distributor for Contracts. Future Underwriters also may act as principal underwriter for the Accounts and as distributor for any of the Contracts. 7. The Contracts are deferred combination variable and fixed annuity contracts that a Life Company may issue to individuals or groups on a “non-qualified” basis or in connection with employee benefit plans that receive favorable Federal income tax treatment under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The Contracts make available a number of subaccounts of the Accounts to which an owner may allocate net premium payments and associated bonus credits (described below) and to which an owner may transfer contract value. There are categories of subaccounts for purposes of determining benefits under living benefits and death benefits. The Contracts also offer fixed-interest allocation options under which a Life Company credits guaranteed rates of interest for various periods. A market value adjustment applies to the fixed-interest allocation options under the Contracts. An owner may make transfers of contract value among and between the subaccounts and, subject to certain restrictions, among and between the subaccounts and the fixed-interest allocation options at any time. 8. The Contracts offer a variety of annuity payment options to an owner. The owner may annuitize any time following the fifth contract anniversary. If a contingent deferred sales charge remains at the time of annuitization, the annuity payment option must include at least a 10 year fixed period. In the event of an owner's (or the annuitant's, if any owner is not an individual) death prior to annuitization, the beneficiary may elect to receive the death benefit in the form of one of the annuity payment options instead of a lump sum. The Contracts generally may only be purchased with a minimum initial premium of $10,000 ($1,500 for certain employee benefit plans). 9. A Life Company may deduct a premium tax charge from premium payments in certain states, but otherwise deducts a charge for premium taxes upon surrender or annuitization of the Contract or upon the payment of a death benefit, depending upon the jurisdiction. The Contracts provide for an annual administrative charge of $40 that a Life Company deducts on each Contract Anniversary and upon a full surrender of a Contract. A daily mortality and expense risk charge is deducted from the assets of the Accounts at a rate depending on the death benefit chosen as described below. The range of maximum mortality and expense risk charges is 1.70% to 2.80% annually. A daily administrative charge is deducted from the assets of the Account at an annual rate of 0.15%. The Contracts provide for a charge of $25 for each transfer of contract value in excess of twelve transfers per contract year. The Life Companies currently waive this charge and anticipate waiving this charge for the foreseeable future. The Contracts have a surrender charge in the form of a contingent deferred sales charge as described more fully below. If an owner chooses an optional surrender charge schedule rider that reduces the length of time during which the contingent deferred sales charge is applied, an additional charge will be deducted as described below. A quarterly charge is assessed depending on the type of optional living benefit chosen, if any, as described below. Lastly, if an owner chooses the optional premium credit rider, an additional charge will be deducted as described below. 10. The contingent deferred sales charge (the “CDSC”) is equal to a percentage of each premium payment surrendered or withdrawn. The CDSC is separately calculated and applied to each premium payment at any time that the premium payment (or part of the premium payment) is surrendered or withdrawn. The CDSC applicable to each premium payment diminishes to zero as the payment ages. The Contracts offer a standard CDSC schedule as follows: Number of full years since payment of each premium Charge (percent) 0 8.0 1 7.0 2 6.0 3 5.0 4 4.0 5 3.0 6 2.0 7+ 0.0 However, the owner may choose a shorter optional CDSC schedule for an extra charge (see below). The optional CDSC schedule is as follows: Number of full years since payment of each premium Charge (percent) 0 8.0 1 7.0 2 6.0 3 5.0 4+ 0.0 The charge for the optional CDSC schedule is currently 0.45% of contract value per year, assessed quarterly for four years. The maximum charge for the optional CDSC schedule will be 0.90% of contract value per year, assessed quarterly for four years. 11. The CDSC does not apply when a death benefit is payable under the contracts or to contract value representing an annual free withdrawal amount or to contract value in excess of aggregate premium payments (less prior withdrawals of premium payments) (“earnings”). The CDSC is calculated using the assumption that premium payments are withdrawn on a first-in, first-out basis. The CDSC also is calculated using the assumption that contract value is withdrawn in the following order:
(a)The annual free withdrawal amount for that contract year;
(b)premium payments; and
(c)earnings. The annual free withdrawal amount is 10% of contract value, measured at the time of withdrawal, less any prior withdrawals made in that contract year. 12. Subject to state availability, an owner may purchase optional living benefit riders. The minimum guaranteed income benefit rider (the “MGIB Rider”) guarantees that a minimum amount of annuity income will be available to the owner, regardless of fluctuating market conditions, if the owner annuitizes on or after the rider's exercise date. The minimum guaranteed amount of annuity income will depend on the amount of premiums paid and any credits received, if applicable, during the specified number of contract years after the owner purchases the MGIB Rider, how the owner allocates the contract value among the subaccounts and fixed-interest allocations, and any withdrawals and transfers the owner makes while the MGIB Rider is in effect. A Life Company will deduct a maximum annual charge of 1.50% (currently, 0.75%) quarterly of the MGIB Charge Base (as defined in the MGIB Rider). 13. The minimum guaranteed withdrawal benefit rider (the “MGWB Rider”) guarantees that a certain amount may be withdrawn annually regardless of market performance and even if the contract value is reduced to zero. Some Contracts offer the guaranteed withdrawal amount until the MGWB Base (as defined in the MGWB Rider) is completely recovered. Most Contracts offer the guaranteed withdrawal amount for life. The Life Companies expect to extend the guaranteed withdrawal amount for until the death of the second designated life. The MGWB Rider is subject to conditions and limitations. A Life Company will deduct a maximum annual charge of 1.50% (currently, between 0.45% and 0.75%, depending on the rider and Contract) quarterly of the charge basis (as set forth in the MGWB Rider). 14. If an owner dies before the annuity start date, the Contracts provide for a death benefit payable to a beneficiary, computed as of the date a Life Company receives written notice and due proof of death. The death benefit payable to the beneficiary depends on the death benefit option selected by the owner:
(a)Standard death benefit;
(b)ratchet death benefit; or
(c)rollup death benefit. In the future, a Life Company may also offer an optional earnings multiplier benefit rider. 15. The standard death benefit equals the greater of the
(a)base death benefit, and
(b)premium and bonus credits, adjusted pro-rata for withdrawals and transfers, less total bonus credits applied since or within twelve months prior to death. The base death benefit is the greater of the
(1)contract value on the claim date, less bonus credits applied since or within twelve months prior to death, and
(2)cash surrender value. The maximum daily mortality and risk charge for the standard death benefit is the annual rate of 1.70% (currently 0.85%). A Life Company may, in the future, offer the base death benefit as a stand alone option for the maximum daily mortality and risk charge of 2.00% annually. 16. The ratchet death benefit equals the greater of the
(a)standard death benefit, and
(b)greatest contract value as of any quarterly or annual, as applicable, contract anniversary occurring on or prior to the maximum attained age, adjusted for new premiums and bonus credits, reduced pro rata for withdrawals and transfers, less bonus credits applied since or within twelve months prior to death. The maximum daily mortality and risk charge for the ratchet death benefit is the annual rate of 2.20% (currently 1.10%). 17. The roll-up death benefit equals the greater of
(a)the ratchet death benefit, and
(b)the lesser of
(1)a specified maximum percentage of all premiums plus bonus credits adjusted pro-rata for withdrawals and transfers, or
(2)premiums and bonus credits, if applicable, adjusted for withdrawals and transfers accumulated at a specified percentage up to the maximum attained age, less bonus credits applied since or within twelve months prior to death. The maximum daily mortality and risk charge for the roll-up death benefit is the annual rate of 2.80% (currently 1.40%). 18. The earnings multiplier benefit rider provides a separate additional death benefit option. This rider provides additional funds to the beneficiary that be used to help pay the taxes on the death benefit. Upon the owner's death, the beneficiary receives an amount equal to a percentage of the Contract's earnings, if any, up to a maximum amount. The maximum charge is 0.50% (currently 0.25%). 19. The Life Companies intend to offer an optional bonus credit rider under the Contracts, which the owner may elect at the time of application. Under the bonus credit rider, a Life Company credits the contract value in the subaccounts and the fixed-interest allocations with a bonus credit amount that is a percentage of each premium payment made. The bonus credit applies upon issuance of the Contract and is based upon premium payments received within the first contract year. A Life Company allocates the bonus credit for the applicable premium payment among the subaccounts and fixed-interest allocations the owner selects in proportion to the premium payment allocated to each investment option. If the owner has elected to retain the standard CDSC schedule, the bonus credit equals 4% of each premium payment made in the first contract year. If the owner has elected to have the optional CDSC schedule rider, the bonus credit equals 2% of each premium payment made in the first contract year. A Life Company reserves the right to increase or decrease the amount of the bonus credit or discontinue the bonus credit rider in the future. 20. The maximum annual charge assessed for the bonus credit rider (as a percentage of contract value) is 0.57% (currently, 0.55%) for the first seven contract years if the owner retains the standard CDSC schedule and 0.50% (currently, 0.45%) for the first four contract years if the owner selects the optional CDSC schedule rider. The charge is deducted from the contract value in the subaccounts and from amounts in fixed interest allocations by crediting a lower interest rate. 21. Under the bonus credit rider, a Life Company recaptures or retains the bonus credits in several circumstances. First, a Life Company recaptures or retains 100% of the bonus credits in the event that the owner exercises his or her cancellation right during the “free look” period. Second, a Life Company recaptures the bonus credits applied to premium payments made since or within twelve months of the date as of which a death benefit is computed (unless the Contract is continued under the spousal benefit continuation option). Third, a Life Company also will recapture part or all of the applicable bonus credit upon surrender or withdrawal of corresponding premium payments. 22. In the event of a surrender or withdrawal, the amount of the bonus credit a Life Company will recapture is based on the percentage of the corresponding premium payment withdrawn and the contract year of surrender or withdrawal. For each premium payment, the portion of the bonus credit subject to recapture is the total bonus credit amount attributable to that premium payment multiplied by the percentage of the corresponding premium payment withdrawn. The dollar amount of the bonus credit recaptured is the portion of the bonus credit subject to recapture multiplied by the applicable recapture percentage. The recapture percentage applicable to each bonus credit depends on which CDSC is in effect and when the premium payment associated with such bonus credit was withdrawn. If the standard CDSC schedule is chosen, the recapture percentage applicable to each bonus credit is level for the first two contract years and diminishes to zero after the seventh contract year. The schedule is as follows: Contract year of surrender or withdrawal Bonus credit recapture percentage (percent) Years 1-2 100 Years 3-4 75 Years 5-6 50 Year 7 25 Years 8+ 0 If the optional CDSC schedule rider is chosen, the recapture percentage applicable to each bonus credit diminishes to zero after the fourth contract year. The schedule is as follows: Contract year of surrender or withdrawal Bonus credit recapture percentage (percent) Year 1 100 Year 2 75 Year 3 50 Year 4 25 Years 5+ 0 A Life Company will not recapture bonus credits attributable to premium payments withdrawn representing the annual free withdrawal amount or to contract value representing earnings. 23. Because of the recapture provisions discussed above, the value of a bonus credit only fully vests or belongs irrevocably to the owner when the recapture period for the bonus credit expires. All bonus credits vest over the 4-year period or 7-year period, as applicable, after a Life Company grants them. Under the bonus credit rider, a Life Company applies the bonus credit to an owner's contract value either by “purchasing” accumulation units of an appropriate subaccount or adding to the owner's fixed interest allocation option values. 24. With regard to variable contract value, several consequences flow from the foregoing. First, increases in the value of accumulation units representing bonus credits accrue to the owner immediately, but the initial value of such units only belongs to the owner when, or to the extent that, each vests. Second, decreases in the value of accumulation units representing bonus credits do not diminish the dollar amount of contract value subject to recapture. Therefore, additional accumulation units must become subject to recapture as their value decreases. Stated differently, the proportionate share of any owner's variable contract value (or the owner's interest in the Account) that a Life Company can “recapture” increases as variable contract value (or the owner's interest in the Account) decreases. This dilutes somewhat the owner's interest in the Account vis-à-vis a Life Company and other owners, and in his or her variable contract value vis-à-vis a Life Company. Lastly, because it is not administratively feasible to track the unvested value of bonus credits in the Account, a Life Company deducts the daily mortality and expense risk charge and the daily administrative charge from the entire net asset value of the Account. As a result, the daily mortality and expense risk charge, the daily administrative charge, and the daily bonus credit rider paid by any owner is greater than that which he or she would pay without the bonus credit. 25. Applicants previously have received an order for exemptive relief to permit the recapture of certain bonus credits on the prior contracts in similar circumstances to those described above. That order encompassed relief for future contracts substantially similar in all material respects to the prior contracts. Applicants assert that the Contracts described in the application differ from the prior contracts in several respects. Charges are slightly higher. The Contracts also offer living benefits and death benefit options not available with the prior contracts. Because the Applicants believe the Commission may view these differences as material, Applicants are seeking an additional order as set forth in the application. Legal Analysis 1. The Applicants hereby request that the Commission issue an order pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act to exempt the Applicants with respect to:
(a)The Contracts;
(b)Future Accounts that support the Contracts; and
(c)Future Underwriters from the provisions of Sections 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder, to the extent necessary to permit the recapture of all or a portion of the bonus credits (previously applied to premium payments) in the circumstances described above. 2. Section 6(c) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions from the provisions of the Act and the rules promulgated thereunder, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. 3. Subsection
(i)of Section 27 provides that Section 27 does not apply to any registered separate account supporting variable annuity contracts, or to the sponsoring insurance company and principal underwriter of such account, except as provided in paragraph
(2)of subsection (i). Paragraph
(2)provides that it shall be unlawful for a registered separate account or sponsoring insurance company to sell a variable annuity contract supported by the separate account unless the “ * * * contract is a redeemable security; and * * * [t]he insurance company complies with Section 26(e)* * *” 4. Section 2(a)(32) defines a “redeemable security” as any security, other than short-term, paper, under the terms of which the holder, upon presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately his proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent thereof. 5. Rule 22c-1 imposes requirements with respect to both the amount payable on redemption of a redeemable security and the time as of which such amount is calculated. Specifically, Rule 22c-1, in pertinent part, prohibits a registered investment company issuing any redeemable security, a person designated in such issuer's prospectus as authorized to consummate transactions in any such security, and a principal underwriter of, or dealer in, such security from selling, redeeming or repurchasing any such security, except at a price based on the current net asset value of such security which is next computed after receipt of a tender of such security for redemption, or of an order to purchase or sell such security. 6. To the extent that the recapture of the bonus credits arguably could be seen as a discount from the net asset value, or arguably could be viewed as resulting in the payment to an owner of less than the proportional share of the issuer's net assets, in violation of Sections 2(a)(32) or 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act, the bonus credit recapture would trigger the need for relief absent some exemption from the Act. Rule 6c-8 provides, in relevant part, that a registered separate account, and any depositor of such account, shall be exempt from Sections 2(a)(32), 27(c)(1), 27(c)(2) and 27(d) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder to the extent necessary to permit them to impose a deferred sales loan on any variable annuity contract participating in such account. However, the bonus credit recapture is not a sales load. Rather, it is a recapture of a bonus credit previously applied to an owner's premium payments. A Life Company provides the bonus credit from its general account on a guaranteed basis. The Contracts are designed to be long-term investment vehicles. In undertaking this financial obligation, a Life Company contemplates that an owner will retain a Contract over an extended period, consistent with the long-term nature of the Contracts. A Life Company designed the product so that it would recover its costs (including the bonus credits) over an anticipated duration while a Contract is in force. If an owner withdraws his or her money during the free look period, a death benefit is paid, or a withdrawal or surrender is made before this anticipated period, a Life Company must recapture the bonus credits subject to recapture in order to avoid a loss. 7. Applicants submit that the proposed bonus credit rider would not violate Sections 2(a)(32) or 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act. A Life Company would grant bonus credits out of its general account assets and the amount of the bonus credits (although not the earnings on such amounts) would remain the Life Company's until such amounts vest with the owner. Until the appropriate recapture period expires, a Life Company retains the right to and interest in each owner's contract value representing the dollar amount of any unvested bonus credits. Therefore, if a Life Company recaptures any bonus credit or part of a bonus credit in the circumstances described above, it would merely be retrieving its own assets. To the extent that a Life Company may grant and recapture bonus credits in connection with variable contract value, it would not, at either time, deprive any owner of his or her then proportionate share of the Account's assets. 8. Applicants further submit that the dynamics of the proposed bonus credit rider would not violate Sections 2(a)(32) or 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act because the recapture of bonus credits would not, at any time, deprive an owner of his or her proportionate share of the current net assets of an Account. Section 2(a)(32) defines a redeemable security as one “under the terms of which the holder, *upon presentation to the issuer* , is entitled to receive *approximately* his proportionate share of the issuer's *current* net asset value.” Taken together, these two sections of the Act do not require that the holder receive the exact proportionate share that his or her security represented at a prior time. Therefore, the fact that the proposed bonus credit provisions have a dynamic element that may cause the relative ownership positions of a Life Company and a Contract owner to shift due to Account performance and the vesting schedule of such credits, would not cause the provisions to conflict with Sections 2(a)(32) or 27(i)(2)(A). Nonetheless, in order to avoid any uncertainty as to full compliance with the Act, Applicants seek exemptions from these two sections. 9. A Life Company's granting of bonus credits would have the result of increasing an owner's contract value in a way that arguably could be viewed as the purchase of an interest in the Account at a price below the current net asset value. Similarly, a Life Company's recapture of any bonus credit arguably could be viewed as the redemption of such an interest at a price above the current net asset value. If such is the case, then the bonus credit rider arguably could be viewed as conflicting with Rule 22c-1. Applicants contend that these are not correct interpretations or applications of these statutory and regulatory provisions. Applicants also contend that the bonus credits do not violate Rule 22c-1. 10. Rule 22c-1 was intended to eliminate or reduce, as far as was reasonably practicable,
(a)the dilution of the value of outstanding redeemable securities of registered investment companies through their sale at a price below net asset value or their redemption at a price above net asset value, or
(b)other unfair results, including speculative trading practices. Applicants submit that the evils prompting the adoption of Rule 22c-1 were primarily the result of backward pricing, the practice of basing the price of a mutual fund share on the net asset value per share determined as of the close of the market on the previous day. Backward pricing permitted certain investors to take advantage of increases or decreases in net asset value that were not yet reflected in the price, thereby diluting the values of outstanding shares. 11. The bonus credit rider does not give rise to either of the two evils that Rule 22c-1 was designed to address. First, the proposed bonus credit rider poses no such threat of dilution. An owner's interest in his or her contract value or in the Account would always be offered at a price based on the net asset value next calculated after receipt of the order. The granting of a bonus credit does not reflect a reduction of that price. Instead, a Life Company would purchase with its general account assets, on behalf of the owner, an interest in the Account equal to the bonus credit. Because the bonus credit will be paid out of the general account assets, not the Account assets, no dilution will occur as a result of the bonus credit. Recaptures of bonus credits result in a redemption of a Life Company's interest in an owner's contract value or in the Account at a price determined based on the Account's current net asset value and not at an inflated price. Moreover, the amount recaptured will always equal the amount that a Life Company paid from its general account for the bonus credits. Similarly, although an owner is entitled to retain any investment gains attributable to the bonus credits, the amount of such gains would always be computed at a price determined based on net asset value. 12. Second, Applicants submit that speculative trading practices calculated to take advantage of backward pricing will not occur as a result of a Life Company's recapture of the bonus credit. Variable annuities are designed for long-term investment, and by their nature, do not lend themselves to the kind of speculative short-term trading that Rule 22c-1 was designed to prevent. More to the point, the bonus credit recapture simply does not create the opportunity for speculative trading. 13. Rule 22c-1 should have no application to the bonus credit available, as neither of the harms that Rule 22c-1 was intended to address arise in connection with the proposed bonus credit rider. Nonetheless, in order to avoid any uncertainty as to full compliance with the Act, Applicants request an exemption from the provisions of Rule 22c-1. 14. The Applicants submit that the Commission should grant the exemptions requested in the application even if the bonus credit rider arguably conflicts with Sections 2(a)(32), or 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act or Rule 22c-1 thereunder. The bonus credit is generally beneficial to an owner. The recapture tempers this benefit somewhat, but unless the owner dies, the owner retains the ability to avoid the bonus credit recapture in the circumstances described herein. While there would be a small downside in a declining market where losses on the bonus credit amount would vest with him or her immediately, it is the converse of the benefits an owner would receive on the bonus amounts in a rising market because earnings on the bonus credit amount vest with him or her immediately. As any earnings on bonus credits applied would not be subject to recapture and thus would be immediately available to an owner, likewise any losses on bonus credits would also not be subject to recapture and thus would be immediately available to an owner. The bonus credit recapture does not diminish the overall value of the bonus credits. 15. The bonus credit recapture provision is necessary for a Life Company to offer the bonus credits and avoid anti-selection against it. It would be unfair to a Life Company to permit an owner to keep his or her bonus credits upon his or her exercise of the Contract's “free look” provision. Because no CDSC applies to the exercise of the “free look” provision, the owner could obtain a quick profit in the amount of the bonus credit at a Life Company's expense by exercising that right. Similarly, the owner could take advantage of the bonus credit by taking withdrawals within the recapture period, because the cost of providing the bonus credit is recouped through charges imposed over a period of years. Likewise, because no additional CDSC applies upon death of an owner (or annuitant), a death shortly after the award of bonus credits would afford an owner or a beneficiary a similar profit at a Life Company's expense. 16. In the event of such profits to an owner or beneficiary, a Life Company could not recover the cost of granting the bonus credits. This is because a Life Company intends to recoup the costs of providing the bonus credits through the charges under the bonus credit rider and the Contract, particularly the daily mortality and expense risk charge and the daily administrative charge. If the profits described above are permitted, an owner could take advantage of them, reducing the base from which the daily charges are deducted and greatly increasing the amount of bonus credits that a Life Company must provide. Therefore, the recapture provisions are a price of offering the bonus credits. A Life Company simply cannot offer the proposed bonus credits without the ability to recapture those credits in the limited circumstances described herein. 17. Applicants state that the Commission's authority under Section 6(c) of the Act to grant exemptions from various provisions of the Act and rules thereunder is broad enough to permit orders of exemption that cover classes of unidentified persons. Applicants request an order of the Commission that would exempt them, the Life Companies' successors in interest, Future Accounts and Future Underwriters from the provisions of Sections 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder with respect to the Contracts. The exemption of these classes of persons is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act because all of the potential members of the class could obtain the foregoing exemptions for themselves on the same basis as the Applicants, but only at a cost to each of them that is not justified by any public policy purpose. As discussed below, the requested exemptions would only extend to persons that in all material respects are the same as the Applicants. The Commission has previously granted exemptions to classes of similarly situated persons in various contexts and in a wide variety of circumstances, including class exemptions for recapturing bonus credits under variable annuity contracts. 18. Applicants represent that any contracts in the future will be substantially similar in all material respects to the Contracts, but particularly with respect to the bonus credits and recapture of bonus credits, and that each factual statement and representation about the bonus credit rider will be equally true of any Contracts in the future. Applicants also represent that each material representation made by them about the Account and DSI will be equally true of Future Accounts and Future Underwriters, to the extent that such representations relate to the issues discussed in this Application. In particular, each Future Underwriter will be registered as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and be an NASD member. 19. For the reasons above, Applicants submit that the bonus credit rider involves none of the abuses to which provision of the Act and rules thereunder are directed. The owner will always retain the investment experience attributable to the bonus credit and will retain the principal amount in all cases except under the circumstances described herein. Further, a Life Company should be able to recapture such bonus credits to limit potential losses associated with such bonus credits. Conclusion Applicants submit that the exemptions requested are necessary or appropriate in the public interest, consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act, and consistent with and supported by Commission precedent. Applicants also submit, based on the analysis listed above, that the provisions for recapture of any bonus credit under the Contracts does not violate Section 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder. The Applicants hereby request that the Commission issue an order pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act to exempt the Applicants with respect to:
(a)The Contracts;
(b)Future Accounts that support the Contracts; and
(c)Future Underwriters from the provisions of Sections 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder, to the extent necessary to permit the recapture of all or a portion of the bonus credits (previously applied to premium payments) in the circumstances described above. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9607 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53975; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-51] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Regarding Market-Maker Appointments June 12, 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 May 19, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 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 CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 8.3 relating to Market-Maker appointments. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the CBOE's Web site ( *http://www.cboe.com* ), at the Office of the Secretary, CBOE, and at the Commission. 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend CBOE Rule 8.3 relating to Market-Maker appointments. Currently, CBOE Rule 8.3(c) provides that a Market-Maker can quote:
(i)Electronically in all Hybrid and Hybrid 2.0 Classes that are located in one designated trading station (“appointed trading station”);
(ii)in open outcry in all classes traded on the Exchange; and
(iii)electronically in either two additional Hybrid 2.0 Classes in Tier A or Tier B that are not located in the Market-Maker's appointed trading station, or five additional Hybrid 2.0 Classes in Tiers C, D, or E that are not located in the Market-Maker's appointed trading station. CBOE now proposes to modify the above provisions as follows which would allow Market-Makers additional flexibility in choosing their appointed classes and make the Market-Maker appointment process similar to the process applicable to Remote Market-Maker (“RMM”) appointments. First, like RMMs, CBOE proposes to allow a Market-Maker to create a Virtual Trading Crowd (“VTC”) appointment, which would confer the right to quote electronically in an appropriate number of Hybrid 2.0 Classes (as defined in CBOE Rule 1.1(aaa)) selected from “tiers” that have been structured according to trading volume statistics. All classes within a specific tier would be assigned an “appointment cost” depending upon its tier location. The following table sets forth the tiers and related appointment costs, which are identical to the tiers and appointment costs set forth in CBOE Rule 8.4(d) that have been structured for purposes of RMMs appointments. Tier Hybrid 2.0 option classes Appointment cost AA Options on the CBOE Volatility Index
(VIX).50 A+ • Options on Standard & Poor's Depositary Receipts .25 • Options on the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock A* Hybrid 2.0 Classes 1—60 .10 B* Hybrid 2.0 Classes 61—120 .05 C* Hybrid 2.0 Classes 121—345 .04 D* Hybrid 2.0 Classes 346—570 .02 E* All Remaining Hybrid 2.0 Classes .01 * Excludes Tier AA and A+ Classes. CBOE believes that allowing Market-Makers the same flexibility as RMMs to choose and structure a VTC appointment composed of Hybrid 2.0 Classes is appropriate, and would provide Market-Makers with additional trading opportunities outside of their appointed trading station. With respect to Hybrid Classes (as defined in CBOE Rule 1.1(aaa)), CBOE proposes to allow a Market-Maker to quote electronically in an appropriate number of Hybrid Classes that are located at one trading station, which is similar to the current manner in which Market-Makers request appointments, *i.e.* , by trading station. CBOE proposes to assign an appointment cost of .01 to each Hybrid Class. With regard to trading in open outcry, CBOE Rule 8.3 currently provides that a Market-Maker has an appointment to trade in open outcry in all classes traded on the Exchange. Because CBOE is proposing to apply an appointment cost to each option class traded on the Exchange, including both Hybrid and non-Hybrid option classes, CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 8.3 to provide that a Market-Maker has an appointment to trade in open outcry in all Hybrid and Hybrid 2.0 Classes traded on the Exchange. A Market-Maker would be required to be physically present in the trading crowd where an option class is located in order to trade in open outcry in that option class. A Market-Maker would be permitted to submit electronic quotations into any of his/her appointed Hybrid or Hybrid 2.0 Classes while the Market-Maker is trading in open outcry. For non-Hybrid and non-Hybrid 2.0 Classes (collectively “Non-Hybrid Classes”), CBOE proposes to allow a Market-Maker to select as his appointment one or more Non-Hybrid Classes traded on the Exchange, which would confer the right to trade in open outcry in an appropriate number of Non-Hybrid Classes. Each Non-Hybrid Class would be assigned an appointment cost, which are set forth below. Non-Hybrid classes Appointment cost *Options on the Standard & Poor's 500 (SPX)* *1.0 * • *Options on the S&P 100 (OEX)** • *Options on the S&P 100 (XEO)** *1.0* *NASDAQ 100 Index Options (NDX)* *1.0* *Options on the iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (IWM)* *.85* *Options on the Russell 2000 Index (RUT)* *.45* *Morgan Stanley Retail Index Options (MVR)* *.25* *Options based on 1/10th the Value of The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DXL)* *.01* *Options on the iShares S&P 100 (OEF)* *.01* * The OEX and XEO options classes collectively have an appointment cost of 1.0. As is the case for RMMs, each membership owned or leased by a Market-Maker would have an appointment credit of 1.0. A Market-Maker may select for each Exchange membership it owns or leases any combination of Hybrid 2.0 Classes, Hybrid Classes which are located at one trading station, and Non-Hybrid Classes, whose aggregate “appointment cost” does not exceed 1.0. The Exchange would rebalance the “tiers” (excluding the “AA” and “A+” tiers) set forth in paragraph (c)(i) of Rule 8.3 once each calendar quarter, which may result in additions or deletions to their composition. When a class changes tiers it would be assigned the appointment cost of that tier. Upon rebalancing, each Market-Maker with a VTC appointment would be required to own or lease the appropriate number of Exchange memberships reflecting the revised appointment costs of the Hybrid and Hybrid 2.0 Classes constituting its appointment. These provisions relating to re-balancing are identical to the provisions contained in CBOE Rule 8.4(d) applicable to RMMs. In new paragraph (c)(vi) of CBOE Rule 8.3, CBOE proposes to continue and modify slightly an existing Pilot Program in effect until March 24, 2007, which allows a Market-Maker to quote remotely. The existing Pilot Program provides that a Market-Maker may submit electronic quotations in his/her appointed Hybrid and Hybrid 2.0 Classes from outside of his/her appointed trading station. 3 Because CBOE is proposing to allow Market-Makers to create a VTC consisting of Hybrid 2.0 Classes, CBOE proposes to modify the Pilot Program such that it provides Market-Makers with the ability to quote remotely away from CBOE's trading floor in their appointed Hybrid and Hybrid 2.0 option classes. While on the trading floor, there would be no requirement that a Market-Maker must be present in a particular trading station in order to stream electronic quotations into his/her appointed classes. 3 Prior to the Pilot Program, a Market-Maker could only stream electronic quotes into an option class when he/she was physically present in his/her appointed trading station. CBOE also proposes to continue two existing Pilot Programs set forth in CBOE Rules 8.4(c)(i) and 8.93(vii), which are in effect until September 14, 2006, and which provide that an RMM or e-DPM in an option class can have one Market-Maker affiliated with the RMM or e-DPM trading in the option class. However, CBOE Rule 8.3(c) would continue to require that a Market-Maker affiliated with an e-DPM or RMM can submit electronic quotations in any class in which the affiliated e-DPM or RMM has an appointment only if the Market-Maker is present in the trading station where the class is located. 4 CBOE also notes in paragraph (c)(vii) to CBOE Rule 8.3 that a Market-Maker and an affiliated e-DPM or affiliated RMM can operate as multiple aggregation units under the criteria set forth in CBOE Rule 8.4(c)(ii) pursuant to a Pilot Program that expires on March 14, 2007. 4 CBOE Rule 8.3(c) currently provides that for any class in which the affiliated RMM or e-DPM has an appointment, a Market-Maker is ineligible to submit electronic quotations from outside of its appointed trading station. In new paragraph (c)(viii) to CBOE Rule 8.3, CBOE notes that pursuant to a Pilot Program that expires on March 14, 2007, two affiliated Market-Makers can hold an appointment in the same class provided both Market-Makers operate as multiple aggregation units under the criteria set forth in CBOE Rule 8.4(c)(ii). This provision is consistent with current CBOE Rule 8.3(c)(iii). As provided in new Interpretation .01 to CBOE Rule 8.3, in the event the total appointment cost for all of the Hybrid 2.0 Classes, Hybrid Classes, and/or Non-Hybrid Classes, constituting a Market-Maker's appointment on the approval date of this rule change exceeded 1.0, then CBOE proposes to grant the Market-Maker six months from the date of the approval of this rule change to comply with the provisions of CBOE Rule 8.3(c)(v) that provide a Market-Maker's appointed classes cannot have an total appointment cost in excess of 1.0. During these six months, any Market-Maker whose total appointment cost exceeds 1.0 would be ineligible to request an appointment in any other option class until the Market-Maker's total appointment cost is less than 1.0. The preceding limited exemption to CBOE Rule 8.3(c)(v) would be available only to those Market-Makers whose total appointment cost for all of the Hybrid 2.0 Classes, Hybrid Classes, and/or Non-Hybrid Classes, constituting a Market-Maker's appointment would have exceeded 1.0 on April 24, 2006, if the rule had been in effect on that date. 2. Statutory Basis CBOE believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act 5 and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. 6 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 7 requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 5 15 U.S.C. 78a *et seq.* 6 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b). 7 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition 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. 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 CBOE consents, the Commission will:
(A)By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml);* or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2006-51 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-CBOE-2006-51. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2006-51 and should be submitted on or before July 11, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9578 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53978; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-42] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Relating to American Depositary Receipt Fees June 13, 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 May 25, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) 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 NYSE. NYSE has designated the proposed rule change as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. On June 12, 2006, NYSE submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 5 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 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii) 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 5 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange eliminated proposed changes to the title of Section 103.00 of the Listed Company Manual and corrected typographical errors in the rule text. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NYSE proposes to amend Section 103.04 of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual relating to sponsored American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) to eliminate the requirement that certain services must be provided without charge. The text of the proposed rule change, as amended, is set forth below. Proposed new language is underlined; proposed deletions are [bracketed]. Listed Company Manual 103.00 Non-U.S. Companies 103.04 Sponsored American Depository Receipts or Shares (“ADR[']s”) *In order to list ADRs, the Exchange requires that such ADRs be sponsored. Foreign private issuers* [Non-U.S. companies] sponsor their ADR[']s by entering into a[n] *deposit* agreement with an American depository bank to provide, [without charge to the ADR holders,] such services as cash and stock dividend payments, transfer of ownership, and distribution of company financial statements and notices, such as shareholder meeting material. This agreement is a required supplement to the basic Listing Agreement. (See [Para.] *Section* 901.00 for the text of the Listing Agreements.) [Non-U.S. companies electing to sponsor their ADR's are often interested in putting their names and products prominently before the American public. This may result in a direct relationship with American investors, customers and suppliers. An Exchange listing requires that a company sponsor its ADR'S.] 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 included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, as amended, 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. NYSE 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 D NYSE proposes to amend Section 103.04 of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”). Section 103.04 currently requires that the depositary agreement entered into between a non-U.S. company and an American depository bank must provide that services such as cash and stock dividend payments, transfer of ownership, and distribution of company financial statements and notices, such as shareholder meeting material, be provided to ADR holders free of charge. The Exchange proposes to eliminate this requirement. The Exchange represents that Section 103.04 of the Manual dates from a time when companies listed ordinary shares in their home market and ADRs on NYSE. Historically, when an issuer listed a sponsored ADR security, trading would occur both in the underlying security in the home country and in the ADRs on the Exchange. As a result, the Exchange states, conversions between the underlying security and the ADR provided significant revenue for the depositary bank. In addition, at that time, the Exchange asserts, the market for depositary services was less competitive and institutional investors played a more limited role in influencing issuer and bank practices. The Exchange asserts that today, however, depositary receipts have become a preferred method of equity financing and are listed on exchanges around the world. Moreover, the Exchange represents that it is now not unusual for issuers from developing markets, such as China and other Asian countries, to list ADRs in the United States without also listing the underlying securities in their home market. The Exchange represents that because no other U.S. or overseas market limits the fees that depositary banks can charge ADR holders, it believes that the practical effect of Section 103.04 of the Manual is to increasingly foreclose the Exchange as a listing market for Asian issuers. As a result of a lack of potential conversion revenue, the Exchange argues that the effect of Section 103.04 of the Manual is to place the depositary bank at an economic disadvantage if the issuer lists its ADRs on the Exchange. Thus, the Exchange believes that NYSE's limitation on the fees that can be charged to ADR holders has become an impediment to intermarket competition both within the United States and with international listing venues. Moreover, NYSE notes that fees applicable to ADR holders are clearly disclosed in the company's registration statement when a company registers its ADRs and the underlying securities with the Commission in connection with listing on a U.S. market. The deposit agreement, which sets forth the applicable fees, is also required to be filed as an exhibit to the company's registration statement and to the depositary bank's registration statement on Form F-6. NYSE also believes that the competition among the depositary banks in the sponsored ADR market serves to regulate the fees that banks charge to ADR holders. In light of these developments, the Exchange no longer feels that it is necessary or appropriate for NYSE to regulate fees for ADR holders. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the statutory basis for the proposed rule change, as amended, is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 6 that an exchange have rules that are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 6 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(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 Exchange Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action NYSE has designated the foregoing rule change, as amended, as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 7 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder 8 because the rule change does not:
(i)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; or
(iii)become operative for 30 days from the day on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the five-day pre-filing requirement and the 30-day operative delay period for “non-controversial” proposals and make the proposed rule change, as amended, effective and operative upon filing. The Commission hereby grants the request. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay for the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because other national securities exchanges do not have similar restrictions on depositary bank fees in their listing standards. 9 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 8 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 9 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 10 10 For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change, as amended, under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period to commence on June 12, 2006, the date on which NYSE submitted Amendment No. 1. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). 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-NYSE-2006-42 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-NYSE-2006-42. 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 NYSE. 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-NYSE-2006-42 and should be submitted on or before July 11, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9606 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53979; File No. SR-Phlx-20006-30] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Reducing Staffing Requirements for Options Specialist Units June 14, 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 May 4, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) 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 Phlx. On June 6, 2006, the Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 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 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange clarified the rationale for reducing staffing for foreign currency options and made non-substantive changes to the proposed rule change. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Phlx proposes to amend Phlx Rule 501(d) to reduce the mandatory staffing requirement to be approved as an options or foreign currency options specialist unit and to retain such status, while continuing to enable the Exchange's Options Allocation, Evaluation and Securities Committee (“Options Allocation Committee”) 4 to require a unit to obtain additional staffing. 4 *See* Phlx By-Law Article X, Section 10-7. The Options Allocations Committee has jurisdiction over, among other things: the appointment of specialists on the options and foreign currency options trading floors; allocation, retention and transfer of privileges to deal in options on the trading floors; and administration of the 500 series of Phlx rules. The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed new language is in *italics* ; proposed deletions are in [brackets]: Rule 501. Specialist Appointment (a)-(c)—No Change.
(d)To be approved as a specialist unit and to retain the privilege of such status, an options or foreign currency options specialist unit must maintain the approved clearing arrangements and capital structure stated on their application as described in (b)(2) and (b)(3) above. Changes regarding the requirements in (b)(4) must be submitted and approved by the Committee. In addition, each unit must consist of at least the following staff for each [quarter turret (or equivalent portion of a] trading floor specialist post[)]:
(1)One head specialist; *and* (2)[two] *one* assistant specialist[s with respect to options specialist units (of which at least one] *that* must be associated with the specialist unit[); and
(3)one specialist clerk]. The Committee, in its discretion, may require a unit to obtain additional staff depending upon the number of assigned options classes and associated order flow. (e)-(f)—No Change. Commentary—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 Phlx included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, as amended, 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 Phlx 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 purpose of the proposed rule change, as amended, is to provide flexibility in options and foreign currency options specialist unit staffing by reducing the mandatory staffing requirement, in light of increased automation respecting options trading. Currently, Phlx Rule 501(d) requires that in order to be approved as an options or foreign currency options specialist unit and retain such status, the specialist unit shall have at each quarter turret or trading post one head specialist, two assistant specialists (at least one of whom must be associated with the specialist unit), and one specialist clerk. 5 However, as the Exchange and member organizations continue to enhance options trading technology and options orders are now automatically executed on the Exchange over 90% of the time, the need to maintain the present required staffing levels for every specialist unit (three specialists and a clerk) is significantly reduced. 6 The Exchange believes that, in light of such technological advances, and in conjunction with requests from specialist units for greater staffing flexibility, requiring only one assistant specialist and eliminating the requirement for a specialist clerk is warranted. 7 5 The Exchange is also proposing to make non-substantive changes to Phlx Rule 501(d) such as deletion of obsolete references to quarter turrets, which are no longer used on the floor. 6 Furthermore, the Phlx believes that the number of foreign currency option orders executed on the Exchange does not warrant high staffing levels. In 2005, as an example, the number of foreign currency option orders executed on the Exchange was less than 1% of the overall number of option orders executed on the Exchange. Telephone conversation between Jurij Trypupenko, Director, Phlx and David Michehl, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission on June 13, 2006. 7 The changes proposed in Phlx Rule 501(d) herein are not intended to alter other specialist unit obligations established by Phlx rules. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposal, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 8 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 9 in particular, in that the proposal is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to protect investors and the public interest, by adding flexibility to specialist staffing requirements while retaining the ability of the Options Allocations Committee to require additional staffing where appropriate, which should enhance operational efficiencies. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended, 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 either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve such proposed rule change, as amended; or B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change, as amended, 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-Phlx-2006-30 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-Phlx-2006-30. 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 Phlx. 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-Phlx-2006-30 and should be submitted on or before July 11, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9605 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [License No. 09/79-0450] Rustic Canyon Ventures SBIC, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest Notice is hereby given that Rustic Canyon Ventures SBIC, L.P., 2425 Olympic Blvd., Suite 6050W, Santa Monica, CA 90404, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730 (2005)). Rustic Canyon Ventures SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide equity security financing to Intrepid Learning Solutions, Inc., 411 First Avenue South, Suite #300, Seattle WA 98104. The financing is contemplated for operating expenses and for general corporate purposes. The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because Staenberg Private Capital, LLC and Staenberg Venture Partners II, L.P., both Associates of Rustic Canyon Ventures SBIC, L.P., own more than ten percent of Intrepid Learning Solutions, Inc. Therefore, Intrepid Learning Solutions, Inc., is considered an Associate of Rustic Canyon Ventures SBIC, L.P., as defined at 13 CFR 107.50 of the SBIC Regulations. Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416. Jaime Guzmán-Fournier, Associate Administrator for Investment. [FR Doc. E6-9628 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10480 and #10479] Maine Disaster Number ME-00004 AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 1. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Maine (FEMA-1644-DR), dated 5/25/2006. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 5/13/2006 and continuing through 5/23/2006. *Effective Date:* 6/12/2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 7/24/2006. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 2/26/2007. 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: The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Maine, dated 5/25/2006, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 5/13/2006 and continuing through 5/23/2006. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008.) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-9680 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10482 and #10481] Massachusetts Disaster Number MA-00006 AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 1. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (FEMA-1642-DR) , dated 5/25/2006. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 5/12/2006 and continuing through 5/23/2006. *Effective Date:* 6/12/2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 7/24/2006. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 2/26/2007. 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: The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, dated 5/25/2006, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 5/12/2006 and continuing through 5/23/2006. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008.) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-9677 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10478 and #10477] New Hampshire Disaster Number NH-00002 AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 1. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-1643-DR), dated 5/25/2006. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 5/12/2006 and continuing through 5/23/2006. *Effective Date:* 6/12/2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 7/24/2006. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 2/26/2007. 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: The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of New Hampshire, dated 5/25/2006, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 5/12/2006 and continuing through 5/23/2006. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008.) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-9678 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Summary Notice No. PE-2006-19] Petitions for Exemption; Summary of Petitions Received AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of petitions for exemption received. SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition. DATES: Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before July 10, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FAA-2006-25036 by any of the following methods: • *Web site: http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lender,
(202)267-8029 or John Linsenmeyer,
(202)267-5174, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91. Issued in Washington, DC, on June 14, 2006. Anthony F. Fazio, Director, Office of Rulemaking. Petitions for Exemption *Docket No.:* FAA-2006-25036. *Petitioner:* ConocoPhillips Alaska. *Section of 14 CFR Affected:* 14 CFR part 43 Appendix A(c). *Description of Relief Sought:* This exemption, if granted, would allow ConocoPhillips Alaska to train Type Rated CASA 212 pilots to remove and install the approved baggage bin from the Company CASA 212-300DF. The pilots could then perform this function while operating under 14 CFR part 91 in remote areas. Safety would not be compromised as the installation and removal process requires no tools and all pilots would attend and successfully complete an initial training course. Recurrent training would follow every two years thereafter. [FR Doc. E6-9616 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Summary Notice No. PE-2006-18] Petitions for Exemption; Summary of Petitions Received AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received. SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition. DATES: Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before July 10, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FAA-2006-24624] by any of the following methods: • *Web site: http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. • *Fax: * 1-202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Linsenmeyer
(202)267-5174 or Tim Adams
(202)267-8033, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91. Issued in Washington, DC, on June 13, 2006. Anthony F. Fazio, Director, Office of Rulemaking. Petitions for Exemption *Docket No.:* FAA-2006-24624. *Petitioner:* Experimental Aircraft Association, Inc. *Section of 14 CFR Affected:* 14 CFR 61.49(b)(2) and 61.405(b)(2)(iii). *Description of Relief Sought:* To allow applicants to use an aircraft that is not approved for spins during retests for a flight instructor certificate with sport pilot rating practical test. [FR Doc. E6-9617 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration [FTA Docket No. FTA-2006-25082] Notice of Request for the Extension of Currently Approved Information Collections AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of request for comments. SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB)approval to renew the following information collections:
(1)Bus Testing Program.
(2)Transit Research, Development, Demonstration and Deployment Projects. The collections involve our Bus Testing and Transit Research Programs. The information to be collected for the Bus Testing Program is necessary to ensure that buses have been tested at the Bus Testing Center for maintainability, reliability, safety, performance, structural integrity, fuel economy, emissions, and noise. The information to be collected for Transit Research, Development, Demonstration and Deployment Projects is necessary to determine eligibility of applicants and ensure mass transportation service at a minimum cost. We are required to publish this notice in the **Federal Register** by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Comments must be submitted before August 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; telefax comments to
(202)493-2251; or submit electronically at *http://dms.dot.gov.* All comments should include the docket number in this notice's heading. All comments may be examined and copied at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you desire a receipt, you must include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or, if you submit your comments electronically, you may print the acknowledgement page. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: —Mr. Marcel Belanger, FTA Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation,
(202)366-0725, for the Bus Testing Program. —Mr. Bruce Robinson, FTA Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation,
(202)366-4209, for Transit Research, Development, Demonstration and Deployment Projects. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of these information collections, including:
(1)The necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and
(4)ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of these information collections. *Title:* Bus Testing Program. *OMB Control No.:* 2132-0550. *Background:* 49 U.S.C. 5323(c) provides that no Federal funds appropriated or made available after September 30, 1989, may be obligated or expended for the acquisition of a new bus model (including any model using alternative fuels) unless the bus has been tested at the Bus Testing Center (Center) in Altoona, Pennsylvania. 49 U.S.C. 5318(a) further specifies that each new bus model is to be tested for maintainability, reliability, safety, performance (including braking performance), structural integrity, fuel economy, emissions, and noise. The operator of the Bus Testing Center, the Pennsylvania Transportation Institute (PTI), has entered into a cooperative agreement with FTA. PTI operates and maintains the Center, and establishes and collects fees for the testing of the vehicles at the facility. Upon completion of the testing of the vehicle at the Center, a test report is provided to the manufacturer of the new bus model. The bus manufacturer certifies to an FTA grantee that the bus the grantee is purchasing has been tested at the Center. Also, grantees about to purchase a bus use this report to assist them in making their purchasing decisions. PTI maintains a reference file for all the test reports which are made available to the public. *Respondents:* Bus manufacturers. *Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents:* 30 testing determinations @ 3 hours each; 18 tests @ 3 hours each; and 520 requirements @ 0.5 hours each. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 404 hours. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Title:* 49 U.S.C. Section 5312(a) Transit Research, Development, Demonstration and Deployment Projects *OMB Control No.:* 2132-0546 *Background:* 49 U.S.C. 5312(a) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make grants or contracts for research, development, demonstration and deployment projects, and evaluation of technology of national significance to public transportation, that the Secretary determines will improve mass transportation service or help transportation service meet the total urban transportation needs at a minimum cost. In carrying out the provisions of this section, the Secretary is also authorized to request and receive appropriate information from any source. The information collected is submitted as part of the application for grants and cooperative agreements and is used to determine eligibility of applicants. Collection of this information also provides documentation that the applicants and recipients are meeting program objectives and are complying with FTA Circular 6100.1B and other federal requirements. *Respondents:* FTA grants recipients. *Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents:* 56 hours for each of the 200 respondents. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 11,240 hours. *Frequency:* Annual. *Public Comments Invited:* You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including:
(1)Whether the proposed collection is necessary for FTA's performance;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden;
(3)ways for FTA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and
(4)ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection. Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48. Issued on: June 15, 2006. Ann Linnertz, Acting Associate Administrator for Administration. [FR Doc. E6-9669 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-57-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 34881] Union Pacific Railroad Company—Trackage Rights Exemption—BNSF Railway Company BNSF Railway Company
(BNSF)has agreed to grant overhead trackage rights to Union Pacific Railroad Company
(UP)over BNSF's line of railroad between “Bullfrog Junction” Near BNSF's Puyalloy River Bridge 8.78 and the point of connection with BNSF's Seattle Division main line at River Street Interlocking, BNSF Milepost 38.94X, in Tacoma, WA, a distance of approximately 0.6 miles. The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on ora after June 7, 2006, the effective date of the exemption. 1 1 A decision served on June 6, 2006, denied a petition to stay the operation of the notice of exemption filed by John D. Fitzgerald, for and on behalf of the United Transportation Union-General Committee of Adjustment. Dennis R. Pierce filed a letter on June 5, 2006, on behalf of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainman-General Committee of Adjustment in support of the stay request filed by Mr. Fitzgerald. The purpose of the trackage rights is to create an additional overhead routing for UP trains in the Tacoma area. As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in *Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN,* 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in *Mendocino Coast Ry. Inc.—Lease and Operate,* 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980). This notice i8s filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If it contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void *ab initio.* Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke all not automatically stay the transaction. An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34881, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on: Robert T. Opal, General Commerce Counsel, 1400 Douglas Street, STOP 1580, Omaha, NE 68179. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at *http://www.stb.dot.gov* . Decided: June 12, 2006 Vernon a. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9481 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB-167 (Sub-No. 1188X)] Consolidated Rail Corporation—Abandonment Exemption—in Wayne County, MI Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152 subpart F- *Exempt Abandonments* to abandon approximately 4.3 miles of two contiguous lines of railroad as follows:
(1)the Detroit Terminal West Industrial Track, between approximately milepost 7.70± near Joseph Campau Street and approximately milepost 10.30± near Woodrow Wilson Street; and
(2)the Highland Park Industrial Track, between approximately milepost 7.40± near Woodrow Wilson Street and approximately milepost 5.70± near Cloverdale Street, in Detroit and Highland Park, Wayne County, MI. 1 The lines traverse United States Postal Service Zip Codes 48212, 48203, and 48238. 1 Milepost 10.30 on the Detroit Terminal West Industrial Track is the same as milepost 7.40 on the Highland Park Industrial Track. Conrail has certified that:
(1)No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years;
(2)any overhead traffic can be rerouted over other lines;
(3)no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a State or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and
(4)the requirements of 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(l) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met. As a condition to this exemption, any employees adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under *Oregon Short Line R. Co.-Abandonment-Goshen,* 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). To address whether this condition adequately protects affected employees, a petition for partial revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) must be filed. Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance
(OFA)has been received, this exemption will be effective on July 20, 2006, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues, 2 formal expressions of intent to file an OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2), 3 and trail use/rail banking requests under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be filed by June 30, 2006. Petitions to reopen or requests for public use conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed by July 10, 2006, with: Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. 2 The Board will grant a stay if an informed decision on environmental issues (whether raised by a party or by the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis
(SEA)in its independent investigation) cannot be made before the exemption's effective date. *See Exemption of Out-of-Service Rail Lines,* 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible so that the Board may take appropriate action before the exemption's effective date. 3 Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing fee which as of April 19, 2006, is set at $1,300. *See Regulations Governing Fees for Service Performed in Connection With Licensing and Related Services-2006 Update,* STB Ex Parte No. 542 (Sub-No. 13) (STB served Mar. 20, 2006). *See* 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to Conrail's representative: John K. Enright, 1000 Howard Boulevard, 4th Floor, Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054. If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void *ab initio.* Conrail has filed environmental and historic reports which address the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment
(EA)by June 23, 2006. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 500, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling SEA, at
(202)565-1539. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339.] Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public. Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision. Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), Conrail shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by Conrail's filing of a notice of consummation by June 20, 2007, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at *http://www.stb.dot.gov.* Decided: June 9, 2006. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Vernon A. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9563 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 13, 2006. The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. *Dates:* Written comments should be received on or before July 20, 2006 to be assured of consideration. Federal Consulting Group *OMB Number:* 1505-0164. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Reporting and Procedures Regulations 31 CFR Part 501. *Description:* Submissions will provide the U.S. Government with information to be used in enforcing various economic sanctions programs administered by OFAC less than 31 CFR chapter V. *Respondents:* Individuals and households; Business or other-for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government. *Estimated Total Reporting Burden:* 26,250 hours. *Clearance Officer:* Office of Foreign Assets Control,
(202)622-2500, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Annex-2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20220. *OMB Reviewer:* Alexander T. Hunt,
(202)395-7316, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Michael A. Robinson, Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-9609 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-25-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 13, 2006. The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. *Dates:* Written comments should be received on or before July 20, 2006 to be assured of consideration. Financial Management Service *OMB Number:* 1510-0073. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* ETA Financial Agency Agreement. *Description:* This application will collect a financial institution's identifying information, confirm a financial institution's commitment to offering the ETA, identify a point of contact for the ETA Program and determine date when institutions will offer ETAs. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 10 hours. *Clearance Officer:* Jiovannah Diggs,
(202)874-7662, Financial Management Service, Room 144, 3700 East West Highway, Hyattsville, MD 20782. *OMB Reviewer:* Alexander T. Hunt,
(202)395-7316, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Michael A. Robinson, Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-9610 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-35-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-New (10-21034j)] Proposed Information Collection Activity: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed new collection, and allow 60 days for public comment in response to this notice. This notice solicits comments for information needed to develop an actuarial projection of veterans' enrolled in VA's health care system. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before August 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information to Ann Bickoff, Veterans Health Administration (193E1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail: *ann.bickoff@hq.med.va.gov.* Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-New (10-21034j)” in any correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann W. Bickoff at
(202)273-8310 or FAX
(202)273-9381. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501—3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* Health Insurance and Key Driver Modules for the Survey of Veteran Enrollees' Health and Reliance Upon VA, VA Forms 10-21034j, 10-21034k. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-New (10-21034j). *Type of Review:* New collection. *Abstract:* VA will use the data collected on VA Forms 10-21034j and 10-21034k to accurately project the number of veterans' enrolled in and/or utilizing VA's health care system and as the basis for policy and budgetary analyses. *Affected Public:* Federal Government. *Estimated Annual Burden:* VA Form 10-21034j—2,800 hours. VA Form 10-21034k—67 hours. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:* VA Form 10-21034j—4 minutes. VA Form 10-21034k—2 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* Annually. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* VA Form 10-21034j—42,000. VA Form 10-21034k—2,000. Dated: June 12, 2006. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E6-9681 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P 71 118 Tuesday, June 20, 2006 Presidential Documents Part II The President Executive Order 13405—Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus Notice of June 19, 2006—Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Risk of Nuclear Proliferation Created by the Accumulation of Weapons-Usable Fissile Material in the Territory of the Russian Federation Title 3— The President Executive Order 13405 of June 16, 2006 Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq* .)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 *et seq* .)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, determine that the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Belarus and other persons to undermine Belarus' democratic processes or institutions, manifested most recently in the fundamentally undemocratic March 2006 elections, to commit human rights abuses related to political repression, including detentions and disappearances, and to engage in public corruption, including by diverting or misusing Belarusian public assets or by misusing public authority, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat, and hereby order: **Section 1.**
(a)Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and
(4)of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any overseas branch, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
(i)the persons listed in the Annex to this order; and
(ii)any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the Secretary of State:
(A)to be responsible for, or to have participated in, actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Belarus;
(B)to be responsible for, or to have participated in, human rights abuses related to political repression in Belarus;
(C)to be a senior-level official, a family member of such an official, or a person closely linked to such an official who is responsible for or has engaged in public corruption related to Belarus;
(D)to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, the activities described in paragraphs (a)(ii)(A) through
(C)of this section or any person listed in or designated pursuant to this order; or
(E)to be owned or controlled by, or acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person listed in or designated pursuant to this order.
(b)I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person listed in or designated pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by paragraph
(a)of this section.
(c)The prohibitions in paragraph
(a)of this section include, but are not limited to,
(i)the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person listed in or designated pursuant to this order, and
(ii)the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person. **Sec. 2.**
(a)Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b)Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited. **Sec. 3.** For purposes of this order:
(a)the term “person” means an individual or entity;
(b)the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;
(c)the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States. **Sec. 4.** For those persons listed in or designated pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order. **Sec. 5.** The Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All executive agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken. The Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure compliance with those provisions of section 401 of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641) applicable to the Department of the Treasury in relation to this order. **Sec. 6.** The Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)). **Sec. 7.** The Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to determine, subsequent to the issuance of this order, that circumstances no longer warrant the inclusion of a person in the Annex to this order and that the property and interests in property of that person are therefore no longer blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order. **Sec. 8.** This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person. **Sec. 9.** This order is effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on June 19, 2006. B THE WHITE HOUSE, June 16 2006. Billing code 3195-01-P EDJN06.000 [FR Doc. 06-5592 Filed 6-19-06; 11:43 am]
Connectionstraces to 29
Traces to 29 documents
CFR
- Issuance of amendment.§ 50.92
- Hearing requests, petitions to intervene, requirements for standing, and contentions.§ 2.309
- Notice for public comment; State consultation.§ 50.91
- Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power reactors.§ 50.46
- Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or otherwise not requiring environmental review.§ 51.22
- Application of subpart to ongoing environmental work.§ 51.12
- Technical specifications.§ 50.36
- Training and qualification of nuclear power plant personnel.§ 50.120
- Delegation of authority to Director of Division of Trading and Markets.§ 200.30-3
- Financings which constitute conflicts of interest.§ 107.730
- Definition of terms.§ 107.50
- Does FAA invite public comment on petitions for exemption?§ 11.85
- Retesting after failure.§ 61.49
U.S. Code
- Registration, responsibilities, and oversight of self-regulatory organizations§ 78s
- Short title§ 78a
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Definitions and application§ 78c
- National securities exchanges§ 78f
- General provisions§ 5323
- Bus testing facility§ 5318
- Public transportation innovation§ 5312
- Authority to exempt rail carrier transportation§ 10502
- Purposes§ 3501
- Unusual and extraordinary threat; declaration of national emergency; exercise of Presidential authorities§ 1701
- Termination of existing declared emergencies§ 1601
- Presidential authorities§ 1702
- Accountability and reporting requirements of President§ 1641
- Consultation and reports§ 1703
21 references not yet in our index
- 10 CFR 2
- 17 CFR 240.19
- 15 USC 78(f)(b)
- 15 USC 78(f)(b)(5)
- 14 CFR 43
- 14 CFR 91
- 49 CFR 1.48
- 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7)
- 49 CFR 1152
- 49 CFR 1105.7
- 49 CFR 1105.8
- 49 CFR 1105.11
- 49 CFR 1105.12
- 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(l)
- 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2)
- 49 CFR 1152.29
- 49 CFR 1152.28
- 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25)
- 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2)
- Pub. L. 104-13
- 31 CFR 501
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of application for an order under Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) granting exemptions from the provisions of Sections 2(a)(32), and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder
Cite10 CFR 2
Cite17 CFR 240.19
Cite15 USC 78(f)(b)
Cites 50 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources