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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-11-21 · National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) · Notices

Notices. Notice of information collection

40,928 words·~186 min read·/register/2006/11/21/06-9324

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

BILLING CODE 7050-01-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice: 06-086] Notice of Information Collection AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of information collection. SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
DATES: All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Mr. Walter Kit, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Mr. Walter Kit, NASA PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., JE000, Washington, DC 20546,
(202)358-1350, *Walter.Kit-1@nasa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The purpose of these information collections is to gather Web site usability data by a combination of complimentary data collection instruments that will be used by Web and product design teams to enhance NASA Web sites and educational products, making them easier to use and more effective for users to access Agency information with the least amount of time, frustration, and effort. II. Method of Collection Usability data will be gathered using various methods and resources, including but not limited to candidate screening, user observation, focus groups, questionnaires, and in-person interviews by means of questionnaires on Web sites, email attachments, faxes, telephone interviews, and direct person-to-person communication. III. Data *Title:* Generic Web Site Usability Information Collections. *OMB Number:* 2700-XXXX. *Type of review:* Generic Collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Number of Respondents:* 1800. *Responses Per Respondent:* 1. *Annual Responses:* 600. *Hours Per Response:* 1.5 hours. *Annual Burden Hours:* 900. IV. Request for Comments *Comments are invited on:*
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) 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 automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record. Gary Cox, Deputy Chief Information Officer (Acting). [FR Doc. E6-19656 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Notice (06-085) National Environmental Policy Act; Mars Science Laboratory Mission AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of availability of final environmental impact statement
(FEIS)for implementation of the Mars Science Laboratory
(MSL)mission. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and NASA policy and procedures (14 CFR Part 1216 subpart 1216.3), NASA has prepared and issued a FEIS for the proposed MSL mission. The FEIS addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with implementing the mission. The purpose of this proposal is to explore the surface of Mars with a mobile science laboratory (hereinafter called the “rover”). This environmental impact statement
(EIS)is a tiered document (Tier 2 EIS) under NASA's Programmatic EIS for the Mars Exploration Program (MEP). The FEIS presents descriptions of the proposed MSL mission, spacecraft, and candidate launch vehicles; an overview of the affected environment at and near the launch site; and the potential environmental consequences associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The MSL mission is planned for launch during the September-November 2009 time period from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Florida, on an expendable launch vehicle. The arrival date at Mars would range from mid-July 2010 to not later than mid-October 2010, depending on the exact launch date and the yet to be determined landing site on the surface of Mars. Using advanced instrumentation, the MSL rover would strive to acquire significant detailed information regarding the habitability of Mars from a scientifically promising location on the surface. The mission would also fulfill NASA's strategic technology goals of increasing the mass of science payloads delivered to the surface of Mars, expanding access to higher and lower latitudes, increasing precision landing capability, and increasing traverse capability (mobility) to distances on the order of several kilometers. The FEIS evaluates two alternatives in addition to the No Action Alternative. Under the Proposed Action (Alternative 1, NASA's Preferred Alternative), the proposed MSL rover would utilize a radioisotope power system, a Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG), as its primary source of electrical power to operate and conduct science on the surface of Mars. Under Alternative 2, an MSL rover would utilize solar energy as its primary source of electrical power to operate and conduct science on the surface of Mars. DATES: NASA will take no final action on the proposed MSL mission on or before December 21, 2006, or 30 days from the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)notice of availability of the MSL FEIS, whichever is later. ADDRESSES: The FEIS may be reviewed at the following locations:
(a)NASA Headquarters, Library, Room 1J20, 300 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20546-0001;
(b)Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Visitors Lobby, Building 249, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109. Hard copies of the FEIS also may be examined at other NASA Centers (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below). Limited hard copies of the FEIS are available, on a first request basis, by contacting Mark R. Dahl at the address, telephone number, or electronic mail address indicated below. The FEIS is also available in Adobe® portable document format at *http://spacescience.nasa.gov/admin/pubs/msl/index.htm.* NASA's Record of Decision
(ROD)will also be placed on that Web site when it is issued. Anyone who desires a hard copy of NASA's ROD when it is issued should so indicate by contacting Mr. Dahl. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark R. Dahl, Planetary Science Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546-0001, telephone 202-358-4800, or electronic mail *mep.nepa@hq.nasa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MEP is currently being implemented as a sustained series of flight missions to Mars, each of which will provide important, focused scientific return. The MEP is fundamentally a science driven program whose focus is on understanding and characterizing Mars as a dynamic system and ultimately addressing whether life is or was ever a part of that system. The core MEP addresses the highest priority scientific investigations directly related to the Program goals and objectives. MSL investigations would be a means of addressing several of the high-priority scientific investigations recommended to NASA by the planetary science community. The overall scientific goals of the MSL mission can be divided into four areas:
(1)Assess the biological potential of at least one selected site on Mars;
(2)characterize the geology and geochemistry of the landing region at all appropriate spatial scales;
(3)investigate planetary processes of relevance to past habitability; and
(4)characterize the broad spectrum of the Martian surface radiation environment. The following specific objectives are planned for the mission to address these goals: —Determine the nature and inventory of organic carbon compounds; —Inventory the chemical building blocks of life (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur); —Identify features that may represent the effects of biological processes; —Investigate the chemical, isotopic, and mineralogical composition of Martian surface and near-surface geological materials; —Interpret the processes that have formed and modified rocks and regolith; —Assess long-timescale (i.e., 4-billion-year) atmospheric evolution processes; and —Determine the present state, distribution, and cycling of water and carbon dioxide. The proposed MSL mission would utilize a rover with advanced instrumentation to acquire significant detailed information regarding the habitability of Mars from a scientifically promising location. The mission would also fulfill NASA's strategic technology goals of increasing the mass of science payloads delivered to the surface of Mars, expanding access to higher and lower latitudes, increasing precision landing capability, and increasing traverse capability (mobility) to distances on the order of several kilometers. Mobility is essential because evidence for past or present life on Mars will very likely not be so abundant or widespread that it will be available in the immediate vicinity of the selected landing site. Without the mobility necessary to conduct in situ exploration, it may not be possible to uniquely characterize a target location. The Proposed Action (Alternative 1, NASA's Preferred Alternative) consists of continuing preparations for and implementing the MSL mission to Mars. The proposed MSL rover would utilize a MMRTG as its primary source of electrical power to operate and conduct science on the surface of Mars. Under Alternative 2, NASA would discontinue preparations for the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) and implement an alternative MSL mission to Mars. The alternative MSL rover would utilize solar energy as its primary source of electrical power to operate and conduct science on the surface of Mars. With either the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) or Alternative 2, the MSL spacecraft would be launched on board an expendable launch vehicle from CCAFS, Florida during the September—November 2009 time period. Under the No Action Alternative, NASA would discontinue preparations for the MSL mission, and the spacecraft would not be launched. With either the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) or Alternative 2, the potentially affected environment for a normal launch includes the area at and in the vicinity of the launch site, CCAFS in Florida. The environmental impacts of a normal launch of the mission for either alternative would be associated principally with the exhaust emissions from the expendable launch vehicle. These effects would include:
(1)Short-term impacts on air quality within the exhaust cloud and near the launch pad; and
(2)the potential for acidic deposition on the vegetation and surface water bodies at and near the launch complex. Potential launch accidents could result in the release of some of the radioactive material on board the spacecraft. The MMRTG planned for use on the rover for the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) would use approximately 4.8 kilograms (10.6 pounds) of plutonium dioxide to provide electrical power. For either alternative, two of the science instruments on the rover would use small quantities of radioactive material, totaling approximately two curies, for instrument calibration or science experiments. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), in cooperation with NASA, has performed a risk assessment of potential accidents for the MSL mission. This assessment used a methodology refined through applications to the Galileo, Ulysses, Cassini, Mars Exploration Rover, and New Horizons missions. DOE's risk assessment for the proposed MSL mission indicates that in the event of a launch accident the expected impacts of released radioactive material at and in the vicinity of the launch area, and on a global basis, would be small. Alternative 2 would not involve any MMRTG-associated radiological risks since an MMRTG would not be used for this mission alternative. The FEIS may be reviewed at the following public libraries in Florida:
(a)Central Brevard Public Library and Reference Center, 308 Forrest Avenue, Cocoa, FL 32922;
(b)Cocoa Beach Public Library, 550 North Brevard Avenue, Cocoa Beach, FL 32931;
(c)Melbourne Public Library, 540 East Fee Avenue, Melbourne, FL 32901;
(d)Merritt Island Public Library, 1195 North Courtenay Parkway, Merritt Island, FL 32953;
(e)Port St. John Public Library, 6500 Carole Avenue, Port St. John, FL 32927;
(f)Titusville Public Library, 2121 South Hopkins Avenue, Titusville, FL 32780. The FEIS also may be examined at the following NASA locations by contacting the pertinent Freedom of Information Office:
(a)NASA, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035 (650-604-3273);
(b)NASA, Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA 93523 (661-276-2704);
(c)NASA, Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field, Cleveland, OH 44135 (866-404-3642);
(d)NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771 (301-286-4721);
(e)NASA, Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058 (281-483-8612);
(f)NASA, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 (321-867-2745);
(g)NASA, Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681 (757-864-2497);
(h)NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812 (256-544-1837); and
(i)NASA, Stennis Space Center, MS 39529 (228-688-2118). NASA published a Notice of Availability
(NOA)of the Draft EIS
(DEIS)for the MSL mission in the **Federal Register** on September 5, 2006, (71 FR 52347) and made the DEIS available in electronic format on its Web site. The EPA published its NOA in the **Federal Register** on September 8, 2006, (71 FR 53093). In addition, NASA published its NOA in local newspapers in the Cape Canaveral, Florida regional area, and in Washington, DC, and held public meetings in Cocoa, Florida on September 27, 2006, and in Washington, DC on October 10, 2006, during which attendees were invited to present both oral and written comments on the DEIS. Three comments relevant to the DEIS were presented at these meetings. NASA received 44 written comment submissions, both hardcopy and electronic, during the comment period ending October 23, 2006. The comments are addressed in the FEIS. Olga M. Dominguez, Assistant Administrator for Infrastructure and Administration. [FR Doc. E6-19610 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P 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 October 27, 2006, to November 8, 2006. The last biweekly notice was published on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65139). 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, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing 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.* AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek), Ocean County, New Jersey *Date of amendment request:* September 28, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The amendment would revise the Oyster Creek Technical Specifications definition of Channel Calibration, Channel Check, and Channel Functional Test in accordance with the NUREG-1433, Revision 3, “Standard Technical Specifications, General Electric Plants—BWR [boiling water reactor]/4.” *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. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The definitions of Channel Check, Channel Calibration[,] and Channel Functional Test specified in Technical Specifications
(TS)provide basic information regarding what the test involves, the components involved in the test, and general information regarding how the test is to be performed. Instrument channel checking, calibrating, and testing are not initiators of any accident previously evaluated. Furthermore, the proposed changes will not affect the ability of the channel being checked, calibrated[,] or tested to respond as assumed in any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, these revised definitions result in no increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed revisions of these definitions, corresponding administrative changes (capitalization of definitions), and the proposed alternate testing and calibrating methodology using sequential, overlapping testing, and/or actual channel input signals and/or in place qualitative assessments of resistance temperature detectors (RTD's) and thermocouples (TC's) involve no changes to plant design, equipment, or operation related to mitigation of accidents. The qualitative evaluation of sensor behavior for non-adjustable sensors will provide an accurate indication of sensor operation and will assure that [the evaluated] portion of the channel is operating properly, ensuring that the consequences of an accident will remain as previously evaluated. Therefore, these revised definitions result in no increase in the consequences of an accident previously identified. Based on the above, AmerGen concludes that the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Will operation of the facility in accordance of the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed revisions of the instrument surveillance definitions, corresponding administrative changes (capitalization of definitions), and the proposed alternate testing and calibrating methodology using sequential, overlapping testing, and/or actual channel input signals and/or in place qualitative assessments of RTD's and TC's do not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. No new or different type[s] of equipment will be installed. The proposed changes also do not adversely affect the operation or operability of existing plant equipment. The proposed revisions will allow a change in testing and calibrating methodology. Allowing an alternate testing and calibrating methodology will not change how the plant is operated. Each instrument channel will be tested one sub channel at a time, as is currently performed, and will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. Based on the above discussion, AmerGen concludes that the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The affected definitions involve checking, calibrating[,] and testing of instrumentation used in the mitigation of accidents to ensure that the instrumentation will perform as assumed in safety analyses. The proposed revisions of these definitions, corresponding administrative changes (capitalization of definitions), and the proposed alternate testing and calibrating methodology using sequential, overlapping testing, and/or actual channel input signals and/or in place qualitative assessments of RTD's and TC's does not alter the ability of the instrument channel to respond as designed or assumed in the safety analyses. As a result[,] the ability of the plant to respond to[,] and mitigate[,] accidents is unchanged by the revised definitions. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LCC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. *NRC Branch Chief:* Harold K. Chernoff. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois *Date of amendment request:* June 16, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated September 14, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the Byron Station Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to incorporate changes concerning the requirements for physical protection from tornado-generated missiles
(TGM)for safety-related and non-safety related systems and components. *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 probability of occurrence of the design basis tornado remains the same as originally established in the Byron Station Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The request involves the use of a probability-based assessment of the need for physical tornado missile protection of specific existing features at Byron Station. The request is to utilize an NRC approved methodology ( *i.e.* , the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI)Topical Report “Tornado Missile Risk Evaluation Methodology”) to conclude that the acceptance criteria of NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan,”
(SRP)Section 2.2.3, “Evaluation of Potential Accidents,” Revision 2, July 1981, has been met for Byron Station and that tornado missile damage of selected components at Byron Station need not be considered as a credible event. Per Item 2 in Section III of SRP 3.5.1.4, probability methods can be used to accept tornado missile effects provided damage to all important structures, systems and components, as discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.117 are considered. Per Section II of the SRP, the acceptance criterion of SRP 2.2.3 is applicable. Section II of SRP 2.2.3 states that the expected rate of occurrence of potential exposure in excess of 10 CFR Part 100, “Reactor Site Criteria,” guidelines of approximately 1.0E-06 per reactor year is acceptable, if when combined with reasonable qualitative arguments, that the realistic probability can be shown to be smaller. [The licensee in its September 14, 2006, letter stated the following in regards to the consequences of an accident previously evaluated: The acceptance criteria for the TORMIS analysis has been established as 1.0 E-06 per year cumulative probability of a TGM striking/damaging an unprotected essential SSC [system, structure or component] required for safe shutdown in the event of a tornado, which is the same value found to be acceptable by the NRC based on the accepted rates of occurrence of potential exposures in excess of 10 CFR 100 guidelines. This criteria in combination with conservative qualitative assumptions show that the realistic probability of a potential exposure in excess of the 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines is lower than 1.0 E-06 per year. The conservative qualitative assumptions are the same as previously found to be acceptable by the NRC as described below: It is assumed that an essential SSC being struck/damaged by a tornado missile will result in damage sufficient to preclude it from performing its safety function. It is assumed that the damage to the essential SSC results in damage to fuel sufficient to result in conservatively calculated radiological release values in excess of 10 CFR 100 guidelines. There are no missiles that can directly impact irradiated fuel, even the spent fuel stored in the Spent Fuel Pool.] The proposed change is not considered to constitute a significant increase in the probability or occurrence or the consequences of an accident due to the extremely low probability of damage due to tornado-generated missiles and therefore an extremely low probability of a radiological release. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of previously evaluated accidents. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. This change involves the use of an alternative methodology to assess the need for tornado missile protection on selected Byron Station components. The use of this methodology and the changes to the Byron Station UFSAR will be limited to design basis tornado applications and do not contribute to the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those previously analyzed. No new or different system interactions are created and no new processes are introduced. The proposed change does not introduce any new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the design and licensing bases. Based on this evaluation, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The changes, allowing for no additional physical protection for tornado-generated missiles for certain Byron Sation components, is based on successfully meeting the acceptance criteria of NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan,”
(SRP)Section 2.2.3, “Evaluation of Potential Accidents,” Revision 2, July 1981. Because of the extremely low probability of damage to these components from tornado-generated missiles, the change is not considered to constitute a significant decrease 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 requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Assistant General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. *NRC Branch Chief:* Daniel S. Collins. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Lake County, Ohio *Date of amendment request:* October 13, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would eliminate License Condition 2.F, which requires reporting violations of Operating License Section 2.C, and eliminates Technical Specification 5.6.6, which contains a reporting condition similar to Operating License Section 2.C.(6). The availability of this operating license improvement was announced in the **Federal Register** on November 4, 2005 (70 FR 67202), as part of the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the **Federal Register** on August 29, 2005 (70 FR 51098), on possible amendments concerning this CLIIP, including a model safety evaluation and a model no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC)determination. The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models for referencing in license amendment applications in the **Federal Register** on November 4, 2005 (70 FR 67202). In its application dated October 13, 2006, the licensee affirmed the applicability of the following determination. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: 1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change involves the deletion of a reporting requirement. The change does not affect plant equipment or operating practices and therefore does not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change is administrative in that it deletes a reporting requirement. The change does not add new plant equipment, change existing plant equipment, or affect the operating practices of the facility. Therefore, the change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The proposed change deletes a reporting requirement. The change does not affect plant equipment or operating practices and therefore does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308. *NRC Branch Chief:* Daniel S. Collins. Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida *Date of amendment request:* October 5, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment to the Improved Technical Specification will revise the defined pool burnup-enrichment requirements, storage configuration for fresh fuel and low burnup/high enriched fuel, the definition of a peripheral assembly, and will include minor editorial changes. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:
(1)Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The LAR proposes to revise the fresh fuel loading configuration. PEF [Progress Energy Florida, Inc.] has reanalyzed the criticality of the revised storage configuration for fresh fuel checkerboarded with spent fuel in Pool A, and surrounded by empty water cells in Pool B. Similarly, storage of spent fuel in peripheral storage locations, given the new definition, was also reanalyzed. The revised fuel storage configuration does not affect any structure, system, component or process related to the operation of Crystal River Unit 3 (CR-3). As a result, the proposed LAR will not change the probability or consequences of any accidents previously evaluated that are related to operation of the plant. Thus, only those accidents that are related to movement and storage of fuel assemblies could be potentially affected by the proposed LAR. Fuel Handling Accidents
(FHAs)are analyzed in Section 14.2.2.3 of the CR-3 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). These include a FHA inside the Reactor Building
(RB)and outside the RB. This LAR involves storage of fuel assemblies, an activity conducted outside the RB only. Therefore, only the FHA outside the RB event needs to be considered. The FHA outside the RB event is described as the dropping of a fuel assembly into the spent fuel storage pool that results in damage to a fuel assembly and the release of the gaseous fission products. The current FHA assumes all 208 fuel pins in the dropped assembly are damaged and the gas gap activity released. The results of that analysis demonstrate that the applicable dose acceptance criteria, 10 CFR 50.67 and Regulatory Guide 1.183, “Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,” are satisfied. Thus, the consequences of a FHA are not increased by the allowed change in the fresh fuel configuration. The fresh fuel storage configurations permit more effective use of already existing storage locations. They do not change the frequency or method for handling fuel assemblies. Fuel handling equipment is unaffected. As such, the probability of a FHA has not increased. Since only one fuel assembly is handled at a time, the consequences of a FHA have not increased. The current limiting heat load for the spent fuel pool is from the combined impact of stored spent fuel and a full core off-load. These changes do not increase spent fuel storage capacity over that for which the racks are currently analyzed and it does not increase the amount of heat ejected from an off-loaded core. Consequently, current analyses for spent fuel pool cooling remain valid. The configuration change allows fresh fuel to be checkerboarded with spent fuel. Since these changes do not increase the storage capacity over that already analyzed for the racks, filling the empty water cells in the checkerboard pattern with spent fuel will not increase the heat load over that already analyzed. The Pool B allowance to surround a higher enriched/lower burnup fuel assembly in Pool B with empty water cells or changing the definition of a periphery rack cell does not increase the number of spent fuel assembly rack locations over that previously analyzed. Therefore, there is no increase in the pool heat load over that already analyzed. A change in storage configurations in storage Pools A and B does not increase the probability of a full core off-load or the frequency of establishing maximum heat load conditions. The FSAR specifies the normal upper limit of the fuel pool cooling system as 160 °F. Administrative controls are implemented to control when fuel may be moved from the reactor to the fuel pool to prevent reaching this limit. Because neither the probability nor the consequences of a FHA are increased, and because there is not additional heat input to the spent fuel pools, it is concluded that the LAR does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2)Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Onsite storage of spent fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pools is a normal activity for which CR-3 has been designed and licensed. As part of assuring that this normal activity can be performed without endangering public health and safety, the ability of CR-3 to safely accommodate different possible accidents in the spent fuel pools, such as dropping a fuel assembly or the misloading of a fuel assembly, have been analyzed. The revised fuel storage configurations proposed by the LAR does not change the methods of fuel movement or fuel storage. No structural or mechanical change to racks or fuel handling equipment is being proposed. The proposed revisions allow for more effective use of existing, unmodified rack locations when fresh or highly enriched, low burnup fuel is stored in the pool. The proposed revisions are a modification to the criticality analysis only, and therefore the proposed LAR does not create any new or different kind of accident from those previously evaluated.
(3)Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? The CR-3 Improved Technical Specification
(ITS)ensures the effective neutron multiplication factor, Keff, of the spent fuel storage racks is maintained less than or equal to 0.95 when fully loaded and flooded with unborated water. The revisions proposed by the LAR likewise ensure Keff is maintained less than this requirement. Analyses for the proposed fuel storage configurations have shown that sufficient margin exists for fuel enriched to the maximum allowed by the CR-3 license, and for all fuel that is or has been in use at CR-3. Maintaining this margin is assured by remaining within the limits on initial enrichment and fuel burnup that are specified in the CR-3 ITS and, in the case of highly enriched, low burnup fuel in Pool B, by water hole spacing. The LAR proposes allowing fresh fuel to be checkerboarded with Category B type fuel in Pool A rather than with empty water cells. It also allows fresh fuel with high initial enrichment which does not meet current burnup requirements to be placed in Pool B if surrounded by eight empty water cells. It also proposes to change the definition of a periphery rack location for storing Category BP type fuel. Analyses show that the new proposed limits ensure that Keff remains less than 0.95. Attachment E [not included in this FR notice] provides an analysis summary. The current CR-3 licensing basis allows the use of administrative controls, *e.g.* , curves of initial fuel assembly enrichment versus burnup, as a means of preventing criticality in the spent fuel pools. The use of these curves would be continued under this proposed amendment. The changes to these curves proposed by this LAR consist of revising the values of burnup and adding notes to restrict loading of certain fuel assemblies to specific configurations. These types of curves and administrative controls have been included in the CR-3 operating license and their use implemented by site procedures for many operating cycles. From this previous use, CR-3 personnel are familiar with the practice of using administrative controls, such as curves of fuel assembly enrichment versus burnup, to prevent criticality events when placing fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool. Misloaded and mislocated fuel assemblies were analyzed. The analysis demonstrated that misloading of a fresh fuel assembly, assuming no soluble poison (boron) in the water does result in exceeding the criticality margin regulatory limit of Keff = 0.95. The analysis further shows that a concentration of 165 ppm boron in the Pool A and a concentration of 46 ppm boron in Pool B is sufficient to ensure Keff < 0.95. LCO 3.7.14 currently requires a minimum boron concentration of 1925 ppm in the spent fuel pools until fuel is verified as having been loaded in accordance with the enrichment and burnup requirements of LCO 3.7.15. The soluble boron assumed in the analysis for this proposed change is substantially less than the 1925 ppm required by the existing license. Therefore, existing license requirements for soluble boron remain conservative. The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis provided for Florida Power Corporation 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:* David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel II—Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. *NRC Branch Chief (Acting):* L. Raghavan. FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, Iowa *Date of amendment request:* July 17, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO)3.6.3.1 to eliminate the requirement for the Containment Atmospheric Dilution
(CAD)system, allowing its removal from the DAEC. LCO 3.6.3.2 would also be revised to allow an additional 48 hours on plant start-up or shutdown sequences for the primary containment to be de-inerted. *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 amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The Containment Atmosphere Dilution
(CAD)system and primary containment oxygen concentration are not initiators to any accident previously evaluated in the DAEC Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The CAD system and containment oxygen concentration were previously relied upon to mitigate the consequences of a design basis accident
(DBA)combustible gas mixture. However, the revised 10 CFR 50.44 (68 FR 54123) no longer defines a DBA hydrogen release ( *i.e.* , combustible gas mixture) and the Commission has subsequently found that the DBA loss of coolant accident
(LOCA)hydrogen release is not risk significant. In addition, hydrogen control systems, such as CAD, have been determined to be ineffective at mitigating hydrogen releases from the more risk significant beyond design basis accidents that could threaten containment integrity. Therefore, elimination of the CAD system will not significantly increase the consequences of any accident previously evaluated. The consequences of an accident while relying on the revised Required Actions for primary containment oxygen concentration are no different than the consequences of the same accidents under the current Required Actions. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant, except for the elimination of the CAD system ( *i.e.* , no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The CAD system is not considered an accident precursor, nor does its existence or elimination have any adverse impact on the pre-accident state of the reactor core or post accident confinement of radionuclides within the containment building from any DBA. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or different requirements. The changes to the Technical Specifications for oxygen concentration do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis, but reflect changes to the safety analysis requirements allowed under the revised 10 CFR 50.44. Specifically that an inerted containment is no[t] required to mitigate any DBA, but has been found to be helpful in mitigating certain beyond design basis events ( *i.e.* , severe accidents) that could generate combustible levels of hydrogen. 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 amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The installation of combustible gas control systems, such as CAD, required by the original § 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that this hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after the onset of core damage. In addition, these systems were ineffective at mitigating hydrogen releases from risk-significant accident sequences that could threaten containment integrity. (68 FR 54123). The proposed changes to CAD and primary containment oxygen concentration reflect this new regulatory position and, in light of the remaining plant equipment, instrumentation, procedures, and programs that provide effective mitigation of and recovery from reactor accidents, including postulated beyond design basis events, does not result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety. 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:* Mr. R. E. Helfrich, Florida Power & Light Company, P. O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420. *NRC Branch Chief:* L. Raghavan. Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M), Docket No. 50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Berrien County, Michigan *Date of amendment request:* September 15, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would replace the current control system and it will increase the nominal control fluid oil operating pressure from 114 pounds per square inch gauge
(psig)to 1600 psig. The control fluid oil pressure provides an input to the reactor protection system via three pressure switches connected to the control fluid header. Due to the change in the operating pressure, I&M is proposing a revision to the allowable low fluid oil pressure value from greater than or equal to 57 psig to greater than or equal to 750 psig. *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 amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change reflects a design change to the turbine control system that increases the control oil pressure, necessitating a change to the value at which a low fluid oil pressure initiates a reactor trip. The turbine control oil pressure is an input to the reactor trip instrumentation, and the reactor trip is a response to an event that trips the turbine. A change in the nominal control oil pressure does not introduce any mechanisms that would increase the probability of an accident previously analyzed. The reactor trip on turbine trip function is an anticipatory trip, and the safety analysis does not credit this trip for protecting the reactor core. Thus, the consequences of previously analyzed accidents are not impacted. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The control fluid oil pressure decreases in response to a turbine trip. The value at which the low control fluid oil initiates a reactor trip is not an accident initiator. The change in the value reflects the higher pressure of the turbine control system that will be installed during the Unit 2 Cycle 17 refueling outage. 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 amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The change involves a parameter that initiates an anticipatory reactor trip following a turbine trip. The safety analyses do not credit this anticipatory trip for reactor core protection. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* James M. Petro, Jr., Esquire, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106. *NRC Acting Branch Chief:* Martin C. Murphy. Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan *Date of amendment request:* September 15, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify the Technical Specifications
(TS)to change Required Action Notes in TS 3.3.1, “Reactor Trip System Instrumentation,” and TS 3.3.2, “Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation,” to reflect installed bypass test capability, as well as correct one administrative error in TS 3.3.1 Condition Q. The proposed changes to the Required Action Notes are consistent with wording in Standard Technical Specifications (NUREG-1431, Revision 3) for plants with installed bypass test capability. *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 of occurrence or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change reflects NUREG-1431, Revision 3, “Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants,”
(STS)wording for plants with installed bypass test capability and aligns Technical Specification
(TS)Condition entry requirements with other portions of the TS. The proposed changes do not modify how the reactor trip system
(RTS)and engineered safety features actuation systems (ESFAS) functions respond to an accident condition. The proposed changes to the TS Required Action Notes prevent unnecessary TS Action entry during performance of surveillance testing. The probability of accidents previously evaluated remains unchanged since the proposed change does not affect any accident initiators. The consequences of accidents previously evaluated are unaffected by this change because no change to any accident mitigation scenario has resulted and there are no additional challenges to fission product barrier integrity. 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. No changes are being made to the plant that would introduce any new accident causal mechanisms. The proposed change to the Required Action Notes and Condition entry requirements does not adversely affect previously identified accident initiators and does not create any new accident initiators. The change does not affect how the RTS and ESFAS functions operate. No new single failure or accident scenarios are created by the proposed change and the proposed change does not result in any event previously deemed incredible being made credible. 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. No safety analyses were changed or modified as a result of the proposed TS changes to reflect STS wording for plants with installed bypass test capability or for aligning TS Condition entry requirements. All margins associated with the current safety analyses acceptance criteria are unaffected. The current safety analyses remain bounding. The safety systems credited in the safety analyses will continue to be available to perform their mitigation functions. The proposed change does not affect the availability or operability of safety-related systems and components. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* James M. Petro, Jr., Esquire, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106 *NRC Acting Branch Chief:* M. Murphy. Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota *Date of amendment request:* August 14, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments would make miscellaneous improvements to the Technical Specifications
(TS)for Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) Units 1 and 2. The proposed amendments would revise TS 1.3, “Completion Times”; TS 3.1.4, “Rod Group Alignment Limits”; TS 3.3.7, “Spent Fuel Pool Special Ventilation System (SFPSVS) Actuation Instrumentation”; TS 3.7.10, “Control Room Special Ventilation System (CRSVS)”; and TS Chapter 4.0, “Design Features”. *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. This license amendment request proposes changes to the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Technical Specifications as follows: Technical Specification 1.3, “Completion Times”, revise a text header and add a new text header; Technical Specification 3.1.4, “Rod Group Alignment Limits”, remove a Surveillance Note which cross-references another Technical Specification and may cause confusion; Technical Specification 3.3.7, “Spent Fuel Pool Special Ventilation System (SFPSVS) Actuation Instrumentation”, revises the Modes of Applicability consistent with plant design and the Technical Specifications for the Spent Fuel Pool Special Ventilation System, the supported system; Technical Specification 3.7.10, “Control Room Special Ventilation System (CRSVS)”, revises the applicability of Condition C and clarifies the requirements of the Surveillance to verify train filtration flow; and Technical Specification Chapter 4.0, “Design Features”, revises Reference 1 to the most recent version of the document. Revising and adding text headers in Technical Specification 1.3 are administrative changes because the revised document does not change any basis for the current Technical Specifications. Since these are administrative changes, they do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident. Technical Specification 3.1.4 assures that the control rod positions are within the limits assumed in the safety analysis and that the assumed shutdown margin is available when needed. This license amendment request proposes to remove a Note from a surveillance requirement that cross-references to Technical Specification 3.1.7. Removal of this Note does not change plant operations, testing or maintenance; therefore the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident. Since plant operations, testing and maintenance are not changed, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The Spent Fuel Pool Special Ventilation System filters radioactive materials in the fuel pool enclosure atmosphere released following a fuel handling accident. This license amendment request proposes to revise the Modes and Other Specified Conditions of Applicability for the actuation instrumentation. Technical Specification to be consistent with the Modes and Other Specified Conditions of Applicability in the Technical Specification for the supported system. The Spent Fuel Pool Special Ventilation System and its actuation instrumentation are not accident initiators; therefore, the proposed changes do not affect the probability of an accident. With the proposed change, the Technical Specifications will continue to require the system actuation instrumentation to be operable when irradiated fuel is moved in the fuel pool enclosure which is also the required Applicability in the supported system Technical Specification. Since the instrumentation will be required to actuate the supported system when it is required to operate, the accident consequences will continue to be mitigated with this proposed Technical Specification change. Thus, the proposed Technical Specification change does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The Control Room Special Ventilation System provides an enclosed control room environment from which the plant can be operated following an uncontrolled release of radioactivity. This system is not an accident initiator, thus the proposed changes do not increase the probability of an accident. This license amendment proposes changes which will:
(1)Reduce the time to shut down the plant when Technical Specification required actions or completion time is not met; and
(2)clarifies surveillance requirements to assure that the system performs as designed. These changes do not impact the performance of the system; thus this change does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Updating the reference in Technical Specification Chapter 4.0 is an administrative change because the revised document does not change any basis for the current Technical Specifications. Since this is an administrative change, it does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident. The changes proposed in this license amendment do not involve a significant increase 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. This license amendment request proposes changes to the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Technical Specifications as follows: Technical Specification 1.3, “Completion Times”, revise a text header and add a new text header; Technical Specification 3.1.4, “Rod Group Alignment Limits”, remove a Surveillance Note which cross-references another Technical Specification and may cause confusion; Technical Specification 3.3.7, “Spent Fuel Pool Special Ventilation System (SFPSVS) Actuation Instrumentation”, revises the Modes of Applicability consistent with plant design and the Technical Specifications for the Spent Fuel Pool Special Ventilation System, the supported system; Technical Specification 3.7.10, “Control Room Special Ventilation System (CRSVS)”, revises the applicability of Condition C and clarifies the requirements of the Surveillance to verify train filtration flow; and Technical Specification Chapter 4.0, “Design Features”, revises Reference 1 to the most recent version of the document. Revising and adding text headers in Technical Specification 1.3 are administrative changes because the revised document does not change any basis for the current Technical Specifications. Since these are administrative changes, they do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. Removal of a surveillance note from Technical Specification 3.1.4 that cross-references another Technical Specification does not change any plant operations, maintenance activities or testing requirements. The Limiting Conditions for Operation will continue to be met and the proper control rod positions will continue to be maintained. There are no new failure modes or mechanisms created through the removal of the Surveillance Requirements Note, nor are new accident precursors generated by this change. This proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. The proposed revision of Modes of Applicability for the Spent Fuel Pool Special Ventilation System actuation instrumentation makes operation of the actuation instrumentation consistent with the Technical Specification requirements for the supported system and does not change the operation of the supported system for accident mitigation. The Limiting Conditions for Operation will continue to be met, no new failure modes or mechanisms are created and no new accident precursors are generated by this change. This proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. The changes proposed for the Control Room Special Ventilation System Technical Specifications do not change any the system operations, maintenance activities or testing requirements. The Limiting Conditions for Operation will continue to be met, no new failure modes or mechanisms are created and no new accident precursors are generated by this change. This proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. Updating the reference in Technical Specification Chapter 4.0 is an administrative change because the revised document does not change any basis for the current Technical Specifications. Since this is an administrative change, it does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. The Technical Specification changes proposed in this license amendment do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. This license amendment request proposes changes to the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Technical Specifications as follows: Technical Specification 1.3, “Completion Times”, revise a text header and add a new text header; Technical Specification 3.1.4, “Rod Group Alignment Limits”, remove a Surveillance Note which cross-references another Technical Specification and may cause confusion; Technical Specification 3.3.7, “Spent Fuel Pool Special Ventilation System (SFPSVS) Actuation Instrumentation”, revises the Modes of Applicability consistent with plant design and the Technical Specifications for the Spent Fuel Pool Special Ventilation System, the supported system; Technical Specification 3.7.10, “Control Room Special Ventilation System (CRSVS)”, revises the applicability of Condition C and clarifies the requirements of the Surveillance to verify train filtration flow; and Technical Specification Chapter 4.0, “Design Features”, revises Reference 1 to the most recent version of the document. Revising and adding text headers in Technical Specification 1.3 are administrative changes because the revised document does not change any basis for the current Technical Specifications. Since these are administrative changes, they do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Plant operations are required to meet all Technical Specifications for which the Applicability is met; therefore, removal of the cross-reference Note from a Technical Specification 3.1.4 surveillance requirement does not change how the plant is operated and therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Technical Specification 3.3.7 provides requirements for actuation instrument which supports the operation of the Spent Fuel Pool Special Ventilation System as required by Technical Specification 3.7.13. The current Applicability for Technical Specification 3.3.7 requires the actuation instrumentation to be operable in Modes which are not required by Technical Specification 3.7.13. This license amendment proposes to make Technical Specification 3.3.7 Applicability the same as Technical Specification 3.7.13. This change does not reduce the conditions or Modes when the Spent Fuel Pool Special Ventilation System will operate and perform its accident mitigation function; thus this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. This license amendment proposes changes to the Control Room Special Ventilation System Technical Specifications which will:
(1)Reduce the time to shut down the plant when Technical Specification required actions or completion time is not met; and
(2)clarifies surveillance requirements to assure that the system performs as designed. The proposed time to shut down the plant is consistent with other Technical Specifications for shutting down the plant and allows adequate time for an orderly shut down of the plant; thus this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The surveillance requirement clarifications do not reduce any testing requirements and will continue to demonstrate that the system can perform its required safety function and satisfy the Limiting Conditions for Operation. Thus this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Updating the reference in Technical Specification Chapter 4.0 is an administrative change because the revised document does not change any basis for the current Technical Specifications. Since this is an administrative change, it does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The Technical Specification changes proposed in this license amendment 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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President, Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street, Hudson, WI 54016. *NRC Branch Chief:* M. Murphy (A). Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-260 and 50-296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama *Date of amendment request:* October 26, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed request would revise the Units 2 and 3 emergency diesel generator
(EDG)Technical Specification
(TS)Completion Time
(CT)from 14 days to 7 days for restoration of an inoperable EDG. The current 14-day CT was based on the assumption that Unit 1 was shut down. The near-term restart of Unit 1 will invalidate this assumption, therefore, the affected CTs are being returned to their original duration of 7 days. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed Technical Specification change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The EDGs are designed as backup alternating current
(AC)power sources in the event of a loss of offsite power. The proposed restoration of the EDG CT to its original TS duration does not change the conditions, operating configurations, or minimum amount of operating equipment assumed in the safety analysis for accident mitigation. No changes are proposed in the manner in which the EDGs provide plant protection or which create new modes of plant operation. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed Technical Specification change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed amendment does not introduce new equipment which could create a new or different kind of accident. Existing equipment will not be operated in any new modes or for purposes different than it is now utilized. No new external threats, release pathways, or equipment failure modes are created. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed amendment will not create a possibility for an accident of a new or different type than those previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed Technical Specification change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. BFN's emergency AC [alternating current] system is designed with sufficient redundancy such that an EDG may be removed from service for maintenance or testing. The remaining EDGs are capable of carrying sufficient electrical loads to satisfy the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] requirements for accident mitigation or unit safe shutdown. The proposed change does not impact the redundancy or availability requirements of offsite power supplies or change the ability of the plant to cope with station blackout events. 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:* L. Raghavan. U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), United States Maritime Administration (MARAD), License No. NS-1, Docket No. 50-238, Nuclear Ship Savannah
(NSS)*Date of amendment request:* August 7, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed license amendment would modify the Technical Specification
(TS)requirements to prepare for decommissioning the NSS. Five TS changes are proposed. Three of the proposed changes are related to allowing the NSS to be berthed at locations other than the James River Reserve Fleet (JRRF), Newport News, Virginia. The fourth proposed change eliminates the need to utilize administrative controls to remove the Containment Vessel
(CV)Entry Shield Plugs to perform activities such as surveys, system walkdowns and inspections required for developing a detailed decommissioning plan, schedule and cost estimate. The fifth proposed change clarifies the TS and eliminates redundancies, subtle differences and inefficiencies in the current TS regarding preventing unauthorized access into the Reactor Compartment and Radiation Control Areas. In addition, MARAD is enhancing the numbering of the TSs to remove ambiguities that exist in the current numbering ( *e.g.* , TS 2.2 is found on pages 3 and 11 of the current TSs). *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
(1)Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. Proposed changes
(1)Ship's Location,
(2)Review and Audit Committee Membership,
(3)Qualification to perform Surveys and Surveillances,
(4)CV Entry Shield Plugs and
(5)RC and RCA Entrances are administrative in nature and do not involve the modification of any plant equipment or affect basic plant operation. The NSS's reactor is not operational and the level of radioactivity in the NSS has significantly decreased from the levels that existed when the 1976 Possession-only License was issued. No aspect of any of proposed changes is an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2)Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident evaluated? *Response:* No. Proposed changes
(1)Ship's Location,
(2)Review and Audit Committee Membership,
(3)Qualification to perform Surveys and Surveillances,
(4)CV Entry Shield Plugs and
(5)RC and RCA Entrances are administrative and do not involve any physical alteration of plant equipment that was not previously allowed by Technical Specifications. These proposed changes do not change the method by which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
(3)Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. Proposed changes
(1)Ship's Location,
(2)Review and Audit Committee Membership,
(3)Qualification to perform Surveys and Surveillances,
(4)CV Entry Shield Plugs and
(5)RC and RCA Entrances are administrative in nature. No margins of safety exist that are relevant to the ship's defueled and partially dismantled reactor. As such, there are no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed changes. The proposed changes involve movement of the ship, changes in the performance of responsibilities and significantly improved radiological conditions since 1976. 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 upon the staff's review of the licensee's analysis, as well as the staff's own evaluation, the staff concludes 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. *Senior Technical Advisor, N.S. Savannah:* Erhard W. Koehler, MARAD, Office of Ship Operations. *NRC Branch Chief:* Claudia Craig. 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* . 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:* September 29, 2005, as supplemented by letter dated July 5, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* These amendments modified the Security Plan, Training and Qualification Plan, Safeguards Contingency Plan, and Independent Spent Fuel Security Program. *Date of issuance:* October 31, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 1-162, Unit 2-162, Unit 3-162. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74:* The amendments revised the Operating Licenses for all three units. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: August 1, 2006 (71 FR 43530). The July 5, 2006, letter contained the no significant hazards consideration determination for the September 29, 2005, letter that was published in the August 1, 2006, notice. The July 5, 2006, supplemental letter 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 no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 31, 2006. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Letter contained the no significant hazards consideration determination for the September 29, 2005, letter that was published in the August 1, 2006, notice. The July 5, 2006, supplemental letter 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 no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 31, 2006. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2, New London County, Connecticut *Date of application for amendment:* January 4, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The proposed amendment changed the Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2 Technical Specification
(TS)3/4 3.3.8, “Instrumentation, Accident Monitoring,” to modify the description of the pressurizer power operated relief valves and pressurizer safety valves position indicators. *Date of issuance:* November 7, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 294. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-65:* The amendment revised the TSs. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: February 28, 2006 (71 FR 10073). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 7, 2006. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Lake County, Ohio *Date of application for amendment:* November 15, 2005. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment modified the technical specifications to clarify the wording of the emergency closed cooling water
(ECCW)Surveillance Requirement 3.7.10.2 that verified actuation of the entire ECCW system rather than just verifying “valve” actuation. *Date of issuance:* October 27, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days. *Amendment No.:* 139. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-58:* This amendment revised the Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements and License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : January 31, 2006 (71 FR 5081). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 27, 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:* April 27, 2006, as supplemented October 3, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revise, on a one-time basis, Technical Specification 3/4.4.5, Steam Generator
(SG)Surveillance Requirements, to exclude the region of the SG tubes below 17 inches from the top of the hot leg tube sheet from the inspection requirements. The amendments also permanently revise the limit for primary-to-secondary leakage in TS 3/4.4.6, Reactor Coolant System Leakage. *Date of issuance:* November 1, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. *Amendment Nos:* 231 and 226. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41:* Amendments revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: August 1, 2006 (71 FR 43532). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 1, 2006. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan *Date of application for amendments:* March 7, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated August 3, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendment revised Section 3.3.1, “Reactor Trip System
(RTS)Instrumentation,” of the DCCNP-1 and DCCNP-2 Technical Specifications, changing the reactor trip on turbine trip interlock from the P-7 setpoint (10 percent rated thermal power) to the P-8 setpoint (31 percent rated thermal power). *Date of issuance:* October 30, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to entry into Mode 1 from the Cycle 21 refueling outage for DCCNP-1, and prior to entry into Mode 1 from the Cycle 17 refueling outage for DCCNP-2. *Amendment Nos.:* 297 and 298. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74:* Amendments revise the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : April 25, 2006 (71 FR 23956). The supplemental letter contained clarifying information and did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination, and did not expand the scope of the original **Federal Register** notice. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 30, 2006. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska *Date of amendment request:* March 15, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised the Cooper Nuclear Station Technical Specification 5.5.12, “Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,” by adding two sub-paragraphs to note exemptions from Section III.A and Section llI.B of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Option B. These two sub-paragraphs allow the leakage contribution from the four main steam line penetrations, referred to as the Main Steam Isolation Valve leakage, to be excluded. *Date of issuance:* October 31, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 226. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-46:* Amendment revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : April 25, 2006 (71 FR 23958). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 31, 2006. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1 (FCS), Washington County, Nebraska *Date of amendment request:* October 31, 2005, as supplemented on July 25, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised the FCS Updated Safety Analysis Report Sections related to the radiological consequences of events affected by the planned 2006 replacement of the steam generators and pressurizer. *Date of issuance:* October 27, 2006. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of its issuance. *Amendment No.:* 243. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40:* The amendment revised the Updated Safety Analysis Report. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : December 20, 2005 (70 FR 75493). The July 25, 2006, supplemental letter provided information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated October 27, 2006. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska *Date of amendment request:* December 19, 2005, as supplemented on May 30, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment modified Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1's Technical Specification 2.4, “Containment Cooling,” (and the associated Bases) to reduce the required number of operable containment spray
(CS)pumps from three to two in order to enhance net positive suction head margins. The proposed change was implemented by disabling the CS actuation signal automatic start feature of one of the two CS pumps that share the same diesel generator and a common suction line. *Date of issuance:* October 27, 2006. *Effective date:* The license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 244. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40:* The amendment revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : February 28, 2006 (71 FR 10075). The May 30, 2006, supplemental letter provided information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated October 27, 2006. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska *Date of amendment request:* September 30, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated May 23 and August 16, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* Omaha Public Power District proposed to change the licensing basis by replacing EMF-2087(P)(A), Revision 0, “SEM/PWR-98: ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System] Evaluation Model for PWR [Pressurized-Water Reactor] LBLOCA [Large Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident] Applications,” Siemens Power Corporation, June 1999, with the AREVA NP, Inc. Topical Report EMF-2103(P)(A), “Realistic Large Break LOCA Methodology,” Framatome ANP, Inc., in the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1 (FCS), Core Operating Limit Report (COLR). This change is necessary since the EMF-2087(P)(A) methodology is not approved for analyzing M5 clad fuel, which will be used in the FCS reactor core starting in Cycle 24. As part of this approval, the NRC staff reviewed the AREVA NP, Inc. FCS-specific LBLOCA analysis using EMF-2103(P)(A). EMF-2103(P)(A) will be used for Cycle 24 and beyond. *Date of issuance:* November 3, 2006. *Effective date:* Effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 245. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40:* The amendment revised the COLR. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : January 3, 2006 (71 FR 152). The May 23 and August 16, 2006, supplemental 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. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated November 3, 2006. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Omaha Public Power District (OPPD), Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska *Date of amendment request:* May 30, 2006, as supplemented by two letters dated on August 30, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1
(FCS)Technical Specification
(TS)requirements related to steam generator tube integrity. The change is consistent with NRC-approved Revision 4 to Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler TSTF-449, “Steam Generator Tube Integrity.” The availability of this TS improvement was announced in the **Federal Register** on May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24126) as part of the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). OPPD also changed the FCS TS by deleting the sleeving repair alternative to plugging for steam generator tubes. The FCS replacement steam generators
(RSGs)to be installed during the fall of 2006 are manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI). OPPD has stated that the sleeving repair alternative to plugging will not be used for the MHI RSGs. *Date of issuance:* November 7, 2006. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 246. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40:* The amendment revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : July 18, 2006 (71 FR 40750). The two August 30, 2006, supplemental letters provided information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated November 7, 2006. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem County, New Jersey *Date of application for amendment:* October 7, 2005, as supplemented by letter dated September 8, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The proposed amendment revised the Technical Specifications
(TSs)to clarify certain requirements during fuel movement, core alterations, and operations with the potential for draining the reactor vessel. The amendment better aligns the TSs with the NRC-approved Revision 2 to Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Traveler TSTF-51, “Revise Containment Requirements During Handling Irradiated Fuel and Core Alterations,” and NUREG-1433, “Standard Technical Specifications General Electric Plants, BWR [boiling water reactor]/4.” *Date of issuance:* October 31, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 170. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-57:* This amendment revised the TSs. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : May 9, 2006 (71 FR 27002). The licensee's September 8, 2006, supplement provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the proposed amendment as described in the original notice of proposed action published in the **Federal Register** , and did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 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:* April 25, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications to adopt the provisions in Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Traveler TSTF-359, “Increased Flexibility in Mode Restraints,” Revision 9. The availability of TSTF-359 for adoption by licensees was announced in the **Federal Register** on April 4, 2003 (68 FR 16579). *Date of issuance:* October 27, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 276, 258. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : July 5, 2006 (71 FR 38185). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 27, 2006. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina *Date of application for amendment:* October 28, 2005, as supplemented on April 2, June 15, and August 31, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Technical Specifications and provides associated Bases to permit the implementation of an alternate alternating current power supply. *Date of issuance:* November 2, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days. *Amendment No.* 178. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12:* Amendment revises the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : March 14, 2006 (71 FR 13176). The supplemental letter provided clarifying information that was within the scope of the initial notice and did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 2, 2006. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas *Date of amendment request:* October 27, 2005. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised Technical Specifications
(TSs)1.1, “Definitions,” and 3.4.16, “RCS [reactor coolant system] Specific Activity,” to replace the current Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO)3.4.16 limits on RCS specific activity with limits on RCS Dose Equivalent I-131
(DEI)and Dose Equivalent Xe-133 (DEX). In TS 1.1, the definition of
(1)É—Average Disintegration Energy is replaced by the definition of DEX and
(2)DEI is revised to allow the use of alternate thyroid dose conversion factors. The modes of applicability, conditions and required actions, and surveillance requirements for TS 3.4.16 are revised. *Date of issuance:* October 31, 2006. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 170. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-42.* The amendment revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : January 3, 2006 (71 FR 156). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 31, 2006. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas *Date of amendment request:* August 25, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated October 25, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised Technical Specification
(TS)3.7.2, “Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIVs),” and TS 3.7.3, “Main Feedwater Isolation Valves (MFIVs),” to add the associated actuator trains to
(1)the limiting condition for operation (LCO),
(2)the conditions, required actions, and completion times for the LCO, and
(3)the surveillance requirements. The Table of Contents for the TSs is changed to account for the resulting renumbering of TS pages. *Date of issuance:* November 7, 2006. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 171. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-42.* The amendment revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : September 1, 2006 (71 FR 52173). The supplemental letter dated October 25, 2006, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 7, 2006. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of November, 2006. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-19434 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NUREG-1852] Demonstrating the Feasibility and Reliability of Operator Manual Actions in Response to Fire, Draft Report for Comment AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Extension of comment period for NUREG-1852, “Demonstrating the Feasibility and Reliability of Operator Manual Actions in Response to Fire, Draft Report for Comment.” SUMMARY: On October 12, 2006 (71 FR 60200), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)issued for public comment NUREG 1852, “Demonstrating the Feasibility and Reliability of Operator Manual Actions in Response to Fire, Draft Report for Comment.” Due to an error in the previous notice of comment period extension, a request has been made to extend the public comment period to allow the public 60 days to review the document. Currently, the **Federal Register** specifies that the public comment period ends on December 12, 2006. DATES: The comment period has been extended and now expires on January 30, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date. ADDRESSES: Members of the public are invited and encouraged to submit written comments to Michael Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, Mail Stop T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand-deliver comments attention to Michael Lesar, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Comments may also be sent electronically to *NRCREP@nrc.gov.* This document, NUREG-1852, is available at the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* under Accession No. ML062350292; on the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/docs4comment.html;* and at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. The PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555; telephone
(301)415-4737 or
(800)397-4205; fax
(301)415-3548; e-mail *PDR@NRC.GOV.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erasmia Lois, Human Factors and Reliability Branch, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone:
(301)415-6560; e-mail: *exl1@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of November, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jose Ibarra, Chief, Human Factors and Reliability Branch, Probabilistic Risk and Applications, Division of Risk Assessment and Special Projects, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. [FR Doc. E6-19626 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT General Schedule Locality Pay Areas AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: On behalf of the President's Pay Agent, the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)is providing notice about two changes in locality pay area boundaries in 2007 under the locality pay program for General Schedule and certain other employees. Grayson County, TX, will be added to the Dallas locality pay area, and Berks County, PA, will be added to the Philadelphia locality pay area. These changes will occur automatically under existing regulations. OPM also plans to issue a notice later about changes in the regulations needed to update the official descriptions of the Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-NH-ME-RI locality pay area and the Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO locality pay area. As required by OPM regulations, the additions to locality pay areas are effective as of the first pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2007. Both the additions and the planned description changes are the result of changes made by the Office of Management and Budget in Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Combined Statistical Areas. DATES: The additions to locality pay areas are applicable on the first day of the first pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allan Hearne,
(202)606-2838; *FAX:*
(202)606-4264; *e-mail:* *pay-performance-policy@opm.gov.* Section 5304 of title 5, United States Code, authorizes locality pay for General Schedule
(GS)employees with duty stations in the contiguous United States and the District of Columbia. Section 5304(f) of title 5, United States Code, authorizes the President's Pay Agent (the Secretary of Labor, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)to determine locality pay areas. The boundaries of locality pay areas must be based on appropriate factors, which may include local labor market patterns, commuting patterns, and the practices of other employers. The Pay Agent must give thorough consideration to the views and recommendations of the Federal Salary Council, a body composed of experts in the fields of labor relations and pay policy and representatives of Federal employee organizations. The President appoints the members of the Federal Salary Council, which submits annual recommendations to the President's Pay Agent about the locality pay program. Based on recommendations of the Federal Salary Council, we use Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA)and Combined Statistical Area
(CSA)definitions established by the Office of Management and Budget as the basis for locality pay area definitions. The definitions of the terms CSA and MSA in section 531.602 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, and section 531.609(d) provide that locality pay area definitions change automatically when OMB adds locations to a CSA or MSA. Under the regulations, the changes in locality pay areas resulting from OMB additions to a CSA or MSA go into effect the first pay period beginning on or after January 1, of the following year. On April 25, 2006, and May 26, 2006, OMB issued bulletins announcing corrections to OMB Bulletin 06-01 updating MSAs and CSAs. The bulletins add the Sherman-Denison, TX MSA to the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA, and the Reading, PA MSA to the Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA. OMB also added the Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA MSA to the Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-NH CSA, and the Greeley, CO MSA to the Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO CSA. The addition to the Dallas CSA will add Grayson County, TX, to the Dallas locality pay area and the addition to the Philadelphia CSA will add Berks County, PA to the Philadelphia locality pay area. These changes will occur automatically under existing regulations. The other changes require corresponding changes in the official designation of the Boston and Denver locality pay areas but do not change the geographic scope of those pay areas because the Providence area is already included in the Boston locality pay area and the Greeley area is already part of the Denver locality pay area under the Pay Agent's rules for areas of application. Impact and Implementation The changes in locality pay area boundaries will move an estimated 61 GS employees from the Rest of U.S.
(RUS)locality pay area to the Dallas locality pay area and about 187 GS employees from the RUS locality pay area to the Philadelphia locality pay area, at a total cost of about $600,000 per year. The changes become applicable on the first day of the first pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2007. Office of Personnel Management. Linda M. Springer, Director. [FR Doc. E6-19477 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Investment Company Act Release No. 27553; 812-13264] HealthShares, Inc., et al.; Notice of Application November 16, 2006. AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”). ACTION: Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 24(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act. *Summary of Application:* Applicants request an order granting relief to permit
(a)an open-end management investment company, the series of which consist of the component securities of certain equity securities indexes, to issue shares (“Shares”) that can be redeemed only in large aggregations (“Creation Units”),
(b)secondary market transactions in Shares to occur at negotiated prices on a national securities exchange, as defined in section 2(a)(26) of the Act (“Exchange”),
(c)dealers to sell Shares to purchasers in the secondary market unaccompanied by a prospectus when prospectus delivery is not required by the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), and
(d)certain affiliated persons of the series to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the series in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units. *Applicants:* HealthShares, Inc. (“Corporation”), Ferghana-Wellspring LLC (“Index Creator”), and X-Shares Advisors, LLC (“Advisor”). DATES: *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on March 1, 2006, and amended on August 23, 2006 and November 15, 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 Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on December 6, 2006, and should be accompanied by proof of service on 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 who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary. ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2550, New York, NY 10170. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Conaty, Senior Counsel, at
(202)551-6827, or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at
(202)551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Public Reference Desk, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington DC 20549-0102 (telephone
(202)551-5850). Applicants' Representations 1. The Corporation, a Maryland corporation, is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. Applicants currently intend to introduce 20 series (“Initial Funds”) of the Corporation and may establish additional series in the future (“Future Funds,” and together with the Initial Funds, “Funds”). The Advisor, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Index Creator, is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) and will serve as the investment adviser to each Fund. 1 The Advisor expects to enter into a sub-advisory agreement with BNY Investment Advisors to serve as sub-adviser (“Sub-Advisor”) to the Funds. The Sub-Advisor is not otherwise an affiliated person of the Advisor or the Index Creator and is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. ALPS Distributors, Inc., a broker- dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), will serve as principal underwriter for the Funds (the “Distributor”). 1 Neither the Index Creator nor the Advisor nor any affiliated person of the Index Creator or the Advisor is or will be registered as a broker or dealer. 2. Each Fund seeks to invest in a portfolio of equity securities (“Portfolio Securities”) that substantially replicate a particular benchmark (each an “Index” or “Underlying Index” and collectively, the “Indices” or “Underlying Indices”). The Underlying Indices are based on a proprietary, rules-based methodology developed by the Index Creator to define certain segments of the healthcare, life sciences and biotechnology sectors of both domestic and international markets (“Methodology”). 2 The Methodology, including the rules which govern the inclusion and weighting of securities in the Underlying Indices, will be publicly available, including on either the Advisor's or the Funds' website (“Web site”), along with the identities and weightings of the component securities of each Index (“Component Securities”) and the Portfolio Securities of each Fund. 3 While the Index Creator may change the rules of the Methodology in the future, the Index Creator presently does not intend to do so. Any change to the Methodology would not take effect until the Index Creator had given the public at least 60 days advance notice of the change and had given reasonable notice of the change to the Index Administrator/Calculation Agent. The “Index Administrator/Calculation Agent” is the entity that, pursuant to an agreement with the Index Creator, is solely responsible for all Index calculation, maintenance, dissemination and reconstitution activities. 4 The Administrator/Calculation Agent is not, and will not be, an affiliated person, or an affiliated person of an affiliated person, of the Funds, Advisor, Sub-Advisor, Index Creator, any promoter of the Funds, or the Distributor of the Funds. 5 2 Each Underlying Index is developed using an investment approach known as “Vertical Investing,” which seeks to categorize companies within a particular healthcare, life sciences or biotechnology index by focusing on each company's business activities with regard to the diagnosis of diseases, the development of drugs, treatments, therapies and delivery systems, and the development of enabling/research tools and technologies for use in these sectors. 3 The Index Creator, as owner of the Indices and all intellectual property related to them, intends to license the Indices to the Advisor for use in connection with the Funds. The license will specifically state that the Advisor must provide the use of the Indices to the Funds at no cost. 4 The Index Administrator/Calculation Agent will determine the number, type and weight of securities that comprise each Index and perform, or cause to be performed, all other calculations that are necessary to determine the proper constitution of each Index. The Index Administrator/Calculation Agent will not disclose any information about any Index's constitution to the Index Creator, the Advisor, the Sub-Advisor or the Funds prior to the publication of such information on the Website. However, the Index Administrator/Calculation Agent may disclose such information solely to certain employees of the Index Creator and its affiliates who will monitor the Methodology and the Indices (“Index Personnel”) and to the chief compliance officer of the Funds, the Advisor and the Sub-Advisor for purposes of monitoring compliance with the code of ethics of these entities. 5 Standard & Poor's (“S&P”) will serve as Index Administrator/Calculation Agent for the Underlying Indices. 3. Applicants state that the Index Personnel will not have any responsibility for the management of the Funds. In addition, applicants have adopted policies and procedures that, among other things, are designed to limit or prohibit communications between the Index Personnel and other employees of the Index Creator and the Advisor or any Sub-Advisor (“Firewalls”). Among other things, the Firewalls prohibit the Index Personnel from disseminating non-public information about the Indices, including potential changes to the Methodology, to, among others, the employees of the Advisor or any Sub-Advisor responsible for managing the Funds (“advisory personnel”). The Firewalls also prohibit the Advisor's and Sub-Advisor's advisory personnel from sharing any non-public information about the management of the Funds with the personnel responsible for creating, monitoring, calculating, maintaining or disseminating the Indices (i.e., Index Personnel and the Index Administrator/Calculation Agent). Further, the Advisor and the Sub-Advisor have adopted, pursuant to rule 206(4)-7 under the Advisers Act, written policies and procedures designed to prevent violations of the Advisers Act and the rules under the Advisers Act. The Advisor, the Sub-Advisor and the Distributor each have adopted or will adopt a Code of Ethics as required under rule 17j-1 under the Act, which contains provisions reasonably necessary to prevent Access Persons (as defined in rule 17j-1) from engaging in any conduct prohibited in rule 17j-1. In addition, the Advisor and the Sub-Advisor have adopted or will adopt policies and procedures to detect and prevent insider trading as required under section 204A of the Advisers Act, which are reasonably designed, taking into account the nature of their business, to prevent the misuse in violation of the Advisers Act, Exchange Act, or rules and regulations under the Advisers Act and Exchange Act, of material non-public information. 4. Any Future Fund will be advised by the Advisor or an entity controlled by or under common control with the Advisor. Applicants will not offer a Future Fund unless either they have requested and received with respect to such Future Fund exemptive relief from the Commission or a no-action position from the staff of the Commission, or the Future Fund will be listed on an Exchange without the need for a filing under rule 19b-4 under the Exchange Act. In addition, any Future Fund that relies on any order granted pursuant to this application will comply with the terms and conditions of the application, including the following:
(a)The Methodology will be publicly available, including on the Website;
(b)once the rules of the Methodology are established, applicants may change them only after giving the public at least 60 days advance notice of any change;
(c)applicants have Firewalls;
(d)the Index Administrator/Calculation Agent will not be an affiliated person, or an affiliated person of an affiliated person, of the Funds, Advisor, Sub-Advisor, Index Creator, Distributor or promoter of the Funds; and
(e)the Indexes will be reconstituted on a fixed periodic basis no more frequently than quarterly. 5. The investment objective of each Fund will be to provide investment results that track the performance, before fees and expenses, of a particular Underlying Index. The intra-day value of each Index will be disseminated every 15 seconds throughout the trading day over the Consolidated Tape on each day that the Funds are open, which includes any day that the Funds are required by to be open under section 22(e) of the Act (“Business Day”). In seeking to achieve its investment objective, each Fund will utilize either a replication or a representative sampling strategy. A Fund using a replication strategy generally will invest in the Component Securities in its Underlying Index in approximately the same weightings as in the Underlying Index. In certain circumstances, such as when a Component Security is illiquid or there are practical difficulties or substantial costs involved in holding every security in an Underlying Index, a Fund may use a representative sampling strategy pursuant to which it will invest in some but not all of the Component Securities. 6 Applicants anticipate that a Fund that utilizes a representative sampling strategy will not track the performance of its Underlying Index with the same degree of accuracy as an investment vehicle that invests in every Component Security of the Underlying Index in the same weighting as the Underlying Index. Applicants expect that each Fund will have a tracking error relative to the performance of its Underlying Index of less than 5%. 6 Each Fund will invest at least 90% of its assets in Component Securities. Each Fund may invest up to 10% of its assets in securities that are not Component Securities, but which the Advisor or Sub-Advisor believes will help the Fund track its Underlying Index, including futures, options and swap contracts, cash and cash equivalents. Certain Funds may invest in American Depositary Receipts or Global Depositary Receipts (collectively, “Depositary Receipts”) based on securities of foreign companies in the Underlying Index. A Fund would treat Depositary Receipts that represent Component Securities of its Underlying Index as Component Securities for purposes of any requirements related to the percentage of Component Securities held by a Fund. 6. Shares of the Funds will be sold at a price of between $40 and $250 per Share in Creation Units of 50,000 Shares. All orders to purchase Creation Units must be placed with the Distributor by or through an “Authorized Participant,” an entity that has entered into an agreement with the Distributor and that is either
(a)A participant in the continuous net settlement system of the National Securities Clearing Corporation, a clearing agency registered with the Commission or
(b)a participant in the Depository Trust Company (“DTC,” and such participant, “DTC Participant”). Creation Units generally will be issued in exchange for an in-kind deposit of securities and cash, though a Fund may sell Creation Units on a cash-only basis in limited circumstances. An investor wishing to purchase a Creation Unit from a Fund will have to transfer to the Fund a “Creation Deposit” consisting of:
(a)A portfolio of securities that has been selected by the Advisor or Sub-Advisor to correspond generally to the performance of the relevant Index (“Deposit Securities”); and
(b)a cash payment to equalize any differences between the market value of the Deposit Securities per Creation Unit and the net asset value (“NAV”) per Creation Unit (“Cash Requirement”). 7 An investor purchasing a Creation Unit from a Fund will be charged a fee (“Transaction Fee”) to prevent the dilution of the interests of the remaining shareholders resulting from the Fund incurring costs in connection with the purchase of the Creation Units. 8 Each Fund will disclose the maximum Transaction Fee in its prospectus (“Prospectus”) and the method of calculating the Transaction Fee in its statement of additional information (“SAI”). No sales charges for purchases of Creation Units of any Fund are contemplated. The Corporation is authorized to implement a plan under rule 12b-1 under the Act for each of the Funds, which will be disclosed in the Fund's Prospectus, if implemented. 7 On each Business Day, prior to the opening of trading on the Exchange, the Advisor or Sub-Advisor will make available the list of the names and the required number of shares of each Deposit Security required for the Creation Deposit for the Fund. That Creation Deposit will apply to all purchases of Creation Units until a new Creation Deposit for the Fund is announced. Each Fund reserves the right to permit or require the substitution of an amount of cash in lieu of depositing some or all of the Deposit Securities. The Exchange will disseminate every 15 seconds throughout the trading day over the Consolidated Tape an amount representing, on a per Share basis, the sum of the current value of the Deposit Securities and the estimated Cash Requirement. 8 When a Fund permits a purchaser to substitute cash for Deposit Securities, the purchaser may be assessed a higher Transaction Fee to offset the brokerage and other transaction costs incurred by the Fund to purchase the requisite Deposit Securities. 7. Orders to purchase Creation Units of a Fund will be placed with the Distributor who will be responsible for transmitting orders to the Funds. The Distributor will maintain a record of Creation Unit purchases. The Distributor will be responsible for issuing confirmations of acceptance and furnishing Prospectuses to purchasers of Creation Units. 8. Persons purchasing Creation Units from a Fund may hold the Shares or sell some or all of them in the secondary market. Shares of the Funds will be listed on an Exchange and traded in the secondary market in the same manner as other equity securities. It is expected that one or more members of the Exchange will act as a specialist (“Specialist”), and maintain a market on the Exchange for the Shares. The price of Shares traded on an Exchange will be based on a current bid/offer market. Purchases and sales of Shares in the secondary market will be subject to customary brokerage commissions and charges. 9. Applicants expect that purchasers of Creation Units will include institutional investors and arbitrageurs. The Specialist, in providing for a fair and orderly secondary market for Shares, also may purchase Creation Units for use in its market-making activities. Applicants expect that secondary market purchasers of Shares will include both institutional and retail investors. 9 Applicants expect that the price at which the Shares trade will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities created by the ability to continually purchase or redeem Creation Units at their NAV, which should ensure that the Shares will not trade at a material discount or premium in relation to their NAV. 9 Shares will be registered in book-entry form only. DTC or its nominee will be the registered owner of all outstanding Shares. DTC or DTC Participants will maintain records reflecting the beneficial owners of Shares. 10. Shares will not be individually redeemable. Shares will only be redeemable in Creation Units from a Fund. To redeem, an investor will have to accumulate enough Shares to constitute a Creation Unit. Redemption orders must be placed by or through an Authorized Participant. An investor redeeming a Creation Unit generally will receive
(a)A portfolio of securities designated to be delivered for Creation Unit redemptions on the date that the request for redemption is submitted (“Redemption Securities”), and
(b)a “Cash Redemption Payment,” consisting of an amount calculated in the same manner as the Cash Requirement. An investor may receive the cash equivalent of a Redemption Security in certain circumstances, such as if the investor is constrained from effecting transactions in the security by regulation or policy. A redeeming investor will pay a Transaction Fee, which is calculated in the same manner as a Transaction Fee payable in connection with purchases of Creation Units. 11. Applicants state that neither the Corporation nor any Fund will be marketed or otherwise held out as a traditional open-end investment company or mutual fund. Rather, applicants state that each Fund will be marketed as an “exchange-traded fund,” “investment company,” “fund,” or “trust.” All marketing materials that refer to redeemability or describe the method of obtaining, buying or selling Shares will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable and that Shares may be acquired or redeemed from the Fund in Creation Units only. The same type of disclosure will be provided in the Prospectus, SAI, shareholder reports and investor educational materials issued or circulated in connection with Shares. The Funds will provide copies of their annual and semi-annual shareholder reports to DTC Participants for distribution to beneficial owners of Shares. Applicants' Legal Analysis 1. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 24(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 Under the Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act. 2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of the Act, 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. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) if evidence establishes that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and the general provisions of the Act. Sections 5(a)(1) and 2(a)(32) of the Act 3. Section 5(a)(1) of the Act defines an “open-end company” as a management investment company that is offering for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which it is the issuer. Section 2(a)(32) of the Act defines a redeemable security as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the holder, upon its presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately his proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent. Because Shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an order that would permit the Corporation to register as an open-end management investment company and issue Shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only. Applicants state that investors may purchase Shares in Creation Units and redeem Creation Units from each Fund. Applicants further state that because the market price of Shares will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, investors should be able to sell Shares in the secondary market at prices that do not vary substantially from their NAV. Section 22(d) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 Under the Act 4. Section 22(d) of the Act, among other things, prohibits a dealer from selling a redeemable security, which is currently being offered to the public by or through a principal underwriter, except at a current public offering price described in the prospectus. Rule 22c-1 under the Act generally requires that a dealer selling, redeeming or repurchasing a redeemable security do so only at a price based on its NAV. Applicants state that secondary market trading in Shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in the Prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Thus, purchases and sales of Shares in the secondary market will not comply with section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from these provisions. 5. Applicants assert that the concerns sought to be addressed by section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act with respect to pricing are equally satisfied by the proposed method of pricing Shares. Applicants maintain that the provisions of section 22(d), as well as those of rule 22c-1, appear to have been designed to
(a)prevent dilution caused by certain riskless trading schemes by principal underwriters and contract dealers,
(b)prevent unjust discrimination or preferential treatment among buyers, and
(c)ensure an orderly distribution of investment company shares by eliminating price competition from dealers offering shares at less than the published sales price and repurchasing shares at more than the published redemption price. 6. Applicants believe that none of these purposes will be thwarted by permitting Shares to trade in the secondary market at negotiated prices. Applicants state that
(a)Secondary market trading in Shares does not involve the Funds as parties and cannot result in dilution of an investment in Shares, and
(b)to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in Shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants contend that the proposed distribution system will be orderly because arbitrage activity will ensure that the difference between the market price of Shares and their NAV remains narrow. Section 24(d) of the Act 7. Section 24(d) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that the prospectus delivery exemption provided to dealer transactions by section 4(3) of the Securities Act does not apply to any transaction in a redeemable security issued by an open-end investment company. Applicants request an exemption from section 24(d) to permit dealers selling Shares to rely on the prospectus delivery exemption provided by section 4(3) of the Securities Act. 10 10 Applicants state that they do not seek relief from the prospectus delivery requirement for non-secondary market transactions, such as purchases of Shares from the Funds or an underwriter. Applicants state that the Prospectus will caution persons purchasing Creation Units that some activities on their part, depending on the circumstances, may result in their being deemed statutory underwriters and subject them to the prospectus delivery and liability provisions of the Securities Act. For example, a broker-dealer firm and/or its client may be deemed a statutory underwriter if it takes Creation Units after placing an order with the Distributor, breaks them down into the constituent Shares and sells them directly to its customers, or if it chooses to couple the creation of new Shares with an active selling effort involving solicitation of secondary market demand for Shares. The Prospectus will state that whether a person is an underwriter depends upon all the facts and circumstances pertaining to that person's activities. The Prospectus also will state that dealers who are not “underwriters” but are participating in a distribution (as contrasted to ordinary secondary market trading transactions), and thus dealing with Shares that are part of an “unsold allotment” within the meaning of section 4(3)(C) of the Securities Act, would be unable to take advantage of the prospectus delivery exemption provided by section 4(3) of the Securities Act. 8. Applicants state that Shares will be listed on an Exchange and will be traded in a manner similar to other equity securities, including the shares of closed-end investment companies. Applicants note that dealers selling shares of closed-end investment companies in the secondary market generally are not required to deliver a prospectus to the purchaser. Applicants contend that Shares, as a listed security, merit a reduction in the compliance costs and regulatory burdens resulting from the imposition of prospectus delivery obligations in the secondary market. Because Shares will be exchange-listed, prospective investors will have access to several types of market information about Shares. Applicants state that information regarding market price and volume will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on computer screens of brokers and other electronic services. The previous day's closing price and volume information for Shares also will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. In addition, the Web site will include, for each Fund, the prior Business Day's NAV, the mid-point of the bid-ask spread for a Share at the time of calculation of the NAV (“Bid/Ask Price”), and a calculation of the premium or discount of the closing price against such Bid/Ask Price, as well as data in chart format displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the Bid/Ask Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges, for each of the four previous calendar quarters. 9. Investors also will receive a short product description (“Product Description”), describing a Fund and its Shares. Applicants state that, while not intended as a substitute for a Prospectus, the Product Description will contain information about Shares that is tailored to meet the needs of investors purchasing Shares in the secondary market. The Product Description will prominently disclose that the Indexes are created and sponsored by an affiliated person of the Advisor. Sections 17(a)(1) and
(2)of the Act 10. Section 17(a) of the Act generally prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such a person, from selling any security to or purchasing any security from the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” to include any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling or holding with power to vote 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person, and any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by or under common control with the other person. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act provides that a control relationship will be presumed where one person owns more than 25% of another person's voting securities. 11. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(a) to the extent necessary to permit
(a)persons who are affiliated persons of a Fund solely by virtue of holding with the power to vote 5% or more, or more than 25%, of the Shares of a Fund (“First-Tier Affiliates”) and
(b)affiliated persons of First-Tier Affiliates who are not otherwise affiliated with the Fund, and persons who are affiliated persons of a Fund solely by virtue of holding with the power to vote 5% or more, or more than 25%, of the outstanding voting securities of other registered investment companies (or series thereof) advised by the Advisor (“Second-Tier Affiliates”) to purchase and redeem Creation Units through in-kind purchases and sales of securities. Applicants contend that no useful purpose would be served by prohibiting the First- and Second-Tier Affiliates from purchasing or redeeming Creation Units through in-kind transactions. The deposit procedure for in-kind purchases and the redemption procedure for in-kind redemptions will be the same for all purchases and redemptions. Deposit Securities and Redemption Securities will be valued in the same manner as the Portfolio Securities. Therefore, applicants state, the in-kind purchases and redemptions for which relief is requested will afford no opportunity for the affiliated persons of a Fund, or the affiliated persons of such affiliated persons, described above, to effect a transaction detrimental to other holders of Shares. Applicants also believe that these in-kind purchases and redemptions will not result in self-dealing or overreaching of the Fund. Applicants' Conditions Applicants agree that any order granting the requested order will be subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicants will not register a Future Fund by means of filing a post-effective amendment to the Corporation's registration statement or by any other means, unless either
(a)Applicants have requested and received with respect to such Future Fund, either exemptive relief from the Commission or a no-action letter from the Division of Investment Management of the Commission, or
(b)the Future Fund will be listed on an Exchange without the need for a filing pursuant to rule 19b-4 under the Exchange Act. 2. Each Fund's Prospectus and Product Description will clearly disclose that, for purposes of the Act, Shares are issued by the Funds and that the acquisition of Shares by investment companies is subject to the restrictions of section 12(d)(1) of the Act, except as permitted by an exemptive order that permits registered investment companies to invest in a Fund beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1), subject to certain terms and conditions, including that the registered investment company enter into an agreement with the Fund regarding the terms of the investment. 3. As long as the Corporation operates in reliance on the requested order, the Shares will be listed on an Exchange. 4. Neither the Corporation nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed as an open-end investment company or a mutual fund. Each Fund's Prospectus will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable shares and will disclose that the owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from a Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to a Fund in Creation Units only. Any advertising material that describes the purchase or sale of Creation Units or refers to redeemability will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable and that owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from a Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to a Fund in Creation Units only. 5. The Web site maintained for the Corporation, which is and will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain the following information, on a per Share basis, for each Fund:
(a)The prior Business Day's NAV and the Bid/Ask Price and a calculation of the premium or discount of the Bid/Ask Price at the time of calculation of the NAV against such NAV; and
(b)data in chart format displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the daily Bid/Ask Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges, for each of the four previous calendar quarters. In addition, the Product Description for each Fund will state that the website for the Fund has information about the premiums and discounts at which the Shares have traded. 6. The Prospectus and annual report for each Fund will also include:
(a)The information listed in condition 5(b),
(i)in the case of the Prospectus, for the most recently completed year (and the most recently completed quarter or quarters, as applicable) and
(ii)in the case of the annual report, for the immediately preceding five years, as applicable; and
(b)the following data, calculated on a per Share basis for one, five and ten year periods (or life of the Fund),
(i)the cumulative total return and the average annual total return based on NAV and Bid/Ask Price, and
(ii)the cumulative total return of the relevant Underlying Index. 7. Before a Fund may rely on the order, the Commission will have approved, pursuant to rule 19b-4 under the Exchange Act, an Exchange rule requiring Exchange members and member organizations effecting transactions in Shares to deliver a Product Description to purchasers of Shares. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19666 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54747; File No. SR-BSE-2006-51] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Exchange Fees and Charges November 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 October 31, 2006, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE” 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 BSE. On November 13, 2006, the BSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The BSE has designated this proposal as one changing a due, fee, or other charge under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, 4 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 5 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested parties. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange revised the proposed rule text to correct inadvertent underlining and add additional clarifying language to the discussion of the proposed rule change. 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 5 5 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend the existing BSE fee schedules to reflect a new Designated Examining Authority (“DEA”) fee to be charged to Members for whom the BSE is the primary DEA. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.bostonstock.com* ) and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. Below is the text of the proposed rule change, as amended. Proposed new language is *italicized* ; proposed deletions are [bracketed]. MEMBERSHIP AND OTHER FEES
(1)Membership Membership Dues—$ 1,000 per membership per quarter Clearing Corporation Deposit—$ 6,000 (refundable) Account Maintenance—$200 per month SRO Fee—$100 per month DEA Fee—$ [600]2,085 per month for firms where the BSE is the primary DEA, $400 per month for firms where the BSE is not the primary DEA BSE Rules and Guides—CCH annual subscription rate Transfer of Membership—$500 for intra-firm or inter-firm Membership Lease Fee—1% per month of last consummated membership (for seats leased from BSE Treasury only)—sale, billed quarterly 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 BSE included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, as amended, and discussed any comments it received regarding the proposed rule change, as amended. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The BSE 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 this filing is to amend the existing BSE fee schedules to reflect the new DEA fee to be charged to Members for whom the BSE is the primary DEA. The BSE has entered into an agreement (the “Agreement”) with the NASD whereby the NASD has agreed to provide services to the BSE in support of the BSE's exercise of its regulatory authority as a self-regulatory organization, or “SRO,” as that term is defined in Section 3(a)(26) of the Act. 6 The Agreement does not allocate regulatory responsibilities pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act, which responsibilities will remain with the BSE. In accordance with the Agreement, the NASD shall perform certain services for Member firms for whom the BSE is the DEA. 6 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(26). The BSE will charge the Member firms for whom the BSE is the primary DEA approximately $25,000 annually to provide the necessary services for each BSE Member for whom the BSE is the primary DEA. The $25,000 fee will be charged on a monthly basis over a twelve month time period. The BSE proposes amending its existing fee schedule to increase the DEA fee for Members for whom the BSE is the primary DEA from $600.00 per month to $2085.00 per month. The increase in the DEA fee is necessary in order to enable the BSE to properly carry out its regulatory responsibilities. The DEA fee for Members for whom the BSE is the primary DEA is essentially a pass through of the $25,000 annual fee charged by the NASD to the BSE in connection with the services the NASD will provide in support of the BSE's exercise of its regulatory authority. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act, 7 in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to protect investors and the public interest in that it is designed to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 8 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (b)(5). 8 For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period to commence on November 13, 2006, the date on which the BSE filed Amendment No. 1. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). 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 The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change, as amended, has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 10 because it establishes or changes a due, fee or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal will take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, as amended, 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. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). 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-BSE-2006-51 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-BSE-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 Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the BSE. 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-BSE-2006-51 and should be submitted on or before December 12, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19622 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54752; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-040] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, To Modify Certain Fees for Listing on the Nasdaq Stock Market and To Make Available Products and Services Intended To Assist Companies With Their Disclosure and Regulatory Obligations, Shareholder Communications, and Other Corporate Objectives November 14, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on October 2, 2006, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. On October 30, 2006, Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 1. Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 2 on October 31, 2006. 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. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Nasdaq proposes to:
(i)Modify annual fees for Nasdaq Global Market and Nasdaq Capital Market issuers;
(ii)modify entry fees for Nasdaq Capital Market issuers;
(iii)modify the listing of additional shares (“LAS”) fee for domestic issuers and establish an LAS fee for foreign issuers;
(iv)modify fees for issuers seeking written interpretations of Nasdaq's listing rules; and
(v)adopt other fee changes related to companies listing on and transferring between Nasdaq markets. The text of the proposed rule change is available at Nasdaq, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and at *www.nasdaq.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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 Nasdaq proposes several modifications to its listing and other issuer fees as set forth below.
(i)Capital Market Entry Fee Changes Nasdaq proposes to modify the entry fees payable by issuers listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market. 3 This fee is assessed on the date of entry and is calculated based on total shares outstanding. Currently, the minimum entry fee payable by a Nasdaq Capital Market issuer is $25,000 for listing up to five million shares of securities and the maximum fee is $50,000 for listing over 15 million shares. Pursuant to the proposed rule change, the minimum entry fee would increase to $50,000 for an issuer listing up to 15 million shares and the maximum fee would increase to $75,000 for an issuer listing over 15 million shares. In determining these fees, Nasdaq considered the fees charged by other markets and notes that the proposed Capital Market entry fees remain substantially below those of the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) and NYSE Arca, and, are comparable to the fees charged by the American Stock Exchange (“Amex”). 4 Nasdaq also considered the time and effort that its staff devotes to the review and consideration of the typical Capital Market application. Finally, Nasdaq considered recent enhancements to its trading markets that facilitate initial public offerings, such as the Nasdaq IPO Cross. The IPO Cross is designed to ensure a more orderly market for new issues, as well as to provide fair executions for investors through an open and transparent process in which investors have the ability to enter orders and participate in price discovery, creating a single price for IPOs based on supply and demand. Nasdaq believes that this enhanced opening process increases the value of a Nasdaq listing. 3 Nasdaq entry fees for Capital Market issuers were last increased in 2003. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47111 (December 31, 2002), 68 FR 822 (January 7, 2003) (SR-NASD-2002-183). 4 The proposed Capital Market entry fees range from $15,000 below to $5,000 higher than the comparable Amex fee.
(ii)Listing of Additional Shares Fee Changes In addition, Nasdaq proposes to modify the fees for listing additional shares by domestic companies listed on the Nasdaq Global Market or the Nasdaq Capital Market. 5 Under the existing rule, Nasdaq issuers are assessed a quarterly fee of $2,500 or $0.01 per additional share, whichever is higher, up to an annual maximum of $45,000 per issuer. Under the proposed rule, the minimum quarterly fee would increase to $5,000 and the maximum fee would increase to $65,000 per year. The rule would continue to provide that no fee is charged for issuances of up to 49,999 additional shares per quarter. 5 LAS fees were last increased in 2003. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48631 (October 15, 2003), 68 FR 60426 (October 22, 2003) (SR-NASD-2003-127). In addition, Nasdaq proposes to introduce an LAS fee in the amount of $5,000 for non-U.S. companies that list additional shares or additional shares underlying ADRs in a given fiscal year. Historically, these companies were not charged an LAS fee. Nasdaq will calculate and assess this fee annually based on the change in the issuer's total shares outstanding as reported on its annual reports filed with the SEC. As with domestic issuers, however, there will be no fee for issuances of up to 49,999 additional shares per year. The LAS fee is designed, in part, to offset the costs associated with reviewing the transactions that give rise to the issuance of shares for compliance with Nasdaq's requirements. In that regard, Nasdaq staff has devoted increased time to counseling companies regarding the application of those rules and has developed a comprehensive Web site providing guidance to companies, including frequently asked questions, summaries of Nasdaq interpretive positions, and rulings by the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council. The revised LAS fees will allow Nasdaq to continue these efforts. In addition, the proposed LAS fee on non-U.S. companies will allocate costs attributable to those companies in a more equitable manner. Nasdaq believes it is appropriate to maintain a lower LAS fee for non-U.S. companies because the Nasdaq listing is often not the primary listing for such companies.
(iii)Annual Fee Changes Nasdaq proposes to modify the annual fees payable by domestic and foreign issuers listed on the Nasdaq Global Market (including the Nasdaq Global Select Market) or the Nasdaq Capital Market. 6 Currently issuers on each market are required to pay an annual fee based on the total number of shares outstanding. Under the proposed rule change, annual fees on the Nasdaq Global Market would increase from a minimum of $24,500 and a maximum of $75,000 to a minimum of $30,000 and a maximum of $95,000. In addition, annual fees on the Nasdaq Capital Market would increase from a minimum of $17,500 and a maximum of $21,000 to a $27,500 flat fee for any amount of shares outstanding. Annual fees for American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) listed on the Capital Market and ADRs and Closed End Funds on the Global Market would remain unchanged. 6 Nasdaq annual fees were last increased in 2005. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50838 (December 10, 2004), 69 FR 75578 (December 17, 2004) (SR-NASD-2004-128). Nasdaq competes with several other domestic and international stock markets for company listings. Nasdaq considered the fees charged by these other markets in determining the new fees. 7 Nasdaq also considered the substantial resources it dedicates to its regulatory programs, ensuring that they are world-class. The Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Department monitors companies for compliance with the continued listing standards. In that regard, Listing Qualifications staff reviews all SEC filings made by Nasdaq-listed companies, including proxies and Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K. This review is to assure that the issuer remains compliant with Nasdaq's financial and qualitative requirements, including all of Nasdaq's corporate governance listing standards. These reviews are facilitated by the use of a sophisticated, web-based compliance monitoring tool, which Nasdaq continuously enhances. In addition, Nasdaq has taken steps to enhance the transparency available to investors and potential investors surrounding its review of deficient companies and has enhanced its Web site to provide guidance to Nasdaq-listed companies. The Nasdaq MarketWatch Department maintains an orderly marketplace and a level playing field for market participants, investors and the general public. MarketWatch staff provides real-time surveillance of price and volume information reported by market participants, and reviews abnormal activity to determine if action is required to maintain a fair market. This surveillance is supported by real-time, automated detection systems, newsgathering resources, and contacts at listed companies and trading firms. Nasdaq companies and their investors also benefit by Nasdaq having an independent regulator in NASD, which enhances confidence in the trading of their securities. 7 The proposed $27,500 Capital Market annual fee compares to fees of $30,000—$85,000 on NYSE Arca and from $16,500—$34,000 on Amex. Each of these markets has listing standards comparable to those applicable to Capital Market companies. The proposed annual fees for the Nasdaq Global and Global Select Markets range from $30,000 to $95,000, compared to fees on the NYSE that range from $38,000 to $500,000. For any amount of shares outstanding, Nasdaq's fees would be less than those of the NYSE, and would be more than $400,000 less for some Global and Global Select Market companies. In setting fees, Nasdaq also considered enhancements made to its trading systems since it last raised fees. For example, Nasdaq has implemented an “Opening Cross” and a “Closing Cross,” which determine a single price for the opening and closing, respectively, thereby helping issuers and investors by increasing liquidity and improving price discovery at these critical times of the day. Nasdaq also plans to launch Intraday Crosses and a Post-Close Cross and is in the final stages of launching its “Single Book” platform, which will further enhance liquidity for Nasdaq-listed companies. By contributing to increased liquidity, these systems help lower the cost of capital for Nasdaq-listed companies and their investors. While most of the costs of these systems are borne by their users, it is appropriate to consider the costs of developing and running these systems in establishing listing fees because listed companies and their investors benefit from the existence of these systems and because the systems enhance the value of a Nasdaq listing. In addition, Nasdaq has announced that it will make available products and services intended to assist companies with their disclosure and regulatory obligations, shareholder communications, and other corporate objectives. Specifically, Nasdaq intends to provide enhancements to NASDAQ Online and the Market Intelligence Desk that will provide companies with additional information and analysis to help manage their investor relationship programs and understand movements in the market for their securities. In addition, Nasdaq intends to offer companies a service that converts their annual report and proxy material into a dynamic, online document for use by current and potential shareholders. Nasdaq also intends to offer companies a customized report to help analyze their exposure to securities litigation and, for those companies that choose to participate, peer data on the size, structure and cost of director and officer insurance programs. Finally, Nasdaq plans to offer the following services: four audio webcasts, four press releases, and four Form 8-K filings. 8 Of course these services cannot satisfy all of a typical company's disclosure and compliance requirements, but using these services a company could, for example, announce their earnings each quarter to investors in a press release, file that press release on a Form 8-K, and have an audio webcast to discuss the quarter's results. Thus, Nasdaq believes that these services can assist companies in their disclosure requirements and will allow investors better access to company information. Nasdaq believes that all of these enhancements and services will assist companies in fulfilling their responsibilities as public companies, facilitate their investor relations and visibility goals, allow investors better access to company information and, while incidental to the listing, will differentiate a Nasdaq listing. Moreover, Nasdaq notes that these services are consistent with services that exchanges have long made available to their listed companies, which may or may not be used by those companies. 9 While not every company will use every service, Nasdaq believes there will be something of value to all companies. Further, given that Nasdaq's listing fees are generally below those of other markets, every company will receive significant value for its listing fee in comparison to a listing on other markets. 8 Audio webcasts are encoded audio streams that are distributed via internet compliant file formats. Press releases, limited to 500 words, would be distributed over the PrimeZone U.S. circuit, which includes distribution to all major financial and news organizations. Companies will be able to file Forms 8-K with the Commission via the Commission's EDGAR system. The services described are what Nasdaq intends to offer during 2007. Nasdaq also plans to offer these or similar services on an ongoing basis, but will evaluate companies' usage of the services and explore other opportunities for services for listed companies, and may adjust the mix of products and services accordingly. 9 For example, an exchange may hold an investor conference at which a company can elect to present information, or can choose not to do so. Another exchange may make a market opening ceremony available, of which some issuers may take advantage and others do not. Exchanges make reports available to their listed companies; some companies use those reports, whereas other companies instead obtain similar reports from third parties. Similarly, Nasdaq understands that other markets have made available investor disclosure services, such as webcasts, for their listed companies in recent years, which some companies have elected not to use.
(iv)Fees for Written Interpretations Under Nasdaq Rule 4550, an issuer considering a specific action or transaction can request an interpretation from Nasdaq as to how Nasdaq's rules apply to the proposed action or transaction. This service is provided for a non-refundable fee of $2,000, and the process generally takes four weeks. Alternatively, an issuer may elect to pay a non-refundable fee of $10,000 to receive an expedited response, which will be provided by a specific date that is less than four weeks but at least one week after the date staff receives all information necessary to respond to the request. Under the proposed rule, the non-refundable fee for a written interpretation under the regular service would increase from $2,000 to $5,000 and the fee for expedited service would increase from $10,000 to $15,000. The process for reviewing written interpretations was established in 2003 and fees have not been increased since that date. 10 Since that time, many of the interpretative issues raised by this process have become more complex and taken an increasing amount of staff time, due in part to an increased focus on corporate governance, executive compensation issues and new SEC requirements regarding board composition and other matters. Given these changes, Nasdaq believes the fee increase is appropriate to support the ongoing cost of providing this service to issuers and to allocate that cost to those companies using this service. 10 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48450 (September 4, 2003), 68 FR 53770 (September 12, 2004) (SR-NASD-2004-105). In addition, Nasdaq proposes to modify Rule 4550 to clarify that an issuer that has been suspended or delisted, but where review of that decision is pending, is eligible to request a written interpretation upon payment of the applicable fee.
(v)Other Fee Changes and Waivers Nasdaq also proposes to adopt two new fee waivers and eliminate the entry fee for most companies transferring between the Nasdaq Capital Market and the Nasdaq Global Market. First, Nasdaq is proposing to adopt new Interpretive Material to clarify that, in the case where a Nasdaq-listed company is acquired by a non-Nasdaq company and the surviving entity of the merger lists on the Nasdaq Global Market or the Nasdaq Capital Market, the company would receive a pro-rated waiver of the annual fee for the period of time following the merger. Because the newly listing company would also be assessed an annual fee for that period, Nasdaq believes that it is equitable to provide this waiver. Second, Nasdaq proposes to waive the entry fee if a non-listed company acquires a company listed on another market, and, in connection with the acquisition, the surviving entity lists on Nasdaq. Nasdaq believes that this situation is comparable to a company switching from another exchange, for which Nasdaq waives the entry fee. Although these companies would be reviewed for compliance with Nasdaq listing standards in the same manner as any other company applying for listing on Nasdaq, Nasdaq believes that, on average, the review of such an issuer is less likely to involve time-consuming regulatory issues than the typical application from a company conducting an initial public offering or transferring from the over-the-counter market. Third, the proposed rule change would eliminate the entry fee for most companies transferring between the Nasdaq Capital Market and the Nasdaq Global Market. The Global Market entry fee would not be applicable to a transfer from the Capital Market to the Global Market, except if a company that qualified for the Global Market chose to initially list after January 1, 2007, on the Capital Market instead. In this limited case, when the company seeks to transfer, Nasdaq will charge the company the difference between the Global Market Fee in effect at the time of the transfer and the Capital Market fee previously paid. Nasdaq believes the waiver of the entry fee is appropriate because these companies are already subject to Nasdaq's regulation and Nasdaq's qualitative listing requirements. As such, while Nasdaq conducts a complete review of all applicants, Nasdaq's experience is that the review of a company that is already listed on Nasdaq will generally take less time and effort than the application of an unlisted issuer. Nasdaq also notes that the waiver will allow Nasdaq to better compete with other markets for listings. In that regard, NYSE Group recently adopted a fee waiver for companies transferring between NYSE Arca and NYSE. 11 The proposed waiver is, in part, a response to that fee structure, intended to incent companies to initially list and remain listed on Nasdaq, rather than seek a listing elsewhere, thereby promoting competition between Nasdaq and other exchange markets. 11 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54223 (July 26, 2006), 71 FR 43833 (August 2, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-43).
(vi)Implementation The new annual fee schedule would be effective January 1, 2007. The new LAS fee schedule for domestic issuers would be effective for issuers starting with fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2007. Nasdaq will establish the initial number of shares for the LAS fee for non-U.S. issuers based on an issuer's first annual filing after January 1, 2007. Companies will be assessed the fee for the increase in the number of shares based on the subsequent annual filing. The entry fee changes would be effective upon approval of the proposed rule change by the Commission. However, issuers that have submitted a listing application to the Nasdaq Capital Market and paid the applicable application fee prior to the approval of the proposed rule change would be charged an entry fee based on the existing fee schedule and would not be subject to the change in entry fees. 2. Statutory Basis Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, 12 in general, and with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 13 in particular. Section 6(b)(4) requires that Nasdaq's rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. As described above, the proposed rule change will benefit issuers and investors by providing an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and charges among issuers listed on Nasdaq and allow Nasdaq to continue to enhance the services provided to issuers. 12 15 U.S.C. 78f. 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In that regard, Nasdaq notes that the proposed fees are generally lower than the fees charged by other U.S. marketplaces for listing and are appropriate in light of the trading system enhancements Nasdaq has made and the regulatory oversight that Nasdaq provides. The proposed fees are also justified because of the numerous additional services that Nasdaq provides and plans to provide to listed companies. Nasdaq believes that by offering additional services to listed companies Nasdaq will differentiate itself, thereby enhancing competition among marketplaces, both domestically and globally, by increasing the value of a Nasdaq listing. 14 14 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54155 (July 14, 2006), 71 FR 41291 (July 20, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-001) where the Commission noted that Nasdaq operates in a competitive global exchange marketplace for listings, financial products, and market services and competes in such an environment with other market centers, including national securities exchanges, ECNs, and other alternative trading systems, for the privilege of providing market and listing services to broker-dealers and issuers. Nasdaq also believes that offering services to listed companies will enhance competition among the providers of those services. The press release and Edgar-filing services that are being provided do not nearly satisfy listed-companies' needs for these services. As such, companies will still need to purchase these services from service providers and these service providers will continue to compete for this business based on price, reliability, and quality of services. To the extent that Nasdaq becomes a meaningful competitor to the existing providers of such services, listed companies will benefit from enhanced competition for their business. With respect to press-release distribution, in particular, Nasdaq notes that its participation can only increase competition. Nasdaq estimates that two service providers, PR Newswire and Business Wire, distribute approximately 85% to 90% of press releases for public companies listed on U.S. exchanges. 15 By contrast, PrimeZone Media Network, the Nasdaq-owned company which will provide the services described, distributes fewer than 5% of press releases for public companies listed on U.S. exchanges. In fact, if all Nasdaq companies make use of all four press releases proposed to be offered to them, Nasdaq estimates that PR Newswire and Business Wire combined will still distribute more than 80% of press releases for public companies listed on U.S. exchanges. Given this landscape, it is apparent that the services Nasdaq is offering companies could only enhance competition, thereby reducing costs for our listed companies, and would not be a burden on competition. These same providers, as well as Thomson Financial, and financial printers, such as Bowne, Donneley, and Merrill Corp., among others, also provide services comparable to the Form 8-K EDGAR filings and webcasts that Nasdaq intends to provide. With respect to EDGAR filings, Nasdaq notes that in the twelve months prior to October 26, 2006, there were approximately 750,000 EDGAR filings. 16 Even if all Nasdaq-listed companies used all four Form 8-K filings, this would represent less than 2% of total EDGAR filings. As such, Nasdaq does not believe its proposal will have any adverse impact on competition for these services. 15 Based on Nasdaq's analysis of press releases sourced from the Comtex News Network data feed for the 90 days ending on October 23, 2006. 16 This estimate is based on a search of the EDGAR database performed through EDGARpro at *http://pro.edgar-online.com/.* C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others Nasdaq has received two comments regarding the proposed rule change. One commenter requested additional information about the services offered by Nasdaq and questioned the competitive impact of Nasdaq offering services to listed companies. Nasdaq's response to these questions are incorporated in Items 3 and 4, above. In addition, the commenter questioned whether Nasdaq will devote sufficient resources to the dissemination of information through PrimeZone. In fact, Nasdaq and PrimeZone are committed to expanding the already substantial PrimeZone distribution network. Finally, the commenter suggested that providing PrimeZone services to listed companies may be a “conflict of interest” with Nasdaq's role as a regulator. Nasdaq strongly disagrees with this assertion as Nasdaq does not regulate the market for information dissemination. While Nasdaq rules support the rules of the Commission by requiring companies to disclose material news, Nasdaq rules defer to the Commission's rules to determine the proper method of such disclosure. 17 Nasdaq has no intention to change these rules. 18 17 Nasdaq rules permit material information to be disclosed in “ *any* Regulation FD complaint method (or combinations of methods).” *See* Nasdaq Rule 4310(c)(16) and IM-4120-1 (emphasis added). 18 The commenter also requested information as to the allocation of fees within Nasdaq. Nasdaq notes that as a public company it files periodic reports that include financial information with the Commission. This information will identify the sources of Nasdaq's revenues consistent with the requirements for those reports and U.S. generally accepted accounting practice. A second commenter expressed concerns about paying for services that his company would not use. As noted in Section 3, above, Nasdaq believes that the listing fee provides substantial value even to companies that do not use any of the services offered by Nasdaq, as it also pays for access to the trading facilities and regulation of the Nasdaq marketplace, which have been enhanced since the last fee increase. In addition, Nasdaq notes that the services being provided are designed to supplement those a company already uses in achieving its investor relations, disclosure and other corporate objectives. 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 NASD 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 No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-040 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-NASDAQ-2006-040. 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 Nasdaq. 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-NASDAQ-2006-040 and should be submitted on or before December 12, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 19 19 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19620 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54750; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-88] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Exchange Fees and Charges November 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 November 13, 2006, NYSE Acra, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” 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 Exchange. NYSE Arca has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by a self-regulatory organization pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 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. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Charges in order to modify the fee that applies to Option Strategy Executions. 5 5 Fees on Options Strategy Executions are applicable through a Pilot Program until March 1, 2007. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site ( *http://www.nysearca.com* ), at the Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange represents that the purpose of this proposed rule change is to modify the fee that applies to “Option Strategy Executions.” These transactions include reversals and conversions, 6 dividend spreads, 7 box spreads, 8 and merger spreads. 9 Because the referenced Options Strategy Executions are generally executed by professionals, whose profit margins are generally narrow, the Exchange caps the transaction fees associated with such executions at $1,000 per strategy execution that is executed on the same trading day in the same option class. In addition, the Exchange has a monthly fee cap of $25,000 per initiating firm for all strategy executions. At this time, the Exchange is proposing to lower the daily transaction fee cap in order to stay competitive with other national options exchanges. The Exchange proposes lowering the daily fee cap to $750 per execution. The monthly cap of $25,000 will remain unchanged. NYSE Arca believes that, by keeping fees on strategy executions low, the Exchange will be able to attract additional liquidity by accommodating these transactions. 6 Reversals and conversions are transactions that employ calls, puts, and the underlying stock to lock in a nearly risk free profit. Reversals are established by combining a short stock position with a short put and a long call position that shares the same strike and expiration. Conversions employ long positions in the underlying stock that accompany long puts and short calls sharing the same strike and expiration. 7 Dividend spreads are trades involving deep-in-the-money options that exploit pricing differences arising around the time a stock goes ex-dividend. 8 Box Spreads is a strategy that synthesizes long and short stock positions to create a profit. Specifically, a long call and short put at one strike is combined with a short call and long put at a different strike to create synthetic long and synthetic short stock positions, respectively. 9 A merger spread is a transaction executed pursuant to a strategy involving the simultaneous purchase and sale of options of the same class and expiration date, but with different strike prices followed by the exercise of the resulting long option position. The Exchange notes that OTP Holders and OTP Firms who wish to benefit from the fee cap would be required to submit to the Exchange forms with supporting documentation ( *e.g.* , clearing firm transaction data) to qualify for the cap. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 10 in general, and Section 6(b)(4) 11 in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of dues, fees, and other charges among its members. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 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 The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 12 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 13 thereunder because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. 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. 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). 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 No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-88 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-88. 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 Commissions Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE Arca. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-88 and should be submitted on or before December 12, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19621 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54748; File No. SR-OCC-2006-01] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Amended Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Revise Option Adjustment Methodology November 14, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 notice is hereby given that on January 12, 2006, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by OCC. On March 9, 2006, the Commission published notice of the proposed rule change to solicit comments from interested parties. 2 The Commission received ten comment letters. 3 To address the concerns raised by the commenters, OCC amended the proposed rule change on September 25, 2006. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested parties. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53400 (March 2, 2006), 71 FR 12226. 3 Joseph Haggenmiller (March 8, 2006); Erik A. Hartog, Operating Manager, Allagash Trading LLC (March 21, 2006); Jeffrey Woodring (March 22, 2006); Adam Besch-Turner (March 23, 2006); Christopher Nagy, Chairman, Options Committee, Securities Industry Association (March 24, 2006); Mike Ianni (April 5, 2006); Mike Ianni (April 5, 2006); Peter van Dooijeweert, President, Alopex Capital Management, LLC (April 26, 2006); Bob Linville and Deborah Mittelman, Service Bureau Committee Co-Chairs, Financial Information Forum (May 2, 2006); and William H. Navin, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary, The Options Clearing Corporation (September 29, 2006). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change OCC is seeking to amend Article VI (Clearance of Exchange Transactions), Section 11A of OCC's By-Laws to
(1)eliminate the need to round strike prices and/or units of trading in the event of certain stock dividends, stock distributions, and stock splits and
(2)provide for the adjustment of outstanding options for special dividends ( *i.e.* , cash distributions not declared pursuant to a policy or practice of paying such distributions on a quarterly or other regular basis). The proposed rule change would also add a $12.50 per contract threshold amount for cash dividends and distributions to trigger application of OCC's adjustment rules. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and
(C)below, of the most significant aspects of these statements. 4 4 The Commission has modified the text of the summaries prepared by OCC.
(A)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change A. Changes relating to Adjustments for Certain Stock Dividends, Stock Distributions, and Stock Splits OCC's By-Laws currently specify two alternative methods of adjusting for stock dividends, stock distributions, and stock splits. In cases where one or more whole shares are issued with respect to each outstanding share, the number of outstanding option contracts is correspondingly increased and strike prices are proportionally reduced. 5 In all other cases, the number of shares to be delivered under the option contract is increased and the strike price is reduced proportionately. 6 5 For example, in the event of a 2-for-1 split, an XYZ $60 option calling for the delivery of 100 shares of XYZ stock would be subdivided into two XYZ $30 options, each calling for the delivery of 100 shares of XYZ stock. 6 For example, in a 3-for-2 split, an XYZ $60 option calling for the delivery of 100 shares would be adjusted to call for the delivery of 150 shares and the strike price would be reduced to $40. Although these two methods have been used since the inception of options trading, in certain circumstances either method can produce a windfall profit for one side and a corresponding loss for the other due to rounding of adjusted strike prices. These profits and losses, while small on a per-contract basis, can be significant for large positions. Because equity option strike prices are currently stated in eighths, OCC's By-Laws require adjusted strike prices to be rounded to the nearest eighth. For example, if an XYZ $50 option for 100 shares were to be adjusted for a 3-for-2 split, the deliverable would be increased to 150 shares and the strike price would be adjusted to $33.33, which would then be rounded up to $33- 3/8 . Prior to the adjustment, a call holder would have had to pay $5,000 to exercise ($50 × 100 shares). After the adjustment, the caller has to pay $5,006.25 for the equivalent stock position ($33.375 × 150 shares). Conversely, an exercising put holder would receive $5,006.25 instead of $5,000. The $6.25 difference represents a loss for call holders and put writers and a windfall for put holders and call writers. A loss/windfall can also occur when the split results in a fractional deliverable ( *e.g.* , when a 4-for-3 split produces a deliverable of 133.3333 shares). In those cases, OCC's By-Laws currently require that the deliverable be rounded down to eliminate the fraction, and if appropriate, the strike price be further adjusted to the nearest eighth to compensate for the diminution in the value of the contract resulting from the elimination of the fractional share. However, even if these steps are taken, small rounding inequities may remain. The windfall profits and correspondent losses resulting from the rounding process have historically been accepted as immaterial. Due to recent substantial increases in trading volume and position size, however, they have become a source of concern to exchanges and market participants. In addition, OCC has been informed that some traders may be exploiting announcements of splits and similar events by quickly establishing positions designed to capture rounding windfalls at the expense of other market participants. The inequity that results from the need to round strike prices can be eliminated by using a different adjustment method: namely, adjusting the deliverable but not the strike prices or the values used to calculate aggregate exercise prices and premiums. As an illustration of the proposed adjustment methodology, in the XYZ $50 option 3-for-2 split example described above, the resulting adjustment would be a deliverable of 150 shares of XYZ stock while the strike price would remain at $50. In this case, the presplit multiplier of 100, used to extend aggregate strike price and premium amounts, is unchanged. For example, a premium of 1.50 would equal $150 ($1.5 × 100) both before and after the adjustment. An exercising call holder would continue to pay $50 times 100 (for a total of $5,000) but would receive 150 shares of XYZ stock instead of 100. 7 This is the method currently used for property distributions such as spin-offs and special dividends large enough to require adjustments under OCC's By-Laws. 7 The same adjustment methodology would apply to reverse stock splits or combination of shares. For example, in a 3-for-4 reverse stock split on a XYZ $50 option calling for the delivery of 100 shares, the resulting adjustment would be a deliverable of 75 shares of XYZ stock while the strike price would remain at $50. The inequity that results from the need to eliminate fractional shares from the deliverable and to compensate by further reducing the strike price to the nearest eighth can be eliminated by adjusting the deliverable to include cash in lieu of the fractional share. As an illustration, consider a 4-for-3 split of the stock underlying an XYZ $80 option with a 100 share deliverable. Employing the proposed adjustment method, the deliverable would be adjusted to 133.3333 shares, which would be rounded down to 133 shares, and the strike price would remain $80. However, instead of compensating for the elimination of the .3333 share by reducing the strike prices, the strike prices would be left unchanged, and the deliverable would be adjusted to 133 shares plus the cash value of the eliminated fractional share (.3333 × the post-split value of a share of XYZ stock as determined by OCC). The adjusted option would also continue to use 100 as the multiplier to calculate aggregate strike and premium amounts. The proposed revised adjustment methodology would not generally be used for 2-for-1 or 4-for-1 stock distributions or splits (since such distributions or splits normally result in strike prices that do not require rounding to the nearest eighth). In addition, the revised adjustment methodology would not generally be used for stock dividends, stock distributions, or stock splits with respect to any series of options having exercise prices stated in decimals. 8 For those options, the existing adjustment rules would continue to apply. The reason for this is that once the market has converted to decimal strikes, the rounding errors created by rounding to the nearest cent would be immaterial even given the larger positions taken in today's markets and the other factors discussed above. Because conversion to decimal strikes might be phased in rather than applied to all series of equity options simultaneously, the rule has been drafted to cover both methods of expressing exercise prices, applying the appropriate rule to each. 8 Although there are currently no decimal strikes for equity options, OCC wants to avoid the need for further amendments to its By-Laws and the options disclosure document in the event that such strikes are introduced in the future. The proposed changes in adjustment methodology would not be implemented until the exchanges have conducted appropriate educational efforts and definitive copies of an appropriate supplement to the options disclosure document, *Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options* , were available for distribution. 9 9 OCC will notify the Commission and issue an Important Notice when the proposed adjustment methodology is implemented. B. Changes to the Definition of “Ordinary Dividends and Distributions” Article VI, Section 11A(c) of OCC's By-Laws currently provides that as a general rule, outstanding options will not be adjusted to compensate for ordinary cash dividends. Interpretation and Policy .01 under Section 11A of Article VI provides that a cash dividend will generally be deemed to be “ordinary” if the amount does not exceed 10% of the value of the underlying stock on the declaration date (“10% Rule”). The OCC Securities Committee is authorized to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to adjust for dividends exceeding that amount. As a result, OCC historically has not adjusted for special cash dividends unless the amount of the dividend was greater than 10% of the stock price at the close of trading on the declaration day. The 10% Rule predated a number of significant developments, including, the introduction of Long-term Equity AnticiPation Security (“LEAPS”) options, the sizeable open interest seen today, the large contract volume associated with trading and spreading strategies, and modern option pricing models that take dividends into account. When open interest and individual positions were smaller, not adjusting for dividends of less than 10% did not have the pronounced impact it does today. Additionally, changes to the tax code which now tax dividends more favorably have provided an incentive for companies to pay more dividends, including special dividends. In light of these considerations, it is appropriate that the 10% Rule now be revised. Under the revision proposed by OCC, a cash dividend or distribution would be considered ordinary (regardless of size) if the OCC Securities Committee determines that such dividend or distribution was declared pursuant to a policy or practice of paying such dividends or distributions on a quarterly or other regular basis. In addition, as a general rule, a cash dividend or distribution that is less than $12.50 per contract would not trigger the adjustment provisions of Article VI, Section 11A. 1. No Adjustment for Regularly-Scheduled Dividends Needed Dividends declared by an issuer pursuant to a policy or practice of such issuer are known and can thus be priced into option premiums. By definition, however, special dividends cannot be anticipated in advance and therefore cannot be integrated into option pricing models. 10 If adjustments are not made in response to special dividends ( *i.e.* , by calling for the delivery of the dividend) call holders can capture the dividends only by exercising their options. Often in these cases, especially with LEAPS options or FLEX options which can exist for 5 to 10 years, early exercise would sacrifice substantial option time value. This economic disadvantage would be further magnified if the option position is large, as is often the case today. Conversely, put holders often receive a windfall benefit from the increase in the in-the-money value on the ex date. To the extent that equity options can be priced accurately and consistently without dislocations due to unforeseen special dividends, these economic disadvantages can be avoided. Moreover, because special dividends are one-off events, adjusting for them would not cause the proliferation of outstanding series that would result from adjusting for regular dividends as explained below. 10 OCC has been told that some traders form judgments as to the likelihood that certain issuers may declare special cash dividends and factor those judgments into their pricing models. However, that is clearly not the case with all traders or all issues. 2. De Minimis Threshold Adjusting for dividends can cause a proliferation of outstanding option symbols and series. 11 In the interest of providing some limit on option symbol proliferation, the proposed rule change includes a de minimis threshold of $12.50 per contract. Special dividends smaller than these amounts would not trigger an adjustment. 11 Symbols proliferate when adjustments are made because often the dividend amount must be added to the deliverable yielding a non-standard option. The exchanges then introduce standard options with the same strikes. OCC believes that a threshold that is a set dollar amount is preferable to one that is a percentage of the stock price (like OCC's existing 10% Rule) because there are operational problems with applying a percentage threshold. Under the existing 10% Rule, in order to determine whether this threshold is met, the per share dividend amount is applied to the closing price of the underlying security on the dividend declaration date. The date the dividend is announced (by press release or by some other means) is not normally the “declaration date” when the dividend is officially declared by an issuer's board of directors. Until the actual declaration date, investors and traders may not know whether or not an announced dividend will trigger an adjustment based on the company's share price. In the interim, it is difficult for traders and investors to price their options because they do not know if an adjustment will be made. The advantage of a fixed dollar threshold is avoiding uncertainty. The per contract value of the dividend can be immediately determined without the need to wait until the declaration date and without the need to do a calculation based on the closing price of the underlying shares. 3. Consistency Across Relevant Interpretations Interpretations and Policies .01 and .08 under Article VI, Section 11A apply to cash distributions. Interpretation and Policy .01 (as proposed to be amended) would apply in general to all cash distributions. Interpretation and Policy .08 currently carves out exceptions for fund share cash distributions and does not include a threshold minimum. In the interest of clarity and consistency with Interpretation and Policy .01, Interpretation .08 would be revised to provide for the same $12.50 per contract threshold. Clause
(ii)of Interpretation and Policy .08 would be deleted because it is an exception to the 10% Rule and would no longer be needed when the 10% Rule is abolished. 4. The Amendment OCC understands that certain option traders may have integrated into their pricing models the probability of special dividends based on the OCC rules currently in effect and that eliminating the 10% Rule with respect to existing contracts may unfairly affect these options traders. To ensure that no options series that were opened before disclosure of the rule change are affected by elimination of the 10% Rule, OCC will delay eliminating the 10% Rule and replacing it with the fixed dollar threshold so that these changes will be implemented only for corporate events announced on or after February 1, 2009. OCC plans to provide ODD disclosure of this rule change before May 29, 2007 (after which date the exchanges would normally begin introducing LEAPS expiring in 2010 making a 2009 implementation impracticable). The delay in implementation will ensure that all options series opened before the ODD disclosure is made available (other than certain “flex” options that will be grandfathered under the old rule) will have expired before the change is effected. 12 While delaying the implementation until 2009 postpones the benefit of making this needed change, it accommodates the many firms that find the operational hurdles and fairness issues associated with an earlier implementation onerous. 12 OCC intends to take a “snapshot” of flex series expiring after January 31, 2009, that are outstanding at the time when ODD disclosure of the rule change is made. Those series will be assigned distinctive trading symbols and “grandfathered” under the old rule. Trading will continue normally in grandfathered series until their expiration, but the exchanges would be free to open otherwise identical non-grandfathered series, which would be identified by conventional flex trading symbols. If ODD disclosure is not made until after the December 2006 expiration, it may also be necessary to grandfather two classes of LEAPs with December expirations (SPY and S&P 100 i-Shares) because the exchanges would ordinarily introduce new series expiring in December 2009 after the December 2006 expiration. OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act 13 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to OCC because
(1)it is intended to eliminate inequities that result from certain rounding practices currently required by OCC's By-Laws and thus protect investors and
(2)it is intended to make more predictable when cash distributions by an issuer will result in an adjustment to an option contract and thus make the process for adjustments more equitable for all investors. 13 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
(B)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition.
(C)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to ninety days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
(A)By order approve such proposed rule change or
(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-OCC-2006-01 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-OCC-2006-01. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's Web site at *www.theocc.com* . All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2006-01 and should be submitted on or before December 12, 2006. 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19619 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54749; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-73] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Definition of Core Session for XLE November 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 November 9, 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 and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Phlx. The Exchange filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which rendered the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 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. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Phlx proposes to modify the definition of “Core Session” in Phlx Rule 101, Supplementary Material .02(2), to state that the Core Session shall take place for each equity security from 9:30 a.m. until 4 p.m., except for specified exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) in which case the Core Session shall continue until 4:15 p.m. The text of the proposed rule change is available on Phlx's Web site, *http://www.phlx.com,* at Phlx's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. 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 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 is to ensure that ETFs 5 that trade on the Exchange have the same primary or core trading hours as these securities have on their listing exchanges. When the Phlx begins trading using its new equity trading system, XLE, 6 the hours of operation will change from the current hours of operation used on the physical equity trading floor. Currently, for any given security, the Primary Trading Session hours on Phlx are identical to the hours of trading for that security on its primary market. 7 Many ETFs trade on their primary market until 4:15 p.m. 5 The Exchange represents that it will publish, via an Exchange circular, a list of the exchange-traded funds that will have a Core Session that ends at 4:15 p.m. 6 XLE is the new equity trading system on Phlx for trading NMS Stocks. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54538 (September 28, 2006), 71 FR 59184 (October 6, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-43). 7 *See* the pre-XLE version of Phlx Rule 101, Supplementary .02(i). In adopting XLE, Phlx intended to modify its trading hours for equities, but did not intend to change the “primary” or “core” hours that securities are usually traded. Specifically, Phlx adopted its XLE Trading Hours with a Pre Market Session, a Core Session, and a Post Market Session. The Exchange intended the Core Session to be coextensive with existing primary sessions that are employed by other exchanges. Phlx defined the Core Session as taking place “for each security during that security's ‘regular trading hours’ as that term is defined in Rule 600(b)(64) of Regulation NMS.” However, by using the term “regular trading hours” as defined in Rule 600(b)(64) of Regulation NMS, 8 Phlx inadvertently failed to make its Core Session coextensive with existing primary sessions employed by other exchanges with respect to ETF trading. The Exchange notes that while other exchanges have adopted rules extending their primary trading session until 4:15 p.m. for certain securities ( *i.e.* , ETFs), “the Commission has not approved an [exchange] rule modifying the definition of regular trading hours [to some time other than 4 p.m] for purposes of Rule 600(b)(64).” 9 8 17 CFR 600(b)(64). 9 *See* Division of Market Regulation: Response to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Rule 611 and Rule 610 of Regulation NMS Question 7.02. The Exchange now proposes to modify the definition of its Core Session for XLE to allow the Exchange to set the ending time of the Core Session to 4:15 p.m. for certain ETFs. 10 This will allow those ETFs that trade until 4:15 p.m. to trade until that time during XLE's Core Session. The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change should reduce confusion among market participants who enter orders on multiple exchanges in these products by allowing for the harmonization of trading times across Phlx and other exchanges. 10 *See supra* note 5 (noting that the Exchange will publish a circular listing the applicable ETFs). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 11 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 12 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest. 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 12 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 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 The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing rule does not
(i)significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the date 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, provided that the Exchange has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 13 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 14 As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act, 15 Phlx provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, prior to the date of the filing of the proposed rule change. 13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 14 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 15 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act 16 normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act 17 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay, which would make the rule change effective and operative upon filing. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, because it allows the Exchange to implement this proposal without delay in order to accommodate the Exchange's plans to commence operations of XLE. The Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that its proposed rule change is based upon a similar rule of the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX”). 18 For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission. 19 16 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 17 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 18 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54550 (September 29, 2006), 71 FR 59563 (October 10, 2006) (SR-CHX-2006-05) (approval order for CHX's new electronic trading system). 19 For the purposess only of accelerating the operative date of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 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. 20 20 *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 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-2006-73 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-Phlx-2006-73. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the 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-2006-73 and should be submitted on or before December 12, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 21 21 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19623 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 4910-22-P Federal Highway Administration [Docket No. FHWA-2006-26363] Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information Collection AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB)approval for a new information collection, which is summarized below under Supplementary Information. We are required to publish this notice in the **Federal Register** by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Please submit comments by January 22, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FHWA-2006-26363 by any of the following methods: • Web site: *http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. • Fax: 1-202-493-2251 • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, 20590-0001. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC, 20590-0001 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 401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Koontz, 202-366-2076, or Robert Kafalenos, 202-366-2079, Office of Natural and Human Environment, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Annual Reporting for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
(CMAQ)Program. *Background:* Section 1808 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity. *Act:* A Legacy for Users of 2005 (SAFETEA-LU) calls for an Evaluation and Assessment of CMAQ Projects. The statute calls for the identification and analysis of a representative sample of CMAQ projects and the development and population of a database that describes the impacts of the program both on traffic congestion levels and air quality. To establish and maintain this database, the FHWA is requesting States to submit annual reports on their CMAQ investments that cover projected air quality benefits, financial information, a brief description of projects, and several other factors outlined in the Interim Program Guidance for the CMAQ program. States are requested to provide the end of year summary reports via the automated system provided through FHWA by the first day of February of each year, covering the prior Federal fiscal year. *Respondents:* 51; each State DOT, and Washington DC. *Frequency:* Annually. *Estimated Average Burden per Response:* 6 hours per annual report. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 306 hours. *Public Comments Invited:* You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including:
(1)Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated burdens;
(3)ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and
(4)ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, 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:* November 15, 2006. James R. Kabel, Chief, Management Programs and Analysis Division. [FR Doc. E6-19683 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Notice of Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Transportation Project in Ohio AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA and Other Federal Agencies. SUMMARY: This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and other Federal Agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The actions relate to a proposed highway project, U.S. Route 24, from U.S. Route 6 near the City of Napoleon in Henry County to just west of Interstate Route 475 near the City of Toledo in Lucas County in the State of Ohio. The Federal actions, taken as a result of an environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4351 (NEPA), determined certain issues relating to the proposed project. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project. DATES: By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public that it has made decisions that are subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) and are final within the meaning of that law. A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency decisions on the proposed highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before May 21, 2007. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 180 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For FHWA: Mr. Mark L. Vonder Embse, P.E., Senior Transportation Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 200 North High Street, Columbus, Ohio, 43215; e-mail: *mark.vonderembse@fhwa.dot.gov* ; telephone:
(614)280-6854; FHWA Ohio Division Office's normal business hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (eastern time). You also may contact Mr. W. Michael Ligibel, Ohio Department of Transportation, 317 East Poe Road, Bowling Green, Ohio 43402; telephone:
(419)353-8131. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the FHWA has issued a Record of Decision
(ROD)for the following highway project in the State of Ohio: U.S. Route 24, from U.S. Route 6 near the City of Napoleon in Henry County to west of Interstate Route 475 near the City of Toledo in Lucas County. The project will be a 21.8 mile long, four-lane divided limited access highway on new alignment. It will begin east of the existing Napoleon bypass. It will then proceed in an easterly and northeasterly direction passing to the south of the community of Liberty Center and staying north of the existing U.S. Route 24, and west and north of the Village of Waterville. The improvements will end at the existing 4-lane divided section of U.S. Route 24 southwest of the existing U.S. Route 24 and Stitt Road interchange. The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS)for the project, approved on September 8, 2004, in the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS)for the project, approved on March 31, 2006, in the FHWA Record of Decision
(ROD)issued on September 15, 2006, and in other documents in the FHWA administrative record. The DEIS, FEIS, ROD, and other documents in the FHWA administrative record file are available by contacting the FHWA or the Ohio Department of Transportation at the addresses provided above. The FHWA DEIS, FEIS, and ROD can be viewed at the Toledo-Lucas County Public Library-Maumee Branch, Toledo-Lucas County Public Library-Main Branch, Liberty Center Public Library, Napoleon Public Library, Toledo-Lucas County Public Library, Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments, Henry County Engineer's Office, Lucas County Engineer's Office, and the ODOT District Two Office. This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to: 1. * General:* National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4351; Federal-Aid Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. 109 and 23 U.S.C. 128. 2. *Air:* Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q). 3. *Land:* Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138; Landscaping and Scenic Enhancement (Wildflowers), 23 U.S.C. 319. 4. *Wildlife:* Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and 1536], Fish and Wildlife Coordination [16 U.S.C. 661-667(d)], Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703-712]. 5. *Wetlands and Water Resources:* Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), 16 U.S.C. 4601-4604; Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. 300(f)-300(j)(6); Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287; Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, 16 U.S.C. 3921, 3931; TEA-21 Wetlands Mitigation, 23 U.S.C. 103(b)(6)(m), 133(b)(11); Flood Disaster Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128. 6. *Historic and Cultural Resources:* Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470(f) *et seq.* ; Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1977 [16 U.S.C. 470 (aa)-11]; Archeological and Historical Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 469-469(c)]; Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) [25 U.S.C. 3001-3013]. 7. *Social and Economic:* Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)-2000(d)(1)]; American Indian Religious Freedom Act [42 U.S.C. 1996]; Farmland Protection Policy Act
(FPPA)[7 U.S.C. 4201-4209]. 8. *Executive Orders:* E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. 13287 Preserve America; E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112 Invasive Species. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Authority : 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). Issued on: October 30, 2006. Patrick A. Bauer, Assistant Division Administrator, Columbus, Ohio. [FR Doc. E6-19632 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Availability of Grant Program Funds for Commercial Driver's License Program Improvements AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration announces the availability of Commercial Driver's License Program Improvement (CDLPI) grant funding as authorized by Section 4124 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The program is a discretionary grant program that provides funding for improving States' implementation of the Commercial Driver's License
(CDL)program, including expenses for computer hardware and software, publications, testing, personnel, training, and quality control. Grants made under this program may not be used to rent, lease, or buy land or buildings. The agency in each State designated as the primary driver licensing agency responsible for the development, implementation, and maintenance of the CDL program is eligible to apply for grant funding. To apply for funding, applicants must register with the grants.gov Web site ( *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp* ) and submit an application in accordance with instructions provided. Applications for grant funding must be submitted electronically to the FMCSA through the grants.gov Web site. DATES: FMCSA will initially consider funding for applications submitted by December 15, 2006, by qualified applicants. If additional funding remains available, applications submitted after December 15, 2006, will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Funds will not be available for allocation until fiscal year 2007 appropriations legislation is passed and signed into law. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Visit *www.grants.gov.* Information on the grant, application process, and additional contact information is available at that Web site. General information about the CDLPI grant is available in The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)which can be found on the Internet at *http://www.cfda.gov.* The CFDA number for CDLPI is 20.232. You may also contact Mr. Lloyd Goldsmith, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Office of Safety Programs, Commercial Driver's License Division (MC-ESL), 202-366-2964, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 8310, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Issued on: November 9, 2006. John H. Hill, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-19684 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [USCG-2006-26009] Calypso LNG LLC, Calypso Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port License Application; Preparation of Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of intent; notice of public meeting; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration (MARAD) announce that the Coast Guard intends to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS)as part of the environmental review of this license application. The application describes a project that would be located in the Atlantic Ocean, approximately 9 miles northeast of Port Everglades, Florida. Publication of this notice begins a scoping process that will help identify and determine the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the EIS. This notice requests public participation in the scoping process and provides information on how to participate. DATES: The public meeting in Fort Lauderdale, FL will be held on December 6, 2006. The public meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. and will be preceded by an open house from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. The public meeting may end earlier or later than the stated time, depending on the number of persons wishing to speak. Material submitted in response to the request for comments must reach the Docket Management Facility by December 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: The public meetings will be held at: Fort Lauderdale Marriott North, 6500 North Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309; 954-771-0440. Address docket submissions for USCG-2006-26009 to: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. The Docket Management Facility accepts hand-delivered submissions, and makes docket contents available for public inspection and copying at this address, in room PL-401, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Facility's telephone is 202-366-9329, its fax is 202-493-2251, and its Web site for electronic submissions or for electronic access to docket contents is *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary K. Jager, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone: 202-372-1454, e-mail: *mary.k.jager@uscg.mil.* If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone: 202-493-0402. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Meeting and Open House We invite you to learn about the proposed deepwater port at an informational open house, and to comment at a public meeting on environmental issues related to the proposed deepwater port. Your comments will help us identify and refine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the EIS. In order to allow everyone a chance to speak at the public meeting, we may limit speaker time, or extend the meeting hours, or both. You must identify yourself, and any organization you represent, by name. Your remarks will be recorded or transcribed for inclusion in the public docket. You may submit written material at the public meeting, either in place of or in addition to speaking. Written material must include your name and address, and will be included in the public docket. Public docket materials will be made available to the public on the Docket Management Facility's Docket Management System (DMS). See “Request for Comments” for information about DMS and your rights under the Privacy Act. All of our public meeting locations are wheelchair-accessible. If you plan to attend the open house or public meeting, and need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation, please notify the Coast Guard (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) at least 3 business days in advance. Include your contact information as well as information about your specific needs. Request for Comments We request public comments or other relevant information on environmental issues related to the proposed deepwater port. The public meeting is not the only opportunity you have to comment. In addition to or in place of attending a meeting, you can submit comments to the Docket Management Facility during the public comment period (see DATES ). We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Submissions should include: • Docket number USCG-2006-26009. • Your name and address. • Your reasons for making each comment or for bringing information to our attention. Submit comments or material using only one of the following methods: • Electronic submission to DMS, *http://dms.dot.gov.* • Fax, mail, or hand delivery to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES ). Faxed or hand delivered submissions must be unbound, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, and suitable for copying and electronic scanning. If you mail your submission and want to know when it reaches the Facility, include a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the DMS Web site ( *http://dms.dot.gov* ), and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act notice that is available on the DMS Web site, or the Department of Transportation Privacy Act Statement that appeared in the **Federal Register** on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477). You may view docket submissions at the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES ), or electronically on the DMS Web site. Background Information about deepwater ports, the statutes and regulations governing their licensing, and the receipt of the current application for the proposed Calypso deepwater port appears at 71 FR 65031, November 6, 2006. The “Summary of the Application” from that publication is reprinted below for your convenience. Consideration of a deepwater port license application includes review of the proposed deepwater port's natural and human environmental impacts. The Coast Guard is the lead agency for determining the scope of this review, and in this case the Coast Guard has determined that review must include preparation of an EIS. This notice of intent is required by 40 CFR 1501.7, and briefly describes the proposed action and possible alternatives and our proposed scoping process. You can address any questions about the proposed action, the scoping process, or the EIS to the Coast Guard contact person identified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Proposed Action and Alternatives The proposed action requiring environmental review is the Federal licensing of the proposed deepwater port described in “Summary of the Application” below. The alternatives to licensing the proposed port are:
(1)Licensing with conditions (including conditions designed to mitigate environmental impact), and
(2)denying the application, which for purposes of environmental review is the “no-action” alternative. Scoping Process Public scoping is an early and open process for identifying and determining the scope of issues to be addressed in the EIS. Scoping begins with this notice, continues through the public comment period (see DATES), and ends when the Coast Guard has completed the following actions: • Invites the participation of Federal, State, and local agencies, any affected Indian tribe, the applicant, and other interested persons; • Determines the actions, alternatives, and impacts described in 40 CFR 1508.25; • Identifies and eliminates from detailed study those issues that are not significant or that have been covered elsewhere; • Allocates responsibility for preparing EIS components; • Indicates any related environmental assessments or environmental impact statements that are not part of the EIS; • Identifies other relevant environmental review and consultation requirements; • Indicates the relationship between timing of the environmental review and other aspects of the application process; and • At its discretion, exercises the options provided in 40 CFR 1501.7 (b). Once the scoping process is complete, the Coast Guard will prepare a draft EIS, and we will publish a **Federal Register** notice announcing its public availability. (If you want that notice to be sent to you, please contact the Coast Guard project manager identified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .) You will have an opportunity to review and comment on the draft EIS. The Coast Guard will consider those comments and then prepare the final EIS. As with the draft EIS, we will announce the availability of the final EIS and once again give you an opportunity for review and comment. Summary of the Application Calypso LNG LLC, proposes to own, construct, and operate a deepwater port, named Calypso, in the Federal waters of the Outer Continental Shelf in the OCS NG 17-06 (Bahamas) lease area, approximately 9 miles off the east coast of Florida to the northeast of Port Everglades, in a water depth of approximately 800 to 950 feet. Calypso would consist of a permanently moored unloading buoy system with two
(2)submersible buoys separated by a distance of approximately three
(3)miles. Each unloading buoy would be permanently secured to eight or nine mooring lines, consisting of wire rope, chain, and buoyancy elements, each attached to anchor points on the seabed. Anchor points would consist of a combination of suction piles and gravity anchors. The buoys would be designed to moor and unload two
(2)types of LNG vessels: a transport and regasification vessel
(TRV)of approximately 140,000 cubic meter capacity and a storage and regasification ship
(SRS)of approximately 250,000 cubic meter capacity. Both vessels would be equipped to vaporize LNG cargo to natural gas through an onboard closed loop vaporization system, and to odorize and meter gas for send-out by means of the unloading buoy to conventional subsea pipelines. The TRVs would moor to the westernmost buoy, and the SRS to the easternmost buoy. The mooring buoys would be connected through the vessels' hulls to specially designed turrets that would enable the vessel to weathervane or rotate in response to prevailing wind, wave, and current directions. When the vessels are not present, the buoys would be submerged approximately 100 feet below the sea surface. The unloading buoys would connect through flexible risers and two
(2)approximately 2.5 mile long 30-inch flowlines located on the seabed that would connect directly to the Calypso pipeline, a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC)permitted pipeline. Three types of vessels would be associated with the port: The TRV drawn from the existing and future global fleet of specialized LNG carriers compatible with Calypso's unloading buoy system; the SRS, a specialized, purpose-built modified LNG carrier, designed to accept, regasify, odorize and meter LNG from conventional LNG carriers and deliver it to the pipeline through Calypso's unloading buoy system; and conventional LNG carriers. When empty the TRV would disconnect from the buoy and leave the port, followed by another full TRV that would arrive and connect to the buoy. The SRS would normally remain attached to its mooring buoy. To sustain continuous vaporization, the SRS' cargo tanks would be refilled approximately every two
(2)to four
(4)days by standard LNG carriers drawn from the global fleet. The SRS would be capable of detaching from the buoy if threatened by a severe storm, such as a hurricane, and move under its own power to safety; then return and reconnect to the buoy and continue operations once the storm danger passed. Calypso would be capable of delivering natural gas in a continuous flow by having at least one TRV or SRS regasifying at all times. The system would be designed so that a TRV and SRS can be moored simultaneously for concurrent unloading of natural gas. Calypso would have an average throughput capacity of approximately 1.1 billion standard cubic feet per day and a peak delivery capacity of 1.9 Bcsfd. No onshore pipelines or LNG storage facilities are associated with the proposed deepwater port application. A shore based facility would be used to facilitate movement of personnel, equipment, supplies, and disposable materials between the port and shore. Construction of the deepwater port would be expected to take three
(3)years; with startup of commercial operations following construction, should a license be issued. The deepwater port would be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with applicable codes and standards and would have an expected operating life of approximately 25 years. Privacy Act Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* (Authority 49 CFR 1.66) By order of the Maritime Administrator. Dated: November 16, 2006. Joel C. Richard, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E6-19659 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26357 Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 1999-2000 Hatty 45 Foot Double Axle Trailers Are Eligible for Importation AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming 1999-2000 Hatty 45 foot double axle trailers are eligible for importation. SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that 1999-2000 Hatty 45 foot double axle trailers that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States because they have safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all such standards. DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is December 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.]. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-19478) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-3151). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under 49 U.S.C. § 30141(a)(1)(B), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS, and that has no substantially similar U.S.-certified counterpart, shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle has safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS based on destructive test data or such other evidence as NHTSA decides to be adequate. Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the **Federal Register** of each petition that it receives, and affords interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in the **Federal Register** . Barry Taylor Enterprises of Richmond, California (“BTE”)(Registered Importer 01-280) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether 1999-2000 Hatty 45 foot double axle trailers that were not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS are eligible for importation into the United States. BTE contends that these vehicles are eligible for importation under 49 U.S.C. § 30141(a)(1)(B) because they have safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS. BTE submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that 1999-2000 Hatty 45 foot double axle trailers, as originally manufactured, comply with many applicable FMVSS and are capable of being modified to comply with all other applicable standards to which they were not originally manufactured to conform. Specifically, the petitioner claims that 1999-2000 Hatty 45 foot double axle trailers have safety features that comply with Standard Nos. 106 *Brake Hoses* , 119 *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars* , 121 *Air Brake Systems* , 223 *Rear Impact Guards* and 224 *Rear Impact Protection* . Petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated: Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment:* installation of rear mounted identification lamps, front side-mounted amber clearance lamps, brake lamps, and rear turn signal lamps. Standard No. 120 * Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars: * installation of a tire information placard. Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.]. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted. All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the **Federal Register** pursuant to the authority indicated below. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: November 16, 2006. Claude H. Harris, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. E6-19685 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration International Standards on the Transport of Dangerous Goods; Public Meeting AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: This notice is to advise interested persons that PHMSA will conduct a public meeting in preparation for the 30th session of the United Nation's Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UNSCOE) to be held 4-12 (a.m.) December 2006 in Geneva, Switzerland. DATES: Wednesday, November 29, 2006; 9:30 a.m.—3:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at DOT Headquarters, Nassif Building, Room 8418, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Duane Pfund, Director, Office of International Standards, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590;
(202)366-0656. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The primary purpose of this meeting will be to prepare for the 30th session of the UNSCOE and to discuss draft U.S. positions on UNSCOE proposals. The 30th session of the UNSCOE is the final meeting in the current biennium cycle. The UNSCOE will consider proposals for the 15th Revised Edition of the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods Model Regulations which will come into force in the international regulations from January 1, 2009. Topics to be covered during the public meeting include: Transport of dangerous goods in excepted quantities, testing of intermediate bulk containers, transport of infectious substances, transport of chlorosilanes, provisions for fireworks, portable tank instructions for toxic by inhalation liquids, transport of compressed gases, requirements for fuel cell cartridges, harmonization with the IAEA Regulations for the safe transport of radioactive materials, guiding principles for the development of the Model Regulations, and various miscellaneous proposals related to listing, classifications, and hazard communication. In addition, we are soliciting comments on possible work items for inclusion in the UNSCOE's program of work for the upcoming 2007-2008 biennium. Immediately following the portion of the public meeting designated for discussion on the 30th session of the UNSCOE, PHMSA will hold a discussion relative to the safe transport of lithium batteries. This discussion will feature an update from the Consumer Product Safety Commission on the status of lithium battery recalls, discussion of UN proposals relative to lithium batteries, industry best practice experience, and a structured discussion on developing a collaborative roadmap addressing regulatory, best practice and outreach initiatives to enhance lithium battery transport safety. The public is invited to attend without prior notification. Due to the heightened security measures participants are encouraged to arrive early to allow time for security checks necessary to obtain access to the building. In lieu of conducting a public meeting after the 30th session of the UNSCOE to present the results of the session, PHMSA will place a copy of the Sub-Committee's report and an updated copy of the pre-meeting summary document on PHMSA's Hazardous Materials Safety Homepage at *http://hazmat.dot.gov/regs/intl/intstandards.htm.* Documents Copies of documents for the UNSCOE meeting and the meeting agenda may be obtained by downloading them from the United Nations Transport Division's Web site at: *http://www.unece.org/trans/main/dgdb/dgsubc/c32006.html.* This site may also be accessed through PHMSA's Hazardous Materials Safety Homepage at *http://hazmat.dot.gov/regs/intl/intstandards.htm.* PHMSA's site provides additional information regarding the UNSCOE and related matters such as a summary of decisions taken at previous sessions of the UNSCOE. Robert A. McGuire, Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety. [FR Doc. 06-9324 Filed 11-21-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 28
Traces to 28 documents
U.S. Code
27 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 14 CFR 1216
  • 10 CFR 2
  • 10 CFR 100
  • 10 CFR 50
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 17 CFR 600(b)(64)
  • 49 CFR 1.48
  • 42 USC 4321-4351
  • 42 USC 7401-7671(q)
  • 16 USC 1531-1544
  • 16 USC 661-667(d)
  • 16 USC 703-712
  • 16 USC 4601-4604
  • 16 USC 1271-1287
  • 42 USC 4001-4128
  • 16 USC 469-469(c)
  • 25 USC 3001-3013
  • 42 USC 2000(d)
  • 7 USC 4201-4209
  • 40 CFR 1501.7
  • 40 CFR 1508.25
  • 49 CFR 1.66
  • 49 CFR 592
  • 49 CFR 593.7
  • 49 CFR 593.8
  • 49 CFR 1.50
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of information collection
U.S.C.§ 3506
U.S.C.§ 4321
C.F.R.§ 50.92
C.F.R.§ 2.309
C.F.R.§ 50.91
C.F.R.§ 50.67
C.F.R.§ 50.44
C.F.R.§ 51.22
C.F.R.§ 51.12
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-13
Cite14 CFR 1216
Cite10 CFR 2
Cites 55 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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