Notices. Notice

36,163 words·~164 min read·/register/2006/12/19/06-9772

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

BILLING CODE 7590-01-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 November 22, 2006 to December 7, 2006. The last biweekly notice was published on December 5, 2006 (71 FR 70553). 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, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania *Date of amendment request:* September 15, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification

(TS)Section 6.8.5, “Reactor Building Leakage Rate Testing Program,” to allow a one-time deferral of the next Type A, containment integrated leak rate test

(ILRT)from “no later than September 2008” to “prior to startup from T1R18 refueling outage.” The NRC has previously approved a one-time 5-year extension to the Type A ILRT schedule for TMI-1 by issuance of Amendment No. 244, dated August 14, 2003. Amendment No. 244 changed the TSs to state that the Type A ILRT shall be performed no later than September 2008. The proposed amendment would add approximately 15 months to the currently-approved 15-year interval. This deferral would allow the Type A ILRT to be performed during a steam generator replacement in the fall of 2009. *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: Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change will revise TS 6.8.5 to reflect a one-time extension to the Three Mile Island, Unit 1 Type A Integrated Leak Rate Test

(ILRT)as currently specified in the Technical Specifications. This change will extend the requirement to perform the Type A ILRT from the current requirement of “no later than September 2008” to “prior to startup from the T1R18 refueling outage,” which is currently scheduled for Fall 2009. The current Type A ILRT interval of 15 years, based on past performance, would be extended on a one-time basis by approximately 15 months. The function of the containment is to isolate and contain fission products released from the reactor coolant system following a design basis Loss of Coolant Accident

(LOCA)and to confine the postulated release of radioactive material to within limits. The test interval associated with Type A ILRTs is not a precursor of any accident previously evaluated. Type A ILRTs provide assurance that the TMI, Unit 1 containment will not exceed allowable leakage rate values specified in the TS and will continue to perform its design function following an accident. The risk assessment of the proposed change has concluded that there is an insignificant increase in postulated total population dose rate and an insignificant increase in the postulated conditional containment failure probability. Additionally, containment inspections have also been performed which demonstrate the continued structural integrity of the primary containment. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change for a one-time extension of the Type A ILRT for TMI, Unit 1 will not affect the control parameters governing unit operation or the response of plant equipment to transient and accident conditions. The proposed change does not introduce any new equipment, modes of system operation or failure mechanisms. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The integrity of the containment penetrations and isolation valves is verified through Type B and Type C local leak rate tests (LLRTs) and the overall leak tight integrity of the containment is verified by a Type A ILRT, as required by 10 CFR [Part] 50, Appendix J, “Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors.” These tests are performed to verify the essentially leak tight characteristics of the containment at the design basis accident pressure. The proposed change for a one-time extension of the Type A ILRT does not affect the method for Type A, B or C testing or the test acceptance criteria. AmerGen has conducted a risk assessment to determine the impact of a change to the TMI, Unit 1 Type A ILRT schedule from a baseline ILRT frequency of three times in 10 years to once in 15 years plus 15 months for the risk measures of Large Early Release Frequency ( *i.e.* , LERF), Population Dose, and Conditional Containment Failure Probability ( *i.e.* , CCFP). This assessment indicated that the proposed TMI, Unit 1 ILRT interval extension has a small change in risk to the public and is an acceptable plant change from a risk perspective. 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. Brad Fewell, Assistant General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. *NRC Branch Chief:* Harold K. Chernoff. Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina *Date of amendment request:* May 30, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated November 20, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify the Technical Specification

(TS)requirements related to steam generator tube integrity. The amendment would adopt Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved Revision 4 to Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF)Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-449, “Steam Generator Tube Integrity.” The NRC staff published a notice of opportunity for comment in the **Federal Register** on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10298), on possible amendments adopting TSTF-449, including a model safety evaluation and model no significant hazards consideration

(SGTR)event is one of the design basis accidents that are analyzed as part of a plant's licensing basis. In the analysis of a SGTR event, a bounding primary to secondary LEAKAGE rate equal to the operational LEAKAGE rate limits in the licensing basis plus the LEAKAGE rate associated with a double-ended rupture of a single tube is assumed. For other design basis accidents such as Main Steam Line Break (MSLB), rod ejection, and reactor coolant pump locked rotor the tubes are assumed to retain their structural integrity ( *i.e.* , they are assumed not to rupture). These analyses typically assume that primary to secondary LEAKAGE for all SGs is 1 gallon per minute or increases to 1 gallon per minute as a result of accident induced stresses. The accident induced leakage criterion introduced by the proposed changes accounts for tubes that may leak during design basis accidents. The accident induced leakage criterion limits this leakage to no more than the value assumed in the accident analysis. The SG performance criteria proposed change to the TSs identifies the standards against which tube integrity is to be measured. Meeting the performance criteria provides reasonable assurance that the SG tubing will remain capable of fulfilling its specific safety function of maintaining reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity throughout each operating cycle and in the unlikely event of a design basis accident. The performance criteria are only a part of the SG Program required by the proposed change to the TSs. The program, defined by NEI 97-06, Steam Generator Program Guidelines, includes a framework that incorporates a balance of prevention, inspection, evaluation, repair, and leakage monitoring. The proposed changes do not, therefore, significantly increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The consequences of design-basis accidents are, in part, functions of the DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 in the primary coolant and the primary to secondary LEAKAGE rates resulting from an accident. Therefore, limits are included in the plant technical specifications for operational leakage and for DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 in primary coolant to ensure the plant is operated within its analyzed condition. The typical analysis of the limiting design basis accident assumes that primary to secondary leak rate after the accident is 1 gallon per minute with no more than 500 gallons per day in any one SG, and that the reactor coolant activity levels of DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 are at the TS values before the accident. The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs, their method of operation, or primary coolant chemistry controls. The proposed approach updates the current TSs and enhances the requirements for SG inspections. The proposed change does not adversely impact any other previously evaluated design basis accident and is an improvement over the current TSs. Therefore, the proposed change does not affect the consequences of a SGTR accident and the probability of such an accident is reduced. In addition, the proposed change does not affect the consequences of an MSLB, rod ejection, or a reactor coolant pump locked rotor event, or other previously evaluated accident. Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated The proposed performance based requirements are an improvement over the requirements imposed by the current technical specifications. Implementation of the proposed SG Program will not introduce any adverse changes to the plant design basis or postulated accidents resulting from potential tube degradation. The result of the implementation of the SG Program will be an enhancement of SG tube performance. Primary to secondary LEAKAGE that may be experienced during all plant conditions will be monitored to ensure it remains within current accident analysis assumptions. The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs, their method of operation, or primary or secondary coolant chemistry controls. In addition, the proposed change does not impact any other plant system or component. The change enhances SG inspection requirements. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface between the primary and secondary systems such that residual heat can be removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes isolate the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant from the secondary system. In summary, the safety function of an SG is maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes. Steam generator tube integrity is a function of the design, environment, and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed change does not affect tube design or operating environment. The proposed change is expected to result in an improvement in the tube integrity by implementing the SG Program to manage SG tube inspection, assessment, repair, and plugging. The requirements established by the SG Program are consistent with those in the applicable design codes and standards and are an improvement over the requirements in the current TSs. For the above reasons, the margin of safety is not changed and overall plant safety will be enhanced by the proposed change to the TSs. 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): Douglas V. Pickett. Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina *Date of amendment request:* May 23, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated October 3, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify the Technical Specification

(TS)requirements related to steam generator tube integrity. The amendment would adopt Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved Revision 4 to Technical Specification Task Force

(SGTR)event is one of the design basis accidents that are analyzed as part of a plant's licensing basis. In the analysis of a SGTR event, a bounding primary to secondary LEAKAGE rate equal to the operational LEAKAGE rate limits in the licensing basis plus the LEAKAGE rate associated with a double-ended rupture of a single tube is assumed. For other design basis accidents such as Main Steam Line Break (MSLB), rod ejection, and reactor coolant pump locked rotor the tubes are assumed to retain their structural integrity (i.e., they are assumed not to rupture). These analyses typically assume that primary to secondary LEAKAGE for all SGs is 1 gallon per minute or increases to 1 gallon per minute as a result of accident induced stresses. The accident induced leakage criterion introduced by the proposed changes accounts for tubes that may leak during design basis accidents. The accident induced leakage criterion limits this leakage to no more than the value assumed in the accident analysis. The SG performance criteria proposed change to the TSs identifies the standards against which tube integrity is to be measured. Meeting the performance criteria provides reasonable assurance that the SG tubing will remain capable of fulfilling its specific safety function of maintaining reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity throughout each operating cycle and in the unlikely event of a design basis accident. The performance criteria are only a part of the SG Program required by the proposed change to the TSs. The program, defined by NEI 97-06, Steam Generator Program Guidelines, includes a framework that incorporates a balance of prevention, inspection, evaluation, repair, and leakage monitoring. The proposed changes do not, therefore, significantly increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The consequences of design-basis accidents are, in part, functions of the DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 in the primary coolant and the primary to secondary LEAKAGE rates resulting from an accident. Therefore, limits are included in the plant technical specifications for operational leakage and for DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 in primary coolant to ensure the plant is operated within its analyzed condition. The typical analysis of the limiting design basis accident assumes that primary to secondary leak rate after the accident is 1 gallon per minute with no more than 500 gallons per day in any one SG, and that the reactor coolant activity levels of DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 are at the TS values before the accident. The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs, their method of operation, or primary coolant chemistry controls. The proposed approach updates the current TSs and enhances the requirements for SG inspections. The proposed change does not adversely impact any other previously evaluated design basis accident and is an improvement over the current TSs. Therefore, the proposed change does not affect the consequences of a SGTR accident and the probability of such an accident is reduced. In addition, the proposed change does not affect the consequences of an MSLB, rod ejection, or a reactor coolant pump locked rotor event, or other previously evaluated accident. Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated The proposed performance based requirements are an improvement over the requirements imposed by the current technical specifications. Implementation of the proposed SG Program will not introduce any adverse changes to the plant design basis or postulated accidents resulting from potential tube degradation. The result of the implementation of the SG Program will be an enhancement of SG tube performance. Primary to secondary LEAKAGE that may be experienced during all plant conditions will be monitored to ensure it remains within current accident analysis assumptions. The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs, their method of operation, or primary or secondary coolant chemistry controls. In addition, the proposed change does not impact any other plant system or component. The change enhances SG inspection requirements. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface between the primary and secondary systems such that residual heat can be removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes isolate the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant from the secondary system. In summary, the safety function of an SG is maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes. Steam generator tube integrity is a function of the design, environment, and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed change does not affect tube design or operating environment. The proposed change is expected to result in an improvement in the tube integrity by implementing the SG Program to manage SG tube inspection, assessment, repair, and plugging. The requirements established by the SG Program are consistent with those in the applicable design codes and standards and are an improvement over the requirements in the current TSs. For the above reasons, the margin of safety is not changed and overall plant safety will be enhanced by the proposed change to the TSs. 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):* Douglas V. Pickett. Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, (HBRSEP) Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina *Date of amendment request:* June 1, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated November 20, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the surveillance requirements

(SR)for the emergency core cooling system suction inlet in the containment as specified in Technical Specification SR 3.5.2.6. *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? No. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed surveillance change will continue to ensure that the emergency core cooling system

(ECCS)containment sump inlet is inspected in a manner that will verify operability. Performance of the required system surveillances, in conjunction with the applicable operational and design requirements for the ECCS, provide assurance that the system will be capable of performing the required design functions for accident mitigation and that the system will perform in accordance with the functional requirements for the system as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report for HBRSEP, Unit No. 2. The proposed rewording of the surveillance requirement will continue to ensure that the ECCS containment sump suction inlet is not restricted by debris and suction inlet strainers show no evidence of structural distress or abnormal corrosion for HBRSEP, Unit No. 2. This ensures that the rate of occurrence and consequences of analyzed accidents will not change. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated? No. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. HBRSEP, Unit No. 2, is replacing the existing ECCS containment sump inlet trash racks and screens with new strainers in accordance with the response to Generic Letter 2004-02. The strainer is a passive component in the ECCS, which is a standby safety system used for accident mitigation. As such, the strainer cannot be an accident initiator. A change to Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirement 3.5.2.6 is needed to accommodate the change to the ECCS containment sump inlet design. This change does not alter the nature of events postulated in the HBRSEP, Unit No. 2, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, nor does it introduce any unique precursor mechanisms. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? No. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The proposed change to the ECCS containment sump inlet surveillance requirement provides appropriate and applicable surveillance for this system. The proposed change to this surveillance requirement for the ECCS system will continue to ensure system operability. The proposed change does not adversely affect any plant safety limits, setpoints, or design parameters. The change also does not adversely affect the fuel, fuel cladding, Reactor Coolant System (RCS), or containment integrity. Therefore, this change does not affect any margin of safety for HBRSEP, Unit No. 2. 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:* 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): Douglas Pickett. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2, New London County, Connecticut *Date of amendment request:* May 31, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specification

(TS)requirements related to steam generator

(SG)tube integrity. In particular, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.

(DNC)is proposing to replace the existing SG tube surveillance program with the NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force

(TSTF)449, Revision 4. The proposed changes are consistent with the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP) provided in the May 6, 2005, **Federal Register** notice (70 FR 24126). In addition, the Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2

(MPS2)TSs are revised beyond the scope of the CLIIP to provide consistent terminology and format. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* DNC proposed minor variations and/or deviations from the TS changes described in the CLIIP beyond the scope of the no significant hazards consideration determination published on March 2, 2005. DNC has evaluated the proposed beyond-scope TS changes and determined it does not represent a significant hazards consideration. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), DNC has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review is presented below. 1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not affect initiators of previously analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events. Therefore, these changes do 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. The proposed changes involve adding a new definition and rewording the existing TS to be consistent with NUREG-1432, Revision 3. In addition, the requested change for MPS2 incorporates a more conservative leakage limit of 75 gallons per day per steam generator as opposed to the CLIIP specified limit of 150 gallons per day per steam generator. The changes will not impose any requirements or eliminate any existing requirements that will create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Since the proposed changes do not have an impact on any safety analysis assumptions and accidents previously evaluated, there are no margin of safety issues involved. Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. 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:* Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 06385. *NRC Branch Chief:* Harold K. Chernoff. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut *Date of amendment request:* May 31, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specification

(TS)requirements related to steam generator

(SG)tube integrity. In particular, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.

(DNC)is proposing to replace the existing SG tube surveillance program with the NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force

(MPS3)TSs are revised beyond the scope of the CLIIP to provide consistent terminology and format. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* DNC proposed minor variations and/or deviations from the TS changes described in the CLIIP beyond the scope of the no significant hazards consideration determination published on March 2, 2005. DNC has evaluated the proposed beyond-scope TS changes and determined it does not represent a significant hazards consideration. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), DNC has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration to support this conclusion. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review is presented below. 1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes involve rewording the existing technical specifications to be consistent with NUREG-1431, Revision 3. These proposed changes do not affect initiators of previously analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events. Therefore, these changes do 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. These proposed changes do not involve physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). The changes will not impose any requirements or eliminate any existing requirements that will create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Since the proposed changes do not have an impact on any safety analysis assumptions and accidents previously evaluated, there are no margin of safety issues involved. Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. 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:* Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 06385. *NRC Branch Chief:* Harold K. Chernoff. Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County, Mississippi *Date of amendment request:* November 13, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Technical Specification

(TS)Limiting Condition for Operation

(LCO)3.10.1, and the associated TS Bases, to expand its scope to include provisions for temperature excursions greater than 200 °F as a consequence of inservice leak and hydrostatic testing, and as a consequence of scram time testing initiated in conjunction with an inservice leak or hydrostatic test, while considering operational conditions to be in MODE 4. The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the **Federal Register** on August 21, 2006 (71 FR 48561), on possible amendments to revise the plant-specific TS, to expand the scope of TS LCO 3.10.1, to include provisions for temperature excursions greater than 200 °F as a consequence of inservice leak and hydrostatic testing, and as a consequence of scram time testing initiated in conjunction with an inservice leak or hydrostatic test, while considering operational conditions to be in MODE 4, including a model safety evaluation and model No Significant Hazards Determination (NSHC), using the consolidated line item improvement process. The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models for referencing in license amendment applications in the **Federal Register** on October 27, 2006 (71 FR 63050). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its application dated November 13, 2006. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: Criterion 1: The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated Technical Specifications currently allow for operation at greater than [200] °F while imposing MODE 4 requirements in addition to the secondary containment requirements required to be met. Extending the activities that can apply this allowance will not adversely impact the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously Evaluated Technical Specifications currently allow for operation at greater than [200] °F while imposing MODE 4 requirements in addition to the secondary containment requirements required to be met. No new operational conditions beyond those currently allowed by LCO 3.10.1 are introduced. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or different requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin of Safety Technical Specifications currently allow for operation at greater than [200] °F while imposing MODE 4 requirements in addition to the secondary containment requirements required to be met. Extending the activities that can apply this allowance will not adversely impact any margin of safety. Allowing completion of inspections and testing and supporting completion of scram time testing initiated in conjunction with an inservice leak or hydrostatic test prior to power operation results in enhanced safe operations by eliminating unnecessary maneuvers to control reactor temperature and pressure. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Terence A. Burke, Associate General Council—Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213. *NRC Branch Chief:* David Terao. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania *Date of application for amendments:* July 14, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed changes would modify Technical Specification

(TS)requirements related to required end states for TS action statements. The changes are generally consistent with the NRC-approved Revision 0 to Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF)Change Traveler, TSTF-423, “Risk Informed Modification to Selected Required Action End States for BWR Plants.” The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the **Federal Register** on December 14, 2005 (70 FR 74037), on possible amendments adopting TSTF-423, including a model safety evaluation and model no significant hazards consideration

(TS)changes are to permit an end state of hot shutdown (Mode 3) rather than an end state of cold shutdown (Mode 4) contained in the current TS. The request was limited to:

(1)Those end states where entry into the shutdown mode is for a short interval,

(2)entry is initiated by inoperability of a single train of equipment or a restriction on a plant operational parameter, unless otherwise stated in the applicable technical specification, and

(3)the primary purpose is to correct the initiating condition and return to power operation as soon as is practical. Risk insights from both the qualitative and quantitative risk assessments were used in specific TS assessments. Such assessments are documented in Section 6 of GE [General Electric] NEDC-32988, Revision 2, “Technical Justification to Support Risk Informed Modification to Selected Required Action End States for BWR [boiling-water reactor] Plants.” They provide an integrated discussion of deterministic and probabilistic issues, focusing on specific technical specifications, which are used to support the proposed TS end state and associated restrictions. The staff finds that the risk insights support the conclusions of the specific TS assessments. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased, if at all. The consequences of an accident after adopting proposed TSTF-423, are no different than the consequences of an accident prior to adopting TSTF-423. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). If risk is assessed and managed, allowing a change to certain required end states when the TS Completion Times for remaining in power operation are exceeded, i.e., entry into hot shutdown rather than cold shutdown to repair equipment, will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change and the commitment by the licensee to adhere to the guidance in TSTF-IG-05-02, Implementation Guidance for TSTF-423, Revision 0, “Technical Specifications End States, NEDC-32988-A,” will further minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin of Safety The proposed change allows, for some systems, entry into hot shutdown rather than cold shutdown to repair equipment, if risk is assessed and managed. The BWROG's [Boiling Water Reactor Owner's Group's] risk assessment approach is comprehensive and follows staff guidance as documented in RGs [Regulatory Guides] 1.174 and 1.177. In addition, the analyses show that the criteria of the three-tiered approach for allowing TS changes are met. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG 1.177. A risk assessment was performed to justify the proposed TS changes. The net change to the margin of safety is insignificant. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the 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. Brad Fewell, Assistant General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. *NRC Branch Chief:* Harold K. Chernoff. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania *Date of application for amendments:* September 15, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the required frequency for control rod scram time testing, as described in Technical Specification

(TS)Surveillance Requirement 3.1.4.2, from “120 days cumulative operation in MODE 1” to “200 days cumulative operation in MODE 1.” The proposed TS change is based on the NRC-approved Revision 0 to Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF)Change Traveler, TSTF-460, “Control Rod Scram Time Testing Frequency.” The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the **Federal Register** on May 27, 2004 (69 FR 30339), on possible amendments adopting TSTF-460, including a model safety evaluation and model no significant hazards consideration

(NSHC)determination, using the consolidated line item improvement process. The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models for referencing in license amendment applications in the **Federal Register** on August 23, 2004 (69 FR 51864). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the following TSTF-460 model NSHC determination in its application dated September 15, 2006. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change extends the frequency for testing control rod scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The frequency of surveillance testing is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. The frequency of surveillance testing does not affect the ability to mitigate any accident previously evaluated, as the tested component is still required to be operable. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change extends the frequency for testing control rod scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The proposed change does not result in any new or different modes of plant operation. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change extends the frequency for testing control rod scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The proposed change continues to test the control rod scram time to ensure the assumptions in the safety analysis are protected. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the 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 NSHC. *Attorney for Licensee:* Mr. Brad Fewell, Assistant General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. *NRC Branch Chief:* Harold K. Chernoff. Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota *Date of amendment request:* November 14, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise Specification 3.3.5.1-1 of the Technical Specifications

(TSs)to permit a one-time extension of the quarterly surveillance interval (i.e., from 92 days to 140 days) for three low pressure coolant injection

(LPCI)loop select logic functions. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration (NSHC), 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. This amendment requests a one-time extension to the performance interval for a limited number of TS surveillance requirements. The performance of these surveillances, or the failure to perform, is not a precursor and does not affect the probability of an accident. Therefore, the delay in performance proposed in this amendment request for these surveillance requirements does not increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated. A delay in performing these surveillances does not result in a system being unable to perform its required function. In the case of this one-time extension, the relatively short period of additional time period for the systems and components to be in service prior to the next performance of the surveillance will not affect the ability of those systems to operate as designed. Therefore, the systems required to mitigate accidents will remain capable of performing their required function. No new failure modes have been introduced because of this action and the consequences remain consistent with previously evaluated accidents. Therefore, the proposed delay in performance of the surveillance requirements in this amendment request does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident. Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed license amendment would 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 or accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of any system, structure, or component

(SSC)or a change in the way any SSC is operated. The proposed amendment does not involve operation of any SSCs in a manner or configuration different from those previously recognized or evaluated. No new failure mechanisms will be introduced by the one-time surveillance requirement deferrals being requested. Thus, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed amendment is a one-time extension of the performance interval of a limited number of TS surveillance requirements. Extending these surveillance requirements does not involve a modification of any TS Limiting Condition for Operation. Extending these surveillance requirements does not involve a change to any limit on accident consequences specified in the license or regulations. Extending these surveillance requirements does not involve a change to how accidents are mitigated or a significant increase in the consequences of an accident. Extending these surveillance requirements does not involve a change in a methodology used to evaluate consequences of an accident. Extending these surveillance requirements does not involve a change in any operating procedure or process. The instrumentation and components involved in this request have exhibited reliable operation based on the results of their performance during past periodic ECCS [emergency core cooling system] functional testing. Based on the limited additional period of time that the systems and components will be in service before the surveillances are next performed, as well as the operating experience that these surveillances are typically successful when performed, it is reasonable to conclude that the margins of safety associated with these surveillance requirements will not be affected by the requested extension. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The U.S. 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 request involves 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:* L. Raghavan. Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan *Date of amendment request:* November 6, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would add the realistic large break loss-of-coolant accident (RLBLOCA) methodology to the analytical methods referenced in Technical Specification

(TS)5.6.5.b. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)Section 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 license amendment adds approved analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits per Technical Specification 5.6.5.b. Accidents previously evaluated will be unaffected because they will continue to be analyzed using applicable methodologies approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure all required safety limits are met. The proposed amendment does not affect the acceptance criteria for any Final Safety Analysis Report

(FSAR)safety analysis analyzed accidents and anticipated operational occurrences. As such, the proposed amendment does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident. The proposed amendment does not involve operation of the required structures, systems or components

(SSCs)in a manner or configuration different from those previously recognized or evaluated. Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would 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 proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of any SSC or a change in the way any SSC is operated. The proposed amendment does not involve operation of any required SSCs in a manner or configuration different from those previously recognized or evaluated. No new failure mechanisms will be introduced by the changes being requested. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed amendment does not, by itself, introduce a failure mechanism. The proposed amendment does not involve any physical changes to the plant or manner in which the plant is operated. The proposed changes do not affect the acceptance criteria for any FSAR safety analysis analyzed accidents or anticipated operational occurrences. All required safety limits would continue to be analyzed using methodologies approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Therefore, the proposed amendment would 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:* Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President, Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street, Hudson, WI 54016. *NRC Branch Chief:* L. Raghavan. Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska *Date of amendment request:* November 13, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would relocate the requirements of Technical Specification

(TS)2.22, “Toxic Gas Monitors,” and TS Table 3-3, Item 29 to the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR). *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the [proposed] change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change relocates requirements for toxic gas monitors that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in the TS set forth in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii). The requirements for toxic gas monitors are being relocated from [the] TS to the USAR, which will be maintained pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59, thereby reducing the level of regulatory control. The level of regulatory control has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the [proposed] change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change relocates requirements for toxic gas monitors that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in [the] TS set forth in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii). The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or make changes in the methods governing normal plant operation. The change will not impose different requirements, and adequate control of information will be maintained. This change will not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis. Therefore, the change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does th[e] [proposed] change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change relocates requirements for toxic gas monitors that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in [the] TS set forth in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii). The change will not reduce a margin of safety since the location of a requirement has no impact on any safety analysis assumptions. In addition, the relocated requirements for toxic gas monitors remain the same as the existing TS. Since any future changes to these requirements or the surveillance procedures will be evaluated per the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, there will be no reduction in a margin of safety. [Therefore, the TS change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.] The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* James R. Curtiss, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817. *NRC Branch Chief:* David Terao. PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 and 2), Luzerne County, Pennsylvania *Date of amendment request:* May 31, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments would correct administrative errors in the SSES 1 and 2 Technical Specifications

(TSs)by adding a logical connector in Condition B of Limiting Condition for Operation

(LCO)3.8.1 (SSES 1 TS only) and correct the routing of Interstate 80 (I-80) on Figure 4.1-2 in the SSES 1 and 2 TSs Section 4.0. *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. Change to Technical Specification 3.8.1 The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not impact any accident initiators or analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events. They do not involve the addition or removal of any equipment, or any design changes to the facility. Therefore, this proposed change does not represent a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Change to Technical Specification Figure 4.1-2 The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not impact any accident initiators or analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events. It does not involve the addition or removal of any equipment or any design changes to the facility. 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. Change to Technical Specification 3.8.1 The proposed change is an administrative change and does not involve a modification to the physical configuration of the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change will not impose any new or different requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism. Additionally, there is no change in the types or increases in the amounts of any effluent that may be released off-site, and there is no increase in individual or cumulative occupational exposure. Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility of an accident of a different kind than previously evaluated. Change to Technical Specification Figure 4.1-2 The proposed change is an administrative change and will not impose any new or different requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism. Additionally, there is no change in the types or increases in the amounts of any effluent that may be released off-site, and there is no increase in individual or cumulative occupational exposure. Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Change to Technical Specification 3.8.1 The proposed change revises Condition B in LCO 3.8.1 to be consistent with Technical Specification 1.2, “Logical Connectors.” This change is administrative in nature. Therefore, this proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Change to Technical Specification Figure 4.1-2 The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not affect any plant systems. Therefore, this 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:* Bryan A. Snapp, Esquire, Assoc. General Counsel, PPL Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., GENTW3, Allentown, PA 18101-1179. *NRC Branch Chief:* Richard J. Laufer. PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 and 2), Luzerne County, Pennsylvania *Date of amendment request:* September 7, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments would revise the SSES 1 and 2 Technical Specification

(TSs)Section 5.5.6, “Inservice Testing Program,” and TS 5.5.12, “Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,” to be consistent with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.55a(f)(4) and 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4), respectively. The proposed amendments would implement TS Task Force

(TSTF)343, Revision 1 and TSTF 479, Revision 0. *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. Change to Technical Specification 5.5.6 The proposed change revises the Inservice Testing Program for consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for pumps and valves which are classified as American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME)Code Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3. The proposed change does not impact any accident initiators or analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events. It does not involve the addition or removal of any equipment, or any design changes to the facility. Therefore, this proposed change does not represent a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Change to Technical Specification 5.5.12 The proposed change revises the TS administrative controls programs for consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR [Part] 50, paragraph 55a (g)(4) for components classified as Code Class CC. The proposed change affects the frequency of visual examinations that will be performed for the concrete surfaces of the containment for the purpose of the Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program. In addition, the proposed change allows those examinations to be performed during power operation as opposed to during a refueling outage. The frequency of visual examinations of the concrete surfaces of the containment and the mode of operation during which those examinations are performed has no relationship to or adverse impact on the probability of any of the initiating events assumed in the accident analyses. The proposed change would allow visual examinations that are performed pursuant to NRC approved ASME Section XI Code requirement (except where relief has been granted by the NRC) to meet the intent of visual examinations required by Regulatory Guide 1.163, without requiring additional visual examinations pursuant to the Regulatory Guide. The intent of early detection of deterioration will continue to be met by the more rigorous requirements of the Code required visual examinations. As such, the safety function of the containment as a fission product barrier is maintained. The proposed change does not impact any accident initiators or analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events. It does not involve the addition or removal of any equipment, or any design changes to the facility. 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. Change to Technical Specification 5.5.6 The proposed change revises the Inservice Testing Program for consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for pumps and valves which are classified as American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME)Code Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3. The proposed change does not involve a modification to the physical configuration of the plant ( *i.e.* , no new equipment will be installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change will not impose any new or different requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism. Additionally, there is no change in the types or increases in the amounts of any effluent that may be released off-site and there is no increase in individual or cumulative occupational exposure. Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility of an accident of a different kind than previously evaluated. Change to Technical Specification 5.5.12 The proposed change revises the TS administrative controls programs for consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR [Part] 50, paragraph 55a (g)(4) for components classified as Code Class CC. The change affects the frequency of visual examinations that will be performed for the concrete surfaces containments. In addition, the proposed change allows those examinations to be performed during power operation as opposed to during a refueling outage. The proposed change does not involve a modification to the physical configuration of the plant ( *i.e.* , no new equipment will be installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change will not impose any new or different requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism. Additionally, there is no change in the types or increases in the amounts of any effluent that may be released off-site and there is no increase in individual or cumulative occupational exposure. Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Change to Technical Specification 5.5.6 The proposed change revises the Inservice Testing Program for consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for pumps and valves which are classified as American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME)Code Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3. The safety function of the affected pumps and valves will be maintained. Therefore, this proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Change to Technical Specification 5.5.12 The proposed change revises the Improved Standard Technical Specification Administrative Controls program requirements for consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR [Part] 50, paragraph 55a (g)(4) for components classified as Code Class CC. The change affects the frequency of visual examinations that will be performed for the concrete surfaces of containments. In addition, the proposed change allows those examinations to be performed during power operation as opposed to during a refueling outage. The safety function of the containment as a fission product barrier will be maintained. [Therefore, this 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:* Bryan A. Snapp, Esquire, Assoc. General Counsel, PPL Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., GENTW3, Allentown, PA 18101-1179. *NRC Branch Chief:* Richard J. Laufer. PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket No. 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 2 (SSES 2), Luzerne County, Pennsylvania *Date of amendment request:* November 16, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the SSES 2 Technical Specification

(TS)Section 2.1.1.2 to reflect the Unit 2 Cycle 14 (U2C14) Minimum Critical Power Ratio

(MCPR)Safety Limits for two-loop and single-loop operation. Additionally, TS Section 5.6.5.b would be revised to reflect the NRC-approved methodology used in the MCPR Safety Limit Analysis. *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: 2. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability [* * *] or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change to the two-loop and single-loop MCPR Safety Limits do not directly or indirectly affect any plant system, equipment, component, or change the processes used to operate the plant. Further, the proposed U2C14 MCPR Safety Limits were generated using NRC-approved methodology and meet the applicable acceptance criteria. Thus, this proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Prior to the startup of U2C14, licensing analyses are performed (using NRC-approved methodology referenced in Technical Specification Section 5.6.5.b) to determine changes in the critical power ratio as a result of anticipated operational occurrences. These results are added to the MCPR Safety Limit values to generate the MCPR operating limits in the U2C14 COLR [Core Operating Limits Report]. These limits could be different from those specified for the previous Unit 2 COLR. The COLR operating limits thus assure that the MCPR Safety Limit will not be exceeded during normal operation or anticipated operational occurrences. Postulated accidents are also analyzed prior to the startup of U2C14 and the results shown to be within the NRC-approved criteria. The changes to the references in Section 5.6.5.b were made to properly reflect the NRC-approved methodology used to generate the U2C14 core operating limits. The use of this approved methodology does not increase the probability [* * *] or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 changes to the two-loop and single-loop MCPR Safety Limits do not directly or indirectly affect any plant system, equipment, or component and therefore does not affect the failure modes of any of these items. Thus, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a previously unevaluated operator error or a new single failure. The changes to the references in Section 5.6.5.b were made to properly reflect the NRC-approved methodology used to generate the U2C14 core operating limits. The use of this approved methodology does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. Therefore, this proposed amendment 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. Since the proposed changes do not alter any plant system, equipment, component, or the processes used to operate the plant, the proposed change will not jeopardize or degrade the function or operation of any plant system or component governed by Technical Specifications. The proposed two-loop and single-loop MCPR Safety Limits do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety as currently defined in the Bases of the applicable Technical Specification sections because the MCPR Safety Limits calculated for U2C14 preserve the required margin of safety. The changes to the references in Section 5.6.5.b were made to properly reflect the NRC-approved methodology used to generate the U2C14 core operating limits. This approved methodology is used to demonstrate that all applicable criteria are met, thus, demonstrating that there is no reduction in the margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Bryan A. Snapp, Esquire, Assoc. General Counsel, PPL Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., GENTW3, Allentown, PA 18101-1179. *NRC Branch Chief:* Richard J. Laufer. 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 amendment request:* August 4, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The amendments would revise the Technical Specifications

(TSs)to allow the movement of irradiated fuel inside containment to commence at 24 hours after shutdown or at the decay time calculated using the licensee's spent fuel pool integrated decay heat management program, whichever is later. *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 of occurrence or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed license amendment would allow fuel assemblies to be removed from the reactor core and be stored in the Spent Fuel Pool in less time after subcriticality (but more accurately calculated), than currently allowed by the TSs. Decreasing the decay time of the fuel affects the radionuclide make-up of the fuel to be offloaded as well as the amount of decay heat that is present from the fuel at the time of offload. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated. The accident previously evaluated that is associated with the proposed license amendment is the fuel handling accident. Allowing the fuel to be offloaded based on the IDHM [integrated decay heat management program] calculated time after subcriticality does not impact the manner in which the fuel is offloaded. The accident initiator is the dropping of the fuel assembly. Since earlier offload does not affect fuel handling, there is no increase in the probability of occurrence of a fuel handling accident. The time frame in which the fuel assemblies are moved has been evaluated against the 10 CFR 50.67 dose limits for members of the public, licensee personnel and control room. Additionally, the guidance provided in Reg. Guide 1.183 was used for the selective application of Alternative Source Term. All dose limits are met with the reduced core offload times; and significant margin is maintained, as the minimum decay time prior to movement of fuel for the FHA [fuel handling accident] analysis is 24 hours. Therefore, the proposed license amendment does not increase the probability of occurrence or the consequences of accidents previously evaluated are not increased. 2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Response: No. The proposed license amendment would allow core offload to occur in less time after subcriticality (but more accurately calculated), which affects the radionuclide make-up of the fuel to be offloaded as well as the amount of decay heat that is present from the fuel at the time of offload. The radionuclide makeup of the fuel assemblies and the amount of decay heat produced by the fuel assemblies do not currently initiate any accident. A change in the radionuclide makeup of the fuel at the time of core offload or an increase in the decay heat produced by the fuel being offloaded will not cause the initiation of any accident. The accident previously evaluated that is associated with fuel movement is the fuel handling accident. There is no change to the manner in which fuel is being handled or in the equipment used to offload or store the fuel. The effects of the additional decay heat load have been analyzed. The analysis demonstrated that the existing Spent Fuel Pool cooling system and associated systems under worst-case circumstances would maintain the integrity of the Spent Fuel Pool. The proposed method of offload does not create a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed license amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The margin of safety pertinent to the proposed changes is the dose consequences resulting from a fuel handling accident. The shorter decay time prior to fuel movement has been evaluated against 10 CFR part 50.67 and all limits continue to be met. All dose limits are met with the reduced core offload times; and significant margin is maintained, as the minimum decay time prior to movement of fuel for the FHA analysis is 24 hours. Decay heatup calculations performed prior to each refueling outage as part of the IDHM program ensure that planned spent fuel transfer to the SFP [spent fuel pool] will not result in maximum SFP temperature exceeding the design basis limit of 149 °F (with both heat exchangers available) or 180 °F (with one heat exchanger alternating between the two pools). As stated above, the changes in radionuclide makeup and additional heat load do not impact any safety settings and do not cause any safety limit to not be met. In addition, the integrity of the Spent Fuel Pool is maintained. The time frame in which the fuel assemblies are moved has been evaluated against the 10 CFR 50.67 dose limits for members of the public, licensee personnel and control room. Additionally, the guidance provided in Reg. Guide 1.183 was used. Calculations performed conclude that expected dose limits following a Fuel handling Accident are met with the proposed decay time prior to commencing fuel movement. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire, Nuclear Business Unit—N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038. *NRC Branch Chief:* Harold K. Chernoff. Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, California *Date of amendment requests:* November 7, 2006. *Description of amendment requests:* The amendments request to revise Main Steam Safety Valve Requirements and Actions (Technical Specification 3.7.1). *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. Based on a detailed plant transient analysis, the Limiting Conditions for Operation

(LCOs)and Action statements will continue to restrict operation to within the regions that provide acceptable results. The safety analysis was performed in accordance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)approved San Onofre Units 2 and 3 reload analysis methodology, and considered the concerns identified in NRC Information Notice 94-60. The increase in Completion Time for Required Action 3.7.1.A.2 from 12 hours to 36 hours is consistent with NUREG-1432 Revision 3, “Standard Technical Specifications for Combustion Engineering Plants.” Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change does not add any new equipment, modify any interfaces with any existing equipment, alter the equipment's function, or change the method of operating the equipment. The proposed change does not alter plant conditions in a manner that could affect other plant components. The proposed change does not cause any existing equipment to become an accident initiator. The increase in Completion Time for Required Action 3.7.1.A.2 from 12 hours to 36 hours is consistent with NUREG-1432 Revision 3, “Standard Technical Specifications for Combustion Engineering Plants.” Therefore, 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 Limiting Conditions for Operation

(LCOs)and Action statements will continue to restrict operation such that the American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME)code requirements continue to be met. The analyses were performed using the NRC approved San Onofre Units 2 and 3 reload analysis methodology. Therefore, the proposed change will have no impact on the margins as defined in the Technical Specification bases. The increase in Completion Time for Required Action 3.7.1.A.2 from 12 hours to 36 hours is consistent with NUREG-1432 Revision 3, “Standard Technical Specifications for Combustion Engineering Plants.” 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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770. *NRC Branch Chief:* David Terao. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260 and 50-296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, Alabama *Date of amendment request:* November 15, 2006 (TS-459). *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment requests revision to the Fire Protection License Condition for Units 1, 2, and 3, condition number (13), (14), and (7), respectively, to accommodate operation of Units 1, 2, and 3. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. No. The proposed change revises the license condition to reflect a combined Units 1, 2 and 3 Fire Protection Report. Compliance with the applicable Appendix R requirements is ensured through implementation of the Fire Protection Program and the Appendix R Safe Shutdown Program including Regulatory Issue Summary 2006-10, “Regulatory Expectations with Appendix R Paragraph III.G.2 Post-Fire Manual Actions.” The change does not affect any design bases accident or the ability of any safe shutdown equipment to perform its function. Also, although modifications were required to bring BFN in compliance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix R, there are no physical modifications required to implement this license amendment. Therefore, this proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? No. The proposed change revises the license condition to reflect a combined Units 1, 2 and 3 Fire Protection Report. Compliance with the applicable Appendix R requirements is ensured through implementation of the Fire Protection Program and Appendix R Safe Shutdown Program including Regulatory Issue Summary 2006-10, “Regulatory Expectations with Appendix R Paragraph III.G.2 Post-Fire Manual Actions.” This change does not affect any design basis accident or the ability of any safe shutdown equipment to perform its function. Also, there are no physical modifications required to implement this license amendment. Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated. 4. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? No. The proposed change revises the license condition to reflect a combined Units 1, 2 and 3 Fire Protection Report. Compliance with the applicable Appendix R requirements is ensured through the implementation of the Fire Protection Program and Appendix R Safe Shutdown Program (Units 1, 2, and 3 Fire Protection Report) including Regulatory Issue Summary 2006-10, “Regulatory Expectations with Appendix R Paragraph III.G.2 Post-Fire Manual Actions.” The proposed change does not affect any design basis accident and does not reduce or adversely affect the capability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire. Furthermore, no reductions to the requirements for equipment operability, surveillance requirements or setpoints are being made which could result in reduction in the margin of safety. Therefore, this proposed change will not result in a reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. *NRC Branch Chief:* L. Raghavan. 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:* December 23, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated May 4 and August 3, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* These amendments revise Technical Specification

(TS)3.8.1, “AC Sources—Operating,” to extend the allowed out of service time for one inoperable emergency diesel generator from 72 hours to 10 days. TS 3.8.3, “Diesel Fuel Oil, Lube Oil, and Starting Air,” is revised by the addition of a clarifying note to Condition F of this specification. Additionally, TS 3.4.9, “Pressurizer,” is revised to delete the words contained in the limiting condition for operation which require that the two groups of pressurizer heaters are capable of being powered from an emergency power supply. *Date of issuance:* December 5, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 1—164, Unit 2—164, Unit 3—164 *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:** January 31, 2006 (71 FR 5080). The May 4 and August 3, 2006, supplemental letters provided additional information that clarified 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 December 5, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, Benton County, Washington *Date of application for amendment:* September 30, 2004, as supplemented by letters dated March 16, September 29, 2005, and March 21, August 7, August 24, and September 11, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The license amendment request revised the technical specifications and the final safety analysis report to amend the Columbia Generating Station's licensing and design bases to reflect the application of the alternative source term methodology with an exception. That exception is the Technical Information Document (TID)-14844, “Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and Test Reactor Sites,” which will continue to be used as the radiation dose basis for equipment qualification, and radiation zone maps/shielding calculations. *Date of issuance:* November 27, 2006. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 199. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-21:* The amendment revised the Technical Specifications and Final Safety Analysis Report. *Date of initial notice in Federal Register:* October 26, 2004 (69 FR 62472). The March16, September 29, 2005, and March 21, August 7, August 24, and September 11, 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 no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 27, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois *Date of application for amendment:* October 3, 2005. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised the Technical Specification

(TS)Section 1.1, “Definitions,” description of the Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR), by deleting reference to specifications containing limits in the PTLR;

(2)revised administrative controls TS 5.6.6, “Reactor Coolant System

(RCS)Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR),” by requiring the NRC approval documents to be identified by date and topical reports to be identified by number and title; and

(3)added Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC report, WCAP-16143, “Reactor Vessel Closure Head/Vessel Flange Requirements Evaluation for Byron/Braidwood Units 1 and 2,” to the list of analytical methods provided in TS 5.6.6. The amendment also revises the title of the NRC letter dated August 8, 2001 to clarify the regulation being referenced. *Date of issuance:* November 27, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 148, 148, 142, 142. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37, NPF-66, NPF-72 and NPF-77:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and License. *Date of initial notice in Federal Register:* March 14, 2006 (71 FR 13175). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 27, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois *Date of application for amendment:* June 2, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated August 18 and October 5, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendments revised Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 3.1.7.10, “Standby Liquid Control System Sodium Pentaborate Isotopic Enrichment” such that the required enrichment increases from ≥ 30.0 atom percent boron-10 to ≥ 45.0 atom percent boron-10. *Date of issuance:* November 16, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 222/214. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25:* The amendments revised the Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement and Licenses. *Date of initial notice in Federal Register:* (71 FR 46931; August 15, 2006). The August 18 and October 5, 2006, supplements 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 as published in the **Federal Register** on August 15, 2006 (71 FR 46931). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 16, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa *Date of application for amendment:* November 14, 2005, as supplemented by letter dated September 1, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises Technical Specification

(TS)Table 3.3.6.1-1, “Primary Containment Isolation Instrumentation,” to eliminate the Main Steamline Radiation Monitor trip function. *Date of issuance:* November 15, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days. *Amendment No.:* 261. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-49:* The amendment revises the TSs. *Date of initial notice in Federal Register:* (71 FR 43533) August 1, 2006. The supplement 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, as published in the **Federal Register** on August 1, 2006 (71 FR 43533). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 15, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa *Date of application for amendment:* December 22, 2005. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises the Duane Arnold Energy Center licensing basis, as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), to replace the current plant-specific reactor pressure vessel material surveillance program with the Boiling Water Reactor Vessel and Internals Project Integrated Surveillance Program as the basis for demonstrating compliance with the requirements of Appendix H to Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, “Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program Requirements.” *Date of issuance:* November 27, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days. *Amendment No.:* 262. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-49:* The amendment authorizes changes to the UFSAR. *Date of initial notice in Federal Register:* (71 FR 43533) August 1, 2006. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 27, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. 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 application for amendments:* November 9, 2005, supplemented by letter dated May 15, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments modify the Technical Specifications

(TS)for Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Units 1 and 2, to clarify which TS Surveillance Requirements shall be met for the TS systems which include more components (installed spare components) than are required to satisfy the TS Limiting Conditions for Operation. These amendments revise TS 3.7.8, “Cooling Water

(CL)System,” TS 3.8.1, “AC Sources-Operating,” and TS 3.9.3, “Nuclear Instrumentation.” The amendments also make minor corrections for some of these TSs. *Date of issuance:* November 14, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 175 and 165. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60:* Amendments revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in Federal Register:* February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7809). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 14, 2006. The supplemental information provided in letter May 15, 2006, did not impact the conclusions of the Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and Environmental Assessment presented in the November 9, 2005 submittal. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket No. 50-275, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, San Luis Obispo County, California *Date of application for amendment:* December 16, 2005, as supplemented by a letter dated September 27, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised Technical Specification

(TS)5.6.5, “Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).” Specifically, the change added Westinghouse Topical Report WCAP-12945-P-A, Addendum 1-A, Revision 0, “Method for Satisfying 10 CFR 50.46 Reanalysis Requirements for Best Estimate LOCA [Loss-of-Coolant Accident] Evaluation Models,” dated December 2004, to the list of approved analytical methods in TS 5.6.5.b. *Date of issuance:* November 21, 2006. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 191. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-80:* The amendment revised the Technical Specifications and Facility Operating License. *Date of initial notice in Federal Register:* February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7810). The September 27, 2006, supplemental letter provided additional information that clarified the application, and did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 21, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, California *Date of application for amendments:* December 6, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated March 14 and November 30, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendment deleted Technical Specification

(TS)Limiting Condition for Operation

(LCO)3.3.10, “Fuel Handling Isolation Signal (FHIS),” and TS LCO 3.7.14, “Fuel Handling Building Post-Accident Cleanup Filter System,” and their associated surveillance requirements. The amendment also deleted the Fuel Handling Building Post-Accident Cleanup Filter Systems from the Ventilation Filter Testing Program in administrative TS 5.5.2.12. *Date of issuance:* December 4, 2006. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 2—208; Unit 3—200. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15:* The amendments revised the Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in Federal Register:* January 3, 2006 (71 FR 155). The March 14 and November 30, 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 no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 4, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama *Date of application for amendment:* October 12, 2004, as supplemented by letters dated September 7 and November 1, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* To remove License Condition 2.C(4). *Date of issuance:* November 28, 2006. *Effective date:* As of date of issuance, to be implemented within 30 days. *Amendment No.:* 265 *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33:* Amendment revised the Renewed Operating License. *Date of initial notice in Federal Register:* August 15, 2006 (71 FR 46937). The supplements dated September 7 and November 1, 2006, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 28, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee *Date of application for amendments:* May 25, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated September 1, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The requested changes provide a revision to the design and licensing basis for the containment sump debris transport analysis as described in the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant

(SQN)Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The current transport analysis for SQN is a two-dimensional physical transport model, and Tennessee Valley Authority

(TVA)is requesting to update the analysis to a three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics transport model. The results of the reanalysis will be used to size the flow area of the advanced design containment sump strainers which will replace the original sump intake structure. *Date of issuance:* November 7, 2006. *Effective date:* Implementation of the amendment is the incorporation into the next UFSAR update made in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71(e), of the changes to the description of the facility as described in TVA's application dated May 25, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated September 1, 2006, and evaluated in the staff's Safety Evaluation attached to this amendment. *Amendment Nos.* 313 and 302. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79:* Amendments revised the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. *Date of initial notice in Federal Register:* June 20, 2006 (71 FR 35460). The supplemental letter dated September 1, 2006, provided clarifying information that was within the scope of the initial notice and did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 7, 2006. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County, Missouri *Date of application for amendment:* September 20, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated November 20, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised

(1)the definition of the Pressure and Temperature Limits Report

(PTLR)in Technical Specification

(TS)1.1, “Definitions,” and

(2)TS 5.6.6, “Reactor Coolant System

(RCS)PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE LIMITS REPORT (PTLR).” *Date of issuance:* December 5, 2006. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 90 days of the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 177. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-30:* The amendment revised the Operating License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in Federal Register:* October 6, 2006 (71 FR 59136). The supplemental letter dated November 20, 2006, provided additional clarifying information, 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 published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 5, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The following notices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration. For details, see the individual notice in the **Federal Register** on the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period of the original notice. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-259, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama *Date of application for amendments:* November 9, 2006 (TS-458). *Description of amendments request:* The proposed amendment would delete the Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement to verify the position of a low pressure coolant injection crosstie valve. *Date of publication of individual notice in the Federal Register:* November 20, 2006 (71 FR 67166). *Expiration date of individual notice:* December 20, 2006 (Public comments) and January 19, 2007 (Hearing requests). Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of December 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-21346 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange Commission Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. *Extension:* Rule 206(3)-2; SEC File No. 270-216; OMB Control No. 3235-0243. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. Rule 206(3)-2, (17 CFR 275.206(3)-2) which is entitled “Agency Cross Transactions for Advisory Clients,” permits investment advisers to comply with section 206(3) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80b-6(3)) by obtaining a client's blanket consent to enter into agency cross transactions (i.e., a transaction in which an adviser acts as a broker to both the advisory client and the opposite party to the transaction). Rule 206(3)-2 applies to all registered investment advisers. In relying on the rule, investment advisers must provide certain disclosures to their clients. Advisory clients can use the disclosures to monitor agency cross transactions that affect their advisory account. The Commission also uses the information required by Rule 206(3)-2 in connection with its investment adviser inspection program to ensure that advisers are in compliance with the rule. Without the information collected under the rule, advisory clients would not have information necessary for monitoring their adviser's handling of their accounts and the Commission would be less efficient and effective in its inspection program. The information requirements of the rule consist of the following:

(1)Prior to obtaining the client's consent, appropriate disclosure must be made to the client as to the practice of, and the conflicts of interest involved in, agency cross transactions;

(2)at or before the completion of any such transaction, the client must be furnished with a written confirmation containing specified information and offering to furnish upon request certain additional information; and

(3)at least annually, the client must be furnished with a written statement or summary as to the total number of transactions during the period covered by the consent and the total amount of commissions received by the adviser or its affiliated broker-dealer attributable to such transactions. The Commission estimates that approximately 693 respondents use the rule annually, necessitating about 32 responses per respondent each year, for a total of 22,176 responses. Each response requires an estimated 0.5 hours, for a total of 11,088 hours. The estimated average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or representative survey or study of the cost of Commission rules and forms. This collection of information is found at (17 CFR 275.206(3)-2) and is necessary in order for the investment adviser to obtain the benefits of Rule 206(3)-2. The collection of information requirements under the rule is mandatory. Information subject to the disclosure requirements of Rule 206(3)-2 does not require submission to the Commission; and, accordingly, the disclosure pursuant to the rule is not kept confidential. Commission-registered investment advisers are required to maintain and preserve certain information required under Rule 206(3)-2 for five

(5)years. The long-term retention of these records is necessary for the Commission's inspection program to ascertain compliance with the Advisers Act. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. General comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons:

(1)Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or e-mail to: *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* ; and

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA, 22312; or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: December 11, 2006. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-21587 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange Commission Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. *Extension:* Rule 30e-2; SEC File No. 270-437; OMB Control No. 3235-0494. Notice is hereby given that, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. Section 30(e) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-29(e)) (the “Investment Company Act” or “Act”) and Rule 30e-2 1 thereunder (17 CFR 270.30e-2) require registered unit investment trusts (“UITs”) that invest substantially all of their assets in securities of a management investment company 2 (“fund”) to send to shareholders at least semi-annually a report containing certain financial statements and other information. Specifically, Rule 30e-2 requires that the report contain the financial statements and other information that Rule 30e-1 under the Act (17 CFR 270.30e-1) requires to be included in the report of the underlying fund for the same fiscal period. Rule 30e-1 requires that the underlying fund's report contain, among other things, the financial statements and other information that is required to be included in such report by the fund's registration form. 1 Rule 30e-2 was originally adopted as Rule 30d-2, but was redesignated as Rule 30e-2 effective February 15, 2001. See Role of Independent Directors of Investment Companies, Investment Company Act Release No. 24816 (Jan. 2, 2001) (66 FR 3734 (Jan. 16, 2001)). 2 Management investment companies are defined in Section 4(3) of the Investment Company Act as any investment company other than a face-amount certificate company or a unit investment trust, as those terms are defined in Sections 4(1) and 4(2) of the Investment Company Act. See 15 U.S.C. 80a-4. The purpose of this requirement is to apprise current shareholders of the operational and financial condition of the UIT. Absent the requirement to disclose all material information in reports, investors would be unable to obtain accurate information upon which to base investment decisions and consumer confidence in the securities industry might be adversely affected. Requiring the submission of these reports to the Commission permits us to verify compliance with securities law requirements. In addition, Rule 30e-2 permits, under certain conditions, delivery of a single shareholder report to investors who share an address (“householding”). Specifically, Rule 30e-2 permits householding of annual and semi-annual reports by UITs to satisfy the delivery requirements of Rule 30e-2 if, in addition to the other conditions set forth in the rule, the UIT has obtained from each applicable investor written or implied consent to the householding of shareholder reports at such address. The rule requires UITs that wish to household shareholder reports with implied consent to send a notice to each applicable investor stating that the investors in the household will receive one report in the future unless the investors provide contrary instructions. In addition, at least once a year, UITs relying on the rule for householding must explain to investors who have provided written or implied consent how they can revoke their consent. Preparing and sending the initial notice and the annual explanation of the right to revoke consent are collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of the notice and annual explanation requirements associated with the householding provisions of the rule is to ensure that investors who wish to receive individual copies of shareholder reports are able to do so. The Commission estimates that as of April 2006, approximately 737 UITs were subject to the provisions of Rule 30e-2. The Commission further estimates that the annual burden associated with Rule 30e-2 is 121 hours for each UIT, including an estimated 20 hours associated with the notice requirement for householding and an estimated 1 hour associated with the explanation of the right to revoke consent to householding, for a total of 89,177 burden hours. In addition to the burden hours, the Commission estimates that the cost of contracting for outside services associated with complying with Rule 30e-2 is $24,640 per respondent (80 hours times $308 per hour for independent auditor services), for a total of $18,159,680 ($24,640 per respondent times 737 respondents). These estimates are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. The collection of information under Rule 30e-2 is mandatory. The information provided under Rule 30e-2 is not kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Please direct general comments regarding the above information to the following persons:

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

(1)The issuer is incorporated or organized under the laws of Canada;

(2)the issuer is making a cash tender or exchange offer for the issuer's own securities; and

(3)less than 40 percent of the class of such issuer's securities outstanding that is the subject of the tender offer is held by U.S. holders. The information collected must be filed with the Commission and is publicly available. We estimate that it takes 2 hours per response to prepare Schedule 13E-4F and that the information is filed by 3 respondents annually for a total annual reporting burden of 6 hours (2 hours per response × 3 responses). Form F-X (17 CFR 239. 42) is used to appoint an agent for service of process by Canadian issuers registering securities on Form F-7, F-8, F-9 or F-10 or filing periodic reports on Form 40-F under the Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a *et seq.* ). The information collected must be filed with the Commission and is publicly available. We estimate that it takes 2 hours per response to prepare Form F-X and that the information is filed by 129 respondents for a total annual reporting burden of 258 hours (2 hours per response × 129 responses). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Written comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons:

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

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: December 11, 2006. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-21589 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange Commission Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549 *Extension:* Form N-6; SEC File No. 270-446; OMB Control No. 3235-0503. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. The title for the collection of information is “Form N-6 (17 CFR 239.17c and 274.11d) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a *et seq.* ) and under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 *et seq.* ) registration statement of separate accounts organized as unit investment trusts that offer variable life insurance policies.” Form N-6 is the form used by insurance company separate accounts organized as unit investment trusts that offer variable life insurance contracts to register as investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and/or to register their securities under the Securities Act of 1933. The primary purpose of the registration process is to provide disclosure of financial and other information to investors and potential investors for the purpose of evaluating an investment in a security. Form N-6 also permits separate accounts organized as unit investment trusts that offer variable life insurance contracts to provide investors with a prospectus containing information required in a registration statement prior to the sale or at the time of confirmation of delivery of securities. The form also may be used by the Commission in its regulatory review, inspection, and policy-making roles. The Commission estimates that there are approximately 241 separate accounts registered as unit investment trusts and offering variable life insurance policies that file registration statements on Form N-6. The Commission estimates that there are 32 initial registration statements on Form N-6 filed annually. The Commission estimates that approximately 641 registration statements (609 post-effective amendments plus 32 initial registration statements) are filed on Form N-6 annually. The Commission estimates that the hour burden for preparing and filing a post-effective amendment on Form N-6 is 67.5 hours. The total annual hour burden for preparing and filing post-effective amendments is 41,107.5 hours (609 post-effective amendments annually times 67.5 hours per amendment). The estimated hour burden for preparing and filing an initial registration statement on Form N-6 is 770.25 hours. The estimated annual hour burden for preparing and filing initial registration statements is 24,648 hours (32 initial registration statements annually times 770.25 hours per registration statement). The frequency of response is annual. The total annual hour burden for Form N-6, therefore, is estimated to be 65,755.5 hours (41,107.5 hours for post-effective amendments plus 24,648 hours for initial registration statements). The information collection requirements imposed by Form N-6 are mandatory. Responses to the collection of information will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Please direct general comments regarding the above information to the following persons:

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: December 11, 2006. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-21594 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. *Extension:* Form N-4; SEC File No. 270-282; OMB Control No. 3235-0318. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. The collection of information is entitled: “Form N-4 (17 CFR 239.17b and 274.11c) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a *et seq.* ) and under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 *et seq.* ) registration statement of separate accounts organized as unit investment trusts.” Form N-4 is the form used by insurance company separate accounts organized as unit investment trusts that offer variable annuity contracts to register as investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and/or to register their securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”). The primary purpose of the registration process is to provide disclosure of financial and other information to investors and potential investors for the purpose of evaluating an investment in a security. Form N-4 also permits separate accounts organized as unit investment trusts that offer variable annuity contracts to provide investors with a prospectus containing the information required in a registration statement prior to the sale or at the time of confirmation or delivery of the securities. The estimated annual number of respondents filing on Form N-4 is 48 for those filing initial registration statements and 1,894 for those filing post-effective amendments. The proposed frequency of response is annual. The estimate of the total annual reporting burden of the collection of information is approximately 278.5 hours per initial filing and 197.25 hours for a post-effective amendment, for a total of 386,959.5 hours ((48 initial registration statements × 278.5 hours) + (1,894 post-effective amendments × 197.25 hour)). Providing the information required by Form N-4 is mandatory. Responses will not be kept confidential. Estimates of the burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. General comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons:

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312, or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: December 11, 2006. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-21595 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549-0004. *Extension:* Form 1-E, Regulation E; SEC File No. 270-221; OMB Control No. 3235-0232. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit the existing collection of information of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval. Form 1-E (17 CFR 239.200) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a *et seq.* ) (“Securities Act”) is the form that a small business investment company (“SBIC”) or business development company (“BDC”) uses to notify the Commission that it is claiming an exemption under Regulation E from registering its securities under the Securities Act. Rule 605 of Regulation E (17 CFR 230.605) under the Securities Act requires an SBIC or BDC claiming such an exemption to file an offering circular with the Commission that must also be provided to persons to whom an offer is made. Form 1-E requires an issuer to provide the names and addresses of the issuer, its affiliates, directors, officers, and counsel; a description of events which would make the exemption unavailable; the jurisdiction in which the issuer intends to offer its securities; information about unregistered securities issued or sold by the issuer within one year before filing the notification on Form 1-E; information as to whether the issuer is presently offering or contemplating offering any other securities; and exhibits, including copies of the rule 605 offering circular and any underwriting contracts. The Commission uses the information provided in the notification on Form 1-E and the offering circular to determine whether an offering qualifies for the exemption under Regulation E. It is estimated that approximately ten issuers file notifications, together with attached offering circulars, on Form 1-E with the Commission annually. The Commission estimates that the total burden hours for preparing these notifications would be 1,000 hours in the aggregate. Estimates of the burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the PRA, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of SEC rules and forms. Written comments are invited on:

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia, 22312; or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Dated: December 11, 2006. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-21596 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange Commission Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. *Extension:* Rules 8b-1 to 8b-33; SEC File No. 270-135; OMB Control No. 3235-0176 . Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. Rules 8b-1 to 8b-33 (17 CFR 270.8b-1 to 8b-33) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 *et seq.* ) (the “Act”) are the procedural rules an investment company must follow when preparing and filing a registration statement. These rules were adopted to standardize the mechanics of registration under the Act and to provide more specific guidance for persons registering under the Act than the information contained in the statute. For the most part, these procedural rules do not require the disclosure of information. Two of the rules, however, require limited disclosure of information. 1 The information required by the rules is necessary to ensure that investors have clear and complete information upon which to base an investment decision. The Commission uses the information that investment companies provide on registration statements in its regulatory, disclosure review, inspection and policy-making roles. The respondents to the collection of information are investment companies filing registration statements under the Act. 1 Rule 8b-3 (17 CFR 270.8b-3) provides that whenever a registration form requires the title of securities to be stated, the registrant must indicate the type and general character of the securities to be issued. Rule 8b-22 (17 CFR 270.8b-22) provides that if the existence of control is open to reasonable doubt, the registrant may disclaim the existence of control, but it must state the material facts pertinent to the possible existence of control. The Commission does not estimate separately the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden associated with rules 8b-1 to 8b-33 because the burden associated with these rules are included in the burden estimates the Commission submits for the investment company registration statement forms ( *e.g.* , Form N-1A, Form N-2, Form N-3, and Form N-4). For example, a mutual fund that prepares a registration statement on Form N-1A must comply with the rules under section 8(b), including rules on riders, amendments, the form of the registration statement, and the number of copies to be submitted. Because the fund only incurs a burden from the section 8(b) rules when preparing a registration statement, it would be impractical to measure the compliance burden of these rules separately. The Commission believes that including the burden of the section 8(b) rules with the burden estimates for the investment company registration statement forms provides a more accurate and complete estimate of the total burdens associated with the registration process. Investment companies seeking to register under the Act are required to provide the information specified in rules 8b-1 to 8b-33 if applicable. Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. General comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons:

(a)to note that the Funds (defined below) must comply with the federal securities laws, including that the securities accepted for deposit and those used to satisfy redemption requests are sold in transactions that would be exempt from the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and in compliance with the conditions of Rule 144A thereunder; and

(b)to clarify how market capitalization is calculated for the Underlying Index (defined below) of each Fund. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares” or “iShares”) of the following eight series of the iShares Trust (collectively, the “Funds”):

(1)iShares® Lehman Short Treasury Bond Fund;

(2)iShares Lehman 3-7 Year Treasury Bond Fund;

(3)iShares Lehman 10-20 Year Treasury Bond Fund;

(4)iShares Lehman 1-3 Year Credit Bond Fund;

(5)iShares Lehman Intermediate Credit Bond Fund;

(6)iShares Lehman Credit Bond Fund;

(7)iShares Lehman Intermediate Government/Credit Bond Fund; and

(8)iShares Lehman Government/Credit Bond Fund. 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, as amended. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange has adopted listing standards applicable to Investment Company Units (“ICUs”) and trading standards pursuant to which the Exchange may either list and trade ICUs or trade such ICUs on the Exchange on an unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”) basis. 6 6 In 1996, the Commission approved Section 703.16 of the NYSE Manual, which sets forth general the rules related to the listing of ICUs. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36923 (March 5, 1996), 61 FR 10410 (March 13, 1996) (SR-NYSE-95-23). In 2000, the Commission also approved the Exchange's generic listing standards pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) of the Act for listing and trading, or the trading pursuant to UTP, of ICUs under Section 703.16 of the Manual and NYSE Rule 1100. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43679 (December 5, 2000), 65 FR 77949 (December 13, 2000) (SR-NYSE-00-46). Such standards, however, did not contemplate ICUs that are based on indexes containing fixed income securities, and thus the Exchange has filed this proposal to accommodate the products that are the subject of this proposal. The Exchange now proposes to list and trade the following series of the iShares® Trust (the “Trust”) 7 under Section 703.16 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”) and the Exchange's Rules 1100 *et seq.:*

(1)iShares 8 Lehman Short Treasury Bond Fund;

(2)iShares Lehman 3-7 Year Treasury Bond Fund;

(3)iShares Lehman 10-20 Year Treasury Bond Fund;

(4)iShares Lehman 1-3 Year Credit Bond Fund;

(5)iShares Lehman Intermediate Credit Bond Fund;

(6)iShares Lehman Credit Bond Fund;

(7)iShares Lehman Intermediate Government/Credit Bond Fund; and

(8)iShares Lehman Government/Credit Bond Fund. 7 The Trust is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”). 15 U.S.C. 80a. On July 19, 2006, the Trust filed with the Commission a Registration Statement for the Funds on Form N-1A under the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 77a, and under the Investment Company Act relating to the Funds (File Nos. 333-92935 and 811-09729) (the “Registration Statement”). The Commission has issued orders granting relief requested by the Trust in its Applications for Orders under Sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Investment Company Act for the purpose of exempting the Funds from various provisions of the Investment Company Act. *See In the Matter of Barclays Global Fund Advisors, et al.* , Investment Company Act Release No. 25622 (June 22, 2002); *In the Matter of Barclays Global Fund Advisors, et al.* , Investment Company Act Release No. 26175 (September 8, 2003); and *In the Matter of Barclays Global Fund Advisors, et al.* , Investment Company Act Release No. 27417 (June 13, 2006). 8 iShares is a registered trademark of Barclays Global Investors, N.A. The Funds will be based on the following indexes, respectively:

(1)Lehman Brothers Short U.S. Treasury Index;

(2)Lehman Brothers 3-7 Year U.S. Treasury Index;

(3)Lehman Brothers 10-20 Year U.S. Treasury Index;

(4)Lehman Brothers 1-3 Year U.S. Credit Index;

(5)Lehman Brothers Intermediate U.S. Credit Index;

(6)Lehman Brothers U.S. Credit Index;

(7)Lehman Brothers Intermediate U.S. Government/Credit Index; and

(8)Lehman Brothers U.S. Government/Credit Index. The indexes are referred to herein collectively as “Indexes” or “Underlying Indexes.” *Operation of the Funds* . 9 9 The Exchange notes that the information provided herein is based on information included in the Registration Statement. While the Adviser (defined above) would manage the Funds, the Funds' Board of Directors would have overall responsibility for the Funds' operations. Further, the composition of the Board is, and would be, in compliance with the requirements of Section 10 of the Investment Company Act. The Funds are subject to and must comply with Section 303A.06 of the Manual, which requires that the Funds have an audit committee that complies with Rule 10A-3 under the Act. Each Fund is an “index fund” that seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of a particular index (its “Underlying Index”) developed by Lehman. Barclays Global Fund Advisors (“BGFA”), the investment adviser to each Fund (“Adviser”), is a subsidiary of Barclays Global Investors, N.A. (“BGI”). BGFA and its affiliates are not affiliated with the Index Provider. Investors Bank & Trust Company (“Investors Bank” or “IBT”) is the administrator, custodian and transfer agent for each Fund. SEI Investments Distribution Co. (“SEI”) serves as the Distributor of Creation Units (as described below) for each Fund on an agency basis. The Exchange states that SEI does not maintain a secondary market in shares of the Funds. The Exchange also notes that SEI has no role in determining the policies of any Fund or the securities that are purchased or sold by any Fund. Lehman Brothers, Inc. (“Lehman Brothers”) is the Index Provider. Lehman Brothers is not affiliated with the Trust, BGI, BGFA, Investors Bank, the Distributor, or the NYSE. The Exchange states that BGFA uses a “passive” or indexing approach to try to achieve each Fund's investment objective. Unlike many investment companies, the Funds do not try to “beat” the indexes they track and do not seek temporary defensive positions when markets decline or appear overvalued. Each of the iShares Lehman Short Treasury Bond Fund, iShares Lehman 3-7 Year Treasury Bond Fund, and iShares Lehman 10-20 Year Treasury Bond Fund (the “Treasury Funds”) generally will invest at least 90% of its assets in the bonds of its Underlying Index and at least 95% of its assets in U.S. government bonds. Each Treasury Fund also may invest up to 10% of its assets in U.S. government bonds not included in its Underlying Index, but which BGFA believes will help the Fund track its Underlying Index. For example, a Treasury Fund may invest in bonds not included in its Underlying Index in order to reflect changes in its Underlying Index (such as reconstitutions, additions, and deletions). Each Treasury Fund also may invest up to 5% of its assets in repurchase agreements collateralized by U.S. government obligations and in cash and cash equivalents, including shares of money market funds affiliated with BGFA. Each of the iShares Lehman 1-3 Year Credit Bond Fund, iShares Lehman Intermediate Credit Bond Fund, and iShares Lehman Credit Bond Fund (the “Credit Bond Funds”), and iShares Lehman Intermediate Government/Credit Bond Fund and iShares Lehman Government/Credit Bond Fund (the “Government/Credit Bond Funds”) will invest at least 90% of its assets in the securities of its Underlying Index. Each Credit Bond Fund and Government/Credit Bond Fund may invest the remainder of its assets in securities not included in its Underlying Index, but which BGFA believes will help the Fund track its Underlying Index. For example, a Credit Bond Fund or Government/Credit Bond Fund may invest in bonds not included in its Underlying Index in order to reflect changes in its Underlying Index (such as reconstitutions, additions and deletions). Each Credit Bond Fund or Government/Credit Bond Fund also may invest its other assets in futures, options and swap contracts, cash and cash equivalents, including money market funds advised by BGFA. BGFA uses a Representative Sampling indexing strategy. “Representative Sampling” involves investing in a representative sample of bonds in the relevant Underlying Index, which has a similar investment profile as the relevant Underlying Index. Bonds selected have aggregate investment characteristics (based on market capitalization and industry weightings), fundamental characteristics (such as return variability, earnings valuation, duration, maturity, or credit ratings and yield) and liquidity measures similar to those of the relevant Underlying Index. Funds that use Representative Sampling generally do not hold all of the bonds that are included in the relevant Underlying Index. BGFA expects that, over time, the correlation between each Fund's performance and that of its Underlying Index, before fees and expenses, will be 95% or better. A correlation percentage of 100% would indicate perfect correlation. Any correlation percentage of less than 100% is called “tracking error.” The Exchange states that a Fund using a Representative Sampling indexing strategy can be expected to have a greater tracking error than a Fund using a Replication indexing strategy. 10 10 Replication is an indexing strategy in which a Fund invests in substantially all of the securities in its Underlying Index in approximately the same proportions as in the Underlying Index. A Fund will not concentrate its investments ( *i.e.* , hold 25% or more of its total assets), in a particular industry or group of industries, except that a Fund will concentrate its investments to approximately the same extent that its Underlying Index is so concentrated. For purposes of this limitation, securities of the U.S. government (including its agencies and instrumentalities), repurchase agreements collateralized by U.S. government securities, and securities of state or municipal governments and their political subdivisions are not considered to be issued by members of any industry. From time to time, adjustments may be made in the portfolio of the Funds in accordance with changes in the composition of the Underlying Indexes or to maintain compliance with requirements applicable to a regulated investment company (“RIC”) under the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”). 11 For example, if at the end of a calendar quarter a Fund would not comply with the RIC diversification tests, the Adviser would make adjustments to the portfolio to ensure continued RIC status. 11 In order for the Funds to qualify for tax treatment as a RIC, they must meet several requirements under the Code. Among these is a requirement that, at the close of each quarter of the Funds' taxable year,

(1)at least 50% of the market value of the Funds' total assets must be represented by cash items, U.S. government securities, securities of other RICs and other securities, with such other securities limited for the purpose of this calculation with respect to any one issuer to an amount not greater than 5% of the value of the Funds' assets and not greater than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer; and

(2)not more than 25% of the value of their total assets may be invested in securities of any one issuer, or two or more issuers that are controlled by the Funds (within the meaning of Section 851(b)(4)(B) of the Code) and that are engaged in the same or similar trades or business (other than U.S. government securities of other RICs). Other securities” of an issuer are considered qualifying assets only if they meet the following conditions: The entire amount of the securities of the issuer owned by the company is not greater in value than 5% of the value of the total assets of the company; and the entire amount of the securities of such issuer owned by the company does not represent more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer. Under the second diversification requirement, the “25% diversification limitation,” a company may not invest more than 25% of the value of its assets in any one issuer or two issuers or more that the taxpayer controls. Compliance with the above referenced RIC asset diversification requirements are monitored by the Adviser and any necessary adjustments to portfolio issuer weights will be made on a quarterly basis or as necessary to ensure compliance with RIC requirements. When a Fund's Underlying Index itself is not RIC compliant, the Adviser generally employs a representative sampling indexing strategy (as described in the Funds' prospectus) in order to achieve the Fund's investment objective. The Funds' prospectus also gives the Funds additional flexibility to comply with the requirements of the Code and other regulatory requirements and to manage future corporate actions and index changes in smaller markets by investing a percentage of fund assets in securities that are not included in the Fund's Underlying Index. The Exchange states that an index is a theoretical financial calculation, while each Fund is an actual investment portfolio. The performance of the Funds and the Underlying Indexes will vary somewhat due to transaction costs, market impact, corporate actions (such as mergers and spin-offs), and timing variances. The Funds' investment objectives, policies, and investment strategies will be fully disclosed in their prospectus and statement of additional information (“SAI”). *Description of the Funds and the Underlying Indexes.* 12 12 For each of the Funds, a Fund's investment objective and its Underlying Index may be changed without shareholder approval. In such case, the Exchange would be obligated to file for approval of listing and trading such derivative product pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1)) as a proposed rule change, which must be approved by the Commission, to permit continued listing and trading of the derivative product. *See* Telephone conference between Florence Harmon, Senior Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, and Michael Cavalier, Assistant General Counsel, NYSE, on November 17, 2006. The iShares Lehman Short Treasury Bond Fund seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the short-term sector of the U.S. Treasury market as defined by the Lehman Brothers Short U.S. Treasury Index. This Index measures the performance of public obligations of the U.S. Treasury that have a remaining maturity of between 1 and 12 months, are rated investment grade, and have more than $250 million or more of outstanding face value. In addition, the securities must be denominated in U.S. dollars and must be fixed rate and non-convertible. Excluded from the Index are certain special issues, such as flower bonds, targeted investor notes (“TINs”), and state and local government series bonds (“SLGs”), and coupon issues that have been stripped from assets that are already included in the Index. As of May 31, 2006, there were 43 issues included in the Index. The Index, as for each of the Underlying Indexes, is market capitalization weighted, 13 and the securities in the Index are updated (as described below) on the last calendar day of each month. 13 The Exchange states that the market capitalization of each Underlying Index's bond component is calculated by multiplying the price of the bond (accounting for accrued interest) by the par amount outstanding. For investment grade corporate debt, Lehman utilizes trader marked prices and a multi-dealer pricing matrix. For U.S. Treasuries and certain government related bonds, Lehman marks the bonds on a daily basis. For both categories of bonds, multiple pricing sources are also used to verify pricing determinations. *See* Amendment No. 2, *supra note* 5. The iShares Lehman 3-7 Year Treasury Bond Fund seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the intermediate-term sector of the U.S. Treasury market as defined by the Lehman Brothers 3-7 Year U.S. Treasury Index. This Index measures the performance of public obligations of the U.S. Treasury that have a remaining maturity of greater than or equal to 3 years and less than 7 years, are rated investment grade, and have $250 million or more of outstanding face value. In addition, the securities must be denominated in U.S. dollars and must be fixed rate and non-convertible. Excluded from the Index are certain special issues, such as flower bonds, TINs, and SLGs, and coupon issues that have been stripped from assets that are already included in the Index. As of May 31, 2006, there were 36 issues included in the Index. The iShares Lehman 10-20 Year Treasury Bond Fund seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the long-term sector of the U.S. Treasury market as defined by the Lehman Brothers 10-20 Year U.S. Treasury Index. This Index measures the performance of public obligations of the U.S. Treasury that have a remaining maturity of greater than or equal to 10 years and less than 20 years, are rated investment grade, and have $250 million or more of outstanding face value. In addition, the securities must be denominated in U.S. dollars and must be fixed rate and non-convertible. Excluded from the Index are certain special issues, such as flower bonds, TINs, and SLGs, and coupon issues that have been stripped from assets that are already included in the Index. As of May 31, 2006, there were 22 issues included in the Index. The iShares Lehman 1-3 Year Credit Bond Fund seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the investment-grade credit sector of the U.S. bond market as defined by the Lehman Brothers 1-3 Year U.S. Credit Index. This Index measures the performance of investment-grade corporate debt and sovereign, supranational, local authority, and non-U.S. agency bonds 14 that are U.S. dollar denominated and have a remaining maturity of greater than or equal to 1 year and less than 3 years, are rated investment grade, and have more than $250 million or more of outstanding face value. In addition, the securities must be denominated in U.S. dollars and must be fixed rate and non-convertible. Excluded from the Index are structured notes with embedded swaps or other special features, private placements, floating rate securities, and Eurobonds. As of May 31, 2006, there were 601 issues included in the Index. 15 14 “Local authority” bonds are U.S. municipal securities. “Non-U.S. agency bonds” are issued by foreign government sponsored entities from developed nations but are not backed by the full faith and credit of the foreign government. See Telephone conference between Florence Harmon, Senior Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, and Michael Cavalier, Assistant General Counsel, NYSE, on November 20, 2006 (“November 20 Telephone Conference”). 15 Regarding the top ten holdings in the Lehman Brothers 1-3 Year U.S. Credit Index, the top ten holdings constitute 8.3% of the Index, with the largest holding constituting 1%. *See* Amendment No. 1, *supra* note 4. The iShares Lehman Intermediate Credit Bond Fund seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the investment-grade credit sector of the U.S. bond market as defined by the Lehman Brothers Intermediate U.S. Credit Index. This Index measures the performance of investment-grade corporate debt and sovereign, supranational, local authority, and non-U.S. agency bonds that are U.S. dollar denominated and have a remaining maturity of greater than or equal to 1 year and less than 10 years, are rated investment grade, and have more than $250 million or more of outstanding face value. In addition, the securities must be denominated in U.S. dollars and must be fixed rate and non-convertible. Excluded from the Index are structured notes with embedded swaps or other special features, private placements, floating rate securities, and Eurobonds. As of May 31, 2006, there were 2,193 issues included in the Index. 16 16 Regarding the top ten holdings in the Lehman Brothers Intermediate U.S. Credit Index, the top ten holdings constitute 2.6% of the Index, with the largest holding constituting 0.3%. *See* Amendment No. 1, *supra* note 4. The iShares Lehman Intermediate Government/Credit Bond Fund seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the investment-grade credit sector of the U.S. bond market and the total U.S. Treasury market as defined by the Lehman Brothers Intermediate U.S. Government/Credit Index. This Index measures the performance of U.S. dollar denominated U.S. Treasuries, investment-grade government-related ( *i.e.* , U.S. and foreign agencies, sovereign, supranational, and local authority) debt, and investment-grade U.S. corporate securities that have a remaining maturity of greater than or equal to 1 year and less than 10 years, are rated investment grade, and have more than $250 million or more of outstanding face value. In addition, the securities must be denominated in U.S. dollars and must be fixed rate and non-convertible. Excluded from the Index are certain special issues, such as flower bonds, TINs, and SLGs, and coupon issues that have been stripped from assets that are already included in the Index. Also excluded from the Index are structured notes with embedded swaps or other special features, private placements, floating rate securities, and Eurobonds. As of May 31, 2006, there were 3,021 issues included in the Index. 17 17 Regarding the top ten holdings in the Lehman Brothers Intermediate U.S. Government/Credit Index, the top ten holdings constitute 6.9% of the Index, with the largest holding constituting 1.1%. *See* Amendment No. 1, *supra* note 4. The iShares Lehman Credit Bond Fund seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the investment-grade credit sector of the U.S. bond market as defined by the Lehman Brothers U.S. Credit Index. This Index measures the performance of investment-grade corporate debt and sovereign, supranational, local authority, and non-U.S. agency bonds that are U.S. dollar denominated and have a remaining maturity of greater than or equal to 1 year, are rated investment grade, and have more than $250 million or more of outstanding face value. In addition, the securities must be denominated in U.S. dollars and must be fixed rate and non-convertible. Excluded from the Index are structured notes with embedded swaps or other special features, private placements, floating rate securities, and Eurobonds. As of May 31, 2006, there were 2,996 issues included in the Index. 18 18 Regarding the top ten holdings in the Lehman Brothers U.S. Credit Index, the top ten holdings constitute 2.3% of the Index, with the largest holding constituting 0.4%. *See* Amendment No. 1, *supra* note 4. The iShares Lehman Government/Credit Bond Fund seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the investment-grade U.S. government and U.S corporate securities of the U.S. bond market as defined by the Lehman Brothers U.S. Government/Credit Index. This Index measures the performance of U.S. dollar denominated U.S. Treasuries, investment-grade government-related ( *i.e.* , U.S. and foreign agencies, sovereign, supranational and local authority) debt, and investment-grade U.S. corporate securities that have a remaining maturity of greater than or equal to 1 year, are rated investment grade, and have more than $250 million or more of outstanding face value. In addition, the securities must be denominated in U.S. dollars and must be fixed rate and non-convertible. Excluded from the index are certain special issues, such as flower bonds, TINs, and SLGs, and coupon issues that have been stripped from assets that are already included in the index. Also excluded from the index are structured notes with embedded swaps or other special features, private placements, floating rate securities, and Eurobonds. As of May 31, 2006 there were 3,935 issues included in the Index. 19 19 Regarding the top ten holdings in the Lehman Brothers U.S. Government/Credit Index, the top ten holdings constitute 5.7% of the Index, with the largest holding constituting 0.8%. *See* Amendment No. 1, *supra* note 4. The Exchange represents that, as of September 29, 2006, less than one percent of the market value of the Underlying Indexes for each of the Funds consisted of Rule 144A securities, and no Rule 144A securities were included in the Lehman Short Treasury Index; Lehman 3-7 Year Treasury Index; and Lehman 10-20 Year Treasury Index. 20 20 *See* Amendment No. 1, *supra* note 4. Rule 144A(b) under the Securities Act provides that “[a]ny dealer who offers or sells securities in compliance with the conditions set forth in paragraph

(d)of this section shall be deemed not to be a participant in a distribution of such securities within the meaning of section 4(3)(C) of the Act and not to be an underwriter of such securities within the meaning of section 2(11) of the Act, and such securities shall be deemed not to have been offered to the public within the meaning of section 4(3)(A) of the Act.” 17 CFR 230.144A. Among the conditions to be met in paragraph

(d)is that the “securities are offered or sold only to a qualified institutional buyer or to an offeree or purchaser that the seller and any person acting on behalf of the seller reasonably believe is a qualified institutional buyer.” *Id* . Index Provider The Index Provider for each Fund, Lehman Brothers, is a broker-dealer. Therefore, appropriate firewalls must exist around the personnel who have access to information concerning changes and adjustments to an index and the trading personnel of the broker-dealer. Lehman Brothers has represented to the Exchange that it will

(1)implement and maintain procedures designed to prevent the misuse and dissemination, in violation of applicable laws, rules and regulations, of material non-public information relating to the Indexes licensed by BGI; and

(2)periodically check the application of such procedures, including the application of such procedures as they relate to those persons directly responsible for changes in the composition or calculation of the relevant Index. 21 21 *See* November 20 Telephone Conference, *supra* note 14. The Exchange notes that, while there is not an independent calculation agent for the Indexes, the securities included in the Indexes are U.S. government, U.S. credit and investment-grade corporate debt issues that are traded in highly liquid, transparent markets and subject to multiple pricing sources, as described below. 22 22 *See* Amendment No. 1, *supra* note 4. For each of the Indexes, the applicable Index constituents are reset on the last business day of each month and remain static throughout the month. The universe of Index constituents adjust for securities that become ineligible for inclusion in an Index during the month ( *e.g.* , because of downgrades or called bonds) or for issues that are newly eligible ( *e.g.* , up-grades or newly issued bonds) on the last business day of each month. The Indexes are valued using end of day bid side prices, as marked by Lehman Brothers. Intra-month cash flows contribute to monthly returns, but they are not reinvested during the month and do not earn a reinvestment return. Total returns are calculated based on the sum of price changes, gain/loss on repayments of principal, and coupon received or accrued, expressed as a percentage of beginning market value. The Indexes are calculated once a day and are available from major data vendors. The Exchange states that Lehman Brothers has represented to BGI that, in calculating the Indexes, it utilizes multiple contributor sources to verify bond prices. 23 The primary price for each security is analyzed and compared to other third-party pricing sources through both statistical routines and scrutiny by the Lehman Brothers research staff. Significant discrepancies are researched and corrected, as necessary. 23 *See id* . Net Asset Value The Exchange states that, as with other open-end investment companies, iShares will be issued at the net asset value (“NAV”) per share next determined after an order in proper form is received. Investors Bank calculates the NAV for each Fund once daily Monday through Friday generally as of the regularly scheduled close of business of the NYSE (normally 4 p.m., Eastern Time) on each day that the NYSE is open for trading, based on prices at the time of closing, provided that

(a)any assets or liabilities denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar shall be translated into U.S. dollars at the prevailing market rates on the date of valuation, as quoted by one or more major banks or dealers that makes a two-way market in such currencies (or a data service provider based on quotations received from such banks or dealers); and

(b)U.S. fixed-income assets may be valued as of the announced closing time for trading in fixed-income instruments on any day that the Bond Market Association announces an early closing time. The NAV of each Fund is calculated by dividing the value of the net assets of such Fund ( *i.e.* , the value of its total assets less total liabilities) by the total number of outstanding shares of the Fund, generally rounded to the nearest cent. In calculating a Fund's NAV, a Fund's investments are generally valued using market valuations. In the event that current market valuations are not readily available or such valuations do not reflect current market values, the affected investments will be valued using fair value pricing pursuant to the pricing policy and procedures approved by the Trust's Board of Trustees. The frequency with which a Fund's investments are valued using fair value pricing is primarily a function of the types of securities and other assets in which the Fund invests pursuant to its investment objective, strategies and limitations. Investments that may be valued using fair value pricing include, but are not limited to:

(i)An unlisted security related to corporate actions;

(ii)a restricted security ( *i.e.,* one that may not be publicly sold without registration under the Securities Act);

(iii)a security whose trading has been suspended or which has been delisted from its primary trading exchange;

(iv)a security that is thinly traded;

(v)a security in default or bankruptcy proceedings for which there is no current market quotation;

(vi)a security affected by currency controls or restrictions; and

(vii)a security affected by a significant event ( *i.e.,* an event that occurs after the close of the markets on which the security is traded but before the time as of which the Fund's NAV is computed and that may materially affect the value of the Fund's investments). Examples of events that may be “significant events” are government actions, natural disasters, armed conflict, acts of terrorism, and significant market fluctuations. Continuous Distribution Shares of the Funds will be issued on a continuous offering basis in groups of 50,000 to 100,000 iShares (as specified for each Fund), or multiples thereof. These “groups” of shares are called “Creation Unit Aggregations” (also, “Creation Units”). The anticipated price at which the iShares will initially trade is approximately $100. The Funds will issue and redeem iShares only in Creation Unit Aggregations. 24 24 A Creation Unit Aggregation of 50,000 iShares would have an estimated initial value of approximately $5,000,000. The Shares that trade in the secondary market are “created” at NAV by market makers, large investors, and institutions (known as “Authorized Participants”) only in Creation Unit Aggregations. Each “creator” enters into an authorized participant agreement (“Participant Agreement”) with SEI, the Funds” distributor, which is subject to acceptance by the transfer agent, and then deposits into the applicable Fund a portfolio of bonds closely approximating the holdings of the Fund and a specified amount of cash in exchange for a specified number of Creation Units. Similarly, Shares can only be redeemed in a specified number of Creation Units, principally in-kind for a portfolio of bonds held by a Fund and a specified amount of cash. Except when aggregated in Creation Units, shares are not redeemable. The prices at which creations and redemptions occur are based on the next calculation of NAV after an order is received in a form described in the Participant Agreement. Creations and redemptions must be made through a firm that is a Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) participant and has the ability to clear through the Federal Reserve System. Information about the procedures regarding creation and redemption of Creation Units (including the cut-off times for receipt of creation and redemption orders) is included in the SAI. Each Fund will impose a purchase transaction fee and a redemption transaction fee to offset transfer and other transaction costs associated with the issuance and redemption of Creation Units of shares. All orders to purchase and redeem iShares in Creation Unit Aggregations must be placed through an Authorized Participant. An Authorized Participant must be either a “Participating Party,” *i.e.,* a broker-dealer or other participant in the clearing process through the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) Continuous Net Settlement System (the “Clearing Process”), a clearing agency that is registered with the Commission, or a DTC participant, and in each case, must enter into a Participant Agreement. 25 25 Such participant, if not registered as a broker-dealer, must be exempt from being (or otherwise not required to be) registered as a broker-dealer. *See* November 20 Telephone Conference, *supra* note 14. Issuance of Creation Unit Aggregations The Trust issues and sells Shares of each Fund only in Creation Unit Aggregations on a continuous basis through the Distributor, without a sales load, at the NAV next determined after receipt, on any business day (any day the NYSE is open for trading), of an order in proper form. The consideration for purchase of Creation Unit Aggregations of a Fund generally consists of the in-kind deposit of a designated portfolio of securities (the “Deposit Securities”), which constitutes a substantial replication, or a portfolio sampling representation, of the securities involved in the relevant Fund's Underlying Index (“Fund Securities”) and an amount of cash (the “Cash Component”) computed as described below. Together, the Deposit Securities and the Cash Component constitute the “Fund Deposit,” which represents the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for a Creation Unit Aggregation of any Fund. The Cash Component is sometimes also referred to as the “Balancing Amount.” The function of the cash component is to compensate for any differences between the NAV per Creation Unit Aggregation and the Deposit Amount (as defined below). The Cash Component is an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the shares (per Creation Unit Aggregation) and the “Deposit Amount” is an amount equal to the market value of the Deposit Securities. If the Cash Component is a positive number ( *i.e.,* the NAV per Creation Unit Aggregation exceeds the Deposit Amount), the creator will deliver the Cash Component. If the Cash Component is a negative number ( *i.e.,* the NAV per Creation Unit Aggregation is less than the Deposit Amount), the creator will receive the Cash Component. Computation of the Cash Component excludes any stamp duty or other similar fees and expenses payable upon transfer of beneficial ownership of the Deposit Securities, which are the sole responsibility of the Authorized Participant. BGFA, through the NSCC, makes available on each business day, prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m., Eastern Time), the list of the names and the required number of shares (subject to possible amendments or corrections) of each Deposit Security to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous business day) for each Fund. Such Deposit Securities are applicable, subject to any adjustments as described below, in order to effect creations of Creation Unit Aggregations of a given Fund until such time as the next-announced composition of the Deposit Securities is made available. The identity and number of shares of the Deposit Securities required for a Fund Deposit for each Fund changes as rebalancing adjustments, corporate action events, and interest payments on underlying bonds are reflected from time to time by BGFA with a view to the investment objective of the relevant Fund. The composition of the Deposit Securities may also change in response to adjustments to the weighting or composition of the component securities of the relevant Underlying Index. In addition, the Trust reserves the right to permit or require the substitution of an amount of cash (a “cash in lieu” amount) to be added to the Cash Component to replace any Deposit Security that may not be available in sufficient quantity for delivery or that may not be eligible for transfer through the systems of DTC for corporate bonds or the Federal Reserve System for U.S. Treasury securities. The Trust also reserves the right to permit or require a “cash in lieu” amount where the delivery of the Deposit Security by the Authorized Participant would be restricted under the securities laws or where the delivery of the Deposit Security to the Authorized Participant would result in the disposition of the Deposit Security by the Authorized Participant becoming restricted under the securities laws, or in certain other situations. The adjustments described above will reflect changes known to BGFA on the date of announcement to be in effect by the time of delivery of the Fund Deposit, in the composition of the Underlying Index being tracked by the relevant Fund or resulting from certain corporate actions. Fund Deposits must be delivered through the Federal Reserve System (for cash and government securities) and through DTC (for corporate securities) by an Authorized Participant. The Fund Deposit transfer must be ordered by the DTC Participant in a timely fashion so as to ensure the delivery of the requisite number of Deposit Securities through DTC to the account of the Fund by no later than 3 p.m., Eastern Time, on the Settlement Date. The “Settlement Date” for all Funds is generally the third business day after the Transmittal Date. A purchase transaction fee is imposed for the transfer and other transaction costs of the Funds associated with the issuance of Creation Units of shares. The fee is a single charge and will be the same regardless of the number of Creation Units purchased by an investor on the same day in the amount specified in the Funds' prospectus or SAI. Redemptions of Creation Unit Aggregations Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Unit Aggregations at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form by a Fund only on a business day. A Fund will not redeem shares in amounts less than Creation Unit Aggregations. Beneficial owners must accumulate enough shares in the secondary market to constitute a Creation Unit Aggregation in order to have such shares redeemed by the Trust. With respect to each Fund, BGFA, through the NSCC, makes available immediately prior to the opening of business on the NYSE (currently 9:30 a.m., Eastern Time) on each business day, the identity of the fund securities that will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to redemption requests received in proper form on that day. Fund Securities received on redemption may not be identical to Deposit Securities that are applicable to creations of Creation Unit Aggregations. Unless cash redemptions are available or specified for a Fund, the redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit Aggregation generally consist of Fund Securities—as announced on the business day of the request for redemption received in proper form—plus cash in an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the shares being redeemed, as next determined after a receipt of a request in proper form, and the value of the Fund Securities (the “Cash Redemption Amount”), less a redemption transaction fee. A redemption transaction fee is imposed to offset transfer and other transaction costs that may be incurred by the Funds. The fee is a single charge and will be as set forth in the Funds' prospectus and SAI, and is the same regardless of the number of Creation Units redeemed by an investor on the same day. Investors will also bear the costs of transferring the Fund Securities from the Trust to their account or on their order. Investors who use the services of a broker or other such intermediary may be charged a fee for such services. The standard creation and redemption fee for each Fund is $500; however, as stated in the Fund's Registration Statement, if a Creation Unit is purchased or redeemed outside the usual process through NSCC or for cash, a variable fee may be charged up to four times the standard creation or redemption fee. Compliance With Securities Laws—Creations and Redemptions; Rule 144A Securities 26 The Exchange represents that the statutory prospectus for the Funds will state that the Funds must comply with the federal securities laws in accepting securities for deposits and satisfying redemptions with redemption securities, including that the securities accepted for deposits and the securities used to satisfy redemption requests are sold in transactions that would be exempt from registration under the Securities Act. 26 *See* Amendment No. 2, *supra* note 5. The Exchange further represents that the Funds must comply with the federal securities laws in accepting Deposit Securities and satisfying redemptions with Fund Securities, including that the Deposit Securities and Fund Securities are sold in transactions that would be exempt from registration under the Securities Act. In accepting Deposit Securities and satisfying redemptions with Fund Securities that are restricted securities eligible for resale pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act, the Funds will comply with the conditions of Rule 144A, including in satisfying redemptions with such Rule 144A eligible restricted Fund Securities. The prospectus for the Funds will also state that “An Authorized Participant that is not a Qualified Institutional Buyer (“QIB”) will not be able to receive Fund Securities that are restricted securities eligible for resale under Rule 144A.” Availability of Information Regarding iShares and Each Underlying Index As stated above, on each business day, the list of names and amount of each security constituting the current Deposit Securities of the Fund Deposit and the Balancing Amount effective as of the previous business day will be made available. An amount per iShare representing the sum of the estimated Balancing Amount effective through and including the previous business day, plus the current value of the Deposit Securities in U.S. dollars, on a per iShare basis (the “Intraday Optimized Portfolio Value” or “IOPV”) will be calculated by an independent third party that is a major market data vendor (the “Value Calculator”), such as Bloomberg L.P., at least every 15 seconds 27 during the Exchange's regular trading hours and disseminated at least every 15 seconds on the Consolidated Tape. 27 *See* November 20 Telephone Conference, *supra* note 14. Because the Funds will utilize a representative sampling strategy, the Exchange states that the IOPV may not reflect the value of all securities included in the Underlying Indexes. In addition, the IOPV does not necessarily reflect the precise composition of the current portfolio of securities held by the Funds at a particular point in time. Therefore, the Exchange states that the IOPV on a per Fund share basis disseminated during the Exchange's trading hours should not be viewed as a real time update of the NAV of the Funds, which is calculated only once a day. While the IOPV disseminated by the Exchange at 9:30 a.m. is expected to be generally very close to the most recently calculated Fund NAV on a per Fund share basis, it is possible that the value of the portfolio of securities held by each Fund may diverge from the Deposit Securities values during any trading day. In such case, the IOPV will not precisely reflect the value of each Fund's portfolio. However, during the trading day, the IOPV can be expected to closely approximate the value per Fund share of the portfolio of securities for each Fund except under unusual circumstances ( *e.g.,* in the case of extensive rebalancing of multiple securities in a Fund at the same time by the Adviser). The IOPV will be updated throughout the day to reflect changing bond prices, using multiple prices from independent third party pricing sources. Information about the intra-day prices for the Deposit Securities of each Fund is readily available to the marketplace. 28 The Exchange represents that the Adviser has represented that:

(1)IOPV will be calculated by an independent third party;

(2)IOPV will be calculated using prices obtained from multiple independent third-party pricing sources (such as broker-dealers) throughout the day; and

(3)IOPV will be calculated in accordance with pre-determined criteria and set parameters so that an individual bond “price” based on an analysis of multiple pricing sources is obtained for each security in the Portfolio Deposit. 29 The Exchange states that closing prices of the Funds' Deposit Securities are readily available from published or other public sources, such as the NYSE's Automated Bond System (ABS®), the Trace Reporting and Compliance Engine (“TRACE”), or on-line client-based information services provided by Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, IDC, Merrill Lynch, Reuters, Bloomberg, TradeWeb, and other pricing services commonly used by bond mutual funds. 30 28 The Exchange states that Authorized Participants and other market participants have a variety of ways to access the intra-day security prices that form the basis of the Funds' IOPV calculation. For example, intra-day prices for treasury securities and agency securities are available from Bloomberg, TradeWeb, ABS® and TRACE. Intra-day prices of callable agency securities are available from TradeWeb. Intra-day prices of corporate bonds are available from ABS® and TRACE. In addition, intra-day prices for each of these securities are available by subscription or otherwise to Authorized Participants and clients of major U.S. broker-dealers (such as Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, and Lehman Brothers). 29 For example, the Exchange states that Bloomberg Generic Prices could be used. Bloomberg Generic Prices are current prices on individual bonds as determined by Bloomberg using a proprietary automated pricing program that analyzes multiple bond prices contributed to Bloomberg by third-party price contributors (such as broker-dealers). 30 The Exchange understands that Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, IDC, Reuters, Bloomberg, and TradeWeb provide prices for each type of Deposit Security. ABS® and TRACE provide prices for corporate bonds. *See also* Telephone conference between Florence Harmon, Senior Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, and Michael Cavalier, Assistant General Counsel, NYSE, on November 21, 2006 (authorizing removal from this proposed rule change of language in which the Funds disclaim responsibility for IOPV calculation). The Exchange also intends to disseminate a variety of data with respect to each Fund on a daily basis by means of CTA and CQ High Speed Lines; information with respect to recent NAV, shares outstanding, estimated cash amount, and total cash amount per Creation Unit Aggregation will be made available prior to the opening of the Exchange. In addition, there will be disseminated, through major market data vendors, a value for the Underlying Indexes once each trading day, based on closing prices in the relevant market. The NAV for each Fund will be calculated and disseminated daily. The Funds' NAV will be calculated by IBT. IBT will disseminate the information to BGI, SEI, and others. The Funds' NAV will be published in a number of places, including *www.iShares.com* and on the Consolidated Tape. In addition, the Web site for the Trust, which will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain the following information, on a per iShare basis, for each Fund:

(a)The prior business day's NAV and the mid-point of the bid-ask price and a calculation of the premium or discount of such price against such NAV; and

(b)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. The Exchange states that the Adviser for the Funds has represented to the Exchange that the Funds will make the NAV for the Fund Shares available to all market participants at the same time. 31 31 *See* November 20 Telephone Conference, *supra* note 14. Dividends and Distributions Dividends will be paid out to investors at least monthly by the Funds and may be paid out on a more frequent basis. Distributions of net capital gains, if any, will be distributed to investors annually. Dividends and other distributions on iShares of the Funds will be distributed on a pro rata basis to beneficial owners of such iShares. Dividend payments will be made through the Depository and to the DTC Participants to beneficial owners then of record with amounts received from the Fund. The Exchange represents that the Trust currently does not intend to make the DTC book-entry Dividend Reinvestment Service (the “Service”) available for use by beneficial owners for reinvestment of their cash proceeds, but certain individual brokers may make the Service available to their clients. The SAI will inform investors of this fact and direct interested investors to contact such investor's broker to ascertain the availability and a description of the Service through such broker. The SAI will also caution interested beneficial owners that they should note that each broker may require investors to adhere to specific procedures and timetables in order to participate in the Service, and such investors should ascertain from their broker such necessary details. The Shares acquired pursuant to the Service will be held by the beneficial owners in the same manner and subject to the same terms and conditions, as for original ownership of the Funds. Beneficial owners of the Funds will receive all of the statements, notices, and reports required under the Investment Company Act and other applicable laws. They will receive, for example, annual and semi-annual reports, written statements accompanying dividend payments, proxy statements, annual notifications detailing the tax status of distributions, and IRS Form 1099-DIVs. Because the Trust's records reflect ownership of iShares by DTC only, the Trust will make available applicable statements, notices, and reports to the DTC Participants who, in turn, will be responsible for distributing them to the beneficial owners. Other Issues

(a)*Criteria for Initial and Continued Listing.* The Shares are subject to the criteria for initial and continued listing of ICUs in Section 703.16 of the Manual. A minimum of 100,000 iShares for each Fund will be required to be outstanding at the start of trading. This minimum number of shares of each Fund required to be outstanding at the start of trading will be comparable to requirements that have been applied to previously traded series of ICUs. The Exchange believes that the proposed minimum number of shares of each Fund outstanding at the start of trading is sufficient to provide market liquidity and to further the Funds' investment objective to seek to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance of the Underlying Index.

(b)*Original and Annual Listing Fees.* The original listing fees applicable to the Shares of the Funds for listing on the Exchange is $5,000 for each Fund, and the continuing fees would be $2,000 for each Fund.

(c)*Stop and Stop Limit Orders.* Commentary .30 to NYSE Rule 13 provides that stop and stop limit orders in an ICU shall be elected by a quotation, but specifies that if the electing bid on an offer is more than 0.10 points away from the last sale and is for the specialist's dealer account, prior Floor Official approval is required for the election to be effective. This rule applies to ICUs generally.

(d)*NYSE Rule 460.10* . NYSE Rule 460.10 generally precludes certain business relationships between an issuer and the specialist in the issuer's securities. Exceptions in the Rule permit specialists in Fund shares to enter into Creation Unit transactions through the Distributor to facilitate the maintenance of a fair and orderly market. A specialist Creation Unit transaction may only be effected on the same terms and conditions as any other investor, and only at the net asset value of the Fund shares. A specialist may acquire a position in excess of 10% of the outstanding issue of a Fund's Shares, provided, however, that a specialist registered in a security issued by an investment company may purchase and redeem the ICU or securities that can be subdivided or converted into such unit, from the investment company as appropriate to facilitate the maintenance of a fair and orderly market in the subject security.

(e)*Prospectus Delivery.* 32 The Commission has granted the Trust an exemption from certain prospectus delivery requirements under Section 24(d) of the Investment Company Act. 33 The Exchange states that any product description used in reliance on a Section 24(d) exemptive order will comply with all representations made therein and all conditions thereto. The Exchange, in an Information Memo to Exchange members and member organizations, will inform members and member organizations, prior to commencement of trading of the Shares, of the prospectus or product description delivery requirements applicable to the Shares of the Funds and will refer members and member organizations to NYSE Rule 1100(b), which requires that members and member organizations provide to purchasers a written description of the terms and characteristics of the securities not later than the time of a confirmation of the first transaction is delivered to the purchaser. There is not currently a product description available for the Funds. Therefore, the Information Memo will also advise members and member organizations that delivery of a prospectus to customers in lieu of a product description would satisfy the requirements of NYSE Rule 1100(b). 32 *See* Amendment No. 1, *supra* note 4. 33 *See In the Matter of iShares, Inc.,* *et al.* , Investment Company Act Release No. 25623 (June 25, 2002).

(f)*Information Memo.* The Exchange will distribute an Information Memo to its members in connection with the trading of the iShares. The Memo will discuss the special characteristics and risks of trading this type of security. Specifically, the Information Memo, among other things, will discuss what the Funds are, how the Funds' shares are created and redeemed, prospectus or Product Description delivery requirements applicable to the Funds, applicable NYSE rules, dissemination information, trading information and the applicability of suitability rules (including NYSE Rule 405). The Information Memo will also discuss exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from Section 11(d)(1) and certain rules under the Act, including Rule 10a-1, Regulation SHO, Rule 10b-10, Rule 14e-5, Rule 10b-17, Rule 11d1-2, Rules 15c1-5 and 15c1-6, and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M under the Act.

(g)*Trading Halts.* In order to halt the trading of the Shares of the Funds, the Exchange may consider, among other things, factors such as the extent to which trading is not occurring in underlying security(s) and whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. In addition, trading in the Funds' shares is subject to trading halts caused by extraordinary market volatility pursuant to NYSE Rule 80B. If the end-of-day Index value or the intraday IOPV 34 applicable to a Fund is not being disseminated as required, the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which the interruption to the dissemination of the Index value or IOPV occurs. If the interruption to the dissemination of the Index value or intraday IOPV persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption. 35 34 *See* November 20 Telephone Conference, *supra* note 14. 35 *See* Amendment No. 1, *supra* note 4.

(h)*Due Diligence.* The Exchange represents that the Information Memo to members will note, for example, Exchange responsibilities including that before an Exchange member, member organization, or employee thereof recommends a transaction in the Funds, a determination must be made that the recommendation is in compliance with all applicable Exchange and federal rules and regulations, including due diligence obligations under NYSE Rule 405.

(i)*Purchases and Redemptions in Creation Unit Size.* In the Memo referenced above, members and member organizations will be informed that procedures for purchases and redemptions of shares of the Funds in Creation Unit Size are described in the Funds' prospectus and SAI, and that shares of the Funds are not individually redeemable but are redeemable only in Creation Unit Size aggregations or multiples thereof.

(j)*Surveillance.* Exchange surveillance procedures applicable to trading in the proposed iShares are comparable to those applicable to other ICUs currently trading on the Exchange. The Exchange represents that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares of the Funds.

(k)*Hours of Trading/Minimum Price Variation.* The Funds will trade on the Exchange until 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time). The minimum price variation for quoting will be $.01. 2. Statutory Basis NYSE believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 36 requiring that an exchange have rules that are designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 36 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended, will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change, as amended. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2006-70 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2006-70. 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 will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2006-70 and should be submitted on or before January 9, 2007. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 37 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 38 which requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 37 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 38 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). A. Surveillance The NYSE has represented that it has appropriate surveillance procedures in place that are designed to monitor the trading of the proposed Shares. The Exchange represents that these surveillance procedures applicable to trading in the proposed Shares are comparable to those applicable to other ICUs currently trading on the Exchange, and provide the Exchange with the means to detect and deter manipulation of the Shares. 39 The Commission also notes that certain concerns are raised when a broker-dealer, such as Lehman Brothers, is involved in the development, maintenance, and calculation of an index upon which an exchange traded fund is based. The Exchange has represented that Lehman Brothers has represented that it has in place procedures to prevent the misuse of material, non-public information relating to the Indexes. The Commission believes that these procedures should help to minimize concerns raised by Lehman Brothers' involvement in the management of the Indexes. 39 The Commission notes that NYSE specialists are required to provide daily trading information to the Exchange on Form 81. *See* NYSE Rule 104A.50. B. Dissemination of Information The Commission believes that sufficient venues exist for obtaining reliable information so that investors in the Funds can monitor the value of the Underlying Indexes and securities held by each Fund. A value for the Underlying Indexes will be disseminated once each trading day, based on closing prices in the relevant market. 40 In addition, the NAV for each Fund will be calculated and disseminated daily, and will be published in a number of places, including *www.iShares.com* and on the Consolidated Tape. The Commission notes that the Exchange will receive a representation from the Advisor to the Funds that the NAV will be calculated and made available to all market participants at the same time. 40 Closing prices of the Funds' Deposit Securities are available from sources such as ABS®, TRACE, and online client-based information services provided by broker-dealers and other information providers. Further, an IOPV, calculated by an independent third party, will be updated and disseminated throughout the day on the Consolidated Tape to reflect changing bond prices. Additionally, information about the intra-day prices for the Deposit Securities of each Fund is available. For example, intra-day prices for treasury securities and agency securities are available from Bloomberg, TradeWeb, ABS® and TRACE. Intra-day prices of callable agency securities are available from TradeWeb. Intra-day prices of corporate bonds are available from ABS®, and TRACE. In addition, intra-day prices for these securities are available by subscription or otherwise to Authorized Participants and clients of major U.S. broker-dealers. If the Underlying Index values or IOPV is not disseminated as described, the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which the interruption occurs. If the interruption persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption. The Commission believes that the trading halt rules, together with the NAV dissemination requirements, will facilitate transparency, reduce the potential for an unfair informational advantage with respect to the Shares, and diminish the potential for manipulation. C. Listing and Trading The Commission finds that the Exchange's rules and procedures for the listing and trading of the Shares are consistent with the Act. The Shares will be subject to NYSE rules governing the trading of equity securities, including, among others, rules governing trading halts, customer suitability requirements, and the election of stop and stop limit orders. In addition, the Shares are subject to the criteria for initial and continued listing of ICUs in Section 703.16 of the NYSE Manual. The Commission believes that the listing and delisting criteria for the Shares of the Funds should help to maintain a minimum level of liquidity and, therefore, minimize the potential for manipulation of the Shares. Finally, the Commission notes that the Information Memo will inform members about the terms, characteristics, and risks in trading the Shares, including their prospectus delivery obligations. Accelerated Approval NYSE has requested that the Commission find good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as amended, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice thereof in the **Federal Register** . The Commission notes that the proposal is consistent with the NYSE's listing and trading standards, and the Commission has previously approved similar products. 41 Based on the above, the Commission finds good cause to accelerate approval of the proposed rule change, as amended. 41 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 48881 (December 4, 2003), 68 FR 69739 (December 15, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2003-39) (relating to the iShares Lehman U.S. Aggregate Bond Fund and iShares Lehman TIPS Bond Fund); and 46299 (August 1, 2002), 67 FR 51907 (August 9, 2002) (SR-NYSE-2002-26) (relating to the iShares 1-3 Year Treasury Index Fund, iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Index Fund, iShares 20+ Year Treasury Index Fund, iShares Treasury Index Fund, iShares Government/Credit Index Fund, iShares Lehman Corporate Bond Fund, and iShares Goldman Sachs Corporate Bond Fund). *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 42 that the proposed rule change, as amended, (SR-NYSE-2006-70) is hereby approved on an accelerated basis. 42 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 43 Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. 43 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E6-21585 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Disaster Declaration #10748 and #10749 Pennsylvania Disaster #PA-00006 AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania dated 12/11/2006. *Incident:* Severe storm and flooding *Incident Period:* 11/16/2006 through 11/17/2006 *Effective Date:* 12/11/2006 *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 02/09/2007. *Economic Injury

(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date:* 09/11/2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary County:* Luzerne. Contiguous Counties: Pennsylvania; Carbon; Columbia; Lackawanna; Monroe; Schuylkill; Sullivan; Wyoming. *The Interest Rates are:* Percent Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere 6.000 Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere 3.000 Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere 8.000 Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit Available Elsewhere 5.250 Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10748 6 and for economic injury is 10749 0. The Commonwealth which received an EIDL Declaration # is Pennsylvania. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: December 11, 2006. Steven C. Preston, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-21576 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Requirements Regarding Flights to College Bowl Games and Other Special Events AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department is publishing the following notice providing guidance to colleges and other organizations wishing to arrange charter flights to football bowl games, NCAA basketball playoff games, or other special events. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dayton Lehman, Jr., Deputy Assistant General Counsel, or Lisa Swafford-Brooks, Senior Attorney, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (C-70), 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590,

(202)366-9342. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of Department of Transportation Requirements Regarding Flights to College Bowl Games and other Special Events. This notice is to provide guidance to colleges and other organizations wishing to arrange charter flights, including flights to football bowl games, NCAA basketball playoff games, or other special events. The notice is also intended to provide information regarding the economic licensing and operational certification of air carriers by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). It is important that colleges and other entities are fully aware of this information since they often charter aircraft to travel to events and we wish to avoid instances of organizations

(1)contracting with entities that hold no DOT economic authority;

(2)unknowingly chartering aircraft from entities that are not subject to the most stringent safety standards and oversight of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a DOT operating administration; or

(3)reselling seats on a charter flight without their first having obtained proper authority to do so. There are generally two primary avenues whereby a college or other entity may seek to sponsor air transportation to a college bowl game or other special event. The organization may choose to

(1)contract directly with a carrier to provide the air transportation to the bowl game or other special event or

(2)contract with a Public Charter Operator or an air charter broker, who would, in turn, locate a direct air carrier to provide the air transportation. Contracting Directly With an Air Carrier If the college or other entity chooses to contract with the air carrier directly, they should be aware of the economic requirements that govern the carrier's operations. Before any U.S. aircraft operator can hold itself out to the public as providing interstate scheduled or charter service, it must have DOT economic authority. In general, such authority is granted to large aircraft operators in the form of an air carrier certificate issued under 49 U.S.C. 41101. Prior to granting such authority, this Department must find a carrier to be “fit”, which entails a determination that the carrier has adequate financial resources, a competent management team and a proper compliance disposition. This fitness requirement is a continuing one and we monitor certificated carriers to ensure their compliance with the requirement. In addition, certificated carriers must meet certain DOT economic rules such as minimum liability insurance requirements (see, 14 CFR part 205) and escrow requirements to protect charterers (see, 14 CFR part 212). Likewise, the FAA requires that any U.S. aircraft operator providing scheduled or charter service with large aircraft must comply with the safety-related certification and operating rules of part 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 121). Those regulations are the most detailed and stringent of any of the FAA's aircraft operating rules and the FAA provides heightened safety surveillance of carriers subject to part 121. There are, however, operators of large, jet-powered passenger aircraft that are not required to have DOT economic authority or to comply with 14 CFR part 121. These operators are regulated under the safety standards of part 125 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 125). While these aircraft operators may conduct “private” air services for a few entities for compensation or hire, they do not have authority to transport the general public by engaging in common carriage ( *e.g.* , holding out to the general public, or a segment of the general public such as colleges, through advertisements or telephone listings or through agents or brokers, or otherwise acquiring a reputation for common carriage). Since carriers operating under part 125 are not authorized to hold out to the general public, part 125 does not contain safety standards as stringent as part 121. Likewise, carriers lawfully operating under part 125 hold no economic license from DOT and are not required to comply with DOT's insurance or monetary escrow requirements. You should therefore inquire about the specific authority under which the carrier you will be using will operate. In addition to determining whether the air carrier has appropriate authority, any organization that contracts with an air carrier directly and wishes to resell seats on the charter flight to the public (for example, to its students or alumni, to the press, or to its club members), whether or not as a profit-making venture, should understand its own role as an “indirect air carrier,” whose reselling of the air transportation must be licensed under the Department's Public Charter regulations. Public Charter operators must comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 380. Among the most important requirements of 14 CFR Part 380 are the rules designed to prevent economic harm to charter passengers, including the requirements that

(1)before any sales of seats takes place there is in place an approved Public Charter prospectus based upon a contract between the charter operator and a direct air carrier covering the transportation to be sold and

(2)all payments by charter participants to charter operators be covered in full by a security agreement or in part by a security agreement with the payments themselves being placed directly into an escrow account. There are other specific rules governing Public Charter solicitation and the content of the charter contract between the Public Charter operator and the charter participants, including provisions on the cancellation of trips and a participant's right to a refund. Exemptions From the Public Charter Requirements We recognize that organizations may have only a short time after learning of an event in which to organize participation in a charter flight, such as might occur with a bowl game or NCAA basketball playoff appearance. The Department has always been willing to work with organizations that can show that an exemption from certain of its rules is in the public interest. While such matters are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, in seeking such relief, an organization should be prepared to show, at a minimum, that it has a contract with a carrier holding appropriate authority for the flight and that appropriate financial arrangements are in place to protect consumer payments. Using a Public Charter Operator or an Air Charter Broker Organizations may contract with a Public Charter operator to organize a charter flight. Any organization that does so should assure itself that the Public Charter operator has complied with the requirements of part 380, as described above (and part 381, where applicable, as described below). Organizations may also contract directly with an air carrier through an “air charter broker.” An air charter broker cannot misrepresent itself as an air carrier and, because it does not hold authority from the Department, it cannot in its own right contract to sell air transportation. Therefore, it must generally have authority to act either

(1)as the agent of a chartering organization in contracting with an air carrier or

(2)as the agent of the air carrier in contracting with a chartering organization. Air charter brokers also may act merely as a “go-between” without being involved in the actual contract between the carrier and the charter customer, e.g., by locating a customer for an air carrier and being paid a finder's fee by the carrier, but this is a rare occurrence. Organizations using air charter brokers should be aware that, since the Department does not license air charter brokers, there is no DOT-required financial security in place to protect an organization's payments to a broker that is the lawful agent of the organization or who acts in a “go-between” function. With respect to air charter brokers that state that they are acting as the agent of one or more air carriers, prior to signing a contract for air services organizations should take steps to assure themselves of the agency relationship and that the carrier represented is properly licensed by DOT and FAA to provide the air transportation. 1 1 On October 8, 2004, this office issued a notice regarding the lawful role of air charter brokers in the provision of air transportation and our enforcement policy covering such operations. The notice, which was published in the **Federal Register** , provides information on a variety of topics involving air charter brokers, including contracting procedures and marketing. 69 FR 61429, Oct. 18, 2004; erratum published 69 FR 62321, Oct. 25, 2004. The notice may be found on the office's website at: *http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/BrokerNoticeFinal.pdf.* Tickets to a Game or Other Special Event Sold in Conjunction With a Flight It is also important to note that specific rules apply to situations where tickets to a game or other special event are being offered in conjunction with a flight, whether it is a charter flight or a regularly scheduled flight. Under 14 CFR Part 381, an entity that offers special event or game tickets in connection with a flight must be in physical possession of a sufficient number of tickets or have a written contract for the tickets, which must be directly traceable to the actual sponsor of the game or other special event. Failure to meet Part 381's requirements can entitle a participant to a full refund, including the price of the air fare. We seek the chartering public's cooperation and assistance to ensure that they arrange an enjoyable and secure traveling experience. If you have any questions or desire additional information, please contact Dayton Lehman, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, or Lisa Swafford-Brooks, Senior Attorney in that office, at

(202)366-9342. If you wish to ascertain whether a particular aircraft operator has DOT air carrier economic authority, you may contact Bill Bertram, Chief of the Air Carrier Fitness Division at

(202)366-1062. An unofficial electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at *http://dms.dot.gov/reports* and at *http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/guidance.htm* Dated: December 13, 2006. Samuel Podberesky, Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings. [FR Doc. 06-9772 Filed 12-14-06; 4:01 pm]

Connectionstraces to 28

Traces to 28 documents

CFR