Notices. Notice of application for an order of approval pursuant to Section 26(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Act”)
21,891 words·~100 min read·
/register/2007/01/30/07-396A 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 January 5, 2007 to January 18, 2007. The last biweekly notice was published on January 16, 2007 (72 FR 1779). 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. 50-461, Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois *Date of amendment request:* November 16, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification
(TS)Section 3.6.5.1, “Drywell,” Surveillance Requirement
(SR)3.6.5.1.3 to delay the performance of the next drywell bypass leakage rate test (DBLRT) from the current requirement of “November 23, 2008” to “prior to startup from the C1R12 refueling outage” which is currently scheduled for January 2010. This request would also revise TS 5.5.13, “Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,” to delay the performance of the next primary containment Type A integrated leak rate test
(ILTR)from the current requirement of “no later than November 23, 2008” to “prior to startup from the C1R12 refueling outage.” *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration which is presented below: 1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change will revise TS 3.6.5.1, “Drywell,” SR 3.6.5.1 .3 to defer the performance of the next DBLRT to prior to startup from the C1R12 refueling outage. This request will also revise CPS TS 5.5.13, “Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,” to reflect a one-time deferral of the primary containment Type A test to prior to startup from the C1R12 refueling outage. The current Type A test and DBLRT interval of 15 years, based on past performance, would be extended on a onetime basis to 16.25 years (i.e., approximately 15 years plus 15 months) from the last Type A test and DBLRT. The drywell houses the reactor pressure vessel, the reactor coolant recirculation loops, and branch connections of the Reactor Coolant System (RCS), which have isolation valves at the primary containment boundary. The function of the drywell is to maintain a pressure boundary that channels steam resulting from a Loss of Coolant Accident
(LOCA)to the suppression pool, where it is condensed. Air forced from the drywell is released into the primary containment through the suppression pool. The suppression pool is a concentric open container of water with a stainless steel liner that is located at the bottom of the primary containment. The suppression pool is designed to absorb the decay heat and sensible heat released during a reactor blowdown from safety/relief valve
(SRV)discharges or from a LOCA. The function of the Mark III containment is to isolate and contain fission products released from the RCS following a design basis LOCA and to confine the postulated release of radioactive material to within limits. The test interval associated with the drywell bypass leakage and Type A testing is not a precursor of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, extending these test intervals on a one-time basis from 15 years to 16.25 years does not result in an increase in the probability of occurrence of an accident. The successful performance history of the drywell bypass leakage and Type A testing provides assurance that the CPS drywell and primary 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 changes has concluded that there is an insignificant increase in total population dose rate and an insignificant increase in the conditional containment failure probability. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed changes for a one-time extension of the DBLRT and Type A test will not affect the control parameters governing unit operations or the response of plant equipment to transient and accident conditions. The proposed changes do not introduce any new equipment or modes of system operation. No installed equipment will be operated in a new or different manner. As such, no new failure mechanisms are introduced. Therefore, the proposed changes do 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. CPS is a General Electric BWR/6 plant with a Mark III containment system. The Mark III containment design is a single-barrier pressure containment and a multi-barrier fission containment system consisting of the drywell and primary containment. The drywell houses the reactor pressure vessel, the reactor coolant recirculation loops, and branch connections of the RCS, which have isolation valves at the primary containment boundary. The function of the drywell is to maintain a pressure boundary that channels steam from a LOCA to the suppression pool, where it is condensed. The suppression pool is an annular pool of demineralized water between the drywell and the outer primary containment boundary. This pool covers the horizontal vent openings in the drywell to maintain a water seal between the drywell interior and the remainder of the containment volume. The primary containment consists of a steel-lined, reinforced concrete vessel, which surrounds the RCS and provides an essentially leak-tight barrier against an uncontrolled release of radioactive material to the environment. Additionally, the containment structure provides shielding from the fission products that may be present in the primary containment atmosphere following accident conditions. The primary containment is penetrated by access, piping and electrical penetrations. The integrity of the drywell is periodically verified by performance of the DBLRT. This test ensures that the measured drywell bypass leakage is bounded by the safety analysis assumptions. The drywell integrity is further verified by a number of additional tests, including drywell airlock door seal leakage tests, overall drywell airlock leakage tests and periodic visual inspections of exposed accessible interior and exterior drywell surfaces. Additional confidence that significant degradation in the drywell leaktightness has not developed is provided by the periodic qualitative assessment of drywell performance. The integrity of the primary containment penetrations and isolation valves is verified through Type B and Type C local leak rate tests (LLRTs) and the overall leak-tight integrity of the primary containment is verified by a Type A integrated leak rate test
(ILRT)as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix J. These tests are performed to verify the essentially leak-tight characteristics of the primary containment at the design basis accident pressure. The proposed changes for a one-time extension of the drywell bypass leakage and Type A tests do not affect the method for drywell or containment testing or the test acceptance criteria. AmerGen has conducted a risk assessment to determine the impact of a change to the CPS Type A ILRT and DBLRT schedule from the originally licensed baseline frequency of three tests in 10 years to one test in 15 years plus 15 months ( *i.e.* , approximately 16.25 years) 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 CPS 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. Based on the above, AmerGen concludes that the proposed amendment presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” paragraph (c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified. 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. Bradley J. Fewell, Assistant General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. *NRC Branch Chief:* Michael L. Marshall, Jr. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts *Date of amendment request:* November 2, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify requirements for inoperable snubbers consistent with the Technical Specification Task Force 372, Revision 4. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated. The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system technical specification
(TS)when the inoperability is due solely to an inoperable snubber if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated seismic event requiring snubbers is a low-probability occurrence and the overall TS system safety function would still be available for the vast majority of anticipated challenges. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased, if at all. The consequences of an accident while relying on allowance provided by proposed LCO [limiting condition for operation] 3.0.8 are no different than the consequences of an accident while relying on the TS required actions in effect without the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.8. 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). Allowing delay times for entering supported system TS when inoperability is due solely to inoperable snubbers, if risk is assessed and managed, 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 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 a delay time for entering a supported system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an inoperable snubber, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated seismic event requiring snubbers is a low-probability occurrence and the overall TS system safety function would still be available for the vast majority of anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was performed to justify the proposed TS changes. This application of LCO 3.0.8 is predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the management of plant risk. 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 licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* J. M. Fulton, Esquire, Assistant General Counsel, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, 600 Rocky Hill Road, Plymouth, Massachusetts, 02360-5599 *NRC Branch Chief:* Richard Laufer. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois *Date of amendment request:* November 7, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed change revises Technical Specification
(TS)Surveillance Requirement
(SR)3.4.3.1 to increase the allowable as-found main steam safety valve
(MSSV)lift setpoint tolerance from ± 1 percent to ± 3 percent. In addition, the proposed change revises SR 3.1.7.10 to increase the enrichment of sodium pentaborate used in the Standby Liquid Control
(SLC)system from ≥ 30.0 atom percent boron-10 to ≥ 45.0 atom percent boron-10. *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 increases the allowable as-found MSSV lift setpoint tolerance, determined by test after the valves have been removed from service, from ± 1% to ± 3%. The proposed change does not alter the TS requirements for the number of MSSVs required to be operable, the nominal lift setpoints, the allowable as-left lift setpoint tolerance, the MSSV testing frequency, or the manner in which the valves are operated. Consistent with current TS requirements, the proposed change continues to require that the MSSVs be adjusted to within ± 1% of their nominal lift setpoints following testing. Since the proposed change does not alter the manner in which the valves are operated, there is no significant impact on reactor operation. The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the valves, nor does it change the safety function of the valves. The proposed TS revision involves no significant changes to the operation of any systems or components in normal or accident operating conditions and no changes to existing structures, systems, or components, with the exception of the SLC system enrichment change. The proposed change to increase the enrichment of sodium pentaborate used in the SLC system will ensure that the requirements of 10 CFR 50.62, “Requirements for reduction of risk from anticipated transients without scram
(ATWS)events for light-water-cooled nuclear power plants,” continue to be met. The SLC system is not an initiator to an accident; rather, the SLC system is used to mitigate an ATWS event. Therefore, these changes will not increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated. Generic considerations related to the change in setpoint tolerance were addressed in NEDC-3175310, “BWROG In-Service Pressure Relief Technical Specification Revision Licensing Topical Report,” and were reviewed and approved by the NRC in a safety evaluation dated March 8, 1993. General Electric Company
(GE)completed plant-specific analyses to assess the impact of the setpoint tolerance increase on Dresden Nuclear Power Station Units 2 and 3 and QCNPS [Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station] Units 1 and 2. The impact of the MSSV setpoint tolerance increase, as addressed in this analysis, included vessel overpressure, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Chapter 15 events, ATWS, Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA), containment response and loads, high pressure systems performance, Appendix R fire protection, vessel thermal cycle, operating mode and equipment out of service review, and extended power uprate evaluation review. The proposed change to 3% setpoint tolerance is supported by Westinghouse SVEA-96 Optimal fuel analysis of events that credit the MSSVs. The plant specific evaluations, required by the NRC's safety evaluation and performed to support this proposed change, show that there is no change to the design core thermal limits and adequate margin to the reactor vessel pressure limits using a ±3% lift setpoint tolerance. These analyses also show that operation of Emergency Core Cooling Systems is not affected, and the containment response following a LOCA is acceptable. The plant systems associated with these proposed changes are capable of meeting applicable design basis requirements and retain the capability to mitigate the consequences of accidents described in the UFSAR. The accident analyses that credit the initiation of SLC as a dose mitigation feature are not impacted by the proposed change because the chemical properties of the SLC boron solution are not affected. Therefore, these changes do not involve an increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change increases the allowable as-found lift setpoint tolerance for the QCNPS MSSVs, and increases the required enrichment of sodium pentaborate used in the SLC system. The proposed change to increase the enrichment of sodium pentaborate used in the SLC system will ensure that the requirements of 10 CFR 50.62 continue to be met. The proposed change to increase the MSSV tolerance was developed in accordance with the provisions contained in the NRC safety evaluation for NEDC-31753P. MSSVs installed in the plant following testing or refurbishment will continue to meet the current tolerance acceptance criteria of ± 1% of the nominal setpoint. The proposed change does not affect the manner in which the overpressure protection system is operated; therefore, there are no new failure mechanisms for the overpressure protection system. The proposed change to allow an increase in the MSSV setpoint tolerance does not alter the nominal MSSV lift setpoints or the number of MSSVs currently required to be operable by QCNPS TS. The proposed change does not involve physical changes to the valves, nor does it change the safety function of the valves. There is no alteration to the parameters within which the plant is normally operated. As a result, no new failure modes are being introduced. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The margin of safety is established through the design of the plant structures, systems, and components, the parameters within which the plant is operated, and the establishment of the setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to an event. The proposed change does not modify the safety limits or setpoints at which protective actions are initiated, and does not change the requirements governing operation or availability of safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of safety. Establishment of the ± 3% MSSV setpoint tolerance limit does not adversely impact the operation of any safety-related component or equipment. Evaluations performed in accordance with the NRC safety evaluation for NEDC-31753P have concluded that all design limits will continue to be met. The proposed change to increase the enrichment of sodium pentaborate used in the SLC system will ensure that the requirements of 10 CFR 50.62 continue to be met. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. Based upon the above, EGC [Exelon Generation Company] concludes that the proposed amendment presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92 (c), and, accordingly, a finding of no significant hazards consideration is justified. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Assistant General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. *NRC Branch Chief:* Michael L. Marshall, Jr. Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska *Date of amendment request:* December 20, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would remove annotations referencing Technical Data Book (TDB)-VIII, “Equipment Operability Guidance,” and annotations referencing Technical Specification Interpretations
(TSIs)from the NRC Authority File. These documents are used by Omaha Public Power District
(OPPD)personnel for additional guidance in applying certain Limiting Conditions for Operation requirements to specific equipment and/or situations. OPPD has annotated references to these documents in the Technical Specification
(TS)copies used at Fort Calhoun Station (FCS); however, the annotations are “pointers” to additional guidance and are not officially a part of the FCS TS. The proposed amendment also corrects an administrative discrepancy in TS 2.10.4(1)(c). *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 correction of administrative discrepancies in the Fort Calhoun Station
(FCS)Technical Specifications
(TS)is not an initiator of any previously evaluated accident. The proposed changes will not prevent safety systems from performing their accident mitigation function as assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore, this change does not involve an 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 changes only affect the Technical Specifications and do not involve a physical change to the plant. Modifications will not be made to existing components nor will any new or different types of equipment be installed. This change will not alter assumptions made in safety analysis and licensing bases. Therefore, this 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 correction of administrative discrepancies in the Technical Specifications has no impact on any safety analysis assumptions and thus this TS change does not involve a reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* James R. Curtiss, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817. *NRC Branch Chief:* David Terao. Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska *Date of amendment request:* December 20, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would delete the Technical Specification
(TS)requirements related to the hydrogen purge system in TS 2.6(3) and TS Table 3-5, Item 17. The proposed TS changes support implementation of the revisions to 10 CFR 50.44, “Standards for Combustible Gas Control System in Light-Water-Cooled Power Reactors,” that became effective on September 16, 2003. The changes are consistent with Revision 1 of NRC-approved Industry/Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-447, “Elimination of Hydrogen Recombiners and Change to Hydrogen and Oxygen Monitors.” The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity to comment in the **Federal Register** dated August 2, 2002 (67 FR 50374), on possible amendments for the elimination of requirements for hydrogen recombiners, and hydrogen and oxygen monitors from the TSs, 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 model for referencing in license amendment applications in the **Federal Register** on September 25, 2003 (68 FR 55416). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the NSHC in its application dated December 20, 2006. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated. The revised 10 CFR 50.44 no longer defines a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident
(LOCA)hydrogen release, and eliminates requirements for hydrogen control systems to mitigate such a release. The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that this hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after the onset of core damage. In addition, these systems were ineffective at mitigating hydrogen releases from risk-significant accident sequences that could threaten containment integrity. With the elimination of the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release, hydrogen [and oxygen] monitors are no longer required to mitigate design-basis accidents and, therefore, the hydrogen monitors do not meet the definition of a safety-related component as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. RG 1.97 Category 1, is intended for key variables that most directly indicate the accomplishment of a safety function for design-basis accident events. The hydrogen [and oxygen] monitors no longer meet the definition of Category 1 in RG 1.97. As part of the rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.44 the Commission found that Category 3, as defined in RG 1.97, is an appropriate categorization for the hydrogen monitors because the monitors are required to diagnose the course of beyond design-basis accidents. [Also, as part of the rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.44, the Commission found that Category 2, as defined in RG 1.97, is an appropriate categorization for the oxygen monitors, because the monitors are required to verify the status of the inert containment.] The regulatory requirements for the hydrogen [and oxygen] monitors can be relaxed without degrading the plant emergency response. The emergency response, in this sense, refers to the methodologies used in ascertaining the condition of the reactor core, mitigating the consequences of an accident, assessing and projecting offsite releases of radioactivity, and establishing protective action recommendations to be communicated to offsite authorities. Classification of the hydrogen monitors as Category 3, [classification of the oxygen monitors as Category 2] and removal of the hydrogen [and oxygen] monitors from TS will not prevent an accident management strategy through the use of the SAMGs, the emergency plan (EP), the emergency operating procedures (EOP), and site survey monitoring that support modification of emergency plan protective action recommendations (PARs). Therefore, the elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen [and oxygen] monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, does not involve a significant increase in the probability or the consequences of any 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 elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen [and oxygen] monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, will not result in any failure mode not previously analyzed. The hydrogen recombiner and hydrogen [and oxygen] monitor equipment was intended to mitigate a design-basis hydrogen release. The hydrogen recombiner and hydrogen [and oxygen] monitor equipment are not considered accident precursors, nor does their existence or elimination have any adverse impact on the pre-accident state of the reactor core or post accident confinement of radionuclides within the containment building. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety. The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen [and oxygen] monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, in light of existing plant equipment, instrumentation, procedures, and programs that provide effective mitigation of and recovery from reactor accidents, results in a neutral impact to the margin of safety. The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that this hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after the onset of core damage. Category 3 hydrogen monitors are adequate to provide rapid assessment of current reactor core conditions and the direction of degradation while effectively responding to the event in order to mitigate the consequences of the accident. The intent of the requirements established as a result of the TMI, Unit 2 accident can be adequately met without reliance on safety-related hydrogen monitors. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. [The intent of the requirements established as a result of the TMI, Unit 2 accident can be adequately met without reliance on safety-related oxygen monitors.] Removal of hydrogen [and oxygen] monitoring from TS will not result in a significant reduction in their functionality, reliability, and availability. Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not involve a significant hazards consideration. The NRC staff 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. 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.* *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 27, 2004, as supplemented by letters dated October 27, 2005, March 10, and October 6, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, accident source term used in the design-basis radiological consequence analyses. The amendments were in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.67, which addresses the use of an alternative source term
(AST)at operating reactors, and relevant guidance of Regulatory Guide
(RG)1.183. The amendments represent full-scope implementation of the AST described in RG 1.183. *Date of issuance:* December 29, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 2—210; Unit 3—202. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15:* The amendments revised the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: February 1, 2005 (70 FR 5248). The supplemental letters dated October 27, 2005, March 10, and October 6, 2006, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 29, 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:* March 10, 2006, as supplemented by submittal dated May 16, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments conform the Facility Operating Licenses NPF-10 and NPF-15 for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 (SONGS 2 and 3) to reflect their transfer from the City of Anaheim (Anaheim) to Southern California Edison (SCE). The license transfers, which were approved by the Order dated September 27, 2006, permitted the transfer of the 3.16-percent undivided ownership interest in the facilities held by Anaheim to SCE, excluding Anaheim's interest in its spent fuel and in the SONGS 2 and 3 independent spent fuel storage installation. SCE retains exclusive responsibility and control over the operation of SONGS 2 and 3. *Date of issuance:* December 29, 2006. *Effective date:* At the time the transfer is completed. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 2—209; Unit 3—201. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15:* The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: June 8, 2006 (71 FR 33321) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2006. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-259 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama *Date of application for amendment:* January 6, 2006 (TS-443), as supplemented by letter dated October 2, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* Activation of thermal-hydraulic stability monitoring instrumentation. The Oscillation Power Range Monitor System is designed to provide the licensee's solution regarding reactor stability. *Date of issuance:* December 29, 2006. *Effective date:* Date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 266. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-33:* Amendment revised the TSs. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: April 5, 2006 (71 FR 23962). The October 2, 2006, supplement, contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 29, 2006. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency Circumstances) During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing. For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a **Federal Register** notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used local media to provide notice to the public in the area surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the public comments. In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has been consulted by telephone whenever possible. Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved. The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see
(1)the application for amendment,
(2)the amendment to Facility Operating License, and
(3)the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1
(800)397-4209,
(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.* If there are problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1
(800)397-4209,
(301)415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:
(1)The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;
(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;
(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and
(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/ requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. 1 Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. 1 To the extent that the applications contain attachments and supporting documents that are not publicly available because they are asserted to contain safeguards or proprietary information, petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the applicant or applicant's counsel and discuss the need for a protective order. Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha designation within one of the following groups: 1. *Technical* —primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the applications. 2. *Environmental* —primarily concerns/issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the applications. 3. *Miscellaneous* —does not fall into one of the categories outlined above. As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a petitioner/requestor seeks to adopt the contention of another sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the petitioner/requestor who seeks to adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring petitioner/requestor shall act as the representative with respect to that contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring petitioner/requestor a representative who shall have the authority to act for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect. A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by:
(1)First-class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;
(2)courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;
(3)E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, *HearingDocket@nrc.gov;* or
(4)facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at
(301)415-1101, verification number is
(301)415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to
(301)415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov.* A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the licensee. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii). STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-498, South Texas Project, Unit 1, Matagorda County, Texas *Date of amendment request:* December 20, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated December 28, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The amendment, for a one-time change, revised Technical Specification
(TS)3.3.2 for the loss of power
(LOP)instrumentation (Functional Unit 8, “loss of power”) in TS Table 3.3-3, “Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation.” A note is added to TS Table 3.3-3, Action 20, which is the TS-required action for inoperable LOP instrumentation, to allow a one-time provision for corrective maintenance on an inoperable Unit 1 LOP instrumentation channel when the number of operable channels are more than one less than the total number of channels. This provision for corrective maintenance expires 30 days after the amendment is approved. *Date of issuance:* January 11, 2007. *Effective date:* Effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented by January 15, 2007. *Amendment No.:* 176. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-76:* The amendment revised the Technical Specifications and Facility Operating License. *Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC):* No. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated January 11, 2007. *Attorney for licensee:* A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. *NRC Branch Chief:* David Terao. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of January 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. John W. Lubinski, Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-1259 Filed 1-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release Number IC-27677; File No. 812-13321] Integrity Life Insurance Company, et al. January 24, 2007. AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”). ACTION: Notice of application for an order of approval pursuant to Section 26(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Act”). Applicants: Integrity Life Insurance Company (“Integrity”), Separate Account I of Integrity Life Insurance Company (“Integrity Separate Account I”), Separate Account II of Integrity Life Insurance Company (“Integrity Separate Account II”), National Integrity Life Insurance Company (“National Integrity”), Separate Account I of National Integrity Life Insurance Company (“National Integrity Separate Account I”), and Separate Account II of National Integrity Life Insurance Company (“National Integrity Separate Account II,” together with Integrity Separate Account I, Integrity Separate Account II, and National Integrity Separate Account I, the “Separate Accounts”). SUMMARY: Applicants seek an order approving the proposed substitution of shares of DWS Equity 500 Index VIP Fund: Class A with Fidelity VIP Index 500: Initial Class; DWS Equity 500 Index VIP Fund: Class B with Fidelity VIP Index 500: Service Class 2; JPMorgan Bond Portfolio with Fidelity VIP Investment Grade Bond: Initial Class; JPMorgan International Equity Portfolio with Fidelity VIP Overseas: Initial Class; MFS VIT Capital Opportunities Series: Service Class with Franklin VIP Growth and Income Securities Fund: Class 2; MFS VIT Emerging Growth Series: Service Class with Touchstone VST Eagle Capital Appreciation Fund; MFS VIT Investors Growth Stock Series: Service Class with Touchstone VST Eagle Capital Appreciation Fund; MFS VIT Mid Cap Growth Series: Service Class with Touchstone VST Mid Cap Growth Fund; MFS VIT New Discovery Series: Service Class with Fidelity VIP Disciplined Small Cap: Service Class 2; MFS VIT Total Return Series: Service Class with Franklin VIP Growth and Income Securities Fund: Class 2; Putnam VT Discovery Growth: Class IB with Fidelity VIP Mid Cap: Service Class 2; Putnam VT George Putnam Fund of Boston: Class IB with Fidelity VIP Balanced: Service Class 2; Putnam VT Growth and Income Fund: Class IB with Franklin VIP Growth and Income Securities Fund: Class 2; Putnam VT International Equity Fund: Class IB with Fidelity VIP Overseas: Service Class 2; Putnam VT Small Cap Value Fund: Class IB with Touchstone VST Third Avenue Value Fund; Putnam VT Voyager Fund: Class IB with Fidelity VIP Growth: Service Class 2. Filing Date: The application was filed on August 4, 2006, and an amended and restated application was filed on January 23, 2007. Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the Commission and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests must be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on February 16, 2007, and should be accompanied by proof of service on Applicants in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the requester's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Applicants, c/o Rhonda S. Malone, Esq., Associate Counsel—Securities, Western and Southern Financial Group, 400 Broadway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison T. White, Senior Counsel, or Joyce M. Pickholz, Branch Chief, Office of Insurance Products, Division of Investment Management, at
(202)551-6795. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the amended and restated application. The complete application is available for a fee from the Public Reference Branch of the Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549 (202-551-8090). Applicants' Representations 1. Integrity is a stock life insurance company organized under the laws of Ohio. Integrity is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Western and Southern Life Insurance Company. The Western and Southern Life Insurance Company is wholly owned by Western and Southern Financial Group, Inc., which is wholly owned by Western and Southern Mutual Holding Company. 2. Integrity Separate Account I and Integrity Separate Account II are registered under the Act as unit investment trusts (File Nos. 811-04844 and 811-07134, respectively). They are used to fund variable annuity contracts of Integrity. 3. National Integrity is a stock life insurance company organized under the laws of New York. National Integrity is a direct subsidiary of Integrity and an indirect subsidiary of The Western and Southern Life Insurance Company. 4. National Integrity Separate Account I and National Integrity Separate Account II are registered under the Act as unit investment trusts (File Nos. 811-04846 and 811-07132, respectively). They are used to fund variable annuity contracts of National Integrity. 5. The fifteen variable annuity Contracts affected by this application are flexible premium deferred variable annuities and hereinafter are collectively referred to as the “Contracts.” 6. Each Contract permits allocations of value to certain fixed subaccounts and variable subaccounts that invest in specific investment portfolios of underlying mutual funds. The Contracts currently offer between 12 and 54 portfolios. All of the Contracts currently being sold offer the same portfolios and same series of the Putnam Variable Trust Funds (“Putnam”), MFS Variable Insurance Trust (“MFS”), DWS Investments VIP Funds (“DWS”), and J.P. Morgan Series Trust II (“JP Morgan”) that are the subject of this Substitution. One contract that is no longer sold currently offers 12 portfolios including only one of the replaced portfolios, and will continue to offer 12 portfolios after the substitution. 7. Each Contract permits transfers from one subaccount to another subaccount at any time prior to annuitization, subject to certain restrictions and charges described below. No sales charge applies to such a transfer of value among subaccounts. The Contracts permit up to twelve free transfers during any contract year. A fee of $20 is imposed on transfers in excess of twelve transfers in a contract year. 8. Each Contract reserves the right, upon notice to Contract owners and compliance with applicable law, to add, combine or remove subaccounts, or to withdraw assets from one subaccount and put them into another subaccount. 9. The Applicants propose the Substitution of 16 separate portfolios, representing all the currently available portfolios, except one, of four unaffiliated companies: Putnam, MFS, DWS, and JP Morgan (the “Replaced Portfolios”). As replacements, the Applicants propose 12 portfolios: eight from Fidelity VIP Funds (“Fidelity”), one from Franklin Templeton Variable Insurance Product Trust (“Franklin”), and three from Touchstone VST Funds (the “Replacement Portfolios”). Each of these fund companies currently offers portfolios in the Contracts, and 11 of the 12 proposed replacement portfolios are currently or were previously available in the Contracts. 10. The investment objective, strategies and risks of each Replacement Portfolio are the same as, or substantially similar to, the investment objective, strategies and risks of the corresponding Replaced Portfolio. For each Replaced Portfolio and each Replacement Portfolio, the investment objective, strategies, and risks, along with the Morningstar Style Category, are shown in the tables that follow: Replaced Portfolio Replacement Portfolio (Unless otherwise indicated, the Replacement Portfolios are not affiliated with the Integrity Companies.) Replacements 1 and 2 Name DWS Equity 500 Index Fidelity Index 500. Investment Objective Match the performance of the S&P 500 Index, which emphasizes stocks of large U.S. companies Results that correspond to the total return of common stocks in the US, as represented by the S&P 500. Strategy Invests in stocks and other securities of a statistically selected sample of the companies included in the benchmark and derivative instruments that are representative of the S&P 500 Index as a whole, using a process called optimization Invests at least 80% of assets in common stocks included in the S&P 500 using statistical sampling techniques; lends securities to earn income for the fund. Principal Risks • Market Risk • Stock Market Volatility. • Tracking Error Risk • Issuer-Specific Changes • Index Fund Risk • Futures and Options Risk • Pricing Risk • Securities Lending Risk Morningstar Category Large Cap Blend Large Cap Blend. Replacement 3 Name JPMorgan Bond Fidelity Investment Grade Bond. Investment Objective Provide a high total return consistent with moderate risk of capital and maintenance of liquidity Provide a high level of current income consistent with the preservation of capital. Strategy Invests at least 80% of its assets in debt investments, including U.S. government and agency securities, corporate bonds, private placements, asset backed and mortgage backed securities it believes have the potential to provide a high total return over time Invests at least 80% of assets in investment-grade debt securities of all types and repurchase agreements for those securities; allocates assets across different market sectors and maturities, and analyzes a security's structural features and current pricing, trading opportunities, and the credit quality of the issuer; may invest up to 10% in lower-quality debt securities. Principal Risks • Interest Rate Risk • Interest Rate Risk. • Junk Bond Risk • Foreign Exposure. • Foreign Exposure • Prepayment Risk. • Prepayment Risk • Issuer-Specific Changes. • Issuer-Specific Change • Short Sales Risk • Futures and Options Risk Morningstar Category Intermediate Term Bond Intermediate Term Bond. Replacement 4 Name JPMorgan International Equity Fidelity Overseas. Investment Objective Provide a high total return of capital growth and current income Provide long-term growth of capital. Strategy Invests at least 80% of its assets in equity investments of primarily foreign companies of various sizes, including foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies Invests at least 80% of assets in non-U.S. common stocks; allocates investments across countries and regions considering the size of the market in each country and region relative to the size of the international market as a whole, using fundamental analysis of each issuer, its industry position, and market and economic conditions. Principal Risks • Market Risk • Market Risk. • Foreign Exposure • Foreign Exposure. • Futures and Options Risk • Issuer-Specific Changes. • Emerging Market Risk • Small Company Risk • Prepayment Risk • Interest Rate Risk Morningstar Category Foreign Large Cap Blend Foreign Large Cap Blend. Replacement 5 Name MFS Capital Opportunities Franklin Growth and Income Securities. Investment Objective Capital appreciation Capital appreciation with current income as a secondary goal. Strategy Invests at least 65% of its net assets in common stocks and related securities; focuses on companies it believes have favorable growth prospects and attractive valuations based on current and expected earnings or cash flow, using fundamental research and a “bottom-up” investment style Invests predominantly in a broadly diversified portfolio of equity securities that the advisor considers to be financially strong but undervalued by the market. Principal Risks • Market Risk • Market Risk. • Company Risk • Undervalued Securities Risk. • Over-the-Counter Risk • Interest Rate Risk. • Foreign Securities Risk • Sector Risk. • Emerging Market Risk • Foreign Securities Risk. • Emerging Market Risk. Morningstar Category Large Cap Blend Large Cap Value. Replacement 6 Name MFS Emerging Growth Touchstone Eagle Capital Appreciation (affiliated with the Integrity Companies). Investment Objective Long-term growth of capital Long-term capital appreciation. Strategy Invests at least 65% of its net assets in common stocks and related securities of emerging growth companies it believes are either
(1)early in their life cycle but which have the potential to become major enterprises, or
(2)major enterprises whose rates of earnings growth are expected to accelerate because of special factors, such as rejuvenated management, new products, changes in consumer demand, or basic changes in the economic environment; emerging growth companies may be of any size Invests in a diversified portfolio of common stocks in large cap companies, selected from the largest 500 stocks by market cap size, screened using fundamental research to develop five-year earnings estimates for each company based on historical data, current comparables and a thorough understanding of each company and the relevant industry drivers; assigned either a premium or discount multiple; then ranked using a proprietary valuation model which ranks each stock based on the five year expected rates of return. Principal Risks • Market Risk • Market Risk. • Over-the-Counter Risk • Large-cap Company Risk. • Foreign Securities Risk • Analysis Risk. • Emerging Markets Risk • Sector Risk. • Emerging Growth Risk • Growth Company Risk. • Frequent Trading Risk • Management Risk. Morningstar Category Large Cap Growth Large Cap Growth. Replacement 7 Name MFS Investors Growth Stock Touchstone Eagle Capital Appreciation (affiliated with the Integrity Companies). Investment Objective Provide long-term growth of capital and future income rather than current income Long-term capital appreciation. Strategy Invests at least 80% of its net assets in common stocks and related securities of companies it believes offer better than average prospects for long-term growth Invests in a diversified portfolio of common stocks in large cap companies, selected from the largest 500 stocks by market cap size, screened using fundamental research to develop five-year earnings estimates for each company based on historical data, current comparables and a thorough understanding of each company and the relevant industry drivers; assigned either a premium or discount multiple; then ranked using a proprietary valuation model which ranks each stock based on the five year expected rates of return. Principal Risks • Market Risk • Market Risk. • Growth Company Risk • Growth Company Risk. • Foreign Securities Risk • Large-cap Company Risk. • Frequent Trading Risk • Sector Risk. • Management Risk. Morningstar Category Large Cap Growth Large Cap Growth. Replacement 8 Name MFS Mid Cap Growth Touchstone Mid Cap Growth (affiliated with the Integrity Companies). Investment Objective Long-term growth of capital Increase the value of fund shares as a primary goal and earn income as a secondary goal. Strategy Invests at least 80% of its net total assets in common stocks and related securities of companies with medium market capitalization that it believes have above-average growth potential Invests at least 80% of assets in common stocks of mid cap companies including companies that have earnings that the portfolio manager believes may grow faster than the U.S. economy in general or companies that are believed to be undervalued, including those with unrecognized asset values, undervalued growth or those undergoing turnaround. Principal Risks • Mid Cap Growth Company Risk • Market Risk. • Over-the-Counter Risk • Mid Cap Company Risk. • Foreign Securities Risk • Sector Risk. • Emerging Markets Risk • Management Risk. • Short Sales Risk Morningstar Category Mid Cap Growth Mid Cap Growth. Replacement 9 Name MFS New Discovery Fidelity Disciplined Small Cap. Investment Objective Capital appreciation Capital appreciation. Strategy Invests at least 65% of assets in common stocks and related securities of emerging growth companies it believes offer superior prospects for growth and are either
(1)early in their life cycle but which have the potential to become major enterprises, or
(2)enterprises whose rates of earnings growth are expected to accelerate because of special factors; the Portfolio will generally focus on smaller cap companies within the range of market capitalizations in the Russell 2000 Growth Index Invests at least 80% of assets in securities of Companies with small market capitalizations similar to companies in the Russell 2000 Index; invest in domestic and foreign issuers, in either growth or value stocks; uses computer aided quantitative analysis of historical valuation, growth, profitability and other factors. Principal Risks • Market Risk • Stock Market Volatility. • Company Risk • Foreign Exposure. • Over-the-Counter Risk • Issuer-Specific Changes. • Foreign Securities Risk • Quantitative Investing. • Short Sales Risk • Small Cap Investing. • Emerging Growth Companies • Small Cap Companies Risk Morningstar Category Small Cap Growth Small Cap Growth. Replacement 10 Name MFS Total Return Franklin Growth and Income Securities. Investment Objective Provide above-average income (compared to a portfolio invested entirely in equity securities) consistent with the prudent employment of capital, and secondarily to provide a reasonable opportunity for growth of capital and income Capital appreciation with current income as a secondary goal. Strategy Invests in a combination of equity and fixed income securities
(1)at least 40%, but not more than 75%, of its net assets in common stocks and related securities and
(2)at least 25% of its net assets in non-convertible fixed income securities Invests predominantly in a broadly diversified portfolio of equity securities that the advisor considers to be financially strong but undervalued by the market. Principal Risks • Allocation Risk • Market Risk. • Undervalued Securities Risk • Undervalued Securities Risk. • Market Risk • Interest Rate Risk. • Foreign Securities Risk • Sector Risk. • Interest Rate Risk • Foreign Securities Risk. • Convertible Securities Risk • Emerging Market Risk. • Maturity Risk • Credit Risk • Junk Bond Risk • Liquidity Risk • Prepayment Risk Morningstar Category Moderate Allocation Large Cap Value. Replacement 11 Name Putnam Discovery Growth Fidelity Mid Cap. Investment Objective Long-term growth of capital Long-term growth of capital. Strategy Invests mainly in common stocks of U.S. companies with a focus on growth stocks Invests at least 80% of assets in securities of U.S. and foreign companies with medium market caps. Principal Risks • Market Risk • Stock Market Volatility Risk. • Small Cap Company Risk • Foreign Exposure. • Mid Cap Company Risk • Mid Cap Company Risk. Morningstar Category Mid Cap Growth Mid Cap Growth. Replacement 12 Name Putnam The George Putnam Fund of Boston Fidelity Balanced. Investment Objective Provide a balanced investment composed of a well-diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds that produce both capital growth and current income Income and capital growth consistent with reasonable risk. Strategy Invests in a combination of bonds and U.S. value stocks, with a greater focus on value stocks; at least 25% of the Fund's total assets in fixed-income securities, including debt securities, preferred stocks and that portion of the value of convertible securities attributable to the fixed-income characteristics of those securities Invests approximately 60% of assets in common stocks of domestic and foreign issuers and at least 25% of assets in fixed income senior securities. Principal Risks • Stock Market Volatility Risk • Stock Market Volatility Risk. • Interest Rate Risk • Interest Rate Risk. • Credit Risk • Foreign Exposure. • Junk Bond Risk • Prepayment Risk. • Allocation Risk • Issuer-Specific Changes. • Futures and Options Risk Morningstar Category Moderate Allocation Moderate Allocation. Replacement 13 Name Putnam Growth and Income Franklin Growth and Income Securities. Investment Objective Seeks capital growth and current income Capital appreciation with current income as a secondary goal. Strategy Invests mainly in common stocks of U.S. companies, with a focus on value stocks that offer potential for capital growth, current income, or both Invests predominantly in a broadly diversified portfolio of equity securities that the advisor considers to be financially strong but undervalued by the market. Principal Risks • Market Risk • Market Risk. • Company Risk • Undervalued Securities Risk. • Interest Rate Risk. • Sector Risk. • Foreign Securities Risk. • Emerging Market Risk. Morningstar Category Large Cap Value Large Cap Value. Replacement 14 Name Putnam International Equity Fidelity Overseas. Investment Objective Capital appreciation Provide long-term growth of capital. Strategy Invests in common stocks of companies outside the United States that it believes have favorable investment potential; at least 80% of assets in equity investments Invests at least 80% of its assets in non-U.S. common stocks; allocates investments across countries and regions considering the size of the market in each country and region relative to the size of the international market as a whole, using fundamental analysis of each issuer, its industry position, and market and economic conditions. Principal Risks • Foreign Exposure • Market Risk. • Market Risk • Foreign Exposure. • Company Risk • Issuer-Specific Changes. Morningstar Category Foreign Large Cap Blend Foreign Large Cap Blend. Replacement 15 Name Putnam Small Cap Value Touchstone Third Avenue Value (affiliated with the Integrity Companies). Investment Objective Capital appreciation Long-term capital appreciation. Strategy Invests in common stocks of U.S. companies, with a focus on stocks it believes are currently undervalued by the market; at least 80% of its net assets in small companies of a size similar to those in the Russell 2000 Value Index Non-diversified Fund that seeks to achieve its objective mainly by investing in common stocks of well-financed companies (companies without significant debt in comparison to their cash resources) at a discount to what it believes is their liquid value. Principal Risks • Market Risk • Market Risk. • Company Risk • Company Risk. • Small Cap Companies Risk • Small Cap Companies Risk. • Foreign Exposure. • Valuation Risk. • Sector Risk. • Diversification Risk. Morningstar Category Small Cap Value Small Cap Blend. Replacement 16 Name Putnam Voyager Fidelity Growth. Investment Objective Capital appreciation Capital appreciation. Strategy Invests mainly in common stocks of U.S. companies, with a focus on growth stocks Invests in domestic and foreign common stock it believes have above average growth potential, using fundamental analysis. Principal Risks • Market Risk • Stock Market Volatility. • Company Risk • Foreign Exposure. • Issuer-specific Changes. • Growth Investing. Morningstar Category Large Cap Growth Large Cap Growth. 11. Applicants assert that the proposed Substitutions will streamline the Contracts, creating efficiencies and reducing costs. The current portfolio structure requires the Integrity Companies to interface with eight fund companies. Reducing the number of its fund partners from eight to five will reduce the burden on the Integrity Companies' administrative, accounting, auditing, compliance, and marketing areas and systems. In addition, Applicants maintaining the legal and administrative relationships with eight fund companies has become increasingly burdensome in light of recently enhanced compliance requirements. Focusing compliance and administrative efforts on a smaller number of fund partners is intended to reduce risk and improve controls and oversight. 12. Applicants state that the proposed Substitutions are expected to provide significant benefits to the Contract owners, including improved selection of superior portfolios and simplification of fund offerings through the elimination of overlapping and duplicative portfolios in certain asset classes, particularly large cap growth. At the same time, Contract owners will continue to be able to select among 41 funds with a full range of investment objectives, investment strategies and risks. 13. Applicants represent that every Replacement Portfolio has an equal or lower expense ratio than the corresponding Replaced Portfolio, taking into account current fund expenses and fee waivers. Service fees charged by the Replacement Portfolios pursuant to a 12b-1 plan are equal to or less than those charged by the Replaced Portfolio, and the management fees are substantially similar between the Replaced and Replacement Portfolios. Detailed expense information is set forth in the chart below. By maintaining expenses at an equal or lower level, the Integrity Companies are offering their Contract owners and prospective investors a selection of better-managed funds at the same or reduced cost. Expenses Name Management fee (percent) 12b-1 fee (percent) Total expense (percent) Waivers and reimbursements (percent) Net expense (percent) Replaced Portfolio DWS Equity 500 Index, Class A 0.19 0.00 0.34 0.06 0.28 Replacement Portfolio Fidelity VIP Index 500, Initial Class 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.10 Replaced Portfolio DWS Equity 500 Index, Class B 0.19 0.25 0.72 0.19 0.53 Replacement Portfolio Fidelity VIP Index 500, Service Class 2 0.10 0.25 0.35 0.35 Replaced Portfolio JPMorgan Bond 0.30 0.00 0.75 0.75 Replacement Portfolio Fidelity VIP Invstmt Grade Bond, Initial Cl 0.36 0.00 0.49 0.49 Replaced Portfolio JPMorgan International Equity 0.60 0.00 1.20 1.20 Replacement Portfolio Fidelity VIP Overseas, Initial Class 0.72 0.00 0.89 0.89 Replaced Portfolio MFS Total Return, Service Class 0.75 0.25 1.09 1.09 Replacement Portfolio Franklin Growth and Income Securities, Cl 2 0.48 0.25 0.76 0.76 Replaced Portfolio MFS Capital Opportunity, Service Class 0.75 0.25 1.23 0.08 1.15 Replacement Portfolio Franklin Growth and Income Securities, Cl 2 0.48 0.25 0.76 0.76 Replaced Portfolio MFS Emerging Growth, Service Class 0.75 0.25 1.13 1.13 Replacement Portfolio Touchstone Eagle Cap Appreciation 0.75 0.00 1.22 0.17 1.05 Replaced Portfolio MFS Investors Growth Stock, Serv Class 0.75 0.25 1.15 1.15 Replacement Portfolio Touchstone Eagle Cap Appreciation 0.75 0.00 1.22 0.17 1.05 Replaced Portfolio MFS Mid Cap Growth, Service Class 0.75 0.25 1.17 1.17 Replacement Portfolio Touchstone Mid Cap Growth 22 0.80 0.00 1.33 0.17 1.15 Replaced Portfolio MFS New Discovery, Service Class 0.90 0.25 1.31 1.31 Replacement Portfolio Fidelity Disciplined Small Cap, Serv Cl 2 0.72 0.25 1.51 0.26 1.25 Replaced Portfolio Putnam Discovery Growth, Class IB 0.70 0.25 1.42 0.29 1.13 Replacement Portfolio Fidelity VIP Mid Cap, Service Class 2 0.57 0.25 0.94 0.05 0.89 Replaced Portfolio Putnam Geo Putnam Boston, Class IB 0.62 0.25 0.97 0.97 Replacement Portfolio Fidelity VIP Balanced, Service Class 2 0.42 0.25 0.83 0.03 0.80 Replaced Portfolio Putnam Growth & Income, Class IB 0.49 0.25 0.79 0.79 Replacement Portfolio Franklin Growth and Income Securities, Cl 2 0.48 0.25 0.76 0.76 Replaced Portfolio Putnam International Equity, Class IB 0.75 0.25 1.18 1.18 Replacement Portfolio Fidelity VIP Overseas, Service Class 2 0.72 0.25 1.14 0.07 1.07 Replaced Portfolio Putnam Small Cap Value, Class IB 0.76 0.25 1.09 1.09 Replacement Portfolio Touchstone Third Avenue Value 0.80 0.00 1.16 0.11 1.05 Replaced Portfolio Putnam Voyager, Class IB 0.57 0.25 0.88 0.88 Replacement Portfolio Fidelity Growth, Service Class 2 0.57 0.25 0.92 0.04 0.88 14. Applicants submit that each of the Replacement Portfolios has demonstrated better performance than the Replaced Portfolios during the overwhelming majority of the periods measured. Detailed performance information is set forth in the Application. Applicants Legal Analysis and Conditions 1. The Substitution will take place at the portfolios' relative net asset values determined on the date of the Substitution in accordance with Section 22 of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder with no change in the amount of any Contract owner's cash value or death benefit or in the dollar value of his or her investment in any of the subaccounts. Accordingly, there will be no financial impact on any Contract owner. The Substitution will be effected by having each of the subaccounts that invests in the Replaced Portfolios redeem its shares at the net asset value calculated on the date of the Substitution and purchase shares of the respective Replacement Portfolios at the net asset value calculated on the same date. 2. The Substitution will be described in a supplement to the prospectuses for the Contracts (“Sticker”) filed with the Commission and mailed to Contract owners. The Sticker will give Contract owners notice of the Substitution and will describe the reasons for engaging in the Substitution. The Sticker will also inform contract owners with assets allocated to a subaccount investing in the Replaced Portfolios that no additional amount may be allocated to those subaccounts on or after the date of the Substitution. In addition, the Stickers will inform affected Contract owners that at anytime after receipt of the notification of the Substitution and for 30 days after the Substitution, they will have the opportunity to reallocate assets from the subaccounts investing in the Replacement Portfolios to subaccounts investing in other portfolios available under the respective Contracts, without the imposition of any transfer charge or limitation and without diminishing the number of free transfers that may be made in a given contract year. 3. The prospectuses for the Contracts, as supplemented by the Sticker, will reflect the Substitution. Each Contract owner will be provided with a prospectus for the Replacement Portfolios applicable to them. Within five days after the Substitution, the Integrity Companies will each send affected Contract owners written confirmation that the Substitution has occurred. 4. The Integrity Companies will pay all expenses and transaction costs of the Substitution, including all legal, accounting and brokerage expenses relating to the Substitution. No costs will be borne by Contract owners. Affected Contract owners will not incur any fees or charges as a result of the Substitution, nor will their rights or the obligations of the Integrity Companies under the Contracts be altered in any way. The Substitution will not cause the fees and charges under the Contracts currently being paid by Contract owners to be greater after the Substitution than before the Substitution. The Substitution will have no adverse tax consequences to Contract owners and will in no way alter the tax benefits to contract owners. 5. Each Contract and its prospectus expressly discloses the reservation of the Applicants' right, subject to applicable law, to substitute shares of another portfolio for shares of the portfolio in which a subaccount is invested. 6. In all cases the investment objectives and policies of the Replacement Portfolios are sufficiently similar to those of the corresponding Replaced Portfolios that contract owners will have reasonable continuity in investment expectations. 7. The Substitution will not result in the type of costly forced redemption that Section 26(c) was intended to guard against because the Contract owner will continue to have the same type of investment choices, with better potential returns and the same or lower expenses and will not otherwise have any incentive to redeem their shares or terminate their Contracts. 8. The purposes, terms and conditions of the proposed Substitution are consistent with the protection of investors, and the principles and purposes of Section 26(c), and do not entail any of the abuses that Section 26(c) is designed to prevent. 9. Current net annual expenses in the Replacement Portfolios are lower or equal to those of the Replaced Portfolios. 10. Each of the Replacement Portfolios is an appropriate portfolio to which to move Contract owners with values allocated to the Replaced Portfolios because the portfolios have substantially similar investment objectives, strategies and risks. 11. The costs of the Substitution, including any brokerage costs, will be borne by the Integrity Companies and will not be borne by Contract owners. No charges will be assessed to effect the Substitution. 12. The Substitution will be at the net asset values of the respective shares without the imposition of any transfer or similar charge and with no change in the amount of any Contract owner's accumulation value. 13. The Substitution will not cause the fees and charges under the Contracts currently being paid by contract owners to be greater after the Substitution than before the Substitution and will result in Contract owners' contract values being moved to Portfolios with the same or lower current total net annual expenses. 14. In connection with assets held under Contracts affected by the Substitutions, the Integrity Companies will not receive, for three years from the date of the Substitutions, any direct or indirect benefits from the Replacement Portfolios, their advisors or underwriters (or their affiliates) at a rate higher than that which they had received from the Replaced Portfolios, their advisors or underwriters (or their affiliates), including without limitation 12b-1, shareholder service, administration or other service fees, revenue sharing or other arrangements in connection with such assets. Applicants represent that the Substitutions and the selection of the Replacement Portfolios were not motivated by any financial consideration paid or to be paid by the Replacement Portfolios, their advisors or underwriters, or their respective affiliates. 15. For the two year period following the date of the Substitutions, the Applicants agree that if, on the last day of each fiscal quarter during the 2 year period, the total operating expenses of an unaffiliated Replacement Fund (taking into account any expense waiver or reimbursement) exceed on an annualized basis the net expense level of the corresponding Replaced Fund for the 2005 fiscal year, it will, for each Contract outstanding on the date of the Substitutions, make a corresponding reimbursement of expenses to the Contract Owners as of the last day of such fiscal quarter period, such that the amount of the Replacement Fund's net expenses, together with those of the corresponding Separate Account, on an annualized basis, will be no greater than the sum of the net expenses of the corresponding Replaced Fund and the expenses of the Separate Account for the 2005 fiscal year. 16. For a two year period following the date of the Substitution, the Applicants agree that the total operating expenses of each affiliated Replacement Portfolio (taking into account any expense waiver or reimbursement) will not exceed on an annualized basis the net expense level of the corresponding Replaced Fund for the 2005 fiscal year. 17. Applicants further agree that Separate Account charges on the Contracts affected by this Substitution will not be increased at any time during the 2 year period following the date of the Substitution, while the caps discussed in paragraphs 15 and 16 are in effect on the Replacement Portfolios. 18. Notice of the proposed substitution was mailed to all Contract owners on October 30, 2006. In addition, all Contract owners will be given another notice of the Substitution after it is approved by the Commission. This notice will be sent at least 30 days prior to the Substitution. All Contract owners will have an opportunity at any time after receipt of this notification of the Substitution and for 30 days after the Substitution to reallocate accumulation value among other available subaccounts without the imposition of any transfer charge or limitation and without being counted as one of the Contract owner's free transfers in a contract year. 19. Within five days after the Substitution, the Integrity Companies will send to affected Contract owners written confirmation that the Substitution has occurred. 20. The Substitution will in no way alter the insurance benefits to Contract owners or the contractual obligations of the Integrity Companies. 21. The Substitution will have no adverse tax consequences to contract owners and will in no way alter the tax benefits to Contract owners. Conclusion For the reasons and upon the facts set forth above, Applicants submit that the requested order meets the standards set forth in Section 26(c). Applicants request an order of the Commission, pursuant to Section 26(c) of the Act, approving the Substitutions. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-1408 Filed 1-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55157; File No. SR-NSCC-2006-12] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Order Granting Approval to Proposed Rule Change Relating to Buy-Ins of Municipal Securities January 23, 2007. I. Introduction On October 16, 2006, the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to modify NSCC's rules concerning buy-ins of municipal securities. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on December 14, 2006. 3 No comment letters were received on the proposal. This order approves the proposal. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54900 (Dec. 8, 2006), 71 FR 75286. II. Description of the Proposal The purpose of this filing is to amend NSCC's rules to streamline the processing of continuous net settlement (“CNS”) buy-ins of municipal securities. At the request of members and after consultation with the Buy-In Subcommittee of the Securities Industry Association, NSCC is modifying Rule 11 (CNS System), Procedure VII (CNS Accounting Operation), and Procedure X (Execution of CNS Buy-Ins) with respect to CNS buy-ins of municipal securities as set forth below. Executions of buy-ins of municipal securities are governed by the rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) and have a ten-day cycle from notification of intent to buy-in to buy-in execution. In contrast, buy-ins for equity and corporate bond securities have a two-day cycle. Under NSCC's rules (except with respect to securities subject to voluntary corporate reorganizations), an NSCC member that has a long CNS position at the end of any day (“originator”) may submit to NSCC a Notice of Intention to Buy-In (“Buy-In Notice”) specifying a quantity of securities not exceeding such long CNS position that it intends to buy-in (“Buy-In Position”). The day the Buy-In Notice is submitted is referred to as N and the succeeding days are referred to as N+1 and N+2. The Buy-In Position is given high priority for CNS allocations until expiration of the buy-in. While increased priority is provided to facilitate the allocation of the Buy-In Position in CNS, municipal securities are usually thinly traded and the increased allocation priority has not been generally effective in accelerating the delivery process. Accordingly, when a municipal security Buy-In Position is not satisfied by a CNS allocation, the long member must have its Buy-In Position exited from CNS in order to be able to proceed under MSRB rules, which entails issuing a new buy-in notice and then waiting an additional ten days before executing the buy-in. As a result, a member typically will request that NSCC exit the municipal security Buy-In Position from CNS, and NSCC will exit the municipal security from CNS, which results in receive and deliver obligations for the affected parties two days later. To assist members in their timely processing of buy-ins of municipal securities, NSCC is modifying its rules and procedures to automatically exit from CNS unsatisfied municipal security Buy-In Positions. Under the new procedures, CNS will automatically exit such positions prior to the night cycle on N+1. This will create a broker-to-broker close-out receive and deliver obligation between the member with the long CNS position and the member(s) with the oldest short CNS position(s). Thus, the Buy-In Position will be automatically exited from CNS one day earlier than is currently the case and the buy-in process under MSRB rules can likewise commence one day earlier. III. Discussion The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. In particular, the Commission believes the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F), 4 which among other things, requires the rules of a clearing agency to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. By automating and accelerating the exiting of unsatisfied municipal securities Buy-In Positions, the new rule should expedite and make more efficient the processing of municipal securities buy-ins. As a result, the new rule should promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of such securities transactions. 4 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F). IV. Conclusion On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act 5 and the rules and regulations thereunder. 5 15 U.S.C. 78q-1. It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 6 that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NSCC-2006-12) be, and hereby is, approved. 7 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 7 In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-1381 Filed 1-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 10793] California Disaster # CA-00044 Declaration of Economic Injury AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan
(EIDL)declaration for the State of California , dated 01/24/2007. *Incident:* Freeze. *Incident Period:* 01/11/2007 and continuing. *Effective Date:* 01/24/2007. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 10/24/2007. 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 EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties* Alameda, Fresno, Glenn, Imperial, Kern, Kings, Lake, Los Angeles, Madera, Mendocino, Merced, Monterey, Riverside, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Tulare, Ventura. *Contiguous Counties* California: Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Humboldt, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, Napa, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne, Yolo. Arizona: La Paz, Mohave, Yuma. Nevada: Clark. *The Interest Rate is:* 4.000. *The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is:* 107930. *The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are:* California, Arizona, Nevada. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002) Dated: January 24, 2007. Steven C. Preston, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-1442 Filed 1-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board; Public Meeting The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board will hold a public meeting via conference call on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 1 p.m. (EST). The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the upcoming SBA board meeting; the Association of Small Business Development Centers (ASBDC) Board meeting; and the detailed agenda of SBA presentations. Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must contact Erika Fischer, Senior Program Analyst, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Small Business Development Centers, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, telephone
(202)205-7045 or fax
(202)481-0681. Matthew Teague, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-1383 Filed 1-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration [Docket No. FHWA-2007-27038] Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for New Information Collection AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for approval of a new information collection. We published a **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day public comment period on this information collection on November 21, 2006. We are required to publish this notice in the **Federal Register** by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Please submit comments by March 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments within 30 days to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer. You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including:
(1)Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden;
(3)ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and
(4)ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. All comments should include the Docket number FHWA-2007-27038. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Koontz, 202-366-2076, or Robert Kafalenos, 202-366-2079, Office of Natural and Human Environment, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Annual Reporting for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
(CMAQ)Program. *Background:* Section 1808 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users of 2005 (SAFETEA-LU) calls for an identification and analysis of a representative sample of CMAQ projects and the development and population of a database that describes the impacts of the program both on traffic congestion levels and air quality. To establish and maintain this database, the FHWA is requesting States to submit annual reports on their CMAQ investments that cover projected air quality benefits, financial information, a brief description of projects, and several other factors outlined in the Interim Program Guidance for the CMAQ program. States are requested to provide the end of year summary reports via the automated system provided through FHWA by the first day of February of each year, covering the prior Federal fiscal year. *Respondents:* 51; each State DOT and Washington, DC. *Estimated Average Burden Per Response:* The estimated average reporting burden is 6 hours per annual report. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* The estimated total annual burden for all respondents is 306 hours. *Electronic Access:* Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL): *http://dms.dot.gov,* 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and help. Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48. Issued on: January 23, 2007. James R. Kabel, Chief, Management Programs and, Analysis Division. [FR Doc. E7-1386 Filed 1-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2006-24843] Notice of Request for Clearance of a New Information Collection: Commercial Driver's License Program Improvements and Commercial Driver's License Information System Modernization AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: This action informs the public that FMCSA intends to request that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)approve a new information collection required by the Commercial Driver's License Program Improvements (CDLPI) and the Commercial Driver's License Information System Modernization grant programs. That information consists of grant application preparation and quarterly reports. The CDLPI grant program also requires States' to conduct a self-assessment of their Commercial Driver's License
(CDL)programs. This notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Comments must be received by April 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at *http://dms.dot.gov/submit* . Be sure to include the docket number appearing in the heading of this document on your comment. All comments received will be available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you would like to be notified when your comment is received, you must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or you may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting your comments electronically. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Lloyd Goldsmith, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Office of Safety Programs, Commercial Driver's License Division (MC-ESL), 202-366-2964, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590. Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Commercial Driver's License Program Improvements and Commercial Driver's License Information System Modernization. *OMB Control Number:* 2126-xxxx. *Type of Request:* New information collection. *Background:* The CDL program was created by the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA) [Public Law 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207-175, October 27, 1986] and its amending legislation. The goal of the CDL program is to improve highway safety by ensuring that drivers of large trucks and buses are qualified to operate those vehicles and to remove unsafe and unqualified drivers from the highways. CMVSA retained the States' right to issue a driver's license but established minimum national standards which States must meet when licensing commercial motor vehicle
(CMV)drivers. In CMVSA, Congress found that one of the leading impacts to CMV safety was the possession of multiple licenses by commercial drivers. Multiple licenses allowed drivers to spread their traffic violations over a number of licenses and to maintain a “good driver” rating regardless of the number of violations they may have acquired in one or more States. In response to the States' concerns, CMVSA directed DOT to establish Federal minimum standards to correct the multiple license issue, testing and licensing to check a person's ability to operate the types of vehicle he/she plans to operate, and to ensure that a person with a bad driving record is prohibited from operating a CMV. These standards were designed to: • Prohibit commercial drivers from possessing more than one CDL, • Require that commercial drivers pass meaningful written and driving tests, • Include special qualifications for hazardous materials drivers, and • Establish disqualifications and penalties for drivers convicted of the traffic violations specified in 49 CFR 383.51. States that failed to comply with the requirements imposed by DOT would be subject to withholding of a percentage of their Federal-aid highway funds. To enable the States to fully implement the provisions of CMVSA, Congress authorized DOT to enter into an agreement for the operation of a national non-Federal information system to serve as a clearinghouse and depository of information pertaining to the licensing and identification of operators of CMVs and the disqualification of such operators from operating CMVs. CDLIS is operated by the American Association of Motor Vehicles Administrators, an organization that represents the States' driver licensing and motor vehicle agencies. State driver licensing databases (including that of the District of Columbia) and the CDLIS Central Site (Central Site) hold the data to support the CDL program. The Central Site only serves as a pointer to the current State of Record—the State where the driver's data is kept, including convictions, crashes, and withdrawals from all previous States. The Central Site is only updated when there is a name, date of birth, social security number, State, or driver license number change. All other data changes happen within and between States. The Central Site information ensures that the driver has only one CDL and that all current and history information on that driver resides in the database of the current State of Record. The Agency has been providing grant funds to States to support CDL program activities since the inception of the program through the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP). The burden for the information collection associated with this program is currently captured under information collection number 2126-0010. Section 4124 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) [Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1736, August 10, 2005] established the CDLPI grants to implement the requirements of the CDL program resulting from CMVSA. Section 4123 of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1734) established the CDLIS Modernization grants to develop a comprehensive national plan to modernize the existing CDL information system. SAFETEA-LU specifies specific data collection for the CDLPI grant program that is unique to that grant. This new information collection request will provide for the collection of the SAFETEA-LU mandated information for the CDLPI program and the information for the new CDLIS Modernization grant program. CMVSA authorized DOT, working in partnership with the States, to assist the States in implementation of the CDL program by expending $60 million in order to meet the goals established by Congress. These funds were to be used to: • Develop the knowledge and skills tests, • Create a CDLIS telecommunications network connecting all State Departments of Motor Vehicles (State DMVs), • Create national computer software to support each State in sharing information between the State DMVs, • Implement the testing and licensing procedures of each State, and • Implement in each State an information system that would support the program. Congress continued to provide funding in subsequent years to improve the program or to implement new program initiatives and systems enhancements mandated by subsequent legislation. This notice proposes that, in order to qualify for a grant, a State must submit an application with budget information and a self-assessment of its CDL program. In addition, this notice proposes that after the grant is awarded, a State must submit quarterly reports explaining its work activities and its accomplishments. FMCSA will monitor and evaluate a State's progress under its approved grant project. If a State fails to operate within the guidelines of the approved grant or does not remedy any identified deficiencies or incompatibilities in a timely manner, FMCSA may terminate the grant project. This proposed information collection would provide FMCSA with the information that serves as the basis for these responsibilities and decisions. It is proposed that a State may submit its grant application electronically using *grants.gov* ( *http://www.grants.gov/Apply?campaignid=tabnavtracking 081105* ). A State may submit its quarterly reports using e-mail. Proposed Form MCSA-5842, Grant Application Continuation Sheet (CDL-3), would be submitted with the CDLPI and CDLIS Modernization grant proposals. It supplements the information on SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance, with the information necessary to evaluate the grant proposal for conformity with congressionally-mandated eligibility criteria in SAFETEA-LU. This new form includes the congressionally-mandated Maintenance of Expenditures and is based on Part Two: Writing The Grant Proposal from Developing and Writing Grant Proposals on The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Web site [ *http://www.cfda.gov* ] modified to provide the information necessary to monitor project execution. Proposed Form MCSA-5843, Budget Detail Worksheet (CDL-4), is submitted with the CDLPI and CDLIS Modernization grant proposals. This budget worksheet collects detailed budget information not provided on SF-424A, Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs. As a result, the SF-424A will not be required. This new form was based on the expired (OJP Form 7150/1) (fillable) Budget Detail Worksheet. Proposed Form MCSA-5844, Self-Assessment of State CDL Program (CDL-5), is submitted with the CDLPI grant proposals. This structured self-assessment instrument will allow FMCSA to link grant proposals to improvement needs identified by the State and for cross comparisons among States. SAFETEA-LU requires States to submit an assessment of their CDL programs as part of the application for CDLPI grants. These forms are intended to be completed on *grants.gov* during the application process. The header information on each form would automatically be completed with information from the SF-424. CDLPI Grants *Respondents:* State CDL lead agencies (the 50 States and the District of Columbia). *Number of Respondents (for the CDLPI grants):* 51 (per year and per quarter). *Frequency (for the CDLPI grants):* Annual application with quarterly reports. *Estimated Time Per Response (for the CDLPI grants):* 56 hours (30 hours to prepare the annual grant application, 10 hours to complete the self assessment of the State CDL Program, and 4 hours to prepare each quarterly report (4 × 4 = 16 hours)). *Estimated Total Annual Burden (for the CDLPI grants):* 2,856 hours (51 respondents × 56 hours per response). CDLIS Modernization Grants *Number of Respondents (for the CDLIS Modernization grants):* 51 (per year and per quarter). *Frequency (for the CDLIS Modernization grants):* Annual application with quarterly reports. *Estimated Time Per Response (for the CDLIS Modernization grants):* 46 hours (30 hours to prepare the annual grant application and 4 hours to prepare each quarterly report (4 × 4 = 16 hours)). *Estimated Total Annual Burden (for the CDLIS Modernization grants):* 2,346 hours (51 respondents × 46 hours per response). *Combined Total Annual Burden:* 5,202 hours (2,856 hours CDLPI Estimated Total Annual Burden + 2,346 hours CDLIS Modernization Estimated Total Annual Burden). Public Comments Invited Your comments are invited on whether the collection of information is necessary for FMCSA to meet its goal of reducing truck crashes, including: • Whether the information is useful to this goal; • The accuracy of the estimated burden of the information collection; • Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Electronic Access and Filing You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Docket Management System
(DMS)at *http://dms.dot.gov/submit* . Acceptable formats include MS Word (versions 95 to 97), MS Word for Mac (versions 6 to 8), Rich Text File (RTF), American Standard Code Information Interchange (ASCII)(TXT), Portable Document Format (PDF), and WordPerfect (versions 7 or 8). DMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the Help section of the Web site. You may also download an electronic copy of this document from the DOT DMS on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov/search* . Please include the docket number appearing in the heading of this document. Issued on: January 23, 2007. John H. Hill, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-1440 Filed 1-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comment. SUMMARY: The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning an extension of OMB approval of the information collection titled “Consumer Protections for Depository Institution Sales of Insurance.” DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Communications Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Public Information Room, Mailstop 1-5, Attention: 1557-0220, 250 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to
(202)874-4448, or by electronic mail to *regs.comments@occ.treas.gov* . You can inspect and photocopy the comments at the OCC's Public Information Room, 250 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20219. You can make an appointment to inspect the comments by calling
(202)874-5043. Additionally, you should send a copy of your comments to OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0220, by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725, 17th Street, NW, #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to
(202)395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may request additional information or a copy of the collection and supporting documentation submitted to OMB by contacting: Mary Gottlieb or Camille Dickerson,
(202)874-5090, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20219. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Consumer Protections for Depository Institution Sales of Insurance—12 CFR 14. *OMB Control No.:* 1557-0220. *Type of Review:* Extension, without revision, of a currently approved collection. *Description:* This information collection requires national banks and other covered persons involved in insurance sales to make two separate disclosures to consumers. Under 12 CFR 14.40, a respondent must prepare and provide certain disclosures to consumers:
(1)Before the completion of the initial sale of an insurance product or annuity to a consumer; and
(2)at the time of application for the extension of credit (if insurance products or annuities are sold, solicited, advertised, or offered in connection with an extension of credit). *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profit. *Burden Estimates:* * Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,563. * Estimated Number of Responses:* 1,563. * Estimated Annual Burden Hours:* 7,815 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has 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 to be collected;
(d)Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Dated: January 24, 2007. Stuart Feldstein, Assistant Director, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. [FR Doc. E7-1423 Filed 1-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comment. SUMMARY: The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning an extension of OMB approval of the information collection titled, “Interagency Guidance on Asset Securitization Activities.” DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Communications Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Public Information Room, Mailstop 1-5, Attention: 1557-0217, 250 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to
(202)874-4448, or by electronic mail to *regs.comments@occ.treas.gov* . You can inspect and photocopy the comments at the OCC's Public Information Room, 250 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20219. You can make an appointment to inspect the comments by calling
(202)874-5043. Additionally, you should send a copy of your comments to OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0217, by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725, 17th Street, NW, #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to
(202)395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may request additional information or a copy of the collection and supporting documentation submitted to OMB by contacting: Mary Gottlieb or Camille Dickerson,
(202)874-5090, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20219. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Interagency Guidance on Asset Securitization Activities. *OMB Control No.:* 1557-0217. *Type of Review:* Extension, without revision, of a currently approved collection. *Description:* This information collection applies to institutions engaged in asset securitization and consists of a written asset securitization policy, the documentation of fair value of retained interests, and a management information system to monitor securitization activities. Institution management uses the collection as the basis for the safe and sound operation of their asset securitization activities. The OCC uses the information to evaluate the quality of an institution's risk management practices. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profit. *Burden Estimates:* *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 42. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 42. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 306 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has 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 to be collected;
(d)Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Dated: January 24, 2007. Stuart Feldstein, Assistant Director, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. [FR Doc. E7-1425 Filed 1-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY United States Mint Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Altered System of Records AGENCY: United States Mint, Treasury. ACTION: Notice of alteration to a Privacy Act System of Records. SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended, the United States Mint is altering its system of records, TREASURY/U.S. MINT .009—Mail-order and Catalogue Sales System (MACS), Customer Mailing List, Order Processing Record for Coin Sets, Medals and Numismatic Items, and Records of Undelivered Orders, Product Descriptions, Availability and Inventory—Treasury/United States Mint. DATES: Comments must be received not later than March 1, 2007. The proposed altered system will become effective March 12, 2007, unless the United States Mint receives comments which would result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: Fax:
(202)756-6153. Mail: United States Mint, Attn: Disclosure Officer, 8th Floor, 801 9th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. Comments received will be made available for inspection, upon appointment, by contacting the United States Mint's Disclosure Officer at
(202)354-6788. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Saunders-Mitchell, Disclosure Officer, United States Mint, 8th Floor, 801 9th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. Telephone number:
(202)354-6788. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The system notice for the system entitled “Mail-order and Catalogue Sales System (MACS), Customer Mailing List, Order Processing Record for Coin Sets, Medal and Numismatic Items, and Records of Undelivered Orders, Product Descriptions, Availability and Inventory-Treasury/United States Mint” was last published in its entirety in the **Federal Register** , Volume 70, page 34183 on June 13, 2005. Modifications are planned for this system to include the Presidential $1 Coin Program Data Collection which will be used to collect and store certain data from individuals and entities that request information and promotional materials (such as posters, stickers, bookmarks, brochures, and pamphlets) offered by the United States Mint concerning the Presidential $1 Coin Program. The United States Mint is offering these materials and information to assist in fulfillment of obligations under the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-145). Information proposed to be collected and stored includes the name of the requesting individual and the requesting individual's address, phone number, and e-mail address; the information, materials and quantity requested; whether the requester is asking for materials to be automatically shipped each time materials are offered; and the intended use of the requested materials and information. United States Mint employees will administer the project, along with Mint contractors and subcontractors who will assist the Mint in managing the information collection and fulfilling requests. The information will be collected by direct upload via an online form appearing on the United States Mint's Web site that leads to the contractor's electronic information systems. Requesters that call, mail or make requests by other means will likely be guided to the Web site to complete and online request. The United States Mint does not plan to collect data for the system other than through this Web site. Once collected, the information will be maintained on the contractor's electronic systems in a secured environment. The public is not obligated to provide this information, but when requests are made, the information must be provided in order for the Mint to verify, respond and provide requested materials. Provided information will be used solely by authorized United States Mint personnel and contractors for business purpose of: properly fulfilling orders for program information and materials; tracking order fulfillment status; and performing statistical analyses and generating reports to monitor the effectiveness of the program and the demand for program materials and information. The proposed alterations to this system would amend the categories of records in the system, in addition to the categories of records currently in the system, to include the phone numbers and email addresses of individuals covered in new initiative. The proposed altered system will also capture the information being requested by the requester; the quantity of the requested information; whether the requester is asking for materials to be automatically shipped each time different materials are offered; and the requester's intended use of the requested materials and information. The legal authority to maintain the system needs to be altered to include 31 U.S.C. 5136. Enacted in Public Law 104-52, Title V, Sec. 552, November 19, 1995, 109 Stat. 494, this authority established a United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund, into which receipts from Mint operations and programs shall be deposited. The existing purpose(s) of the system are being amended to conform to the current Privacy Impact Assessment
(PIA)for the new initiative and permit the United States Mint to: maintain a mailing list of customers and interested parties to provide continuous communication and/or promotional materials, as requested, about existing and upcoming numismatic product offerings, circulating coins, and activities; record and maintain records of customer, interested party and order information and requests for promotional materials, and capture orders through each stage of the order life cycle; research and resolve orders that were not successfully delivered to customers and interested parties, and maintain a list of its products and monitor and maintain product and promotional material inventory levels to meet customer and interested party demand while remaining within legislatively-mandated mintage levels as applicable. At present the eight
(8)routine uses maintained in this system provide the proper level of disclosures under the system. While continuing to authorize these disclosures, the proposed added routine uses would extend the authority to he United States Mint to make disclosures to contractors performing work under a contract or agreement for the Federal government, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records, in compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended; and release to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when
(1)it is suspected or confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;
(2)the Mint has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Mint or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
(3)the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Mint's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. Lastly, records in the current system of records notice are retrieved by name, customer number or order number only. The current system of records notice must be altered to indicate that records will also be retrieved by address, phone number, order date, whether or not the account is ‘flagged’ (such as due to an unusual quantity or an order requiring verification for processing and completion), shipment tracking number, and any internal identification number that may be assigned to the request. This alteration conforms to the current PIA and would allow for the proper administration of the system. As required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) and Appendix I to OMB Circular A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals.” dated November 30, 2000, a report of an altered system of records has been submitted to the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget. For the above reasons, the United States Mint proposes to alter its system of records notice by amending the categories of records in the system to conform to the altered system and the associated PIA, amending the legal authority(s) to include 31 U.S.C. 5136, amending the existing purpose(s) of the system to conform to the altered system and the associated PIA, create two
(2)new routine uses in addition to the eight
(8)currently contained in the system, and amend the retrievability section of the current system to conform to the altered system and the associated PIA, as set forth and published in its entirety below: Treasury/U.S. Mint .009 System Name: Mail-order and Catalogue Sales System (MACS), Customer Mailing List, Order Processing Record for Coin Sets, Medals and Numismatic Items, and records of undelivered orders, product descriptions, availability and Inventory-Treasury/United States Mint. Categories of Records in the System: *Description of the change: The current text is revised to read as follows:* “Name, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, order history of customers purchasing numismatic items, of individuals who wish to receive notification of numismatic offerings by the Mint, and of individuals requesting information and promotional materials (and, for those requesting Presidential $1 Coin Program promotional materials, their intended use of requested materials and information).” Purpose(s): *Description of the change: The current text is revised to read as follows:* “The purpose of this system is to permit the United States Mint to: maintain a mailing list of customers and interested parties to provide continuous communication and/or promotional materials, as requested, about existing and upcoming numismatic product offerings, circulating coins and activities; record and maintain records of customer, interested party and order information and requests for promotional materials, and capture orders through each stage of the order life cycle; research and resolve orders that were not successfully delivered to customers and interested parties; and maintain a list of its products and monitor and maintain product and promotional material inventory levels to meet customer and interested party demand while remaining within legislatively mandated mintage levels as applicable.” Authority for Maintenance of the System: *Description of the change: The current test is revised to read as follows:* “31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112, 5132, 5136, and 31 C.F.R. part 92.” Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System, including Categories of Users and the Purpose of Such Uses: *Description of the change: Add the two new routine uses #9, and #10 to read as follows:*
(9)“Contractors performing work under a contract or agreement for the Federal government, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records, in compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.”
(10)“Appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when
(1)it is suspected or confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;
(2)the Mint has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Mint or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
(3)the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Mint's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.” Retrievability: *Description of the change: The current text is revised to read as follows:* “Name, address, phone number, customer number or order number, order date, whether or not the account is ‘flagged’ (such as due to an unusual quantity or an order requiring verification for processing and completion), shipment tracking number, and any internal identification number that may be assigned to the request.” Dated: January 24, 2007. Wesley T. Foster, Acting Assistant Secretary for Management. [FR Doc. 07-396 Filed 1-29-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 17
Traces to 17 documents
CFR
- Issuance of amendment.§ 50.92
- Hearing requests, petitions to intervene, requirements for standing, and contentions.§ 2.309
- Notice for public comment; State consultation.§ 50.91
- Requirements for reduction of risk from anticipated transients without scram (ATWS) events for light-water-cooled nuclear power plants.§ 50.62
- Combustible gas control for nuclear power reactors.§ 50.44
- Definitions.§ 50.2
- Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or otherwise not requiring environmental review.§ 51.22
- Application of subpart to ongoing environmental work.§ 51.12
- Accident source term.§ 50.67
- Delegation of authority to Director of Division of Trading and Markets.§ 200.30-3
- What a covered person must disclose.§ 14.40
U.S. Code
- Registration, responsibilities, and oversight of self-regulatory organizations§ 78s
- National system for clearance and settlement of securities transactions§ 78q–1
- Definitions and application§ 78c
- United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund§ 5136
- Records maintained on individuals§ 552a
- Minting and issuing coins, medals, and numismatic items§ 5111
15 references not yet in our index
- 10 CFR 2
- 10 CFR 50
- 17 CFR 240.19
- 49 CFR 1.48
- Pub. L. 99-570
- 100 Stat. 3207
- 49 CFR 383.51
- Pub. L. 109-59
- 119 Stat. 1736
- 119 Stat. 1734
- 12 CFR 14
- Pub. L. 109-145
- Pub. L. 104-52
- 109 Stat. 494
- 31 CFR 92
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of application for an order of approval pursuant to Section 26(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Act”)
Cite10 CFR 2
Cite10 CFR 50
Cite17 CFR 240.19
Cites 32 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources