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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-02-13 · NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Notice

23,801 words·~108 min read·/register/2007/02/13/07-626

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

BILLING CODE 7533-01-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations I. Background Pursuant to section 189a.
(2)of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from January 19, 2007, to February 1, 2007. The last biweekly notice was published on January 30, 2007 (72 FR 4304). 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)7ndash;(viii). For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1
(800)397-4209,
(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Entergy Operations Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana *Date of amendment request:* September 26, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed change deletes reference to the containment fan cooler
(CFC)condensate flow switch from Technical Specification
(TS)3.4.5.1, “Reactor Coolant System Leakage—Leakage Detection Instrumentation,” and to modify or delete associated actions. *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 Reactor Coolant System
(RCS)leakage detection systems are passive monitoring systems therefore the proposed changes do not affect reactor operations or accident analyses and have no radiological consequences. The proposed change continues to require diverse methods of monitoring leakage. The gaseous radioactivity monitor, although not included in the TSs and the CFC condensate flow switches, which are proposed for removal from the TSs, will be maintained functional and available. 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 introduces no new mode of plant operation or any plant modification. The RCS leakage detection instrumentation is used solely for monitoring purposes and is not part of plant control instruments or engineered safety feature actuation circuits. The change does not vary or affect any plant operating condition or parameter. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change does not modify any of the RCS leakage detection instrumentation. The proposed change continues to require diverse methods of monitoring leakage. In addition, although not required by TS, multiple means of diverse monitoring RCS leakage will remain functional and available. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Terence A. Burke, Associate General Council—Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213. *NRC Branch Chief:* David Terao. Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County, Mississippi *Date of amendment request:* January 18, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed change will revise the description of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Technical Specification 4.2.2, “Control Rod Assemblies,” to allow to the use of hafnium as an additional type of control material. *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 NRC has specifically approved the use of hafnium as neutron absorbing material for use in BWR [boiling-water reactor] control rod assemblies. The use of hafnium in control rods as a neutron absorber material does not significantly alter the neutronic or mechanical functional characteristics of the control rods. Control rod designs using hafnium have been successfully used in other BWRs. Since control rods that utilize hafnium have a longer lifetime, the probability of some accidents involving the handling, on-site storage, and shipping of irradiated rods will actually be reduced. The proposed change does not alter the required number of control rods nor does it affect any of the specifications related to the control rods (e.g., the shutdown margin and scram timing requirements are unaffected). 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 application of a control rod design using hafnium as an absorber material does not produce any new mode of plant operation or alter the control rods in such a way as to affect their function or operability since the new control rods are designed to be compatible with the existing control rods. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change does not significantly affect the neutronic or mechanical characteristics of the control rods since the hafnium containing controls rods are designed to be compatible with the existing design and reload licensing criteria; therefore, there is no significant change in the margin of safety. It does not change the required number of existing control rods. It does not affect the existing Technical Specifications related to control rods (e.g., required shutdown margin and scram time, etc.). Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Terence A. Burke, Associate General Council—Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213. *NRC Branch Chief:* David Terao. Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3), Citrus County, Florida *Date of amendment request:* October 11, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify the plant Improved Technical Specifications
(ITSs)to implement a more conservative requirement in ITS 3.7.7, “Nuclear Services Closed Cycle Cooling Water
(SW)System.” The current Action A allows the plant to operate for up to 72 hours before initiating a shutdown when one required SW heat exchanger is inoperable. The proposed revision will only allow operation to continue for 8 hours before initiating a shutdown when one required SW heat exchanger is inoperable. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:
(1)Does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The limiting design basis accident for CR-3 includes, as an assumption, adequate heat removal capability by the SW system. The amendment is being proposed to ensure the SW system performs its design basis function. Adequate heat removal is provided by three OPERABLE SW heat exchangers. The 8 hour completion time will reduce the window that the plant can operate with only two SW heat exchangers before a shutdown is required. The proposed change does not increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated since the amendment is not a modification to plant systems, nor a change to plant operation that could initiate an accident. Therefore, granting the LAR [license amendment request] does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The dose consequences of all design basis accidents are unchanged by this proposed amendment.
(2)Does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? The function of the SW system considered in the design basis is to remove process and operating heat from safety-related components during normal as well as transient conditions. The proposed amendment to limit the allowed ACTION Completion Time to 8 hours will ensure the function of the SW system is consistent with the design basis and will not result in changes to the design, physical configuration of the plant or the assumptions made in the safety analysis. The requirement does not change the function of the system nor its ability to perform its design function. No alteration to plant configuration or operation is proposed. Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
(3)Does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? CR-3's design basis considers adequate heat removal by the SW system to cool the containment fan assembly cooling coils and fan motors, spent fuel pool, SW pump motors and other equipment which must function following an accident. This proposed amendment will not alter the current design basis. By limiting the allowed ACTION Completion Time to 8 hours, the proposed amendment to ITS 3.7.7 will limit the time the safety function of the SW system can be compromised. Therefore, the amendment does not result in a reduction of the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis provided for Florida Power Corporation and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel II—Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. *NRC Branch Chief (Acting):* Margaret H. Chernoff. GPU Nuclear, Inc., Docket No. 50-320, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania *Date of amendment request:* December 13, 2006. *Description of amendment requests:* The amendment application proposes to delete Technical Specification
(TS)6.8.1.3, which provides the requirement for submittal of the annual occupational radiation exposure report. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? No The proposed change eliminates the Technical Specification reporting requirement for occupational radiation exposure information, which is in excess to that required to be submitted by regulations. The proposed change involves no changes to plant systems or accident analyses. As such, the change is administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents. 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? No The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant, add any new equipment, or require any existing equipment to be operated in a manner different from the present design. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? No This change is an administrative change to reporting requirements of occupational radiation exposure data and will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no effect on any safety analyses assumptions. Hence, this change is administrative in nature. For these reasons, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis, and based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *NRC Branch Chief:* Claudia Craig. Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin *Date of amendment request:* December 21, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment revises the licensing basis to reflect a revision to the spent fuel pool criticality analysis methodology and a new criticality analysis. In addition, associated changes are proposed to Technical Specifications 3.7.12, “Spent Fuel Storage,” and 4.3.1, “Criticality,” to reflect the results of the new criticality analysis. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration which is presented below:
(1)Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment request does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The presence of soluble boron in the Spent Fuel Pool
(SFP)water being used for criticality control does not increase the probability of a dropped fuel assembly accident within the pool. The handling of the fuel assemblies in the SFP has always been performed and will continue to be performed in borated water. There is no increase in the probability of the accidental misloading of fuel assemblies into the SFP fuel storage racks when considering the presence of soluble boron in the pool water for criticality control. Fuel assembly placement will continue to be controlled pursuant to approved fuel handling procedures and in accordance with the spent fuel storage rack limitations specified in the Technical Specifications (TS). There is no increase in the consequences for an accidental misloading of fuel assemblies in the SFP fuel storage racks because the criticality analyses demonstrate that the pool will remain subcritical following an accidental misloading. Soluble boron credit is used to provide margin to offset uncertainties, tolerances, and off-normal/accident conditions, and to provide subcritical margin such that the SFP k <sup>eff</sup> [effective neutron multiplication constant] is maintained less than or equal to 0.95. The plant-specific criticality analysis results demonstrate that the spent fuel rack k <sup>eff</sup> will remain<1.0 (at a 95/95 percent probability and confidence level) even with the SFP flooded with unborated water. There is no increase in the probability of the loss of normal cooling to the SFP water when considering the presence of soluble boron in the pool water for subcriticality control since a high concentration of soluble boron has always been maintained in the SFP water. A loss of normal cooling to the SFP water causes an increase in the temperature of the water passing through the stored fuel assemblies. This causes a decrease in water density, which would result in a net increase in reactivity when soluble boron is present in the water. However, the additional negative reactivity provided by the 2100 ppm [parts per million] boron concentration limit, above that provided by the concentration required (805 ppm) to maintain k <sup>eff</sup> less than or equal to 0.95, will compensate for the increased reactivity which could result from a loss of SFP cooling event. Because adequate soluble boron will be maintained in the SFP water the consequences of a loss of normal cooling to the SFP will not be increased. 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 Under the proposed amendment, no changes are being made to the fuel storage racks themselves, to any other systems, or to the physical structures of the Primary Auxiliary Building. Therefore, there are no changes proposed to the plant configuration, equipment design, or installed equipment. Criticality accidents in the SFP are not new or different types of accidents. They have been analyzed in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report] and in fuel storage criticality analysis reports associated with specific licensing amendments. The proposed new SFP storage limitations are consistent with the assumptions made in the new criticality analysis, and will not have any significant effect on normal SFP operations and maintenance, and do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. Verifications will continue to be performed to ensure that the SFP loading configuration meets specified requirements. The current TS includes a SFP boron concentration limit that conservatively bounds the boration assumption of the new criticality analysis. Since soluble boron has always been maintained in the SFP water, implementation of this requirement for SFP criticality control purposes has have no effect on normal pool operations and maintenance. Also, since soluble boron has always been present in the SFP, a dilution event has always been a possibility. The loss of substantial amounts of soluble boron from the SFP that could lead to k <sup>eff</sup> exceeding 0.95 was evaluated as part of the analyses in support of this license amendment request. The evaluation demonstrates that a dilution of the SFP boron concentration from the minimum TS concentration of 2100 to 805 ppm is not credible. 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 result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No The proposed Technical Specification changes providing the resulting spent fuel storage operation limits provide adequate safety margin to ensure that the stored fuel assembly array always remains subcritical. These limits are based on a plant-specific criticality analysis performed in accordance with the present Westinghouse spent fuel rack criticality analysis methodology which allows credit for soluble boron. The criticality analysis takes credit for soluble boron to ensure that k <sup>eff</sup> will be less than or equal to 0.95 under normal circumstances. While the criticality analysis used credit for soluble boron, storage configurations have been defined using 95/95 k <sup>eff</sup> calculations to ensure that the spent fuel rack k <sup>eff</sup> is less than unity (0.995) with no soluble boron. Soluble boron credit is used to provide safety margin to offset uncertainties, tolerances, and off-normal/accident conditions, and to provide subcritical margin such that the SFP k <sup>eff</sup> is maintained less than or equal to 0.95. The loss of substantial amounts of soluble boron from the SFP that could lead to k <sup>eff</sup> exceeding 0.95 was evaluated as part of the analyses in support of this license amendment request. The evaluation demonstrates that a dilution of the SFP boron concentration from the minimum TS concentration of 2100 to 805 ppm is not credible. Also, the plant-specific criticality analysis results demonstrate that even if a complete dilution were to occur the spent fuel rack k <sup>eff</sup> would remain <1.0 (at a 95/95 percent probability and confidence level) with the SFP flooded with unborated water. The plant-specific criticality analysis performed in accordance with the conservative analysis methodology of the Westinghouse licensing topical report demonstrates that the requirements of 10 CFR 50.68 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 62 will be satisfied. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President, Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street, Hudson, WI 54016. *NRC Acting Branch Chief:* Patrick D. Milano. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California *Date of amendment request:* December 29, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification
(TS)5.5.8 to indicate that the Inservice Testing Program shall include testing frequencies applicable to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code for Operations and Maintenance (ASME OM Code), and to indicate that there may be some non-standard frequencies specified as 2 years or less in the Inservice Testing Program to which the provisions of Surveillance Requirement
(SR)3.0.2 are applicable. The proposed changes are consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Travelers TSTF-479, Revision 0, “Changes to Reflect Revision of 10 CFR 50.55a,” and TSTF-497, Revision 0, “Limit Inservice Testing Program SR 3.0.2 Application to Frequencies of 2 Years or Less.” *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes revise TS 5.5.8, “lnservice Testing Program,” for consistency with 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) requirements regarding inservice testing of pumps and valves. The proposed change incorporates revisions to the ASME Code that result in a net improvement in the measures for testing pumps and valves. The proposed changes do not impact any accident initiators or analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events. They do not involve the addition or removal of any equipment, or any design changes to the facility. Therefore, the proposed changes do not represent a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. [Do] the proposed change[s] create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No The proposed changes do not involve a modification to the physical configuration of the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change will not impose any new or different requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism. Additionally, there is no change in the types or increases in the amounts of any effluent that may be released off-site and there is no increase in individual or cumulative occupational exposure. Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility of an accident of a different kind than previously evaluated. 3. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No The proposed changes revise TS 5.5.8, “lnservice Testing Program,” for consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) regarding the inservice testing of pumps and valves. The proposed change incorporates revisions to the ASME Code that result in a net improvement in the measures for testing pumps and valves. The safety function of the affected pumps and valves will be maintained. Therefore, this proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Antonio Fernandez, Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120. *NRC Branch Chief:* David Terao. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California *Date of amendment requests:* December 29, 2006. *Description of amendment requests:* The proposed amendments will revise Technical Specification
(TS)5.5.16 for consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) for components classified as Code Class CC. This regulation requires licensees to update their containment inservice inspection requirements in accordance with Subsections IWE and IWL of Section XI, Division I of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME)Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code as limited by 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(vi) and modified by 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(viii) and 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(ix). This license amendment request is consistent with NRC-approved Industry/Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Traveler number TSTF-343, “Containment Structural Integrity.” *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 revises the Technical Specification
(TS)administrative controls programs for consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR [Part] 50, paragraph 55a(g)(4) for components classified as Code Class CC. The proposed change affects the frequency of visual examinations that will be performed for the concrete surfaces of the containment for the purpose of the Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program. In addition, the proposed change allows those examinations to be performed during power operation as opposed to during a refueling outage. The frequency of visual examinations of the concrete surfaces of the containment and the mode of operation during which those examinations are performed has no relationship to or adverse impact on the probability of any of the initiating events assumed in the accident analyses. The proposed change would allow visual examinations that are performed pursuant to NRC-approved ASME [Code,] Section XI requirements (except where relief has been granted by the NRC) to meet the intent of visual examinations required by Regulatory Guide 1.163, without requiring additional visual examinations pursuant to the Regulatory Guide. The intent of early detection of deterioration will continue to be met by the more rigorous requirements of the Code-required visual examinations. As such, the safety function of the containment as a fission product barrier is maintained. The proposed change does not impact any accident initiators or analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events. It does not involve the addition or removal of any equipment, or any design changes to the facility. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change revises the TS Administrative Controls programs for consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR [Part] 50, paragraph 55a(g)(4) for components classified as Code Class CC. The change affects the frequency of visual examinations that will be performed for the concrete surfaces of the containments. In addition, the proposed change allows those examinations to be performed during power operation as opposed to during a refueling outage. The proposed change does not involve a modification to the physical configuration of the plant ( *i.e.* , no new equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change will not impose any new or different requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident precursor, or a malfunction mechanism. Additionally, there is no change in the types or increases in the amounts of any effluent that may be released offsite and there is no increase in individual or cumulative occupational exposure. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change revises the TS Administrative Controls programs for consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR [Part] 50, paragraph 55a(g)(4) for components classified as Code Class CC. The change affects the frequency of visual examinations that will be performed for the concrete surfaces of the containments. In addition, the proposed change allows those examinations to be performed during power operation as opposed to during a refueling outage. The safety function of the containment as a fission product barrier will be maintained. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Antonio Fernández, Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120. *NRC Branch Chief:* David Terao. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California *Date of amendment requests:* December 29, 2006. *Description of amendment requests:* The proposed amendments will revise Technical Specification
(TS)3.4.1, “RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure, Temperature, and Flow Departure from Nucleate Boiling
(DNB)Limits,” and TS 5.6.5, “CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (COLR). This license amendment request proposes to relocate the RCS DNB parameters for pressurizer pressure and RCS average temperature to the COLR. This relocation is consistent with Technical Specification Task Force Traveler TSTF-339, Revision 2, “Relocate TS Parameters to COLR.” TS 5.6.5 is revised to add topical reports WCAP-8567-P-A, “Improved Thermal Design Procedure,” and WCAP-11596-P-A, “Qualification of the PHOENIX-P/ANC Nuclear Design System for Pressurized Water Reactor Cores,” by name and title only. These changes are consistent with TSTF-363, Revision 0, “Revise Topical Report References in ITS 5.6.5, COLR.” *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes are programmatic and administrative in nature, and do not physically alter safety-related systems or affect the way in which safety-related systems perform their functions. The proposed changes relocate cycle-specific parameters from Technical Specification
(TS)3.4.1 to the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR). This does not change plant design or affect system operating parameters. The proposed changes do not, by themselves, alter any of the parameters. Removal of the cycle-specific parameters from the TS does not eliminate existing requirements to comply with the parameters. Also, TS 5.6.5 is revised to add topical reports WCAP-8567-P-A, “Improved Thermal Design Procedure,” and WCAP-11596-P-A, “Qualification of the PHOENIX-P/ANC Nuclear Design System for Pressurized Water Reactor Cores,” as they are approved analytical methods for determining core operating limits. Although relocation of the cycle-specific parameters to the COLR would allow revision of the affected parameters without prior NRC approval, there is no significant effect on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Future changes to the COLR parameters could result in event consequences that are either slightly less or slightly more severe than the consequences for the same event using the present parameters. The differences would not be significant and would be bounded by the existing requirement of TS 5.6.5c to meet the applicable limits of the safety analyses. The cycle-specific parameters being transferred from the TS to the COLR will continue to be controlled under existing programs and procedures. The Final Safety Analysis Report Update (FSARU) accident analyses will continue to be examined with respect to changes in the cycle-dependent parameters obtained using NRC reviewed and approved reload design methodologies to ensure that the transient evaluation of new reload designs are bounded by previously accepted analyses. This examination will continue to be performed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 requirements, ensuring that future reload designs use NRC-approved methodologies and do not involve more than a minimal increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSARU. The proposed changes do not allow for an increase in plant power levels, do not increase the production, and do not alter the flow path or method of disposal of radioactive waste or byproducts. Therefore, the proposed changes do not change the type or increase the amount of effluents released offsite. The proposed changes to TS 5.6.5b to reference only the topical report number and title for five of the topical reports do not alter the analytical methods that have been previously reviewed and approved by the NRC. This method of referencing topical reports would allow the use of current topical reports to support limits in the COLR without having to submit a request for an amendment to the operating license. Implementation of revisions to these topical reports would still be reviewed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 and, where required, revisions would be submitted to the NRC for approval prior to implementation. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. [Do] the proposed change[s] create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes that relocate cycle-specific parameters from the TS to the COLR, thus removing the requirement for prior NRC approval of revisions to those parameters, do not involve a physical change to the plant. No new equipment is being introduced, and installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. No changes are being made to the parameters within which the plant is operated, other than their relocation to the COLR. No protective or mitigative action setpoints are affected by the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the functional demands on credited equipment be changed. No change to procedures that ensure the plant remains within analyzed limits are being proposed, and no change is being made to procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. Relocation of cycle-specific parameters does not influence, impact, or contribute in any way to the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. The relocated cycle-specific parameters will continue to be calculated using the NRC-reviewed and approved methodology. The proposed changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis, and operation within the core operating limits will continue. The proposed changes to reference only the topical report number and title do not alter the use of the analytical methods that have been previously reviewed and approved by the NRC. This method of referencing topical reports would allow the use of current topical reports to support limits in the COLR without having to submit a request for an amendment to the operating license. Implementation of revisions to topical reports would still be reviewed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 and, where required, would receive NRC review and approval. The addition of WCAP-8567-P-A and WCAP-11596-P-A to TS 5.6.5 is a clarification to provide a complete listing of approved analytical methods used for determining core operating limits. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The margin of safety is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The proposed changes do not physically alter safety-related systems, nor do they affect the way in which safety-related systems perform their functions. No protective or mitigative action setpoints are affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, sufficient equipment remains available to actuate upon demand for the purpose of mitigating an analyzed event. As the proposed changes to relocate cycle-specific parameters to the COLR will not affect plant design or system operating parameters, there is no detrimental impact on any equipment design parameter, and the plant will continue to be operated within prescribed limits. The development of cycle-specific parameters for future reload designs will continue to conform to NRC-reviewed and approved methodologies, and will be performed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 to assure that the plant operates within cycle-specific parameters. The proposed changes to reference only the topical report number and title do not alter the use of the analytical methods used to determine core operating limits that have been reviewed and approved by the NRC. This method of referencing topical reports would allow the use of current NRC-approved topical reports to support limits in the COLR without having to submit a request for an amendment to the operating license. Implementation of revisions to topical reports would still be reviewed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 and, where required, receive NRC review and approval. The addition of WCAP-8567-P-A and WCAP-11596-P-A to TS 5.6.5 is a clarification to provide a complete listing of approved analytical methods used for determining core operating limits. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Antonio Fernández, Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120. *NRC Branch Chief:* David Terao. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California *Date of amendment requests:* January 11, 2007. *Description of amendment requests:* The proposed amendments would revise the Technical Specifications
(TSs)to support replacement of the steam generators
(SGs)at Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Revisions are proposed to TS 3.3.2, “Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,” TS 5.5.9, “Steam Generator
(SG)Program,” and TS 5.6.10, “Steam Generator
(SG)Tube Inspection Report.” The replacement SGs are to be installed during the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit No. 2, 14th refueling outage (2R14), currently scheduled for February 2008, and the Unit No. 1, 15th refueling outage (1R15), currently scheduled for January 2009. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The revised engineered safety feature actuation system (ESFAS) steam generator
(SG)Water Level-High High feedwater isolation Nominal Trip Setpoint and Allowable Value have been determined using the existing setpoint methodology approved for Diablo Canyon Power Plant. The setpoint analysis for the replacement steam generators
(RSGs)accounts for the setpoint uncertainties specific to the RSG design. The revised Feedwater Isolation SG Water Level-High High (P-14) Nominal Trip Setpoint and Allowable Value are applied using a conservative surveillance requirement methodology. The function of the ESFAS instrumentation is unchanged. The Feedwater Isolation SG Water Level-High High (P-14) ESFAS instrumentation will continue to function in a manner consistent with the plant design basis and satisfy all the requirements of the safety analyses. The probability and consequences of accidents previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report
(FSAR)Update are not adversely affected because the revised Feedwater Isolation SG Water Level-High High (P-14) Nominal Trip Setpoint and Allowable Value continue to assure a conservative plant response to high SG level, consistent with the safety analyses and licensing basis. The proposed changes revise and clarify the surveillance requirements for ESFAS Function 5.b, Feedwater Isolation SG Water Level-High High (P-14). These changes ensure that this function will actuate as assumed in the safety analyses. The proposed changes to TS 5.5.9 delete the alternate repair criteria
(ARC)for the existing SGs, incorporate tube inspection periods applicable to Alloy 690 thermally treated tubes, and delete the TS 5.6.10 reporting requirements for ARC. The TS 5.5.9 SG structural integrity, accident induced leakage, and operational leakage performance criteria will continue to be met for the RSGs. Meeting the SG performance criteria provides reasonable assurance that the SG tubes will remain capable of maintaining reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity throughout each operating cycle and in the unlikely event of a design basis accident. Removal of the ARC for the existing SGs will ensure that all tubes found by inservice inspection to contain flaws with a depth equal to or exceeding 40 percent of the nominal tube wall thickness will be plugged as required by TS 5.5.9.c. With the revised SG tube inspection period, the SGs will continue to meet the SG program defined by NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 97-06, “Steam Generator Program Guidelines,” which incorporates a balance of prevention, inspection, evaluation, repair, and leakage monitoring. Removal of the ARC will reduce the allowable accident induced leakage following a main steamline break accident. The proposed changes do not have any impact on the accident induced leakage assumed in the other design basis accidents. The changes do not have any impact on the allowable SG operational leakage, allowable reactor coolant system activity, or the allowable SG secondary activity. The proposed changes will not affect the probability of any accident initiators. There will be no degradation in the performance of, or an increase in the number of challenges imposed on, safety-related equipment assumed to function during an accident. There will be no change to accident mitigation performance. The proposed changes will not alter any assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological consequence evaluations in the FSAR Update. Therefore the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. [Do] the proposed change[s] create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes will not affect the normal method of plant operation or create new methods of plant operation related to the Feedwater Isolation SG Water Level-High High (P-14) ESFAS setpoints. The proposed changes to the Feedwater Isolation SG Water Level-High High (P-14) instrumentation surveillance requirements will provide assurance that the plant will operate within the limits assumed in the safety analyses. The assumptions made in the setpoint analyses for the Feedwater Isolation SG Water Level-High High (P-14) ESFAS instrument do not create any new accidents, accident initiators, or failure mechanisms. The proposed changes, which delete the TS 5.5.9 ARC for the existing SGs, incorporate tube inspection periods for Alloy 690 thermally-treated tubes in TS 5.5.9, and delete the ARC reporting requirements in TS 5.6.10, will not introduce any adverse changes to the plant design basis or postulated accidents resulting from potential tube degradation. The primary-to-secondary leakage that may be experienced during all plant conditions will be monitored to ensure it remains within current safety analysis assumptions. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the method of operation of the SGs or the primary or secondary coolant controls and do not impact other plant systems or components. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The FSAR Update Excessive Heat Removal due to Feedwater System Malfunctions event credits the Feedwater Isolation SG Water Level-High High (P-14) ESFAS instrumentation. The safety analysis limit assumed for the Feedwater Isolation SG Water Level-High High (P-14) ESFAS instrumentation for this event has not changed for the safety analyses for the RSGs. None of the acceptance criteria for Excessive Heat Removal due to Feedwater System Malfunctions event are changed as a result of the revised Feedwater Isolation SG Water Level-High High (P-14) Nominal Trip Setpoint and Allowable Value. The instrument surveillance requirement changes for the Feedwater Isolation SG Water Level-High High (P-14) function ensure that the instrumentation will actuate as assumed in the safety analysis. The safety function of the SGs is maintained by ensuring the integrity of the tubes. SG tube integrity is a function of the design, environment, and the physical condition of the SG tubes. The proposed changes, which delete the TS 5.5.9 ARCs for the existing SGs, incorporate tube inspection periods for Alloy 690 thermally treated tubes in TS 5.5.9, and delete the ARC reporting requirements in TS 5.6.10, do not adversely impact the SG tube design or operating environment. SG tube integrity will continue to be maintained by implementing the SG Program to manage SG tube inspection, assessment, and repair. The requirements established by the SG program are consistent with those in the applicable design codes and standards. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Antonio Fernández, Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120. *NRC Branch Chief:* David Terao. Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Docket No. 50-133, Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP), Unit 3 Humboldt County, California *Date of amendment request:* May 17, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The licensee has proposed to modify the Physical Security Plan
(PSP)to allow leaving certain security posts temporarily under emergency conditions requiring personnel to evacuate occupied plant areas for their health and safety. *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. Allowing the security posts and monitoring requirements of PSP, Sections 3.1.4 and 4.3, and Table 7-1, to not be continuously maintained has no impact on the probability of an accident from occurring, especially acts of nature such as earthquakes and tsunamis. The HBPP Defueled Safety Analysis Report, Appendix A, and NRC Safety Evaluation Report (SER), Section 10, dated April 29, 1987, evaluate various accidents at HBPP. Because all fuel has been removed from the reactor vessel and stored in the spent fuel pool, the majority of accidents analyzed pertain to events that could only affect spent fuel or the spent fuel pool. All accidents affecting spent fuel or the spent fuel pool do not require security personnel action to protect the public health and safety, or to maintain offsite radiological doses well within regulatory limits. In addition, NRC SER, Section 10.7, “Impact of Tsunami Flooding,” analyzes the impact of tsunami flooding. That analysis identifies a likely impact of the tsunami to be a release of the radwaste tank radionuclide contents to the bay and some damage to the reactor building. For both situations, no security personnel action is required to maintain offsite radiological doses well within regulatory limits. Allowing the security posts and monitoring requirements of PSP, Sections 3.1.4 and 4.3, and Table 7-1, to not be continuously maintained temporarily, under emergency conditions, does not create problems that could increase the consequences of an accident. The primary function of the manning and monitoring requirements of PSP, Sections 3.1.4 and 4.3, and Table 7-1, is to monitor, detect and assess unauthorized intrusion into the protected area, and has nothing to do with the probability or consequences of plant accidents. If security personnel evacuate PSP, Section 3.1.4 and Table 7-1, security posts during a tsunami, those security personnel will be able to return to the PSP, Section 3.1.4 and Table 7-1, security posts after the tsunami and assess damage or intrusion by observing alarms and/or physical conditions as well as resume implementation of security post and monitoring requirements of PSP, Sections 3.1.4 and 4.3, and Table 7-1. In addition, upon evacuation, security personnel notify offsite security backup personnel of the evacuation and the need for the offsite personnel to remotely monitor HBPP security system alarms. Conversely, if security personnel remain at the PSP, Section 3.1.4 and Table 7-1, security posts during a tsunami and become injured, those security personnel would be unable to assist in the resumption of implementation of security post and monitoring requirements of PSP, Sections 3.1.4 and 4.3, and Table 7-1. Therefore, not continually manning the PSP, Section 3.1.4 and Table 7-1, security posts during a tsunami does not increase the consequences of the tsunami.
(2)Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident evaluated? Response: No. As discussed in the response to Question 1 above, none of the analyzed accidents require security personnel action to keep offsite radiological doses well within regulatory limits. In addition, allowing security personnel to not continuously maintain security post and monitoring requirements of PSP, Sections 3.1.4 and 4.3, and Table 7-1, after an emergency situation has occurred has no impact on the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from occurring. The primary function of the manning and monitoring requirements of PSP, Sections 3.1.4 and 4.3, and Table 7-1, is to monitor, detect, and assess unauthorized intrusion into the protected area, and has nothing to do with the possibility of a different kind of plant accident occurring.
(3)Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. NRC SER, Section 10.8, “Accident Analysis Conclusions,” summarizes the consequences from accidents in terms of offsite radiological doses. SER, Section 10.8, includes the statement, “The
(NRC)staff has determined that offsite radiological consequences due to a tsunami are within acceptable dose guideline values.” As discussed in the response to Question 1 above, none of the analyzed accidents require security personnel action to keep offsite radiological doses well within regulatory limits. Therefore, allowing security personnel to not continuously maintain security post and monitoring requirements of PSP, Sections 3.1.4 and 4.3, and Table 7-1, after an emergency situation has occurred has no impact on the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mr. Antonio Fernández, Esquire, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Post Office Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. *NRC Branch Chief:* Claudia Craig. Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Docket No. 50-133, Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP), Unit 3 Humboldt County, California *Date of amendment request:* December 20, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The licensee has proposed to amend the Facility Operating License by deleting paragraph 2.B.3(c), and replacing it with a new paragraph 2.B.4 to read as follows: “Pursuant to the Act and Title 10, CFR, Chapter I, Parts 30, 40, and 70, to receive, possess, and use in amounts as required any byproduct, source, or special nuclear material without restriction to chemical or physical form, for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated with radioactive apparatus or components.” *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change eliminates a restriction regarding the type and limits of byproduct and special nuclear material to be received, possessed, and used onsite. However, in the proposed change, the type or amount of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material to be received, possessed, or used would not change plant systems or accident analysis, and as such, would not affect initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents. Therefore, the proposed change does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change eliminates a restriction regarding the limits and type of byproduct and special nuclear material to be received, possessed, and used onsite. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to the plant or require existing equipment to be operated in a manner different from the present design. Temporary equipment brought onsite for decommissioning activities would still be required to be operated in accordance with plant procedures and licensing bases documents, regardless of the byproduct material content. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident evaluated. 3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change eliminates a restriction regarding the limit and type of byproduct and special nuclear material to be received, possessed, and used onsite. The proposed change has no effect on existing plant equipment, operating practices, or safety analysis assumptions. Temporary equipment brought onsite for decommissioning activities would still be required to be operated in accordance with plant procedures and licensing bases documents, regardless of the byproduct material content. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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. Antonio Fernández, Esquire, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Post Office Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. *NRC Branch Chief:* Claudia Craig. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem County, New Jersey *Date of amendment request:* November 15, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would delete Technical Specification
(TS)Table 3.6.3-1, “Primary Containment Isolation Valves,” and relocate the information to the Technical Requirements Manual. The amendment would also revise other TS sections that reference TS Table 3.6.3-1. The proposed changes are based on the guidance in Generic Letter 91-08, “Removal of Component Lists from Technical Specifications.” *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed relocation of Technical Specification component lists of primary containment isolation valves does not alter the requirements for component operability or surveillance currently in the Technical Specifications. The proposed change to remove the component lists from TS and relocate the information to an administratively controlled document will have no impact on any safety related structures, systems or components. The probability of occurrence of a previously evaluated accident is not increased because this change does not introduce any new potential accident initiating conditions. The consequences of accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] are not affected because the ability of the components to perform their required function is not affected. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes are administrative in nature, conform to the guidance in Generic Letter 91-08 and do not result in physical alterations or changes in the method by which any safety related system performs its intended function. The proposed changes do not affect any safety analysis assumptions. The proposed changes do not create any new accident initiators or involve an activity that could be an initiator of an accident of a different type. All components will continue to be tested to the same requirements as defined in the Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements. The proposed revision does not make changes in any method of testing or how any safety related system performs its safety functions. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change to remove Technical Specification Table 3.6.3-1 from the Technical Specifications and relocate it to the Technical Requirements Manual does not alter the Technical Specification requirements for containment integrity and containment isolation and will not affect the containment isolation capability. Future revisions to the Technical Requirements Manual Table will be subject to evaluation pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 [Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.59]. The proposed change will not affect the current Technical Specification requirements or the components to which they apply. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire, Nuclear Business Unit—N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038. *NRC Branch Chief:* Harold K. Chernoff. Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Docket No. 50-312, Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, Sacramento County, California *Date of amendment request:* April 12, 2006, and supplemented November 21, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The licensee has proposed to amend its license to incorporate a new license condition addressing the license termination plan (LTP). This amendment will document the approval of the LTP, document the criteria for making changes to the LTP which will and will not require pre-approval by the NRC, and will document any conditions imposed with the approval of the LTP. *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 license amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? No. The proposed change is administrative. The change allows for the approval of the LTP and provides the criteria for when changes to the LTP require prior U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)approval. This change does not affect possible initiating events for accidents previously evaluated or alter the configuration or operation of the facility. Safety limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting control systems are no longer applicable to Rancho Seco in the permanently defueled mode, and are therefore not relevant. The proposed change does not affect the boundaries used to evaluate compliance with liquid or gaseous effluent limits, and has no impact on plant operations. Therefore, the proposed license amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? No. As described above, the proposed change is administrative and provides the criteria for when changes to the LTP require prior NRC approval. The safety analysis for the facility remains complete and accurate. There are no physical changes to the facility as a result of the proposed amendment and the plant conditions for which the design basis accidents have been evaluated are still valid. The operating procedures and emergency procedures are not affected. The proposed changes do not affect the emergency planning zone, the boundaries used to evaluate compliance with liquid or gaseous effluent limits, and have no impact on plant operations. Consequently, no new failure modes are introduced as the result of the proposed changes. Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? No. As described above, the proposed changes are administrative. There are no changes to the design or operation of the facility. The proposed changes do not affect the emergency planning zone, the boundaries used to evaluate compliance with liquid or gaseous effluent limits, and have no impact on plant operations. Accordingly, neither the design basis nor the accident assumptions in the Defueled Safety Analysis Report, nor the Technical Specification Bases are affected. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's significant hazards 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:* Arlen Orchard, Esq., General Counsel, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 6201 S Street, P.O. Box 15830, Sacramento, CA 95817-1899. *NRC Branch Chief:* Claudia M. Craig. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP), Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama *Date of amendment request:* January 30, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications
(TSs)to reflect a change to a site vice president organizational structure. The resulting structure places a vice president at the plant site. The proposed amendment describes changes in titles and administrative duties that accompany the reorganization. *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? The proposed change to [the] FNP TS involves SNC moving to a site vice president organizational structure. Since the proposed change is administrative in nature, it does not involve any physical changes to any structures, systems, or components, nor will their performance requirements be altered. The proposed change also does not affect the operation, maintenance, or testing of the plant. Therefore, the response of the plant to previously analyzed accidents will not be affected. Consequently, 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 previously evaluated? As a result of the proposed change to the FNP TS, the qualification requirements for the unit staff position[s] will remain unchanged and the plant staff will continue to meet applicable regulatory requirements. Also, since no change is being made to the design, operation, maintenance, or testing of the plant, no new methods of operation or failure modes are introduced by the proposed change. Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated is not created. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant decrease in the margin of safety? The proposed change to the FNP TS will have no adverse impact on the onsite organizational features necessary to assure safe operation of the plant since the qualification requirements for the unit staff remains unchanged. Since the proposed change is administrative in nature, it does not involve any physical changes to any structures, systems, or components, nor will their performance requirements be altered. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant decrease in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* M. Stanford Blanton, Esq., Balch and Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, Alabama 35201. *NRC Branch Chief:* Evangelos C. Marinos. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP), Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia *Date of amendment request:* January 30, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments would revise the Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications
(TSs)to reflect a change to a site vice president organizational structure. The resulting structure places a vice president at the plant site. The proposed amendment describes changes in titles and administrative duties that accompany the reorganization. *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? The proposed change to [the] HNP TS involves SNC moving to a site vice president organizational structure. Since the proposed change is administrative in nature, it does not involve any physical changes to any structures, systems, or components, nor will their performance requirements be altered. The proposed change also does not affect the operation, maintenance, or testing of the plant. Therefore, the response of the plant to previously analyzed accidents will not be affected. Consequently, 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 previously evaluated? As a result of the proposed change to the HNP TS, the qualification requirements for the unit staff position[s] will remain unchanged and the plant staff will continue to meet applicable regulatory requirements. Also, since no change is being made to the design, operation, maintenance, or testing of the plant, no new methods of operation or failure modes are introduced by the proposed change. Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated is not created. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant decrease in the margin of safety? The proposed change to the HNP TS will have no adverse impact on the onsite organizational features necessary to assure safe operation of the plant since the qualification requirements for the unit staff remains unchanged. Since the proposed change is administrative in nature, it does not involve any physical changes to any structures, systems, or components, nor will their performance requirements be altered. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant decrease in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. *NRC Branch Chief:* Evangelos C. Marinos. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia *Date of amendment request:* January 30, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the Vogle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications
(TSs)to reflect a change to a site vice president organizational structure. The resulting structure places a vice president at the plant site. The proposed amendment describes changes in titles and administrative duties that accompany the reorganization. *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? The proposed change to [the] VEGP TS involves SNC moving to a site vice president organizational structure. Since the proposed change is administrative in nature, it does not involve any physical changes to any structures, systems, or components, nor will their performance requirements be altered. The proposed change also does not affect the operation, maintenance, or testing of the plant. Therefore, the response of the plant to previously analyzed accidents will not be affected. Consequently, 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 previously evaluated? As a result of the proposed change to the VEGP TS, the qualification requirements for the unit staff position[s] will remain unchanged and the plant staff will continue to meet applicable regulatory requirements. Also, since no change is being made to the design, operation, maintenance, or testing of the plant, no new methods of operation or failure modes are introduced by the proposed change. Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated is not created. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant decrease in the margin of safety? The proposed change to the VEGP TS will have no adverse impact on the onsite organizational features necessary to assure safe operation of the plant since the qualification requirements for the unit staff remains unchanged. Since the proposed change is administrative in nature, it does not involve any physical changes to any structures, systems, or components, nor will their performance requirements be altered. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant decrease in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mr. Arthur H. Domby, Troutman Sanders, NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2216. *NRC Branch Chief:* Evangelos C. Marinos. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260 and 50-296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama *Date of amendment request:* December 21, 2006 (TS-456). *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification
(TS)Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO)3.10.1 and the associated TS Bases to expand its scope to include provisions for temperature excursions greater than 212 °F as a consequence of inservice leak and hydrostatic testing, and as a consequence of scram time testing initiated in conjunction with inservice leak or hydrostatic testing, while considering operational conditions to be in Mode 4. The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the **Federal Register** on August 21, 2006 (71 FR 48561), on possible amendments to revise the plant-specific TS, to expand the scope of TS LCO 3.10.1, to include provisions for temperature excursions greater than 200 °F as a consequence of inservice leak and hydrostatic testing, and as a consequence of scram time testing initiated in conjunction with an inservice leak or hydrostatic test, while considering operational conditions to be in MODE 4, including a model safety evaluation and model No Significant Hazards Consideration
(NSHC)Determination, using the consolidated line item improvement process. The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models for referencing in license amendment applications in the **Federal Register** on October 27, 2006 (71 FR 63050). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its application dated December 21, 2006. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of NSHC is presented below: *Criterion 1:* The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Technical Specifications currently allow for operation at greater than [200] °F while imposing MODE 4 requirements in addition to the secondary containment requirements required to be met. Extending the activities that can apply this allowance will not adversely impact the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. *Criterion 2:* The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Technical Specifications currently allow for operation at greater than [200] °F while imposing MODE 4 requirements in addition to the secondary containment requirements required to be met. No new operational conditions beyond those currently allowed by LCO 3.10.1 are introduced. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant ( *i.e.* , no new or different types of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the changes requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice. Therefore the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. *Criterion 3:* The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Technical Specifications currently allow for operation at greater than [200] °F while imposing MODE 4 requirements in addition to the secondary containment requirements required to be met. Extending the activities that can apply this allowance will not adversely impact any margin of safety. Allowing completion of inspections and testing and supporting completion of scram time testing in conjunction with an inservice leak or hydrostatic test prior to power operation results in enhanced safe operations by eliminating unnecessary maneuvers to control reactor temperature and pressure. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. *NRC Branch Chief:* L. Raghavan. Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The following notices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration. For details, see the individual notice in the **Federal Register** on the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period of the original notice. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 1, Pope County, Arkansas *Date of amendment request:* July 27, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated October 4 and October 9, 2006. *Brief description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification
(TS)3.7.14, “Spent Fuel Pool Boron Concentration,” TS 3.7.15, “Spent Fuel Pool Storage,” and the associated Figure 3.7.15-1, and TS 4.3, “Fuel Storage,” and the associated Figure 4.3.1.2-1. In addition, this amendment would add TS 5.5.17, “Metamic Coupon Sampling Program,” and Surveillance Requirement 3.7.15.2 that directs the performance of the coupon sampling program. The proposed TS changes support a modification to the ANO-1 spent fuel pool
(SFP)that would utilize Metamic® poison insert assemblies. In addition to the proposed plant modification, the licensee would increase the SFP boron concentration and credit boron to ensure that a 5-percent subcriticality margin is maintained during normal and accident conditions. This proposed amendment also would increase the allowable initial fuel assembly uranium-235 (U-235) enrichment from 4.1 weight percent (wt%) to a maximum U-235 enrichment of 4.95 wt%. *Date of publication of individual notice in* Federal Register : December 26, 2006 (71 FR 77414). *Expiration date of individual notice:* February 26, 2007. 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.* Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2, New London County, Connecticut *Date of application for amendment:* January 26, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated December 20, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised the Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications
(TSs)to update the list of NRC-approved documents specified in the TSs that describe the analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits. The proposed change also corrects a typographical error in TS 5.3.1, “Reactor Core, Fuel Assembly,” which was introduced in the retyped pages provided to the NRC for issuance of Amendment No. 280, dated September, 25, 2003. *Date of issuance:* January 23, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 295. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-65:* The Amendment revised the TSs. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : May 9, 2006 (71 FR 26997). The supplement dated December 20, 2006, provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the proposed amendment as described in the original notice of proposed action published in the **Federal Register** , and did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 23, 2007. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2, New London County, Connecticut *Date of application for amendment:* March 17, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment changed the Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2, Technical Specifications by replacing the existing maximum and minimum pressurizer water volume and water level limits with a maximum water level limit. The associated TS bases were updated to address the proposed changes. *Date of issuance:* January 30, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 296. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-65:* The amendment revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : November 11, 2006 (71 FR 65141). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 30, 2007. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 1 (ANO-1), Pope County, Arkansas *Date of amendment request:* July 27, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated October 4, October 9, and December 14, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised Technical Specification
(TS)3.7.14, “Spent Fuel Pool Boron Concentration,” TS 3.7.15, “Spent Fuel Pool Storage,” and the associated Figure 3.7.15-1, and TS 4.3, “Fuel Storage,” and the associated Figure 4.3.1.2-1. In addition, this amendment added TS 5.5.17, “Metamic Coupon Sampling Program,” and Surveillance Requirement 3.7.15.2 that directs the performance of the coupon sampling program. The TS changes support a modification to the ANO-1 spent fuel pool
(SFP)that utilize Metamic® poison insert assemblies. In addition to the proposed plant modification, the licensee increased the SFP boron concentration and credited boron to ensure that a 5-percent subcriticality margin is maintained during normal and accident conditions. This amendment also increased the allowable initial fuel assembly uranium-235 (U-235) enrichment from 4.1 weight percent (wt%) to a maximum U-235 enrichment of 4.95 wt%. *Date of issuance:* January 26, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 228. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51:* Amendment revised the Technical Specifications/license. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : December 26, 2006 (71 FR 77414). The supplement dated December 14, 2006, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 26, 2007. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-374, LaSalle County Station, Unit 2, LaSalle County, Illinois *Date of application for amendments:* April 21, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised Technical Specification
(TS)5.5.13, “Primary Containment Leakage Testing Program,” to reflect a one-time extension of the LaSalle, Unit 2 primary containment Type A integrated leak rate test
(ILRT)from the current requirement of no later than December 7, 2008, to prior to startup following the 12th LaSalle, Unit 2 refueling outage. *Date of issuance:* January 24, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 166. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-18:* The amendment revised the Technical Specifications and License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : June 6, 2006 (71 FR 32605). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 24, 2007. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois *Date of application for amendments:* April 13, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated December 22, 2005, June 12, 2006, and January 4, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The proposed amendment would extend, on a one-time basis, the completion time
(CT)for required action C.4, “Restore required Diesel Generators
(DGs)OPERABLE status,” associated with Technical Specification
(TS)Section 3.8.1 from 72 hours to 6 days. This proposed change would only be used during the upcoming Unit 2—spring 2007 refueling outage, and later during the Unit 1—spring 2008 refueling outage. The amendment would also extend the CT from 2 hours to 6 hours in TS Section 3.8.1, Required Action F.1, “Restore one required DG to OPERABLE status.” This proposed change to be used during the upcoming Unit 2—spring 2007 refueling outage, and later during the subsequent Unit 1—spring 2008 refueling outage. *Date of issuance:* January 29, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 180/167. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications/License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : June 7, 2005 (70 FR 33210). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 29, 2007. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Florida Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-335, St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1, St. Lucie County, Florida *Date of application for amendment:* April 24, 2006, as supplemented September 14, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised the Technical Specifications
(TSs)consistent with the NRC-approved Revision 4 to TS Task Force
(TSTF)Standard TS Change Traveler, TSTF-449, “Steam Generator Tube Integrity.” *Date of Issuance:* January 30, 2007. *Effective Date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 200. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-67:* Amendment revised the TSs. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : July 18, 2006 (71 FR 40746). The September 14, 2006, supplement did not affect the original proposed no significant hazards determination, or expand the scope of the request as noticed in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated: January 30, 2007. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Oswego County, New York *Date of application for amendment:* December 16, 2005, as supplemented by letter dated October 25, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment relocates Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 4.1.4d for core spray header differential pressure instrumentation to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. *Date of issuance:* January 31, 2007. *Effective date:* January 31, 2007. *Amendment No.:* 192. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-63:* Amendment revised the License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : March 28, 2006 (71 FR 15484). The supplemental letter dated October 25, 2006, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 31, 2007. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California *Date of application for amendments:* January 25, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised Technical Specification
(TS)1.1, “Definitions,” and TS 3.4.16, “RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Specific Activity.” The amendments replaced the current TS 3.4.16 limit on RCS gross specific activity with a new limit on RCS noble gas specific activity. The noble gas specific activity limit is based on a new dose equivalent Xe-133 definition that would replace the current E-Bar average disintegration energy definition. In addition, the current dose equivalent I-131 definition is revised to allow the use of alternate thyroid dose conversion factors. *Date of issuance:* January 19, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 1-192; Unit 2-193. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and Operating Licenses. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : March 14, 2006 (71 FR 13176). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 19, 2007. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket No. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 and 2), Luzerne County, Pennsylvania *Date of application for amendments:* October 13, 2005, as supplemented on May 18, September 15 (PLA-6112 and PLA-6114), September 29, October 20, November 14, December 13, and December 14, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revise the SSES 1 and 2 Technical Specifications
(TSs)to incorporate a full-scope application of an alternate source term methodology in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 50.67. *Date of issuance:* January 31, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and to be implemented by October 30, 2007. *Amendment Nos.:* 239 and 216. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22:* The amendments revised the TSs and license. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : August 29, 2006 (71 FR 51231). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 31, 2007. The supplements dated September 15 (PLA-6112 and PLA-6114), September 29, October 20, November 14, December 13, and December 14, 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. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-260 and 50-296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama *Date of application for amendments:* October 26, 2006 (TS-457). *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revise Technical Specification
(TS)Action 3.8.1.B.4 for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 2 and 3. The revision changes the restoration time of an inoperable Emergency Diesel Generator from 14 to 7 days. *Date of issuance:* January 26, 2007. *Effective date:* Within 60 days of NRC approval or prior to changing Unit 1 reactor mode to startup, whichever is earlier. *Amendment Nos.:* 298 and 256. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-52 and DPR-68:* Amendments revised the TSs. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : November 21, 2006 (71 FR 67398). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 26, 2007. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County, Missouri *Date of application for amendment:* May 25, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised TSs by adding Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO)3.0.8. This change is consistent with NRC-approved Revision 4 to Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Standard Technical Specification Traveler, TSTF-372, “Addition of LCO 3.0.8, Inoperability of Snubbers.” *Date of issuance:* January 31, 2007. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 90 days of the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 179. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-30:* The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : July 18, 2006 (71 FR 40755). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 31, 2007. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia *Date of application for amendment:* May 22, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* These amendments revise the existing steam generator tube surveillance program to be consistent with the Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Standard TS Change Traveler, TSTF-449, “Steam Generator Tube Integrity.” *Date of issuance:* October 16, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 248, 228. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7:* Amendments change the licenses and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : August 1, 2006 (71 FR 43537) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 16, 2006. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of February 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. John W. Lubinski, Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-2323 Filed 2-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55248; File No. SR-Amex-2006-90] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, To List and Trade Notes Linked to the Performance of the Hang Seng China Enterprises Index February 6, 2007. On September 22, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) 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 list and trade notes linked to the performance of the Hang Seng China Enterprises Index (“Index”). Amex amended the proposal on November 15, 2006 and subsequently on December 12, 2006. 3 The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on December 26, 2006. 4 No comments were received on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l). 2 17 CFR 240. 19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 2 replaced and superseded the original rule filing and Amendment No. 1 in their entirety. 4 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54943 (December 15, 2006), 71 FR 77422 (“Notice”). Under Section 107A of its Company Guide (“Company Guide”), Amex proposes to list notes issued by Citigroup Funding, Inc. (the “Issuer”) under the name “Stock Market Upturn Notes” that are based on the value of the Index (the “Notes”). The Index is currently based on 37 common stocks that are listed and traded on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong and are among the largest companies in the 200-stock Hang Seng Composite Index (“HSCI”). The Index is compiled by HSI Services Limited (the “Index Calculator”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Hang Seng Bank. The Index is capitalization-weighted and revised twice each year to eliminate any components whose weight might exceed 15% of the Index. The Notes would offer investors exposure to certain stocks traded on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong. The Notes would be cash-settled in U.S. dollars, must be held to maturity, and would pay out according to a formula set forth in the notice of Amex's proposal. 5 Unlike traditional debt securities, the Notes would not have a minimum principal amount that would be repaid at maturity and thus the return could be less than the original issue price. The Notes would entitle the holder at maturity to receive an amount based on the percentage change of the Index, subject to a maximum payment determined at the time of issuance. 5 *See* Notice, *supra* note 4, 71 FR at 77423-24. The Notes would be senior non-convertible debt securities of the Issuer. Like traditional debt securities, therefore, the Notes are dependent upon the creditworthiness of the Issuer. This credit risk is addressed by the listing standards in Amex Rule 107A, which provide that a security may not be listed on the Exchange unless its issuer satisfies certain financial requirements. Section 107A of the Company Guide also requires a market value of $4 million for initial listing. In addition, the Notes would have to comply with continued listing standards in Sections 1001-1003 of the Amex Company Guide. Under Section 1002(b) of the Company Guide, the Exchange would consider removing from listing any security where, in the opinion of the Exchange, it appears that the extent of public distribution or aggregate market value has become so reduced to make further dealings on the Exchange inadvisable. 6 6 In this case, the Exchange would look for guidance to Section 1003(b)(iv)(A) (relating to bonds) which states that the Exchange would normally consider suspending dealings in, or removing from the list, a security if the aggregate market value or the principal amount of the bonds publicly held is less than $400,000. The Notes would trade as equity securities subject to Amex rules governing, among other things, priority, parity, and precedence of orders; specialist responsibilities; margin; and customer suitability requirements. In addition, the Exchange would halt trading in the Notes if the circuit breaker parameters of Exchange Rule 117 are reached. In exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Notes, the Exchange may consider the factors set forth in Exchange Rule 918C(b), and other factors that may be relevant. In particular, if the Index value is not being disseminated as required, the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which the interruption to the dissemination of the Index value occurs. If the interruption to the dissemination of the Index value persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange would halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption. Amex has represented that it would rely on its existing surveillance procedures governing index-linked securities, which Amex represents are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Notes. The Exchange has an information-sharing agreement with the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong for the purpose of providing information in connection with trading in or related to the components comprising the Index. After careful consideration, 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 national securities exchange. 7 In particular the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 which requires among other things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to facilitate transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission notes that it has previously approved the listing and trading of other index-linked securities that have a structure similar to the Notes. 9 7 In approving the rule, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 9 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51563 (April 15, 2005), 70 FR 21257 (April 25, 2005) (SR-Amex-2005-01) (approving generic listing standards for index-linked securities); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51227 (February 18, 2005), 70 FR 9395 (February 25, 2005) (SR-Amex-2005-010) (approving the listing and trading of notes linked to the performance of the Nikkei 225 Index); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50016 (July 14, 2004), 69 FR 43639 (July 21, 2004) (SR-Amex-2004-43) (approving the listing and trading of notes linked to the performance of the Nikkei 225 Index). The Commission further believes that the proposal is consistent with section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Exchange Act, 10 which sets forth Congress' finding that it is in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities. Quotations for and last-sale information regarding the Notes will be disseminated through the Consolidated Quotation System. The index value is calculated and disseminated daily and may be verified by a number of independent sources. 11 Furthermore, financial information regarding the Issuer would be publicly available, thus allowing investors to confirm the creditworthiness of the Issuer. The Commission believes that Amex's proposal is reasonably designed to promote transparency in the pricing of the Notes, and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. The proposal also appears reasonably designed to prevent conveyance of inside information from the Index Calculator to market participants who may trade the Notes. 10 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii). 11 *See* e-mail dated January 30, 2007 from Sudhir C. Bhattacharyya, Assistant General Counsel, Amex, to Mitra Mehr, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission. In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made the following representations:
(1)Amex has received a representation from HSCI Services Limited, the Index Calculator, that:
(a)Appropriate firewalls exist to ensure independence of operations among different units within the Hang Seng Group; and
(b)policies and procedures are in place containing, among other things, insider trading prohibitions, designed to prevent conflicts of interest.
(2)Amex would distribute a circular to its membership providing guidance with regard to member firm compliance responsibilities (including suitability recommendations) when handling transactions in the Notes and highlighting the special risks and characteristics of the Notes. In addition, the Issuer would deliver a prospectus in connection with the initial sale of the Notes.
(3)Amex would rely on its existing surveillance procedures governing index-linked securities, which are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Notes.
(4)Amex prohibits the initial and/or continued listing of any security that is not in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act. 12 12 *See* 17 CFR 240.10A-3(c)(1). This order is conditioned on Amex's adherence to these representations. In addition, Amex has represented that it would file a proposed rule change pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act if:
(1)HSCI substantially changes either the index component selection methodology or the weighting methodology;
(2)a new component is added to the Index (or pricing information is used for a new or existing component) that constitutes more than 10% of the weight of the Index with whose principal trading market the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement; or
(3)a successor or substitute index is used in connection with the Notes. The Commission believes that each of these circumstances represents material changes to the characteristics of the Index described herein and on which the Commission is basing its findings. Under these circumstances, the Exchange could not rely on this approval to list and trade the Notes. *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2006-90), as modified by Amendment No. 2 be, and it hereby is, approved. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-2417 Filed 2-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55246; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-62] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Its Index Obvious Error Rule February 6, 2007. I. Introduction On July 7, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with 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 amend CBOE Rule 24.16, which is the Exchange's rule applicable to the nullification and adjustment of transactions in index options, options on exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), and options on HOLDing Company Depository ReceiptS (“HOLDRS”). On October 30, 2006, the CBOE submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on December 20, 2006. 3 The Commission received no comment letters on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change as modified by Amendment No. 1. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54926 (December 13, 2006), 71 FR 76393. II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 24.16 in order to:
(i)re-define what constitutes an “obvious price error;”
(ii)provide for a Market-Maker to Market-Maker adjustment of obvious price errors (currently such erroneous transactions are subject to nullification);
(iii)eliminate the nullification and adjustments provisions for erroneous quantity errors; and
(iv)make various non-substantive changes to the text of Rule 24.16. Specifically, an “obvious price error” would be deemed to have occurred for series trading with normal bid-ask differentials as established in CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv) when the execution price of a transaction is above or below the “fair market value” 4 of the option by at least: $0.125 for options trading under $2; $0.20 for options trading at or above $2 and up to $5; $0.25 for options trading above $5 and up to $10; $0.40 for options trading above $10 and up to $20; and $0.50 for options trading above $20. For series trading with bid-ask differentials that are a multiple of the widths established in Rule 8.7(b)(iv), the prescribed error amount would have the same multiple applied to the amounts prescribed above. 4 Fair market value is defined in Rule 24.16 as the midpoint of the national best bid and national best offer for the series (across all exchanges trading the option). In multiply listed issues, if there are no quotes for comparison purposes, fair market value shall be determined by Trading Officials. For singly-listed issues and for transactions occurring as part of the Rapid Opening System (“ROS trades”) or Hybrid Opening System (“HOSS”), the Exchange clarified in the proposed rule change that the fair market value shall be the midpoint of the first quote after the transaction(s) in question that does not reflect the erroneous transaction(s). Second, the proposal revises the obvious price error provision as it relates to the handling of transactions involving only CBOE Market-Makers. Under the current rule, such erroneous price transactions are nullified. Under the proposal, CBOE-Market-Maker-to-CBOE-Market-Maker transactions would be subject to adjustment. In applying the proposed CBOE Market-Maker adjustment provision to index options and options on ETFs or HOLDRs, the adjustment price would be equal to the fair market value of the option minus the minimum error amount in the case of an erroneous sell transaction or the fair market value plus the minimum error amount in the case of an erroneous buy transaction. If the adjusted price is not in a multiple of the applicable minimum trading increment, the adjusted price would be rounded down
(up)to the next price that is a multiple of the applicable minimum trading increment with respect to an erroneous sell
(buy)transaction. Third, the proposal would eliminate obvious quantity errors as a type of transaction that is subject to obvious error review. The elimination of this provision is consistent with the Exchange's current rule for equity options, which does not have an obvious error review for quantity errors. 5 5 *See* CBOE Rule 6.25(a). Lastly, the proposal would make various non-substantive changes to CBOE Rule 24.16, such as making cross-reference updates to correspond to the above-described revisions, changing the title of the rule to reflect its application to options on ETFs and HOLDRS (currently the title only references index options), clarifying that fair market value is to be determined by Exchange Trading Officials in accordance with the provisions of the definition of fair market value, and making other technical changes. 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 national securities exchange 6 and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act 7 and the rules and regulations thereunder. Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 in that the proposal promotes just and equitable principles of trade, prevents fraudulent and manipulative acts, removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protects investors and the public interest. 6 In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission considers that in most circumstances trades that are executed between parties should be honored. On rare occasions, the price of the executed trade indicates an “obvious error” may exist, suggesting that it is unrealistic to expect that the parties to the trade had come to a meeting of the minds regarding the terms of the transaction. In the Commission's view, the determination of whether an “obvious error” has occurred should be based on specific and objective criteria and subject to specific and objective procedures. The revised scale for identifying the minimum error amount for an obvious price error and the elimination of obvious quantity errors set out a clear and objective methodology for determining when an obvious error has occurred. The proposed amendments with respect to obvious error transactions involving only CBOE Market Makers also establish specific and objective criteria governing the adjustment of such trades. In addition, the technical conforming and clarifying changes made by the proposed rule change, including the clarification with respect to the role of Trading Officials, should help facilitate understanding and application of CBOE Rule 24.16. Therefore, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 9 that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2006-62), as modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-2405 Filed 2-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55239; File No. SR-DTC-2006-15] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Canadian Link Service February 5, 2007. I. Introduction On October 10, 2006, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-DTC-2006-15 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”). 1 Notice of the proposal was published in the **Federal Register** on December 8, 2006. 2 No comment letters were received. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54855, (December 1, 2006), 71 FR 71206. II. Description The proposed rule change amends DTC's Rule 30, Canadian-Link Service, to allow certain Canadian-Link transactions to settle in U.S. dollars. DTC's Canadian-Link Service currently allows participants of DTC (“DTC Participants”) to clear and settle two categories of securities transactions in Canadian dollars:
(1)transactions with participants of The Canadian Depository for Securities Limited CDS (“CDS Participants”) and
(2)transactions with other DTC Participants. The Canadian-Link Service also allows DTC Participants to transfer Canadian dollar funds to CDS Participants through the facilities of CDS and to other DTC Participants through Canadian settlement banks acting for DTC and such DTC Participants. The proposed rule change would add an additional functionality to the Canadian-Link Service to allow DTC Participants to settle certain securities transactions with CDS Participants in U.S. dollars (“cross border U.S. dollar securities transactions”). Set forth below is a description of the current Canadian-Link Service and a description of the proposed change. Current Functionality of the Canadian-Link Service The Canadian-Link Service currently allows DTC Participants to clear and settle valued securities transactions in Canadian dollars with CDS Participants through the link between DTC and CDS. The securities that may be the subject of these transactions are securities that are eligible for book-entry transfer through the facilities of CDS and DTC (“Full-Service Canadian-Link Securities”) and securities that are eligible for book-entry transfer through the facilities of CDS but not through DTC (“Limited Service Canadian-Link Securities”). The securities are delivered to and from CDS Participants through the facilities of CDS. Money settlement between DTC and CDS is included in Canadian dollar money settlement at CDS. Money settlement between DTC and DTC Participants takes place between Canadian settlement banks acting for DTC and such DTC Participants. The Canadian-Link Service allows DTC Participants to clear and settle valued transactions in Canadian dollars with other DTC Participants through the facilities of DTC. The securities that may be the subject of these transactions are Full-Service Canadian-Link Securities. The securities are delivered to and from DTC Participants through the facilities of DTC. Money settlement between DTC and DTC Participants takes place through Canadian settlement banks acting for DTC and such DTC Participants. The Canadian-Link Service allows DTC Participants to transfer Canadian dollar funds without any corresponding delivery or receipt of securities to CDS Participants or other DTC Participants. Transactions between DTC Participants and CDS Participants are processed through the facilities of CDS. Transactions between DTC Participants and other DTC Participants are processed through Canadian settlement banks acting for such DTC Participants. The proposed rule change would not change any of the existing components of the Canadian-Link Service and except for cross border U.S. dollar securities transactions, as set forth below, would not change how securities transactions are currently processed through the Canadian-Link Service. Enhancement to the Canadian-Link Service The proposed rule change enhances the Canadian-Link Service to allow DTC Participants to clear and settle certain valued securities transactions in U.S. dollars with CDS Participants through the link between DTC and CDS. 3 The securities that will be the subject of U.S. dollar settlement are Limited-Service Canadian-Link Securities ( *i.e.* , securities that are eligible for book-entry transfer through the facilities of CDS but not DTC). The securities will be delivered to and from CDS Participants through the facilities of CDS. Money settlement between DTC and CDS will be included in U.S. dollar money settlement at DTC. Money settlement between DTC and DTC Participants will also be included in U.S. dollar money settlement at DTC together with the settlement of DTC Participants' other transactions at DTC. As the foregoing indicates, these cross border U.S. dollar securities transactions will be processed in substantially the same way that transactions are now processed except that these transactions would settle in U.S. dollars rather than in Canadian dollars and the place of money settlement will be at DTC rather than at CDS or through Canadian settlement banks. 3 DTC has represented to the Commission that some transactions executed in Canadian markets, either on a stock exchange or over-the-counter, are settled in U.S. dollars. Transactions that settle in U.S. dollars are reported to DTC in U.S. dollar amounts. DTC does not convert settlement amounts from Canadian to U.S. dollars. The proposed rule change also adds new definitions to DTC Rule 30 to distinguish between transactions between DTC Participants and CDS Participants (“Cross-Border Securities Transactions”) and transactions between only DTC Participants (“Intra-DTC Securities Transactions”). The proposed rule change also adds new definitions to distinguish between transactions that settle in U.S. dollars and transactions that settle in Canadian dollars (for example, “Cross-Border CAD Securities Transactions” and “Intra-DTC USD Securities Transactions”). Risk Management Controls Set forth below is a description of DTC's risk management controls with respect to the Canadian-Link Service and how these risk management controls will be affected as a result of the proposed rule change. 1. *Canadian-Link Required Participants Fund Deposit.* A DTC Participant that uses the Canadian-Link Service is currently required to make an additional required deposit to the DTC participants fund that is determined in accordance with a formula that takes into account the volume of cross-border Canadian dollar securities transactions processed by DTC for such DTC Participant. Under the proposed rule change, such formula will also take into account the volume of cross-border U.S. dollar securities transactions processed by DTC for such DTC Participant. 2. *Security for Canadian-Link Transactions.* A DTC Participant that uses the Canadian-Link Service is currently required to pledge to DTC its interest in the securities subject to cross-border Canadian dollar securities transactions that are held by DTC for such DTC Participant at CDS. Under the proposed rule change, such DTC Participant will also be required to pledge to DTC its interest in the securities subject to cross-border U.S. dollar securities transactions that are held by DTC for such DTC Participant at CDS. 3. *Canadian-Link Service Net Debit Caps of Canadian-Link Participants.* A DTC Participant that uses the Canadian-Link Service is currently subject to a net debit cap on the negative Canadian dollar balance that may, from time to time, be incurred by such DTC Participant with respect to its use of the Canadian-Link Service. Under the proposed rule change, a DTC Participant will also be subject to a net debit cap on the negative U.S. dollar balance that may from time to time be incurred by such DTC Participant with respect to its cross-border U.S. dollar securities transactions. The proposed rule change will add new definitions to DTC Rule 30 to take into account that there will be separate Net Debit Caps for U.S. and for Canadian dollar transactions. 4. *Collateral Monitor of Canadian-Link Participants.* A DTC Participant that uses the Canadian-Link Service is currently subject to the DTC collateral monitor with respect to its use of the Canadian-Link Service. Under the proposed rule change, a DTC Participant will also be subject to the DTC collateral monitor with respect to its cross-border U.S. dollar securities transactions. As the foregoing indicates, cross-border U.S. dollar securities transactions will be subject to essentially the same risk management controls that are already applicable to the other securities transactions currently processed through the Canadian-Link Service. III. Discussion Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible. The Commission first approved Rule 30 to permit DTC to provide the Canadian-Link Service in 2005. 4 In its order granting approval of Rule 30, the Commission found that rule satisfies the requirements of Section 17A of the Act because while streamlining the clearance and settlement of Canadian Dollar transactions at DTC, it includes sufficient procedures to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in DTC's custody or control or for which it is responsible. 4 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52784 (November 16, 2005), 71 FR 70902 (November 23, 2005) (File No. SR-DTC-2005-08). The proposed rule change, by adding to the transactions that are eligible to be cleared and settled through the Canadian-Link Service, is designed to encourage more CDS-Link Participants to use and to benefit from the operational and cost efficiencies of the Canadian-Link Service. We are satisfied with DTC's description of the rule change as an enhancement that does not otherwise affect the operation of the Canadian-Link Service as it was previously approved by the Commission. In addition, the corresponding changes made to DTC's risk management procedures and the clarifying amendments made to the terminology in Rule 30 should assure that DTC can offer U.S. Dollar settlement for the Canadian-Link Service without affecting DTC's ability to safeguard securities and funds which are in its custody or control or for which it is responsible. IV. Conclusion On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. 5 5 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). *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-DTC-2006-15) be and hereby is approved. For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 6 6 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-2419 Filed 2-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55244; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-11] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rule 122 (Orders With More Than One Broker) Until the Availability of Full d-Quote Functions in a Particular Security or March 5, 2007, Whichever Comes First February 5, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on February 5, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the self-regulatory organization. NYSE filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to continue the Floor brokers' ability to maintain discretionary e-Quotes (“d-Quotes”) 5 and CAP-DI orders 6 in a security on the same side of the market for the same order that are capable of trading at the same price until the completion of Phase IV implementation of the HYBRID MARKET SM (“Hybrid Market”) in the relevant security or until March 5, 2007, whichever comes first. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *www.nyse.com* ), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54577 (October 5, 2006), 71 FR 60208 (October 12, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-36). 6 *See* Exchange Rules 13 and 123A.30(a). Exchange Rule 123A.30(a) describes a CAP-DI order as: “The elected or converted portion of a ‘percentage order that is convertible on a destabilizing tick and designated immediate execution or cancel election’ (“CAP-DI order”) may be automatically executed and may participate in a sweep.” II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose On October 25, 2006, the Exchange filed with the Commission an amendment to Rule 122 to permit Floor brokers to enter d-Quotes and CAP-DI orders in a security on the same side of the market for the same underlying order that are capable of trading at the same price until the implementation of full d-Quoting functionality in the relevant security or until February 5, 2007, whichever came first. 7 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54653 (October 26, 2006), 71 FR 64594 (November 2, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-94). On January 25, 2007, the Exchange commenced the implementation of Phase IV of the Hybrid Market, which includes the remaining d-Quote functions:
(i)The ability to trade against non-marketable interest within a Floor broker's discretionary range and
(ii)routing control for Floor brokers with respect to d-Quotes. 8 8 Other d-Quote functions were implemented in Phase III. The Exchange anticipates that the implementation of Phase IV will not be completed as originally anticipated by February 5, 2007. Through this filing the Exchange therefore requests to extend Floor brokers' ability to enter d-Quotes and CAP-DI orders in a security on the same side of the market for the same orders that are capable of trading at the same price until the implementation of full d-Quoting functionality in the relevant security or until March 5, 2007 whichever comes first. The Exchange believes that extending the time period in which Floor brokers have this capability is necessary in order to ensure that Floor brokers remain competitive. Currently, the specialist can send electronically a “hit bid” or “take offer” message based on an incoming order that would create a new best bid or best offer; thus allowing the specialist to trade electronically with the newly published bid or offer. Without complete d-Quote functionality, a Floor broker only has the ability to interact manually with such new bid or offer. As a result, the speed disparity between a manual action and an electronic one places the Floor broker at a competitive disadvantage. While a Floor broker can seek to trade at the bid or offer price by manually “hitting the bid” or “taking the offer” the Floor broker can also send a CAP-DI order to the specialist for conversion or election at that price. Marketable CAP-DI orders are automatically converted and trade along with specialist proprietary executions. Accordingly, by allowing Floor brokers to have CAP-DI orders and d-Quotes, they retain the ability to compete with specialist algorithmic trading for executions involving marketable incoming orders via discretionary pricing instructions, but do not miss participating in executions when specialists algorithmically hit a bid or take an offer. 2. Statutory Basis The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 9 that an Exchange have rules that are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change also is designed to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) of the Act 10 in that it seeks to assure economically efficient execution of securities transactions, make it practicable for brokers to execute investors' orders in the best market and provide an opportunity for investors' orders to be executed without the participation of a dealer. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 10 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 11 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 12 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 13 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay and designate the proposed rule change immediately operative upon filing. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposal would enable floor brokers to continue to compete with specialists in certain trades on behalf of their customers, while the Exchange is in the process of implementing the d-Quote functions. Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission until the availability of full d-Quote functions in a particular security or March 5, 2007, whichever comes first. 14 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 14 For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such proposed rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2007-11 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-11. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-11 and should be submitted on or before March 6, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-2406 Filed 2-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 10799 and # 10800] Colorado Disaster # CO-00014 AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of COLORADO dated 02/07/2007. *Incident:* Fire. *Incident Period:* 01/16/2007. *Effective Date:* 02/07/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 04/09/2007. *Economic Injury
(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date:* 11/07/2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: El Paso. Contiguous Counties: Colorado: Crowley; Douglas; Elbert; Fremont; Lincoln; Pueblo; Teller. The Interest Rates are: Percent Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere: 6.000 Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere: 3.000 Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere: 8.000 Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere: 4.000 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere: 5.250 Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere: 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10799 5 and for economic injury is 10800 0. The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Colorado (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Steven C. Preston, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-2460 Filed 2-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the Tillamook Airport, Tillamook, OR AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Request to Release Airport Property. SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the release of land at Tillamook Airport under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), now 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. J. Wade Bryant, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports Division, Seattle Airports District Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Suite 250, Renton, Washington 98057-3356. In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Jack Crider, Port Manager of the Port of Tillamook Bay, at the following address: Mr. Jack Crider, Port Manager, Port of Tillamook Bay, 4000 Blimp Blvd., Tillamook, OR 97141. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William L. Watson, OR/ID Section Supervisor, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Seattle Airports District Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Suite 250, Renton, Washington 98057-3356. The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in person at this same location. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at the Tillamook Airport under the provisions of the AIR 21 (49 U.S.C. § 47107(h)(2)). On January 31, 2007, the FAA determined that the request to release property at Tillamook Airport submitted by the airport meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no later than March 15, 2007. The following is a brief overview of the request: Tillamook Airport is proposing the release of approximately 19,144 square feet of airport property to the Oregon Department of Transportation for turn lane improvements to reduce traffic congestion. The revenue made from this sale will be used toward Airport Capital Improvement. Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at Tillamook Airport. Issued in Renton, Washington on January 31, 2007. J. Wade Bryant, Manager, Seattle Airports District Office. [FR Doc. 07-626 Filed 2-12-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 15
Traces to 15 documents
5 references not yet in our index
  • 10 CFR 2
  • 10 CFR 50
  • 17 CFR 240
  • 17 CFR 240.10
  • 17 CFR 240.19
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Notice
C.F.R.§ 50.92
C.F.R.§ 2.309
C.F.R.§ 50.91
C.F.R.§ 50.68
C.F.R.§ 50.55
C.F.R.§ 50.59
C.F.R.§ 51.22
C.F.R.§ 51.12
U.S.C.§ 78s
Cite10 CFR 2
Cite10 CFR 50
Cite17 CFR 240
Cites 20 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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