Notices. Notice of Issuance; Correction
21,918 words·~100 min read·
/register/2008/02/04/08-464A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-302] Florida Power Corporation, et al.; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing; Correction AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Issuance; Correction. SUMMARY: This document corrects a notice appearing in the **Federal Register** on January 15, 2008 (73 FR 2553), which informed the public that the NRC issued Amendment No. 228 to Facility Operating License No.
DPR-72 for Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant. This action is necessary to correct the date of issuance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stewart N. Bailey, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone
(301)415-1321, e-mail: *SNB@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On page 2554, appearing near the top of the first column, after *Date of Issuance:* the date is corrected to read December 26, 2007. Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of January 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Stewart N. Bailey, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E8-1945 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 52-017] Dominion Virginia Power; Acceptance for Docketing of an Application for Combined License for North Anna Unit 3 By letter dated November 26, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated January 17 and 28, 2008, Dominion Virginia Power (Dominion) submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)for a combined license
(COL)for one economic simplified boiling water reactor (ESBWR) in accordance with the requirements contained in 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” The reactor will be identified as North Anna Unit 3 and located at the North Anna Power Station in Louisa County, Virginia. A notice of receipt and availability of this application was previously published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 70619) on December 12, 2007. The NRC staff has determined that Dominion has submitted information in accordance with 10 CFR part 2, “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders,” and 10 CFR part 52 that is acceptable for docketing. The docket number established for this COL application is 52-017. The NRC staff will perform a detailed technical review of the COL application. Docketing of the COL application does not preclude the NRC from requesting additional information from the applicant as the review proceeds, nor does it predict whether the Commission will grant or deny the application. The Commission will conduct a hearing in accordance with subpart L, “Informal Hearing Procedures for NRC Adjudications,” of 10 CFR part 2 and will receive a report on the COL application from the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards in accordance with 10 CFR 52.87, “Referral to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).” If the Commission finds that the COL application meets the applicable standards of the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations, and that required notifications to other agencies and bodies have been made, the Commission will issue a COL, in the form and containing conditions and limitations that the Commission finds appropriate and necessary. In accordance with 10 CFR part 51, the Commission will also prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.26, and as part of the environmental scoping process, the staff intends to hold a public scoping meeting. Detailed information regarding this meeting will be included in a future **Federal Register** notice. Finally, the Commission will announce in a future **Federal Register** notice the opportunity to petition for leave to intervene in the hearing required for this application by 10 CFR 52.85. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, and will be accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . The application is also available at *http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col.html* . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 28th day of January 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Thomas A. Kevern, Senior Project Manager, ESBWR/ABWR Projects Branch 1, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors. [FR Doc. E8-1942 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Notice of Opportunity To Comment on Model Safety Evaluation on Technical Specification Improvement To Revise Containment Isolation Valve Completion Times (TSTF-498, Revision 1) Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Request for comment. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)has prepared a model safety evaluation
(SE)relating to the modification of technical specification
(TS)3.6.3, Containment Isolation Valves associated with implementation of BAW-2461-A, “Risk-Informed Justification for Containment Isolation Valve Allowed Outage Time Change.” The NRC staff has also prepared a model license amendment request and a model no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC)determination relating to this matter. The purpose of these models are to permit the NRC to efficiently process amendments that propose to modify TS Containment Isolation Valve Completion Times. Licensees of nuclear power reactors to which the models apply could then request amendments, confirming the applicability of the SE and NSHC determination to their reactors. The NRC staff is requesting comment on the model SE and model NSHC determination prior to announcing their availability for referencing in license amendment applications. DATES: The comment period expires March 5, 2008. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted either electronically or via U.S. mail. Submit written comments to Chief, Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: T-6 D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand deliver comments to: 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC's Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike (Room O-1F21), Rockville, Maryland. Comments may be submitted by electronic mail to *CLIIP@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Kobetz, Mail Stop: O-12H2, Technical Specifications Branch, Division of Inspection & Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-1932. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Regulatory Issue Summary 2000-06, “Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process for Adopting Standard Technical Specification Changes for Power Reactors,” was issued on March 20, 2000. The consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP) is intended to improve the efficiency of NRC licensing processes, by processing proposed changes to the standard technical specifications
(STS)in a manner that supports subsequent license amendment applications. The CLIIP includes an opportunity for the public to comment on proposed changes to the STS after a preliminary assessment by the NRC staff and finding that the change will likely be offered for adoption by licensees. This notice solicits comment on a proposed change to the STS that modifies TS Containment Isolation Valve Completion Times. The CLIIP directs the NRC staff to evaluate any comments received for a proposed change to the STS and to either reconsider the change or announce the availability of the change for adoption by licensees. Licensees opting to apply for this TS change are responsible for reviewing the staff's evaluation, referencing the applicable technical justifications, and providing any necessary plant-specific information. Each amendment application made in response to the notice of availability will be processed and noticed in accordance with applicable rules and NRC procedures. This notice involves the modification of TS Containment Isolation Valve Completion Times. This change was proposed for incorporation into the standard technical specifications by the Owners Groups participants in the Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)and is designated TSTF-498. TSTF-498 can be viewed on the NRC's Web page at: *http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/techspecs.html.* Applicability To efficiently process the incoming license amendment applications, the staff requests that each licensee applying for the changes proposed in TSTF-498 include TS Bases for the proposed TS consistent with the TS Bases proposed in TSTF-498. The staff is requesting that the TS Bases be included with the proposed license amendments in this case because the changes to the TS and the changes to the associated TS Bases form an integral change to a plant's licensing basis. To ensure that the overall change, including the TS Bases (which becomes part of the plant licensing basis), includes appropriate regulatory controls, the staff plans to condition the issuance of each license amendment on the licensee's incorporation of the changes into the TS Bases document and that the licensee control changes to the TS Bases in accordance with the licensee's TS Bases Control Program. The CLIIP does not prevent licensees from requesting an alternative approach or proposing the changes without the requested TS Bases. However, deviations from the approach recommended in this notice may require additional review by the NRC staff and may increase the time and resources needed for the review. Additionally, the staff is requesting that the methodology for assessing large early release frequency
(LERF)and incremental conditional large early release probability (ICLERP) are to be documented in the plant-specific application as a regulatory commitment (i.e., included in the licensee's commitment tracking system in accordance with NEI 99-04, Revision 0, “Guidelines for Managing NRC Commitment Changes”) (Reference 5) in the licensees’ plant-specific applications referencing TR BAW-2461-A. The staff is requesting this regulatory commitment because a licensee's implementation of Regulatory Guide
(RG)1.177 Tier 3 guidelines generally implies the assessment of risk with respect to core damage frequency (CDF). However, the proposed containment isolation valve
(CIV)completion time
(CT)impacts containment isolation and consequently LERF and ICLERP, as well as CDF. Because the extended CIV CTs are also based on the LERF and ICLERP metrics, the management of risk in accordance with 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) for these extended CIV CTs must also assess LERF and ICLERP. Public Notices This notice requests comments from interested members of the public within 30 days of the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . After evaluating the comments received as a result of this notice, the staff will either reconsider the proposed change or announce the availability of the change in a subsequent notice (perhaps with some changes to the safety evaluation or the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as a result of public comments). If the staff announces the availability of the change, licensees wishing to adopt the change must submit an application in accordance with applicable rules and other regulatory requirements. For each application the staff will publish a notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating licenses, a proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and a notice of opportunity for a hearing. The staff will also publish a notice of issuance of an amendment to the operating license to announce the modification of Containment Isolation Valve
(CIV)Completion Times for each plant that receives the requested change. Proposed Safety Evaluation; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation; Consolidated Line Item Improvement; Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Change TSTF-498; Modification of Technical Specification Containment Isolation Valve; Completion Times 1.0 Introduction By letter dated December 20, 2006, (Reference 1) the Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF), a joint owners group activity, submitted TSTF-498, “Risk-Informed Containment Isolation Valve Completion Times (BAW-2461),” Revision 0, for NRC review. By letter dated October 10, 2007, (Reference 2) the TSTF submitted Revision 1 to TSTF-498 based on responses to Requests for Additional Information
(RAI)that resulted in not adopting certain provisions provided by BAW-2461-A, “Risk-Informed Justification for Containment Isolation Valve Allowed Outage Time Change,” (Reference 3). TSTF-498 is proposing to change NUREG 1430, “Standard Technical Specifications Babcock and Wilcox Plants,” (BAW STS) Revision 3.0 (Reference 4), to generically implement containment isolation valve completion time
(CT)changes associated with implementation of BAW-2461-A. BAW-2461-A and TSTF-498 support extending CTs for CIVs in a penetration flow path with two [or more] containment isolation valves from 4 hours to 168 hours. The proposed change revises the TS for B&W Plants, NUREG-1430, Revision 3, Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO), Section 3.6.3, “Containment Isolation Valves,” Condition A from 4 hours to 7 days. Additionally, a new Required Action is added (Required Action A.1) which requires verification that the Operable containment isolation valve in the penetration is not inoperable due to common cause failure and also results in Required Actions A.1 and A.2 being relabeled as A.2 and A.3. No change is proposed by the Pressurized Water Reactor Owners Group (PWROG) for Condition B (relabeled Condition D)(i.e., a penetration flow path with two inoperable CIVs). A new Condition, Condition B, is added which is similar to the existing Condition A. It contains a 4 hour Completion Time to isolate the affected flow path and is only applicable to the containment isolation valves excluded from Condition A (e.g., containment isolation valves in the main steam lines or (as described in a Reviewer's Note) those identified by plant-specific analysis as having high risk significance for interfacing systems loss of coolant accidents (ISLOCAs). A new Condition, Condition C, is added which is applicable when two or more penetrations have one inoperable containment isolation valve. This Condition requires isolating all but one of the affected penetrations within 4 hours (the existing Completion Time for Condition A). This condition limits the 7 day Completion Time in Condition A to a single penetration. The extended Completion Time is not applicable to containment isolation valves in the main steam lines or those identified by plant-specific analysis as having high risk significance for ISLOCAs and the existing 4 hour Completion Time applies. BAW-2461-A is only applicable to Davis Besse, Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3, and Crystal River Unit 3. Other licensees of B&W designed PWRs requesting to use the Topical Report
(TR)methodology must provide the same level of information provided by these demonstration plants to ensure that TR BAW-2461-A is applicable to their plant. TSTF-498 will provide standardized wording in the B&W STS for plants implementing the changes specified in BAW-2461-A related to extending AOTs for applicable inoperable CIVs from 4 hours to 168 hours. 2.0 Regulatory Evaluation In 10 CFR 50.36, the Commission established its regulatory requirements related to the content of TS. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36, TS are required to include items in the following five specific categories related to station operation:
(1)Safety limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting control settings;
(2)limiting conditions for operation (LCOs);
(3)surveillance requirements (SRs);
(4)design features; and
(5)administrative controls. However, the regulation does not specify the particular TSs to be included in a plant's license. TSTF-498 is proposing changes to the TSs that involve category 2 above. The LCOs are the lowest functional capability, or performance levels, of equipment required for safe operation of the facility. When an LCO of a nuclear reactor is not met, the licensee shall shut down the reactor, or follow any remedial actions permitted by the TS until the condition can be met. Furthermore, the CTs specified in the TSs must be based on reasonable protection of the public health and safety. Therefore, the NRC staff must be able to conclude that there is reasonable assurance that the safety functions affected by the proposed TS CT changes will be performed in accordance with the design basis accidents
(DBAs)identified in Chapter 15 of the licensee's final safety analysis report (FSAR). As set forth in 10 CFR 50.36, a licensee's TS must establish the LCOs that contain certain information. This requirement includes CTs for structures, systems, and components
(SSCs)that are required for safe operation of the facility, such as CIVs. The Maintenance Rule, 10 CFR 50.65, “Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants,” requires licensees to monitor the performance, or condition, of SSCs against licensee-established goals in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that SSCs are capable of fulfilling their intended functions. The implementation and monitoring program guidance of Regulatory Guide
(RG)1.174, section 2.3, and RG 1.177, section 3, states that monitoring performed in conformance with the Maintenance Rule can be used when such monitoring is sufficient for the SSCs affected by the risk-informed application. In addition, 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4), as it relates to the proposed CIV CT extension, requires the assessment and management of the increase in risk that may result from the proposed maintenance activity. Appendix A of 10 CFR part 50, GDC-54, “Piping systems penetrating containment,” requires those piping systems that penetrate primary containment be provided with leak detection, isolation, and containment capabilities having redundancy, reliability, and performance capabilities that reflect the importance to safety of isolating these piping systems. Appendix A of 10 CFR part 50, GDC-55, “Reactor coolant pressure boundary penetrating containment,” requires that each line that is part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and that penetrates the primary containment shall be provided with CIVs. Appendix A of 10 CFR part 50, GDC-56, “Primary containment isolation,” requires that each line that connects directly to the containment atmosphere and penetrates the primary reactor containment shall be provided with CIVs. The CIVs help ensure that adequate primary containment boundaries are maintained during and after accidents by minimizing potential pathways to the environment and help ensure that the primary containment function assumed in the safety analysis is maintained. 2.1 Proposed Change TSTF-498 would make the following changes to the B&W STS contained in NUREG-1430 associated with TS 3.6.3 Containment Isolation Valves (CIVs): • The proposed change adds a Reviewer's Note prior to Condition A which states “The Condition A Note should list the specific penetrations (if any) identified by the plant specific risk analysis as having high risk significance for an interfacing systems loss of coolant accident (ISLOCA).” • The proposed change revises the Condition A NOTE to add “except containment isolation valves in the main steam lines and [ ].” • The proposed change adds the new Required Action A.1, “Determine the OPERABLE containment isolation valve in the affected penetration is not inoperable due to common cause failure” with a Completion Time of 4 hours. This new Required Action is connected by an *AND* statement to the other applicable Required Actions. • The proposed change revises the previous Required Action A.1 to be A.2 with the completion time changed from 4 hours to 7 days. • The proposed change revises the previous Required Action A.2 to be A.3. • The proposed change adds a new Condition B for one or more penetration flow paths with one containment isolation valve inoperable [for reasons other than purge valve leakage not within limit] with a Note stating “Only applicable to penetration flow paths with two [or more] containment isolation valves in the main steam lines and [ ].” There is also a Reviewers Note similar to Condition A. • The proposed change provides new Required Action B.1 to isolate the affected penetration flow path with a completion time of 4 hours and Required Action B.2 to verify the affected penetration flow path is isolated once per 31 days for isolation devices outside containment and Prior to entering Mode 4 from Mode 5 if not performed within the previous 92 days for isolation devices inside containment. Furthermore, new Required Action B.2 has two notes which state:
(1)Isolation devices in high radiation areas may be verified by use of administrative means and
(2)Isolation devices that are locked, sealed, or otherwise secured may be verified by use of administrative means. • The proposed change adds a new Condition C for two or more penetration flow paths with one containment isolation valve inoperable [for reasons other than Condition[s] [E and F]] with a Note stating “Only applicable to penetration flow paths with two [or more] containment isolation valves. • The proposed change provides new Required Action C.1 to isolate all but one of the affected penetration flow paths by use of at least one closed and de-activated automatic valve, closed manual valve, or blind flange with a completion time of 4 hours. • The proposed change revises the previous Condition B and Required Action B.1 to be new Condition D and Required Action D.1. • The proposed change revises the previous Condition C and Required Action C.1 and C.2 to be new Condition E and Required Action E.1 and E.2. • The proposed change revises the previous Condition D and Required Action D.1, D.2 and D.3 to be new Condition F and Required Action F.1, F.2 and F.3. • The proposed change revises the previous reference to Required Action D.1 for performance of SR 3.6.3.6 within Required Action D.3 to Required Action F.1. • The proposed change revises the previous Condition E and Required Action E.1 and E.2 to be new Condition G and Required Action G.1 and G.2. TSTF-498 includes changes to the B&W STS Bases B 3.6.3 contained in NUREG-1430. • Condition A has been modified by a Note indicating this Condition is only applicable to those penetration flow paths with two [or more] containment isolation valves. The Note also states that the Condition is not applicable to containment isolation valves in the main steam lines and [any specific penetrations identified by the plant-specific risk analysis as having high risk significance for an ISLOCA. The previous discussion about the Note has been deleted. Additionally, a new Required Action A.1 has been added to determine that the operable containment isolation valve in the affected penetration is not inoperable due to a common cause failure with a completion time of 4 hours. The other Condition A Required Actions have been re-numbered and Required Action A.2 Completion Time has been changed from 4 hours to 7 days. • The bases has been revised to update Required Action A.2 from 4 hours to 7 days based on an analysis of plant risk and the discussion on considering the time required to isolate the penetration and the relative importance of supporting containment operability has been deleted. • A new Condition B has been added with a Note indicating this Condition is only applicable to those penetration flow paths with two [or more] containment isolation valves that are containment isolation valves in the main steam lines or are [any specific penetrations identified by the plant-specific risk analysis as having high risk significance for an interfacing systems loss of coolant accident (ISLOCA)]. Condition B is entered if one containment isolation valve in one or more penetration flow paths is inoperable, [except for purge valve leakage not within limit.] The Bases describes Required Actions B.1 and B.2 Completion Times and Notes as specified in the TS section. • A new Condition C has been added with a Note indicating this Condition is only applicable to penetration flow paths with two [or more] containment isolation valves. Condition C is entered if two or more penetration flow paths with one containment isolation valve inoperable [for reasons other than Condition[s] E [and F]]. The Bases describes the Required Action C.1 Completion Time to isolate all but one of the affected containment isolation valves within 4 hours. • The bases discussion for Required Action D.1 has been updated to account for new Conditions B and C and have been added where applicable. • Condition B and Required Action B.1 has been re-numbered to Condition D and Required Action D.1. • Condition C and Required Action C.1 and C.2 have been re-numbered to Condition E and Required Action E.1 and E.2. • Reference to BAW-2461-A has been added as Reference 6. Previous references 6, 7, and 8 have been re-numbered to references 7, 8 and 9. Applicable changes have been made throughout the Bases. • Condition D and Required Action D.1, D.2 and D.3 have been re-numbered to Condition F and Required Action F.1, F.2 and F.3. • Condition E and Required Action E.1 and E.2 have been re-numbered to Condition G and Required Action G.1 and G.2. 3.0 Technical Evaluation As stated previously, BAW-2461-A describes a method to revise the Completion Time for specific Conditions per Technical Specification 3.6.3, Containment Isolation Valves. The NRC approved BAW-2461 on August 29, 2007, for referencing in license applications to the extent specified and under the limitations and conditions stated in the topical report and Section 4.1 of the staff's safety evaluation (Reference 6). TSTF-498 is proposing changes to the B&W STS, NUREG 1430, which are in accordance with Topical Report BAW-2461-A and subject to the Limitations, Conditions and Regulatory Commitments specified in the staff Safety Evaluation. Any differences between TR BAW-2461-A Technical Specification examples and TSTF-498 proposed Technical Specifications have been evaluated and determined to be acceptable. BAW-2461-A, Table 2-1, Condition A note states “Only applicable to penetration flow paths with two [or more] containment isolation valves with the exception of containment isolation valves in the main steam lines [and list of specific penetrations (if any) identified by the plant-specific risk-informed process to have high risk significance for ISLOCA.]” To be consistent with the ITS format and content rules, the Condition A Note was written as “Only applicable to penetration flow paths with two [or more] containment isolation valves except containment isolation valves in the main steam lines and [ ].” The Condition is modified by a Reviewer's Note which states, “The Condition A Note should list the specific penetrations (if any) identified by the plant-specific risk analysis as having high risk significance for an interfacing systems loss of coolant accident (ISLOCA).” This change is editorial and does not affect the application of the TS. The change in wording meets the requirements specified in BAW-2461-A and is therefore acceptable. The July 5, 2006 Request for Additional Information
(RAI)response to NRC Question 1 stated that the following action would be added as Required Action A.1 with a 4 hour Completion Time, “Verify that the redundant CIV on the same penetration is operable [applicable only if the redundant CIV has an operator and/or body type that is not diverse from the inoperable CIV depending on which parts are inoperable.]” In TSTF-498, Required Action A.1 has a 4 hour Completion Time and states, “Determine the OPERABLE containment isolation valve in the affected penetration is not inoperable due to common cause failure.” The wording was chosen to be consistent with LCO 3.8.1, Required Action B.3.1, regarding inoperable diesel generators. The discussion of what is required to be evaluated, “applicable only if the redundant CIV has an operator and/or body type that is not diverse from the inoperable CIV depending on which parts are inoperable,” is placed in the Required Action A.1 Bases. Placing the detailed description of what is meant by common cause failure in the Bases is consistent with the ITS format and content rules. This change has been evaluated as a Revision to BAW-2461-A. TSTF-498 wording is equivalent to the proposed wording submitted as RAI response #1 and is consistent with NRC's Safety Evaluation for BAW-2461-A and is therefore acceptable. B&W STS Required Action A.1 and A.2 are being revised to re-number these actions to A.2 and A.3. This is necessary to incorporate the new Required Action A.1 as described above. Additionally, the completion time for the new Required Action A.2 which states “isolate the affected penetration flow path by use of at least one closed and de-activated automatic valve, closed manual valve, blind flange, or check valve with flow through the valve secured” is being revised from 4 hours to 7 days. This change has been evaluated by the staff and is consistent with NRC's Safety Evaluation for BAW-2461-A and is therefore acceptable. B&W STS is adding a new Condition B for one or more penetration flow paths with one containment isolation valve inoperable [for reasons other than purge valve leakage not within limit] with a Note specifying “Only applicable to penetration flow paths with two [or more] containment isolation valves in the main steam lines and [ ]. There is also a Reviewer's Note that states “The condition B Note should list the specific penetrations (if any) identified by the plant-specific risk analysis as having high risk significance for an interfacing systems loss of coolant accident (ISLOCA). This wording is consistent with the change made to Condition A and is consistent with the format and content rules in ITS. Additionally, the Required Actions and associated Completion Times are consistent with Condition A and the change evaluated by the staff in the NRC's Safety Evaluation for BAW-2461-A. This new Condition was required since main steam line isolation valves were explicitly excluded from the CT extension as stated in the NRC's Safety Evaluation for BAW-2461-A and is therefore acceptable. B&W STS Condition B and Required Action B.1 are being revised to be Condition D and Required Action D.1. With the addition of new Conditions B and C the remaining Conditions and Required Actions need to be re-numbered. This change is editorial and results in no technical change and is therefore acceptable. B&W STS is adding a new Condition C which is applicable when two or more penetrations have one inoperable containment isolation valve. This Condition requires isolating all but one of the affected penetrations within 4 hours (the existing Completion Time for Condition A). Once this Completion Time is satisfied and since Condition A is still applicable then this essentially limits the 7 day Completion Time in Condition A to a single penetration. This change addresses Condition and Limitation 6 in the NRC's Safety Evaluation for BAW-2461-A and is therefore acceptable. B&W STS Condition C and Required Actions C.1 and C.2 are being revised to be Condition E and Required Action E.1 and E.2. With the addition of new Conditions B and C the remaining Conditions and Required Actions need to be re-numbered. This change is editorial and results in no technical change and is therefore acceptable. B&W STS Condition D and Required Action D.1, D.2 and D.3 are being revised to be Condition F and Required Action F.1, F.2 and F.3. With the addition of new Conditions B and C the remaining Conditions and Required Actions need to be re-numbered. This change is editorial and results in no technical change and is therefore acceptable. B&W STS Condition E and Required Action E.1 and E.2 are being revised to be Condition G and Required Action G.1 and G.2. With the addition of new Conditions B and C the remaining Conditions and Required Actions need to be re-numbered. This change is editorial and results in no technical change and is therefore acceptable. B&W STS Bases for B 3.6.3 Actions A.1, A.2 and A.3 are being revised to describe the Note that is being added indicating the Condition is only applicable to those penetration flow paths with two [or more] containment isolation valves and that the isolation valves in the main steam line are not applicable along with any specific penetrations identified by the plant-specific risk analysis. This is necessary to ensure the correct Required Actions are taken based on the applicable penetration. This is consistent with all other Bases descriptions in the B&W STS and is therefore acceptable. B&W STS Bases for B 3.6.3 Required Action A.2 Completion Time is being revised from 4 hours to 7 days and indicates that this is based on an analysis of plant risk. The change is revising wording associated with the 4 hour completion time to a 7 day completion time. The 7 day completion time is now based upon a plant risk evaluation instead of a reasonable time to isolate the penetration. This is consistent with BAW-2461-A which the staff found acceptable in the Safety Evaluation for BAW-2461-A and is therefore acceptable. B&W STS Bases for B 3.6.3 is adding support information for new Condition B and Required Actions B.1 and B.2 which is applicable for one or more penetration flow paths with one containment isolation valve inoperable [for reasons other than purge valve leakage not within limit]. Condition B is also only applicable to penetration flow paths with two [or more] containment isolation valves in the main steam lines and [ ]. The associated Required Actions and Completion Times for new Condition B are consistent with Actions and Completion Times for Condition A which the staff found acceptable in the NRC's Safety Evaluation for BAW-2461-A and is therefore acceptable. B&W STS Bases for B 3.6.3 is adding support information for new Condition C and Required Action C.1 which is applicable for two or more penetration flow paths with one containment isolation valve inoperable [for reasons other than Condition[s] E [and F]]. Condition C is only applicable to penetration flow paths with two [or more] containment isolation valves. The Required Action to isolate all but one of the affected penetration flow paths by use of at least one closed and de-activated automatic valve, closed manual valve, or blind flange within 4 hours ensures that simultaneous LCO entry of an inoperable CIV in separate penetration flow paths such that the proposed 7 day Completion Time in Condition A is limited to no more than one CIV at any given time. This change addresses Limitation and Condition 6 as specified in the NRC's Safety Evaluation for BAW-2461-A and is therefore acceptable. B&W STS Bases for B 3.6.3 are being revised such that each Condition and Required Action subsequent to the addition of new Conditions B and C need to be re-numbered. Additionally, a new reference has been added (Reference 6) which requires subsequent references to be re-numbered. These changes are considered editorial and do not affect any technical aspect of the Bases and are therefore acceptable. 3.1 Summary TSTF-498 would provide standardized wording in the B&W STS for plants implementing BAW-2461-A, “Risk-Informed Justification for Containment Isolation Valve Allowed Outage Time Change.” The changes to NUREG-1430 proposed by TSTF-498 have been reviewed for consistency with the current NUREG-1430 and BAW-2461-A. The proposed changes have been found to be consistent with NUREG-1430 and BAW-2461-A, therefore the proposed changes are acceptable. 4.0 State Consultation In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the [ ] State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had [(1) no comments or
(2)the following comments—with subsequent disposition by the staff]. 5.0 Environmental Consideration The amendments change a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR part 20 and change surveillance requirements. [For licensees adding a TS Bases Control Program: The amendment also changes record keeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements.] The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts and no significant change in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards considerations, and there has been no public comment on the finding [FR]. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) [and (c)(10)]. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments. 6.0 Conclusion The Commission has concluded, on the basis of the considerations discussed above, that
(1)there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner,
(2)such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and
(3)the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. 7.0 References 1. Letter from the Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF), a joint owners group activity, re: TSTF-498, Revision 0, “Risk-Informed Containment Isolation Valve Completion Times (BAW-2461),” dated December 20, 2006. (ADAMS ML063560402) 2. Letter from the TSTF re: Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding TSTF-498, Revision 0, “Risk-Informed Containment Isolation Valve Completion Times (BAW-2461),” dated October 10, 2007. (ADAMS ML072840444) 3. BAW-2461-A, “Risk-Informed Justification for Containment Isolation Valve Allowed Outage Time Change,” Revision 0, dated October 2007. (ADAMS ML072980529) 4. NUREG 1430, “Standard Technical Specifications Babcock and Wilcox Plants,” Revision 3.0. (ADAMS ML041830589 and ML041800598) 5. Nuclear Energy Institute 99-04, Revision 0, “Guidelines for Managing NRC Commitment Changes,” July 1999. 6. Final Safety Evaluation for Pressurized Water Reactors Owners Group, Topical Report, BAW-2461, Revision 0, “Risk-Informed Justification for Containment Isolation Valve Allowed Outage Time Change (TAC No. MD5722),” (ADAMS ML072330227) The Following Example of an Application Was Prepared by the NRC Staff to Facilitate Use of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP). The Model Provides the Expected Level of Detail and Content for An Application to Revise Technical Specifications Regarding Risk-Informed Justification for Containment Isolation Valve Allowed Outage Time Change Using Cliip. Licensees Remain Responsible For Ensuring That Their Actual Application Fulfills Their Administrative Requirements As Well as Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations. U.S. Nuclear Regular Commission, Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555. *Subject:* Plant Name Docket No. 50- Application for Technical Specification Change Regarding Risk—Informed Justification for Containment Isolation Valve Allowed Outage Time Change Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process *Gentlemen:* In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.90 [LICENSEE] is submitting a request for an amendment to the technical specifications
(TS)for [PLANT NAME, UNIT NOS.]. The proposed amendment would modify TS requirements for containment isolation valve
(CIV)allowed outage time changes with implementation of BAW-2461-A, “Risk-Informed Justification for Containment Isolation Valve Allowed Outage Time Change.” Attachment 1 provides a description of the proposed change, the requested confirmation of applicability, and plant-specific verifications. Attachment 2 provides the existing TS pages marked up to show the proposed change. Attachment 3 provides revised (clean) TS pages. Attachment 4 provides a summary of the regulatory commitments made in this submittal. Attachment 5 provides the proposed TS Bases changes. [LICENSEE] requests approval of the proposed License Amendment by [DATE], with the amendment being implemented [BY DATE OR WITHIN X DAYS]. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91, a copy of this application, with attachments, is being provided to the designated [STATE] Official. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that I am authorized by [LICENSEE] to make this request and that the foregoing is true and correct. (Note that request may be notarized in lieu of using this oath or affirmation statement). If you should have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact [NAME, TELEPHONE NUMBER] Sincerely, [Name, Title] Attachments: 1. Description and Assessment. 2. Proposed Technical Specification Changes. 3. Revised Technical Specification Pages. 4. Regulatory Commitments. 5. Proposed Technical Specification Bases Changes. cc: NRC Project Manager NRC Regional Office NRC Resident Inspector State Contact Attachment 1—Description and Assessment 1.0 Description The proposed amendment would modify TS requirements for containment isolation valve allowed outage times associated with implementation of BAW-2461-A, “Risk-Informed Justification for Containment Isolation Valve Allowed Outage Time Change.” The changes are consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)approved Industry/Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)STS change TSTF-498, Revision 1. The **Federal Register** notice published on [DATE] announced the availability of this TS improvement through the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). 2.0 Assessment 2.1 Applicability of Published Safety Evaluation [LICENSEE] has reviewed the safety evaluation dated [DATE] as part of the CLIIP. This review included a review of the NRC staff's evaluation, as well as the supporting information provided to support TSTF-498, Revision 1. [LICENSEE] has concluded that the justifications presented in the TSTF proposal and the safety evaluation prepared by the NRC staff are applicable to [PLANT, UNIT NOS.] and justify this amendment for the incorporation of the changes to the [PLANT] TS. 2.2 Optional Changes and Variations [LICENSEE] is not proposing any variations or deviations from the TS changes described in TSTF-498, Revision 1, and the NRC staff's model safety evaluation dated [DATE]. 3.0 Regulatory Analysis 3.1 No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination [LICENSEE] has reviewed the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination (NSHCD) published in the **Federal Register** as part of the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] has concluded that the proposed NSHCD presented in the **Federal Register** notice is applicable to [PLANT] and has found it acceptable for incorporation into the amendment request which satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(a). 3.2 Verification and Commitments As discussed in the notice of availability published in the **Federal Register** on [DATE] for this TS improvement, [LICENSEE] verifies the applicability of TSTF-498, Revision 1, to [PLANT], and commits to adopting the requirements specified in BAW-2461-A which includes the following Limitations and Conditions specified in Section 4.1, Staff Findings and Conditions and Limitations, of the NRC's Safety Evaluation for BAW-2461 (ML072330227): 1. Based on TR BAW-2461, the CIV methodology, PRA parameters, configurations, and data used to evaluate an extended CIV CT to 168 hours is limited to the following plants. • Davis-Besse • Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3 • Crystal River 3 Other licensees of B&W designed PWRs requesting to use the TR methodology must provide the same level of information provided by these demonstration plants to ensure that TR BAW-2461 is applicable to their plant. 2. Because not all penetrations have the same impact on ΔCDF, ΔLERF, ICCDP, or ICLERP, verify the applicability of TR BAW-2461 to the specific plant, including verification that:
(a)the CIV configurations for the specific plant match the configurations in TR BAW-2461, and
(b)the risk-parameter values used in TR BAW-2461, including the sensitivity studies contained in the RAIs, are representative or bounding for the specific plant. Any additional CIV configurations, CT extensions, or non-bounding risk parameter values not evaluated by TR BAW-2461 should be addressed in the plant-specific analyses. [Note that CIV configurations and extended CTs not specifically evaluated by TR BAW-2461, or non-bounding risk parameter values outside the scope of the TR, will require NRC staff review and licensee development of the specific penetrations and related justifications for the proposed CTs]. 3. Each licensee adopting TR BAW-2461 will need to confirm that the plant-specific risk assessment including both internal and external events is within the assumptions of TR BAW-2461 and the acceptance guidelines of RG 1.174 and 1.177. The licensee's application verifies that external event risk, including seismic, fires, floods, and high winds, either through quantitative or qualitative evaluation, is shown to not have an adverse impact on the conclusions of the plant-specific analysis for extending the CIV CTs. Specifically:
(1)the risk from external events cannot make the total baseline risk exceed 1E-4/yr CDF, or 1E-5/yr LERF, without justification,
(2)the risk from external events (i.e., high winds, floods and other) should be specifically evaluated with respect to the extended CIV CT, and
(3)fire risk should be specifically addressed. The evaluation should include fire-induced spurious actuation (including containment performance) with respect to the proposed 168-hour CIV CT. Additionally, each licensee will need to confirm that the seismic CDF referenced for TR BAW-2461 is bounding for its plant, or incorporate a plant-specific seismic CDF estimate. Furthermore, the seismic initiating event frequency will need to be defined and justified for each licensee implementing TR BAW-2461. See Section 3.4.1.4 of the staff's SE. 4. For licensees adopting TR BAW-2461, confirmation should be provided that the Tier 2 and Tier 3 conclusions of the TR are applicable to the licensee's plant and that plant-specific Tier 2 evaluations including CCF and risk-significant configurations including interfacing-system LOCA have been evaluated and included under Tier 2 and Tier 3 including the CRMP as applicable. • The proposed 168-hour CIV CT will not be applied to CIVs in penetrations connected to the RCS that have two NC CIVs if there are no other valves between the RCS and the environment (i.e., low pressure piping, or opening) that may be used for backup isolation and cannot be confirmed closed. In that case, the operable CIV will be verified closed within the original 4-hour CT, thus satisfying the TS Required Action. See Section 3.3.4 of the staff's SE. The specific penetrations where this is applicable or where interfacing-system LOCA is shown to be risk-significant (as determined by the plant-specific risk-informed process including plant-specific LOCA analysis) will be identified on a plant-specific basis prior to implementation of the proposed TS change. They will be listed explicitly in the proposed TS revision and the current CT will be retained. • TR BAW-2461 stated that an interfacing-system LOCA is assumed to lead to core damage and large early release, the effectiveness of mitigation systems besides containment isolation is not considered significant. All failed open penetration flow paths with an RCS connection were assumed to have CDF and LERF contributions in TR BAW-2461. Licensees incorporating TR BAW-2461 will need to confirm the above assumption for their plant specific implementation of BAW-2461. • The specific penetrations with CCF potential will be identified by the licensee on a plant-specific basis. Upon entry into TS LCO 3.6.3, Condition A, the utility will confirm that the redundant similarly-designed CIV has not been affected by the same failure mode as the inoperable CIV. This verification will be performed before entering into the extended portion of the CT (i.e., within 4 hours). The specific penetrations with CCF potential will be identified on a plant-specific basis and listed in a plant-specific TS document or other administrative source. See Section 3.4.1.2 of the staff's SE. • No action or maintenance activity is performed that will remove equipment that is functionally redundant to the inoperable CIV, including the redundant CIV(s) on the same penetration and support systems for the redundant CIV. See Section 3.3 of TR BAW-2461. • No action or maintenance activity is performed that will significantly increase the likelihood of challenge to the CIVs. Challenges to the CIVs include DBAs that result in a release of radioactive material within containment (LOCA, main steam line break, and rod ejection accident). Also included is the removal of equipment from service that may cause a significant increase in the likelihood of core damage while in the proposed CT, which may increase the large early release via the inoperable CIV. See Section 3.4 of TR BAW-2461. • No action or maintenance activity is performed that will remove equipment that supports success paths credited in the CT risk evaluation. This includes the other series valves, if any, credited in the risk assessment for RCS penetrations that otherwise would be risk-significant (i.e., interfacing-system LOCA). See Section 3.4 of TR BAW-2461. 5. TR BAW-2461 was based on generic-plant characteristics. Each licensee adopting TR BAW-2461 must confirm plant-specific Tier 3 information in their individual submittals. The licensee must discuss conformance to the requirements of the maintenance rule (10 CFR 50.65(a)(4)), as they relate to the proposed CIV CTs and the guidance contained in NUMARC 93.01, Section 11, as endorsed by RG 1.182, including verification that the licensee's maintenance rule program, with respect to CIVs, includes a LERF/ICLERP assessment (i.e., CRMP). See Section 3.4.3 of the staff's SE. 6. TS LCO 3.6.3, Note 2, allows separate condition entry for each penetration flow path. Therefore, each licensee adopting TR BAW-2461 will address the simultaneous LCO entry of an inoperable CIV in separate penetration flow paths such that the proposed 168-hour CIV CT LCO will be limited to no more than one CIV at any given time. In addition, the licensee must confirm that its Tier 3 CRMP addresses simultaneous inoperable CIV LCOs (i.e., separate condition entry) such that the cumulative CIV risk, including LERF, are maintained consistent with the assumptions and conclusions of TR BAW-2461. See Section 3.4.1.2 of the staff's SE. 7. The licensee shall verify that the plant-specific PRA quality is acceptable with respect to its use for Tier 3 for this application in accordance with the guidelines given in RG 1.174 and as discussed in Section 3.4.1.1 of the staff's SE. 8. With respect to past plant-specific license amendments or additional plant-specific applications for a TS change under NRC review that have not been incorporated into the baseline PRA used to evaluate the proposed change, the cumulative risk must be evaluated on a plant-specific basis consistent with the guidance given in RG 1.174, Section 2.2.6 and 3.3.2, and addressed in a licensee's plant-specific application. See Section 3.4.1.5 of the staff's SE. 9. Closed systems inside and outside containment, which are considered to be containment isolation barriers, must meet the provisions outlined in NUREG-0800, Section 6.2.4, “Containment Isolation System.” See Section 2.2 of the staff's SE. 10. With an extended CIV CT, the possibility exists that the CIV unavailability will be impacted. Depending on the penetration risk significance and the frequency and length of time of the CIV CT, the unavailability of the containment isolation function may also be impacted. Therefore, licensee's adopting TR BAW-2461 will need to establish an implementation and monitoring program for CIVs, including performance criteria, on a plant-specific basis. See Sections 3.4.1.2 and 3.4.4 of the staff's SE. 11. The PWROG did not specifically address ΔCDF and ΔLERF in TR BAW-2461 regarding the acceptance guidelines of RG 1.174. The PWROG stated that it is not expecting that on line CIV preventive maintenance will increase with the proposed 168-hour CIV. To address this, licensee's adopting TR BAW-2461 will need to assess, on a plant-specific basis, the ΔCDF and ΔLERF acceptance guidance of RG 1.174 including the expected frequency of entering the proposed CT and the expected mean CT for CIV maintenance. See Section 3.4.1.2 of the staff's SE. 4.0 Environmental Evaluation [LICENSEE] has reviewed the environmental evaluation included in the model safety evaluation dated [DATE] as part of the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] has concluded that the staff's findings presented in that evaluation are applicable and acceptable to [PLANT] and the evaluation is submitted as an attachment to this application. Attachment 2—Proposed Technical Specification Changes (Mark-Up) Attachment 3—Proposed Technical Specification Pages Attachment 4—List of Regulatory Commitments The following table identifies those actions committed to by [LICENSEE] in this document. Any other statements in this submittal are provided for information purposes and are not considered to be regulatory commitments. Please direct questions regarding these commitments to [CONTACT NAME]. Regulatory commitments Due date/event [LICENSEE] will [Complete, implemented with amendment OR within X days of implementation of amendment]. Attachment 5—Proposed Changes to Technical Specification Bases Pages Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination *Description of Amendment Request:* [Plant Name] requests adoption of an approved change to the standard technical specifications
(STS)for Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) Plants (NUREG-1430) and plant specific technical specifications (TS), to allow modification of containment isolation valve completion times associated with implementation of BAW-2461-A, “Risk-Informed Justification for Containment Isolation Valve Allowed Outage Time Change,” dated October 2007. The changes are consistent with NRC approved Industry/Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)STS Traveler, TSTF-498, Revision 1, “Risk-Informed Containment Isolation Valve Completion Times (BAW-2461).” The proposed change extends the Completion Times for containment penetration flow paths with one containment isolation valve inoperable from 4 hours to 7 days for Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) NSSS plants. This change is applicable to containment penetrations with two [or more] containment isolation valves in which one containment isolation valve is inoperable [for reasons other than purge valve leakage not within limit]. The extended Completion Time is not applicable to containment isolation valves in the main steam lines or those identified by plant-specific analysis as having high risk significance for interfacing systems loss of coolant accidents (ISLOCAs) and the existing 4 hour Completion Time applies. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed changes revise the Completion Times for restoring an inoperable containment isolation valve (or isolating the affected penetration) within the scope of Topical Report BAW-2461-A, “Risk-Informed Justification for Containment Isolation Valve Allowed Outage Time Change.” The Completion Times are extended from 4 hours to 7 days. Containment isolation valves are not accident initiators in any accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. Containment isolation valves control the extent of leakage from the containment following an accident. As such, containment isolation valves are instrumental in controlling the consequences of an accident. However, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are no different during the proposed extended Completion Times than during the existing Completion Times. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated The proposed changes revise the Completion Times for restoring an inoperable containment isolation valve (or isolating the affected penetration) within the scope of Topical Report BAW-2461-A, “Risk-Informed Justification for Containment Isolation Valve Allowed Outage Time Change.” The proposed changes do not change the design, configuration, or method of operation of the plant. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different kind of equipment will be installed). Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 the Margin of Safety The proposed changes revise the Completion Times for restoring an inoperable containment isolation valve (or isolating the affected penetration) within the scope of Topical Report BAW-2461-A, “Risk-Informed Justification for Containment Isolation Valve Allowed Outage Time Change.” In order to evaluate the proposed Completion Time extensions, a probabilistic risk evaluation was performed as documented in Topical Report BAW-2461-A. The risk evaluation concluded that the proposed increase in the Completion Times does not result in an unacceptable incremental conditional core damage probability or incremental conditional large early release probability according to the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.177. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not involve a significant hazards consideration as set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c). Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of January, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gerald Waig, Acting Chief, Technical Specifications Branch, Division of Inspection & Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E8-1943 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57225; File No. SR-FINRA-2007-042] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to the Codes of Arbitration Procedure To Remove the Page Limit on Statements of Claim Filed Through the Online Arbitration Claim Filing System January 29, 2008. 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 December 27, 2007, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”)) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated the proposed rule change as concerned solely with the administration of the self-regulatory organization under section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by 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)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 12302 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (“Customer Code”) and Rule 13302 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (“Industry Code”) to remove the 50-page limit on Statements of Claim filed through the Online Arbitration Claim Filing System (“the System”), to allow parties to submit exhibits to Statements of Claim through the System, and to reflect the new FINRA name. 5 Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets. 5 Specifically, FINRA is updating its Internet address and the title of the Tracking Form generated by the System. 12302. Filing an Initial Statement of Claim
(a)Filing Claim with the Director
(1)To initiate an arbitration, a claimant must file the following with the Director: • Signed and dated Uniform Submission Agreement; and • A statement of claim specifying the relevant facts and remedies requested. The claimant may include any additional documents supporting the statement of claim.
(2)A claimant may use the online claim notification and filing procedure to complete part of the arbitration claim filing process through the Internet. To commence this process, a claimant may complete a Claim Information Form that can be accessed through [ *http://www.nasd.com* ] *http://www.finra.org.* In completing the Claim Information Form, the claimant may attach an electronic version of the statement of claim, *and any additional documents supporting the statement of claim,* to the form[, provided it does not exceed 50 pages]. Once this online form has been completed, [an NASD] *a FINRA* Dispute Resolution Tracking Form will be generated and displayed for the claimant to reproduce as necessary. The claimant shall then file with the Director the rest of the materials required in subparagraph
(1)of the rule, along with a hard copy of the [NASD] *FINRA* Dispute Resolution Tracking Form. (b)-(d) No change. 13302. Filing an Initial Statement of Claim
(a)Filing Claim with the Director
(1)To initiate an arbitration, a claimant must file the following with the Director: • Signed and dated Uniform Submission Agreement; and • A statement of claim specifying the relevant facts and remedies requested. The claimant may include any additional documents supporting the statement of claim.
(2)A claimant may use the online claim notification and filing procedure to complete part of the arbitration claim filing process through the Internet. To commence this process, a claimant may complete a Claim Information Form that can be accessed through [ *http://www.nasd.com* ] *http://www.finra.org.* In completing the Claim Information Form, the claimant may attach an electronic version of the statement of claim, *and any additional documents supporting the statement of claim,* to the form[, provided it does not exceed 50 pages]. Once this online form has been completed, [an NASD] *a FINRA* Dispute Resolution Tracking Form will be generated and displayed for the claimant to reproduce as necessary. The claimant shall then file with the Director the rest of the materials required in subparagraph
(1)of the rule, along with a hard copy of the [NASD] *FINRA* Dispute Resolution Tracking Form. (b)-(d) No change. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA 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 FINRA is amending its Customer Code and Industry Code to remove the 50-page limit on Statements of Claim filed through the System, to allow parties to submit exhibits to Statements of Claim through the System, and to reflect the new FINRA name. The proposed rule change is intended to encourage more claimants to use online filing. The System will not have any limitation on the number of pages submitted so long as they are submitted as a single document. To begin an arbitration, a claimant submits a signed and dated Uniform Submission Agreement, a Statement of Claim specifying the relevant facts and remedies requested, any exhibits supporting the Statement of Claim, and the required fees. When a claim is filed in hard copy, the claimant is required to submit sufficient copies of the Statement of Claim for the forum, each arbitrator and each other party. Since August 2004, FINRA has allowed claimants to file an electronic version of the Statement of Claim so long as the submission does not exceed 50 pages. The Statement of Claim may include exhibits if they are part of the same document and the total number of pages is no more than 50. Claimants who file online also complete an online Claim Information Form containing details about the names and addresses of the parties and their counsel, the issues in controversy, and so forth. Once the Claim Information Form is completed, a Dispute Resolution Tracking Form is generated by the System. Claimants then mail in a signed and dated Uniform Submission Agreement, a copy of the Dispute Resolution Tracking Form, the required fees, and any exhibits. The case is deemed to be filed when all such materials are received. With electronically filed claims, FINRA staff prints the required copies for the arbitrators and the other parties. The 50-page limit was originally imposed to ensure that FINRA had sufficient resources to process electronic claims efficiently. Having gained experience with electronic filing, FINRA is prepared to process efficiently the additional volume associated with longer Statements of Claim and exhibits. 2. Statutory Basis FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 6 which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. By removing the page limitation on submissions through the System, the proposed rule change will provide investors, and other claimants, with expanded access to the System and will make claim processing more efficient. 6 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 7 and paragraph (f)(3) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder 8 because it is concerned solely with the administration of FINRA. 9 At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 8 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3). 9 The applicability of Rule 19b-4(f)(3) is limited to matters concerned solely with the administration of a self-regulatory organization. Because this narrowly tailored rule change is limited to relaxing administrative restrictions on the length of documents solely for claims processed online and updating FINRA's name and Internet address for purposes of these claims, it meets the Rule 19b-4(f)(3) standard. 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-FINRA-2007-042 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-FINRA-2007-042. 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, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2007-042 and should be submitted on or before February 25, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1960 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57216; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-06] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Implement Transaction Fees for NYSE MatchPoint January 28, 2008. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on January 22, 2008, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the NYSE. The NYSE has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the NYSE under section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NYSE proposes to implement an equity transaction fee effective January 22, 2008, for shares executed on the new NYSE MatchPoint SM (“NYSE MatchPoint” or “MatchPoint”) 5 system. The Exchange will charge each Member Organization $.0015 per share executed on the MatchPoint system, with the exception of MatchPoint executions that are effectuated through an optional “internal match” process. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.nyse.com.* 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57058 (December 28, 2007), 73 FR 903 (January 4, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2007-102). 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 NYSE included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to implement an equity transaction fee for executions on the NYSE MatchPoint system to take effect with the scheduled launch of MatchPoint on January 22, 2008. The MatchPoint system is an electronic facility of the Exchange that matches aggregated orders at predetermined, one-minute sessions throughout regular hours and after hours of the Exchange. The proposed transactional fee of $.0015 per executed share, for single and portfolio orders, will be charged to both the buyer(s) and seller(s) of the executed shares, with the exception of MatchPoint executions that are effectuated through an optional “internal match” process. 6 More specifically, when the same user enters different orders into MatchPoint for internal matching purposes under the same mnemonic and for the same matching session, any resulting executions will not be subject to this transaction fee. 7 Only NYSE members, member organizations and sponsoring member organizations will be charged this transaction fee. Transaction fees for executions of orders entered by sponsored participants (who are non-members) will be charged to the sponsoring member organization. 6 *See* NYSE Rule 1500 (NYSE MatchPoint SM ), subparagraph (b)(2)(D): “'NYSE MatchPoint Internal Match Constraint' or 'internal match constraint' shall mean an optional order constraint that limits the execution of portfolios and single orders by directing the portfolio and single orders to first trade with other portfolios or single orders of the same User before trading with other orders in a particular matching session. If, after an internal match occurs and residual orders remain, the residual orders will be available to trade with all other orders. These constraints are only active for a single matching session.” 7 Because orders are entered by a “mnemonic” ( *i.e.* , member identifier and/or account identifier) and because mnemonics are categorized as either “agency” or “proprietary,” agency and proprietary orders cannot be entered under the same mnemonic. Thus, agency and proprietary orders cannot match and execute against each other in an internal match. The following examples will demonstrate how the proposed MatchPoint transactional fee will be charged: Example 1: User A enters a buy order into MatchPoint for 1,000 shares of XYZ security and designates the order for the 11 a.m. matching session. User B enters a sell order into MatchPoint for 1,000 shares of XYZ security and designates the order for the 11 a.m. matching session. During the 11 a.m. matching session, User A's buy order for 1,000 shares of XYZ security and User B's sell order for 1,000 shares of XYZ security match and execute. User A is charged $.0015 per executed share (1,000 shares × $.0015 = $1.50). User B is also charged $.0015 per executed share (1,000 shares × $.0015 = $1.50). Example 2: User A enters a portfolio order into MatchPoint for a customer to buy 1,000 shares of XYZ security with an internal match constraint under the mnemonic “Q” for the 2 p.m. matching session. User A then enters another portfolio order into MatchPoint for a second customer to sell 1,000 shares of XYZ security with an internal match constraint under the same mnemonic (“Q”) for the 2 p.m. matching session. During the 2 p.m. matching session, the above described portfolio orders entered by User A internally match and execute. Thus, User A's customers both receive executions of 1,000 shares of XYZ security, but no transaction fee is charged to A for these internally matched executions. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 6 8 of the Act 9 in general, and section 6(b)(4) of the Act 10 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. Specifically, the proposed transaction fee is reasonable in light of the costs incurred by the Exchange for the operation of the MatchPoint system. Additionally, the transaction fee is equitable as the fee is applied to all users of the MatchPoint system equally. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f. 9 15 U.S.C. 78a. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NYSE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 11 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 12 thereunder because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge applicable to a member imposed by NYSE. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2008-06 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-2008-06. 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, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-06 and should be submitted on or before February 25, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1878 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57213; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-07] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Extension of Crossing Sessions III and IV Pilots January 28, 2008. 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 January 22, 2008, 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 prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. 4 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 NYSE proposes to extend until February 1, 2009 the following pilot programs: Crossing Session III, for the execution of guaranteed price coupled orders by member organizations to fill the balance of customer orders at a price that was guaranteed to a customer prior to the close of the Exchange's 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. trading session; and Crossing Session IV, whereby an unfilled balance of an order may be filled at a price such that the entire order is filled at no worse price than the Volume Weighted Average Price (“VWAP”) for the subject security. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the NYSE's Web site ( *http://www.nyse.com* ), at the NYSE's Office of Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the NYSE included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The Exchange has prepared summaries set forth in sections A, B, and C below of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose In SR-NYSE-2002-40, 5 the Commission approved the establishment of two new crossing sessions (Crossing Sessions III and IV) in the Exchange's Off-Hours Trading Facility (“OHTF”) as a pilot program (“Pilot”), expiring on December 1, 2004. In SR-NYSE-2005-01, 6 the Commission approved an extension of the Pilot to February 1, 2006. In SR-NYSE-2006-02, 7 the Commission approved an extension of the Pilot to February 1, 2007. In SR-NYSE-2007-07 8 the Commission approved an extension of the Pilot to February 1, 2008. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48857 (December 1, 2003), 68 FR 68440 (December 8, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2002-40). 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51091 (January 28, 2005), 70 FR 6484 (February 7, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-01). 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53275 (February 13, 2006), 71 FR 8626 (February 17, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-02). 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55281 (February 12, 2007), 72 FR 7804 (February 20, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-07). This filing seeks to extend the Pilot until February 1, 2009. Crossing Sessions III and IV are described below. Background The purpose of the original proposed rule change was to add two additional “Crossing Sessions” (Crossing Sessions III and IV) to the Exchange's OHTF. Before the proposed rule change, the OHTF consisted of Crossing Sessions I and II. Crossing Session I permits the execution, at the Exchange's closing price, of single-stock, single-sided closing price orders and crosses of single-stock, and closing price buy and sell orders. Crossing Session II permits the execution of crosses of multiple-stock (“basket”) aggregate-priced buy and sell orders. For Crossing Session II, trade reporting is accomplished by reporting to the Consolidated Tape the total number of shares and the total market value of the aggregate-price trades. There is no indication of the individual component stocks involved in the aggregate-price transactions. Crossing Session III The Exchange is proposing to extend until February 1, 2009, the Pilot in Crossing Session III. Crossing Session III is described in Exchange Rule 907. This Pilot would continue to allow for the execution on the NYSE of “guaranteed price coupled orders” whereby member organizations could fill the unfilled balance of a customer order at a price which was guaranteed to the customer prior to the close of the Exchange's 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. trading session. Member firms, in serving their institutional customers, may offer them a guarantee that a large size order will receive no worse than a particular price. Such a practice is usually referred to as an “upstairs stop,” meaning that the firm guarantees that its customer's order will be executed at no worse price than the agreed-upon, guaranteed price, with the member firm trading for its own account, if necessary, to effectuate the guarantee. Typically, a member firm will seek to execute as much of the order as possible during the trading day at or below the “stop” price (in the case of a buy order) or at or above the “stop” price (in the case of a sell order). Any portion of the order not filled during the trading day will be completed after hours, with the firm either buying from, or selling to, its customer at a price which ensures that the entire order is executed at a price which is no worse than the “stop” price. Member firms typically execute the unfilled balance of the order, after the U.S. Consolidated Tape is closed, in the London over-the-counter market, where trades are not reported in real time. The purpose of this is simply to minimize the possibility that other market participants may ascertain the firm's, or the customer's inventory position, and possibly trade in the subject security to the detriment of the firm that granted the “upstairs stop.” The Exchange believes that it is more transparent to print the trade in the NYSE primary market during U.S. Consolidated Tape hours. Crossing Session IV The Exchange is also proposing to extend the Pilot in Crossing Session IV (which is also described in Exchange Rule 907), until February 1, 2009. Crossing Session IV is a facility whereby member organizations may fill the unfilled balance of a customer's order at a price such that the overall order is filled at a price that is no worse than the VWAP (the volume weighted average price) for the subject security on that trading day. The member organization would be required to document its VWAP agreement with the customer and the basis upon which the VWAP price would be determined. Operation of Crossing Sessions As described in NYSE Information Memos 04-30 and 05-57 and Rule 907, Crossing Sessions III and IV would continue to operate as follows:
(i)The original order as to which an “upstairs stop” or “VWAP” has been granted may be of any size;
(ii)The customer must have received a “stop” (guaranteed price) or VWAP for the entire order;
(iii)The member firm must record all details of the order, including the price it has guaranteed its customer or that the entire order will be filled at no worse than the VWAP;
(iv)An order or the unfilled balance of an order that would be executed in Crossing Session III or Crossing Session IV may be of any size;
(v)The customer's order must be executed in Crossing Session III or Crossing Session IV at a price that ensures that the entire order is executed at a price that is no worse than the guaranteed price or the VWAP;
(vi)Orders may be entered in Crossing Session III or Crossing Session IV between 4 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., and must be identified as either a Crossing Session III or Crossing Session IV order;
(vii)Member firms will receive an immediate report of execution upon entering an order into Crossing Session III or Crossing Session IV;
(viii)Orders may be entered into Crossing Session III for execution at prices outside the trading range in the subject security during the 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. trading session;
(ix)Orders may not be entered into Crossing Session III or Crossing Session IV in a security that is subject to a trading halt at the close of the regular 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. trading session; and
(x)At 6:30 p.m., the Exchange will print trades reported through Crossing Session III as guaranteed price coupled orders or in Crossing Session IV as VWAP executions. 2. Statutory Basis NYSE believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6 of the Act 9 in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act 10 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 11 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 12 Because the 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)become operative prior to 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, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder. 13 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 13 Rule 19b-4(f)(6) also requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied the pre-filing requirement. A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 14 the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. NYSE has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange believes the waiver of this period will allow it to continue the Pilots without undue delay, which it believes is in the public interest as it will avoid inconvenience and interruption to the public. The Commission believes such waiver is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it presents no new issues and would allow the Pilots to operate without interruption. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposal to be operative upon filing with the Commission. 15 14 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 15 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day pre-operative period, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 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 e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2008-07 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-2008-07. 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, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File number SR-NYSE-2008-07 and should be submitted on or before February 25, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 16 16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1879 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57219; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-13] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating To Listing Standards for Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(4) January 29, 2008. 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 January 22, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”), through its wholly-owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend its rules governing NYSE Arca, LLC (also referred to as the “NYSE Arca Marketplace”), which is the equities trading facility of NYSE Arca Equities. More specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(4), the Exchange's initial listing standards for “Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes.” The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.nyse.com* . II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange is proposing to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(4), the Exchange's initial listing standards for “Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes,” to provide for greater flexibility in the listing criteria for such securities, as set forth below. The proposed substantive rule changes herein are based upon the rules of the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”). 5 The Commission has approved similar proposed rule changes by the Exchange recently. 6 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55733 (May 10, 2007), 72 FR 27602 (May 16, 2007) (SR-Amex-2007-34) (the “May 2007 Amex Order”); and 56629 (October 9, 2007), 72 FR 58689 (October 16, 2007) (SR-Amex-2007-87) (the “October 2007 Amex Order”). These two orders approved changes to Section 107A of the Amex Company Guide. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 56924 (December 7, 2007), 72 FR 70918 (December 13, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-98) (amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(2) (“Equity-Linked Notes”)); 56906 (December 5, 2007), 72 FR 70636 (December 12, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-103) (amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(1) (“Other Securities”)); and 56593 (October 1, 2007), 72 FR 57362 (October 9, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-96) (amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) (“Equity Index-Linked Securities, Commodity-Linked Securities and Currency-Linked Securities”)). Currently, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(4)(a) provides that an issue of Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes must have a minimum public distribution of 150,000 notes with a minimum of 400 public note-holders, except, if traded in thousand dollar denominations, then no minimum number of holders. The Exchange proposes to expand the exception to provide that, if the notes are traded in thousand dollar denominations, then there is also no minimum public distribution requirement. 7 The Exchange notes that, without the exception to the 150,000 publicly distributed notes requirement, the Exchange would be unable to list issues in thousand dollar denominations having a market value of less than $150 million. The Exchange believes that the proposed exception is a reasonable accommodation for those issuances in $1,000 denominations. 7 *See* the May 2007 Amex Order, *supra* at note 5. The Exchange proposes to further amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(4)(a) to provide that there are no minimum public distribution and holders requirements if the notes are redeemable at the option of the holders thereof on at least a weekly basis (regardless of whether the notes are traded in thousand dollar denominations). 8 The Exchange believes that a weekly redemption right will ensure a strong correlation between the market price of the notes and the performance of the underlying index, as holders will be unlikely to sell their notes for less than their redemption value if they have a weekly right to redeem such notes for their full value. In addition, in the case of certain notes with a weekly redemption feature, the issuer may have the ability to issue new notes from time to time at market prices prevailing at the time of sale, at prices related to market prices, or at negotiated prices. This provides a ready supply of new notes, thereby lessening the possibility that the market price of such notes will be affected by a scarcity of available notes for sale. The Exchange believes that the weekly redemption right also assists in maintaining a strong correlation between the market price and the indicative value of the notes, as investors will be unlikely to pay more than the indicative value in the open market if they can acquire notes from the issuer at that price. 8 *See* the May 2007 Amex Order (approving no minimum holders requirement if there is a weekly redemption right) and the October 2007 Amex Order (approving no minimum public distribution requirement if there is a weekly redemption right), *supra* at note 5. The Exchange believes that the ability to list Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes with these characteristics without any minimum public distribution or holders requirements is important to the successful listing of such notes. Issuers issuing these types of notes generally do not intend to do so by way of an underwritten offering. Rather, the distribution arrangement is analogous to that of an exchange-traded fund issuance, in that the issue is launched without any significant distribution event and the float increases over time as investors purchase additional securities from the issuer at the then indicative value. Investors will generally seek to purchase the notes at a point when the underlying index is at a level that they perceive as providing an attractive growth opportunity. In the context of such a distribution arrangement, it is difficult for an issuer to guarantee its ability to sell a specific number of units on the listing date. However, the Exchange believes that this difficulty in ensuring the sale of 150,000 notes or 400 public holders on the listing date is not indicative of a likely long-term lack of liquidity in the notes or, for the reasons set forth in the prior paragraph, of a difficulty in establishing a pricing equilibrium in the notes or a successful two-sided market. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act 9 in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act 10 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(1)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)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). The Exchange satisfied the requirement of this provision that the Exchange provide the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to filing it. A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay and make the proposed rule change operative upon filing because the proposal raises no novel issues and is based on a previously approved proposal filed by NYSE Arca. 13 The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the Exchange's proposed amendment would conform its listing standards for Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes with respect to minimum public holders and public distribution to be substantively identical to the parallel listing standards of other national securities exchanges, which the Commission has previously approved. In addition, the Commission notes that it has also previously approved substantively identical rules for other new derivative security products. 14 The Commission further believes that the proposal should benefit investors by creating, without undue delay, additional competition in the market for Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing. 15 13 *See supra* at note 5. 14 *See supra* at note 6. 15 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has also 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 such proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 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-NYSEArca-2008-13 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-NYSEArca-2008-13. 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, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. 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-NYSEArca-2008-13 and should be submitted on or before February 25, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 16 16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1961 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57224; File No. SR-Phlx-2008-03] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing Standards for Index-Linked Securities January 29, 2008. 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 January 24, 2008, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. Phlx filed the proposal pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rule 803(n)(1) to permit the listing of Index-Linked Securities 5 that do not meet the minimum public holders and/or public distribution requirements when such Index-Linked Securities is redeemable at the option of the holders thereof on at least a weekly basis. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.phlx.com.* 5 Index-Linked Securities are securities that provide for the payment at maturity of a cash amount based on the performance of an underlying index or indexes. Such securities may or may not provide for the repayment of the original principal investment amount. *See* Phlx Rule 803(n). II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Phlx included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rule 803(n), the Exchange's listing standards for Index-Linked Securities, to encourage trading of Index-Linked Securities on the Exchange. The Commission has recently approved a similar proposal by NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”). 6 6 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56593 (October 1, 2007), 72 FR 57362 (October 9, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-96) (providing, among other things, that, if an issue of Index-Linked Securities is redeemable at the option of the holders thereof on at least a weekly basis, both the minimum one million publicly held trading units and 400 beneficial holders initial distribution requirements would not apply). Phlx Rule 803(n)(1) generally requires that each issue of Index-Linked Securities have at least one million publicly traded units and that there be at least 400 public holders, provided, however, that the minimum public distribution and public shareholders requirements do not apply to an issue traded in thousand dollar denominations. In addition, Phlx Rule 803(n)(1) provides that the minimum public shareholders requirement does not apply if the Index-Linked Securities are redeemable at the option of the holders thereof on at least a weekly basis. The Exchange proposes to add another exception to the general requirements of Phlx Rule 803(n)(1) such that, if an issue of Index-Linked Securities are redeemable at the option of the holders thereof on at least a weekly basis, then both the minimum public holders and public distribution requirements would not apply. The Exchange believes that, where there is such a weekly redemption right, the same justification exists for an exemption from the requirement to have one million units issued at the time of listing as applies to the 400 public holder requirement. The Exchange believes that a weekly redemption right will ensure a strong correlation between the market price of the Index-Linked Securities and the performance of the underlying index, as holders will be unlikely to sell their securities for less than their redemption value if they have a weekly right to be redeemed for their full value. In addition, in the case of those Index-Linked Securities with a weekly redemption feature that are currently listed on a national securities exchange, as well as all of those that are currently proposed to be listed, the issuer has the ability to issue new Index-Linked Securities from time to time at the indicative value at the time of such sale. The Exchange believes that this provides a ready supply of new Index-Linked Securities, thereby lessening the possibility that the market price of such securities would be affected by a scarcity of available Index-Linked Securities for sale. The Exchange believes that it also assists in maintaining a strong correlation between the market price and the indicative value, as investors will be unlikely to pay more than the indicative value in the open market if they can acquire Index-Linked Securities from the issuer at that price. The Exchange believes that the ability to list Index-Linked Securities with these characteristics without any minimum number of units issued or holders is important to the successful listing of such securities. Issuers issuing these types of Index-Linked Securities generally do not intend to do so by way of an underwritten offering. Rather, the distribution arrangement is analogous to that of an exchange-traded fund issuance, in that the issue is launched without any significant distribution event, and the float increases over time as investors purchase additional securities from the issuer at the then indicative value. Investors will generally seek to purchase the securities at a point when the underlying index is at a level that they perceive as providing an attractive growth opportunity. In the context of such a distribution arrangement, it is difficult for an issuer to guarantee its ability to sell a specific number of units on the listing date. However, the Exchange believes that this difficulty in ensuring the sale of one million units on the listing date is not indicative of a likely long-term lack of liquidity in the securities or, for the reasons set forth in the prior paragraph, of a difficulty in establishing a pricing equilibrium in the securities or a successful two-sided market. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 7 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5), in particular, 8 in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange states that no written comments on the proposed rule change were either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule change:
(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 10 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement. A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay and make the proposed rule change operative upon filing because the proposal raises no novel issues and is based on a previously approved proposal filed by NYSE Arca. 11 The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the Exchange's proposed amendment would conform its listing standards for Index-Linked Securities with respect to minimum public holders and public distribution to be substantively identical to the parallel listing standards of other national securities exchanges, which the Commission has previously approved. 12 In addition, the Commission notes that it has also previously approved substantively identical rules for other new derivative security products. 13 The Commission further believes that the proposal should benefit investors by creating, without undue delay, additional competition in the market for Index-Linked Securities. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing. 14 11 *See supra* note 6. 12 *See, e.g.* , Section 107(A)(b) of the *Company Guide* for the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”); Rule 5.2(j)(1)(A) of NYSE Arca Equities, Inc.; and Section 703.22(B)(1) of the Listed Company Manual for the New York Stock Exchange LLC. 13 For example, in addition to applying to Index-Linked Securities, Section 107(A)(b) of the Amex *Company Guide* applies to other new derivative security products such as Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes. 14 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-Phlx-2008-03 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2008-03. 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, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the 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-Phlx-2008-03 and should be submitted on or before February 25, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1962 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6075] Notice of Meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee There will be a meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee on Thursday, March 6, 2008, from approximately 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on Friday, March 7, from approximately 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., at the Department of State, Annex 44, Room 840, 301 4th St., SW., Washington, DC. During its meeting the Committee will review a proposal to extend the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Khmer Archaeological Material (“MOU”). The Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia has notified the Government of the United States of America of its interest in extending the MOU. The Committee's responsibilities are carried out in accordance with provisions of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 2601, *et seq.* ). The text of the Act and subject MOU, as well as related information, may be found at *http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop* . Portions of the meeting on March 6 will be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) and 19 U.S.C. 2605(h), the latter of which stipulates that “The provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act shall apply to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee except that the requirements of subsections
(a)and
(b)of section 10 and 11 of such Act (relating to open meetings, public notice, public participation, and public availability of documents) shall not apply to the Committee, whenever and to the extent it is determined by the President or his designee that the disclosure of matters involved in the Committee's proceedings would compromise the Government's negotiation objectives or bargaining positions on the negotiations of any agreement authorized by this title.” However, on March 6, the Committee will hold an open session from approximately 9:30 a.m. to 11 a.m., to receive oral public comment on the proposal to extend. Such an open session is not a statutory requirement, nor is the invitation for public oral or written comment. These steps are taken at the initiative of the Department of State. Persons wishing to attend this open session should notify the Cultural Heritage Center of the Department of State at
(202)453-8800 no later than February 25, 2008, 5 p.m.
(EST)to arrange for admission. Seating is limited. Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation at the public session must request to be scheduled, and must submit a written text of the oral comments by February 25, 2008, to allow time for distribution to Committee members prior to the meeting. Oral comments will be limited to allow time for questions from members of the Committee and must specifically relate to the determinations under Section 303(a)(1) of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 2602, pursuant to which the Committee must make findings. This citation for the determinations can be found at the Web site noted above. The Committee also invites written comments and asks that they be submitted no later than February 25, 2008, to allow time for distribution to Committee members prior to the meeting. All written materials, including the written texts of oral statements, may be faxed to
(202)453-8803. If more than three
(3)pages, 20 duplicates of written materials must be sent by express mail to: Cultural Heritage Center, Department of State, Annex 44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547; tel:
(202)453-8800. Dated: January 25, 2008. C. Miller Crouch, Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-1953 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6080] Announcement of Meetings of the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee *Summary:* This notice announces meetings of the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee
(ITAC)to prepare advice on U.S. positions for the March/April 2008 meeting of the International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) Study Group 3 (Tariff and accounting principles including related telecommunication economic and policy issues) and the April 2008 meeting of the Organization of American States Inter-American Telecommunication Commission Permanent Consultative Committee I (Telecommunication) (OAS/CITEL/PCC.I). The ITAC will meet to prepare advice for the U.S. on positions for the March/April 2008 meeting of the ITU-T Study Group 3 and related issues of the International Telecommunication Regulations on Tuesday afternoons February 19, March 4, 11, and 18, 2008 2-4PM EST in the Washington, DC metro area. Meeting details and detailed agendas will be posted on the mailing list *sga@eblist.state.gov.* People desiring to participate on this list may apply to the secretariat at *minardje@state.gov.* The ITAC will meet to prepare advice for the U.S. on positions for the April 2008 meeting of the OAS CITEL PCC.I on Thursday February 21, 2008 10AM—noon EST at a location in the Washington, DC metro area. We expect this meeting to be continued as necessary. Meeting details and detailed agenda will be posted on the mailing list *pcc.i-citel@eblist.state.gov.* People desiring to participate on this list may apply to the secretariat at *minardje@state.gov.* The meetings are open to the public. Dated: January 28, 2008. Marian R. Gordon, International Communications & Information Policy, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-1950 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-07-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6078] Shipping Coordinating Committee; Notice of Meeting The Shipping Coordinating Committee
(SHC)through the Subcommittee on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping will conduct an open meeting at 9:30 a.m. on February 19, 2007. The meeting will be held in Room 10-623/0718 of Jemal's Riverside Building, 1900 Half Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593. The purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the 39th session of the International Maritime Organization
(IMO)Sub-Committee on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping (STW 39) to be held on March 3-7, 2008, at the Royal Horticultural Halls and Conference Centre in London, England. The primary matters to be considered include: —Comprehensive review of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW Convention) and the STCW Code; —Training for seafarer safety representatives; —Unlawful practices associated with certificates of competency; —Validation of model training courses; —Review of principles for establishing the safe manning levels of ships; and —Training requirements for the control and management of ship's ballast water and sediments. Please note that hard copies of documents associated with STW 39 will not be available at this meeting, the documents will be available at the meeting in portable document format (.pdf) on CD-ROM. To request documents before the meeting please write to the address provided below, and include your name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address. Copies of the papers will be sent via electronic mail to the address provided. Members of the public may attend the meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. Interested persons may seek information by writing: Mayte Medina, U.S. Coast Guard (CG-5221), Room 1210, 2100 Second St., SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001 or by calling;
(202)372-1406. Dated: January 28, 2008. Mark W. Skolnicki, Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-1952 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-09-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6074] Notice of Proposal To Extend the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Khmer Archaeological Material The Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia has informed the Government of the United States of its interest in an extension of the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Khmer Archaeological Material which entered into force on September 19, 2003. Pursuant to the authority vested in the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, and pursuant to the requirement under 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(1), an extension of this Memorandum of Understanding is hereby proposed. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(2), the views and recommendations of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee regarding this proposal will be requested. A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding, the designated list of restricted categories of material, and related information can be found at the following Web site: *http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop* . Dated: January 25, 2008. C. Miller Crouch, Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-1957 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6089] Termination of Statutory Debarment Pursuant to Section 38(g)(4) of the Arms Export Control Act for Peter Appelbaum ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Department of State has terminated the statutory debarment against Peter Appelbaum pursuant to section 38(g)(4) of the Arms Export Control Act
(AECA)(22 U.S.C. 2778). DATES: *Effective Date:* January 24, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David C. Trimble, Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State
(202)663-2807. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA and section 127.11 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations
(ITAR)prohibit the issuance of export licenses or other approvals to a person, or any party to the export, who has been convicted of violating the AECA and certain other U.S. criminal statutes enumerated at section 38(g)(1)(A) of the AECA and section 120.27 of the ITAR. A person convicted of violating the AECA is also subject to statutory debarment under section 127.7 of the ITAR. In October 1999, Peter Appelbaum was convicted of violating the AECA (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, 1:99CR00530-001). Based on this conviction, Peter Appelbaum was statutorily debarred pursuant to section 38(g)(4) of the AECA and section 127.7 of the ITAR and, thus, prohibited from participating directly or indirectly in exports of defense articles and defense services. Notice of debarment was published in the **Federal Register** (68 FR 52436, September 3, 2003). Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA permits termination of debarment after consultation with the other appropriate U.S. agencies and after a thorough review of the circumstances surrounding the conviction and a finding that appropriate steps have been taken to mitigate any law enforcement concerns. The Department of State has determined that Peter Appelbaum has taken appropriate steps to address the causes of the violations and to mitigate any law enforcement concerns. Therefore, in accordance with section 38(g)(4) of the AECA, the debarment against Peter Appelbaum is rescinded, effective January 24, 2008. Dated: January 24, 2008. Stephen D. Mull, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-1948 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-25-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Approval of Noise Compatibility Program; Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Atlanta, GA AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)announces its findings on the Noise Compatibility Program submitted by the City of Atlanta under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. (the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and 14 CFR part 150. These findings are made in recognition of the description of Federal and nonfederal responsibilities in Senate Report No. 96-52 (1980). On April 10, 2007, the FAA determined that the noise exposure maps submitted by the City of Atlanta under Part 150 were in compliance with applicable requirements. On January 24, 2008, the FAA approved the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport Noise Compatibility Program. All of the recommendations of the program were approved. No program elements relating to new or revised flight procedures for noise abatement were proposed by the airport operator. DATES: *Effective Dates:* The effective date of the FAA's approval of the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport Noise Compatibility Program is January 24, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott L. Seritt, Federal Aviation Administration, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue Campus Building, Suite 2-260, College Park, Georgia 30337, phone number: 404-305-7150. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at this same location. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA has given its overall approval to the Noise Compatibility Program for Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, effective January 24, 2008. Under section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has previously submitted a Noise Exposure Map may submit to the FAA a Noise Compatibility Program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses with the area covered by the Noise Exposure Maps. The Act requires such programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties, including local communities, government agencies, airport users, and FAA personnel. Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance with 14 CFR part 150 is a local program, not a Federal Program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for that of the airport operator with respect to which measure should be recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of part 150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards expressed in part 150 and the Act, and is limited to the following determinations: a. The Noise Compatibility Program was developed in accordance with the provisions and procedures of 14 CFR part 150; b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses; c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types of classes of aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or intrude into areas preempted by the Federal government; and d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator prescribed by law. Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport Noise Compatibility Program are delineated in 14 CFR part 150, § 150.5 Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist the implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. Where Federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must be submitted to the FAA Airports District Office in College Park, Georgia. The City of Atlanta submitted to the FAA on March 29, 2007, the Noise Exposure Maps, descriptions, and other documentation produced during the noise compatibility planning study conducted from February 6, 2003, through September 5, 2007. The Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport Noise Exposure Maps were determined by FAA to be in compliance with applicable requirements on April 10, 2007. Notice of this determination was published in the **Federal Register** on April 10, 2007. The Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport study contains a proposed Noise Compatibility Program comprised of actions designed for phased implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions from September 5, 2007 beyond the year 2012. It was requested that FAA evaluate and approve this material as a Noise Compatibility Program as described in section 47504 of the Act. The FAA began is review of the Program on September 7, 2007, and was required by a provision of the Act to approve or disapprove the program within 180 days (other than the use of new or modified flight procedures for noise control). Failure to approve or disapprove such program within the 180-day period shall be deemed to be an approval of such program. The submitted program contained seven
(7)proposed actions for noise mitigation on and off the airport. The FAA completed its review and determined that the procedural and substantive requirements of the Act and 14 CFR part 150 have been satisfied. The overall program, therefore, was approved by the FAA effective January 24, 2008. Outright approval was granted for all of the specific program elements. These determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of Approval signed by the FAA on January 24, 2008. The Record of Approval, as well as other evaluation materials and the documents comprising the submittal, are available for review at the FAA office listed above and at the administrative office of the City of Atlanta. The Record of Approval also will be available on-line at: *http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/environmental/airport_noise/part_150/states/.* Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 25, 2008. Scott L. Seritt, Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office. [FR Doc. 08-464 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 21
Traces to 21 documents
CFR
- Referral to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).§ 52.87
- Requirement to publish notice of intent and conduct scoping process.§ 51.26
- Administrative review of applications; hearings.§ 52.85
- Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants.§ 50.65
- Technical specifications.§ 50.36
- Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or otherwise not requiring environmental review.§ 51.22
- Application for amendment of license, construction permit, or early site permit.§ 50.90
- Notice for public comment; State consultation.§ 50.91
- Issuance of amendment.§ 50.92
- Delegation of authority to Director of Division of Trading and Markets.§ 200.30-3
U.S. Code
- Registration, responsibilities, and oversight of self-regulatory organizations§ 78s
- Registered securities associations§ 78o–3
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- National securities exchanges§ 78f
- Short title§ 78a
- Definitions and application§ 78c
- Definitions§ 2601
- Open meetings§ 552b
- Cultural Property Advisory Committee§ 2605
- Agreements to implement Article 9 of the convention§ 2602
- Control of arms exports and imports§ 2778
7 references not yet in our index
- 10 CFR 52
- 10 CFR 2
- 10 CFR 51
- 10 CFR 50
- 10 CFR 20
- 17 CFR 240.19
- 14 CFR 150
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of Issuance; Correction
Cite10 CFR 52
Cite10 CFR 2
Cite10 CFR 51
Cites 28 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources