Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Notices 37807

Dated: June 12, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–15228 Filed 6–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–410]

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. NPF–

69 issued to Niagara Mohawk Power

Corporation (the licensee) for operation

of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station,

Unit No. 2 (NMP2) located in Scriba,

Oswego County, New York.

The proposed amendment would

revise Section 3.10.8, ‘‘Shutdown

Margin (SDM) Test—Refueling,’’ of the

Technical Specifications (TS),

correcting an administrative error

introduced when Amendment No. 91,

converting the TS to the Improved

Technical Specifications (ITS) format

was processed. The error of omission

was introduced by the licensee in that

a February 7, 2000, licensee submittal

did not propose to revise ITS

Specification 3.10.8 consistent with the

changes made to ITS Table 3.3.1.1 with

regards to the inclusion of the

Oscillation Power Range Monitor

function (OPRM). The OPRM function

was introduced into the TS by

Amendment No. 92, which was being

processed concurrently with the ITS

conversion and which was issued

within days after issuance of

Amendment No. 91. Specifically, the

licensee did not propose to revise ITS

Limiting Condition of Operation (LCO)

3.10.8.a, ITS Surveillance Requirement

3.10.8.1 and associated Bases to reflect

the re-numbering of Function 2.e to 2.f

on ITS Table 3.3.1.1–1 as a consequence

of the insertion of a new Reactor

Protection System function (i.e.,

Function 2.e, ‘‘OPRM–Upscale’’). Thus

the amendment proposed by the

licensee’s June 7, 2000, application

would only correct such omission to

match technical changes already

approved by Amendment No. 92.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration. Under

the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR

50.92, this means that operation of the

facility in accordance with the proposed

amendment would not: (1) Involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from

any accident previously evaluated; or

(3) involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its

analysis of the issue of no significant

hazards consideration, which is

presented below:

The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit 2,

in accordance with the proposed

amendment, will not involve a significant

increase in the probability or consequences

of an accident previously evaluated.

Changes are proposed to ITS Specification

3.10.8 whereby the following aspects of this

Specification are revised: ITS LCO 3.10.8.a,

ITS SR [Surveillance Requirement] 3.10.8.1

and the associated ITS Bases. These changes

replace references to Function 2.e with

references to Function 2.f. These Functions

are associated with the ITS RPS [reactor

protection system] Instrumentation Table

3.3.1.1–1. ‘‘OPRM–Upscale’’ is Function 2.e

and ‘‘2-Out-Of-4 Voter’’ is Function 2.f on the

ITS RPS Table. Since neither of these

functions are assumed to be initiators of any

design basis accident or transient, the

changes do not involve a significant increase

in the probability of an accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed changes to ITS LCO 3.10.8.a,

ITS SR 3.10.8.1 and associated Bases ensure

that the proper portions of the RPS are

required to be operable and that appropriate

surveillances are performed to enable

shutdown margin testing during certain plant

conditions. These operability and

surveillance requirements will ensure

mitigation of unacceptable reactivity

excursions during control rod withdrawal.

Therefore, these changes will maintain test

operations as well as postulated accidents

within the bounds of the safety analysis as

described in Section 15.4.9 of the Updated

Safety Analysis Report for a Control Rod

Drop Accident. Accordingly, these changes

do not involve a significant increase in the

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit 2,

in accordance with the proposed

amendment, will not create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated.

The proposed changes do not introduce

any new failure modes. The proposed

changes ensure that proper portions of the

RPS are required to be operable and that

appropriate surveillances are performed to

enable shutdown margin testing. Therefore,

the proposed change will not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit 2,

in accordance with the proposed

amendment, will not involve a significant

reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed changes ensure that the

proper RPS functions are required to be

operable and [surveyed] consistent with the

safety analysis as described in Section 15.4.9

of the Updated Safety Analysis Report for a

Control Rod Drop Accident. Therefore,

operation in accordance with the proposed

amendment will not involve a significant

reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

licensee’s analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

requested amendment involves no

significant hazards consideration.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received. Should

the Commission take this action, it will

publish in the Federal Register a notice

of issuance and provide for opportunity

for a hearing after issuance. The

Commission expects that the need to

take this action will occur very

infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Chief, Rules and

Directives Branch, Division of

Administrative Services, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and should cite the publication

date and page number of this Federal

Register notice. Written comments may

also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30

a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.

Copies of written comments received

may be examined at the NRC Public

37808 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Notices

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1)

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By July 17, 2000, the licensee may file

a request for a hearing with respect to

issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR Part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and accessible

electronically through the ADAMS

Public Electronic Reading Room link at

the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

If a request for a hearing or petition for

leave to intervene is filed by the above

date, the Commission or an Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board, designated

by the Commission or by the Chairman

of the Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board Panel, will rule on the request

and/or petition; and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of hearing or

an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, by the above date. A

copy of the petition should also be sent

to the Office of the General Counsel,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to

Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire, Winston &

Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20005–3502, attorney

for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated June 7, 2000, which

is available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and accessible

electronically through the ADAMS

Public Electronic Reading Room link at

the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day

of June 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Peter S. Tam,

Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–15269 Filed 6–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–42908; File No. SR–NASD–

00–22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by

the National Association of Securities

Dealers, Inc. Relating to Limit Order

Protection for OTC Bulletin Board

Securities

June 7, 2000.

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 April 19,

2000, the National Association of

Securities Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’ or

‘‘Association’’), through its wholly

owned subsidiary, the Nasdaq Stock