Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Notices 56189 

made in the types of effluents that may 

be released off site. There is no 

significant increase in the amount of 

any effluent released off site. There is no 

significant increase in occupational or 

public radiation exposure. Therefore, 

there are no significant radiological 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

With regard to potential 

nonradiological impacts, the proposed 

action does not have a potential to affect 

any historic sites. It does not affect 

nonradiological plant effluents and has 

no other environmental impact. 

Therefore, there are no significant 

nonradiological environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed action. 

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that 

there are no significant environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the staff considered denial of the 

proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’

alternative). Denial of the application 

would result in no change in current 

environmental impacts. The 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and the alternative action are 

similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The action does not involve the use of 

any different resources than those 

previously considered in the Final 

Environmental Statement for Turkey 

Point Units 3 and 4, dated January 1972, 

and Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement (NUREG–1437 

Supplement 5) dated January 2002. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on August 7, 2006, the staff consulted 

with the Florida State official, William 

Passetti of the Bureau of Radiation 

Control, regarding the environmental 

impact of the proposed action. The State 

official had no comments. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the environmental 

assessment, the NRC concludes that the 

proposed action will not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC has determined not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed action. 

For further details with respect to the 

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter 

dated December 27, 2004, as 

supplemented by letters dated May 23, 

2005, January 13, 2006, and July 12, 

2006. 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. Publicly 

available records will be accessible 

electronically from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who 

do not have access to ADAMS or who 

encounter problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS should 

contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by 

telephone at 1–800–397–4209 or 301–

415–4737, or send an e-mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day 

of September 2006. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Brendan T. Moroney, 

Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II–

2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 06–8220 Filed 9–25–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Biweekly Notice; Applications and 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses Involving No Significant 

Hazards Considerations 

I. Background 

Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission or NRC 

staff) is publishing this regular biweekly 

notice. The Act requires the 

Commission publish notice of any 

amendments issued, or proposed to be 

issued and grants the Commission the 

authority to issue and make 

immediately effective any amendment 

to an operating license upon a 

determination by the Commission that 

such amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, notwithstanding 

the pendency before the Commission of 

a request for a hearing from any person. 

This biweekly notice includes all 

notices of amendments issued, or 

proposed to be issued from September 

1, 2006, to September 14, 2006. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53715). 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 

of the facility in accordance with the 

proposed amendment would not (1) 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated; or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. Within 60 days after the 

date of publication of this notice, the 

licensee may file a request for a hearing 

with respect to issuance of the 

amendment to the subject facility 

operating license and any person whose 

interest may be affected by this 

proceeding and who wishes to 

participate as a party in the proceeding 

must file a written request for a hearing 

and a petition for leave to intervene. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
56190 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Notices 

Written comments may be submitted 

by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, 

Directives and Editing Branch, Division 

of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and should cite the publication 

date and page number of this Federal 

Register notice. Written comments may 

also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two 

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 

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

Copies of written comments received 

may be examined at the Commission’s 

Public Document Room (PDR), located 

at One White Flint North, Public File 

Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of 

requests for a hearing and petitions for 

leave to intervene is discussed below. 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, the licensee 

may file a request for a hearing with 

respect to issuance of the amendment to 

the subject facility operating license and 

any person whose interest may be 

affected by this proceeding and who 

wishes to participate as a party in the 

proceeding must file a written request 

for a hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 

petition for leave to intervene shall be 

filed in accordance with the 

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for 

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 

CFR part 2. Interested persons should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the Commission’s 

PDR, located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville 

Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a 

request for a hearing or petition for 

leave to intervene is filed within 60 

days, the Commission or a presiding 

officer designated by the Commission or 

by the Chief Administrative Judge of the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel, will rule on the request and/or 

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also set forth the specific 

contentions which the petitioner/ 

requestor seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the petitioner/requestor shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner/requestor 

intends to rely in proving the contention 

at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor 

must also provide references to those 

specific sources and documents of 

which the petitioner is aware and on 

which the petitioner/requestor intends 

to rely to establish those facts or expert 

opinion. The petition must include 

sufficient information to show that a 

genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant on a material issue of law or 

fact. Contentions shall be limited to 

matters within the scope of the 

amendment under consideration. The 

contention must be one which, if 

proven, would entitle the petitioner/ 

requestor to relief. A petitioner/ 

requestor who fails to satisfy these 

requirements with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. 

If a hearing is requested, and the 

Commission has not made a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to decide 

when the hearing is held. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration, the Commission may 

issue the amendment and make it 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 

held would take place after issuance of 

the amendment. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves a significant hazards 

consideration, any hearing held would 

take place before the issuance of any 

amendment. 

A request for a hearing or a petition 

for leave to intervene must be filed by: 

(1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express 

mail, and expedited delivery services: 

Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, 

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, 

Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail 

addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

HearingDocket@nrc.gov; or (4) facsimile 

transmission addressed to the Office of 

the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC, 

Attention: Rulemakings and 

Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101, 

verification number is (301) 415–1966. 

A copy of the request for hearing and 

petition for leave to intervene should 

also be sent to the Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and it is requested that copies be 

transmitted either by means of facsimile 

transmission to (301) 415–3725 or 

by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A 

copy of the request for hearing and 

petition for leave to intervene should 

also be sent to the attorney for the 

licensee. 

Nontimely requests and/or petitions 

and contentions will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the 

Commission or the presiding officer of 

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

that the petition, request and/or the 

contentions should be granted based on 

a balancing of the factors specified in 10 

CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)–(viii). 

For further details with respect to this 

action, see the application for 

amendment which is available for 

public inspection at the Commission’s 

PDR, located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville 

Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible from the ADAMS Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 

at the NRC Web site, http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If 

you do not have access to ADAMS or if 

there are problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS, contact 

the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–

4209, (301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov. 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Notices 56191 

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., 

Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529, 

and STN 50–530, Palo Verde Nuclear 

Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, 

Maricopa County, Arizona 

Date of amendments request: July 20, 

2006. 

Description of amendments request: 

The proposed amendments would 

revise Technical Specification 3.1.6, 

‘‘Shutdown Control Element Assembly 

(CEA) Insertion Limits.’’

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

Safety analyses require that the shutdown 

CEAs insert into the core at least 90% within 

4 seconds of the safety signal initiating the 

shutdown sequence with the assumption that 

the shutdown CEAs’ starting positions are at 

150 inches withdrawn. This assumption will 

not be altered with the new proposed 

withdrawal limit. 

The positioning of control rods (shutdown 

CEAs) to a new limit of ≥147.75 inches 

withdrawn is not a precursor to any accident 

analyzed at Palo Verde nor do these 

conditions affect any accident precursor; 

thus, initial control rod position does not 

change the probability of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

To assess the effect control rod position 

would have on the safety analyses with the 

rods positioned at the new limit, several 

events and specific parameters were 

analyzed. The events were chosen because of 

their sensitivity to rod position. The specific 

parameters were analyzed to determine if, 

with the rods positioned at the new limit, the 

power distribution in the core was still 

within the assumptions made in the safety 

analyses. 

Since none of the related safety analyses 

resulted in a significant change in the 

previously calculated values and the limiting 

parameters associated for those analyses were 

not exceeded, the consequences of these 

accidents remain unchanged. Therefore, the 

new insertion limit for the shutdown CEAs 

will not increase the consequences of any 

accident analyzed in our licensing bases 

documents. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different accident 

from any accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

PVNGS [Palo Verde Nuclear Generating 

Station] licensing bases documents describe 

the design function of the control rods as 

components that include a positive means 

(gravity) for inserting the control rods and are 

capable of reliably controlling the nuclear 

reactor to assure that under conditions of 

normal operation, including anticipated 

accidents, fuel design limits are not 

exceeded. The proposed amendment, new 

control rod (shutdown CEA) insertion limit, 

does not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated nor does it affect the 

control rods ability to perform its design 

function. 

Control rods placed at the new insertion 

limit will not cause fuel design limits to be 

exceeded during normal operations or 

accidents. Placing the control rods at the new 

insertion limit in no way impedes their 

insertion due to gravity. These CEAs are 

tested to ensure that they will insert greater 

than 90% into the core in less than 4 seconds 

from a completely withdrawn position (150 

inches) and this requirement will continue to 

be met. 

Establishing a new insertion limit for the 

control rods does not modify any of the 

existing components or systems used to 

position the control rods. The new insertion 

limit will also satisfy the assumptions made 

in the safety analyses. 

In conclusion, the new insertion limit stills 

[sic] allows the control rods to fulfill their 

design function and does not create a new or 

different accident than is already described 

in the licensing bases documents. Therefore, 

the proposed change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment, new shutdown 

CEA insertion limit, does not involve a 

reduction in the margin of safety. The new 

shutdown CEA insertion limit does not affect 

any of the limits used to determine the 

acceptability of newly designed cores. The 

safety analyses in the licensing bases 

documents remain acceptable when this new 

(more restrictive) shutdown CEA insertion 

limit is applied. Additionally, the design 

basis of the control rods is unaffected by the 

new insertion limit. The design function of 

the control rods is to provide a positive 

means (gravity) for inserting the control rods 

and is capable of reliably controlling the 

nuclear reactor to assure that under 

conditions of normal operation, including 

anticipated accidents, fuel design limits are 

not exceeded. Since the bounding safety 

analyses limits used remain the same and the 

control rod design basis is unaffected, the 

fuel design limits associated with the clad 

material; which houses the fuel; and the 

design limits of the coolant system; which 

houses the fuel assemblies; remain 

unchanged. Therefore, the margin of safety is 

not reduced. 

In conclusion, since the bounding limits 

used for safety analyses are unaffected by the 

new shutdown CEA insertion limit, the safety 

limits associated with the fuel and the 

coolant system remain unchanged. The 

design basis on the control rods is to ensure 

the fuel safety limits are not exceeded and 

since they remain unchanged, the design 

basis is still achieved. Therefore, there is no 

reduction in the margin of safety. 

Therefore, APS [Arizona Public Service] 

has concluded that the proposed license 

amendment request does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on that 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the request 

for amendments involves no significant 

hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Janet S. Mueller, 

Director, Law Department, Arizona 

Public Service Company, P.O. Box 

52034, Mail Station 8695, Phoenix, 

Arizona 85072–2034. 

NRC Branch Chief: David Terao. 

Entergy Operations Inc., Docket No. 50–

382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, 

Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: August 2, 

2006. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would delete 

Waterford 3 Technical Specification 

Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.6.1.7.2. 

This SR is the augmented testing 

requirement for containment purge 

supply and exhaust isolation valves 

with resilient seal materials and allows 

the surveillance intervals to be set in 

accordance with the Containment 

Leakage Rate Testing Program. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

This change deletes the augmented testing 

requirement for these containment isolation 

valves and allows the surveillance intervals 

to be set in accordance with the Containment 

Leakage Rate Testing Program. This change 

does not affect the system function or design. 

The purge valves are not an initiator of any 

previously analyzed accident. Leakage rates 

do not affect the probability of the occurrence 

of any accident. Operating history has 

demonstrated that the valves do not degrade 

and cause leakage as previously anticipated. 

Because these valves have been demonstrated 

to be reliable, these valves can be expected 

to perform the containment isolation 

function as assumed in the accident analyses. 

Therefore, there is no significant increase in 

the consequences of any previously 

evaluated accident. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
56192 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Notices 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

Extending the test intervals has no 

influence on, nor does it contribute in any 

way to, the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident or malfunction from those 

previously analyzed. No change has been 

made to the design, function or method of 

performing leakage testing. Leakage 

acceptance criteria have not changed. No 

new accident modes are created by extending 

the testing intervals. No safety-related 

equipment or safety functions are altered as 

a result of this change. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The only margin of safety that has the 

potential of being impacted by the proposed 

change involves the offsite dose 

consequences of postulated accidents which 

are directly related to the containment 

leakage rate. The proposed change does not 

alter the method of performing the tests nor 

does it change the leakage acceptance 

criteria. Sufficient data has been collected to 

demonstrate these resilient seals do not 

degrade at an accelerated rate. 

Because of this demonstrated reliability, 

this change will provide sufficient 

surveillance to determine an increase in the 

unfiltered leakage prior to the leakage 

exceeding that assumed in the accident 

analysis. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: N.S. Reynolds, 

Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20006–3817. 

NRC Branch Chief: David Terao. 

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–410, Nine Mile Point 

Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2), Oswego 

County, New York 

Date of amendment request: May 11, 

2006. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would revise 

Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.7, 

‘‘Standby Liquid Control (SLC) System,’’

to change the minimum required SLC 

pump discharge pressure specified in 

surveillance requirement (SR) SR 3.1.7.7 

from 1235 psig to 1320 psig. This 

change is in response to Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission Information 

Notice 2001–13, ‘‘Inadequate Standby 

Liquid Control System Relief Valve 

Margin.’’

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises the 

surveillance requirements for the SLC system 

to correspond to the maximum expected 

pressure in the reactor pressure vessel for an 

ATWS [anticipated transient without scram] 

event. This proposed increase in the 

specified SLC pump discharge pressure 

involves only the SLC system. No other 

NMP2 structures, systems, or components are 

affected. The SLC system is provided to 

mitigate ATWS events and, as such, is not 

considered to be an initiator of an ATWS 

event or any other analyzed accident. The 

revised TS surveillance requirement, and the 

associated change to the SLC pump discharge 

relief valve set pressure (not described in the 

TS), neither reduce the ability of the SLC 

system to respond to and mitigate an ATWS 

event nor increase the likelihood of a system 

malfunction that could increase the 

consequences of an accident. Therefore, the 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to the SLC pump TS 

surveillance requirement, and the associated 

change to the SLC pump discharge relief 

valve set pressure (not described in the TS), 

are consistent with the functional 

requirements of the ATWS rule (10 CFR 

50.62). The proposed change does not 

involve the installation of any new or 

different type of equipment, does not 

introduce any new modes of plant operation, 

and does not change any methods governing 

normal plant operation. The proposed change 

does not introduce any new accident 

initiators, and therefore does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not alter any 

assumptions, initial conditions or results 

from any accident analyses. The proposed 

change to the SLC pump TS surveillance 

requirement, and the associated changes to 

the SLC pump discharge relief valve set 

pressure (not described in the TS), are 

consistent with the functional requirements 

of the ATWS rule (10 CFR 50.62). The ability 

of the SLC system to respond to and mitigate 

an ATWS event is not affected. Therefore, the 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mark J. 

Wetterhahn, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 

1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20006–3817. 

NRC Branch Chief: Richard J. Laufer. 

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–410, Nine Mile Point 

Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2), Oswego 

County, New York 

Date of amendment request: August 

11, 2006. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.2.1, 

‘‘Control Rod Block Instrumentation,’’ to 

revise the number of startups allowed 

with the rod worth minimizer (RWM) 

inoperable from one per calendar year to 

two per operating cycle (approximately 

2 years). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change redefines the 

frequency at which plant startup is permitted 

without using the RWM. The relevant design 

basis accident is the control rod drop 

accident (CRDA), which involves multiple 

failures to initiate the event. This 

administrative change does not increase the 

probability of occurrence of any of the 

failures that are necessary for a CRDA to 

occur. Use of the RWM or the alternate use 

of a qualified human checker to ensure the 

correct control rod withdrawal sequence is 

not in itself an accident initiator, and 

redefining the startup allowance frequency 

does not involve any plant hardware changes 

or new operator actions that could serve to 

initiate a CRDA. The proposed change will 

have no adverse effect on plant operation, or 

the availability or operation of any accident 

mitigation equipment. Also, since the banked 

position withdrawal sequence (BPWS) will 

continue to be enforced by either the RWM 

or verification by a second qualified 

individual, the initial conditions of the 

CRDA radiological consequence analysis 

presented in the U[F]SAR [Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report] are not affected. 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Notices 56193 

Therefore, there will be no increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not introduce 

any new modes of plant operation and will 

not result in a change to the design function 

or operation of any structure, system, or 

component that is used for accident 

mitigation. The proposed redefinition of the 

frequency at which plant startup is permitted 

without using the RWM does not result in 

any credible new failure mechanisms, 

malfunctions, or accident initiators not 

considered in the design and licensing basis. 

This administrative change does not affect 

the ability of safety-related systems and 

components to perform their intended safety 

functions. Therefore, the proposed change 

will not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change redefines the 

frequency at which plant startup is permitted 

without using the RWM. This administrative 

change does not affect the overall frequency 

of use of the allowance. The proposed change 

will have no adverse affect on plant 

operation or equipment important to safety. 

The relevant design basis accident is the 

control rod drop accident (CRDA), which 

involves multiple failures to initiate the 

event. The CRDA analysis consequences and 

related initial conditions remain unchanged 

when invoking the proposed change. The 

plant response to the CRDA will not be 

affected and the accident mitigation 

equipment will continue to function as 

assumed in the accident analysis. Therefore, 

there will be no significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Mark J. 

Wetterhahn, Esquire, Winston & Strawn, 

1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20006–3817. 

NRC Branch Chief: Richard J. Laufer. 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, Surry 

Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry 

County, Virginia 

Date of amendment request: July 5, 

2006. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would revise the 

main control room (MCR) and 

emergency switchgear room (ESGR) air 

conditioning system (ACS) Technical 

Specifications (TSs) to reflect the 

completion of permanent modifications 

to the equipment and associated power 

supply configuration. The revisions 

include the addition of requirements 

and/or action statements addressing the 

inoperability of two or more air 

handling units (AHUs) on a unit, as well 

as AHUs powered from an H emergency 

bus. The proposed change, paralleling 

requirements in the Improved Technical 

Specifications (ITS), also adds MCR and 

ESGR ACS requirements during 

refueling operations and irradiated fuel 

movement in the fuel building. In 

addition, the proposed change clarifies 

the service water (SW) requirements for 

the ACS chillers that serve the MCR and 

ESGRs. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed license amendment 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated? 

The proposed change does not impact the 

condition or performance of any plant 

structure, system, or component. The 

proposed change does not affect the initiators 

of analyzed events or the assumed mitigation 

of accident or transient events. No physical 

changes to the ACS or SW System are 

involved, and accident operation of the ACS 

will not change. As a result, the proposed 

change to the Surry Technical Specifications 

does not involve any significant increase in 

the probability or the consequences of any 

accident or malfunction of equipment 

important to safety previously evaluated 

since neither accident probabilities nor 

consequences are being affected by this 

proposed change. 

2. Does the proposed license amendment 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated? 

The proposed change does not involve a 

physical alteration of the plant or a change 

in the methods used to respond to plant 

transients. No new or different equipment is 

being installed, and no installed equipment 

is being removed. There is no alteration to 

the parameters with which the plant is 

normally operated or in the setpoints, which 

initiate protective or mitigative actions. The 

ACS will continue to perform its required 

function. Consequently, no new failure 

modes are introduced by the proposed 

change. Therefore, the proposed change to 

the Surry Technical Specifications does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident or malfunction of equipment 

important to safety from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

The proposed TS change does not impact 

any plant structure, system, or component 

that is relied upon for accident mitigation. 

Margin of safety is established through the 

design of the plant structures, systems, and 

components, the parameters within which 

the plant is operated, and the establishment 

of the setpoints for the actuation of 

equipment relied upon to respond to an 

event. Since ACS performance is not affected 

by the proposed change, the ACS will 

continue to be available to perform its 

required function. Furthermore, the change 

does not affect the condition or performance 

of structures, systems, or components relied 

upon the accident mitigation or any safety 

analysis assumptions. Therefore, the 

proposed change to the Surry Technical 

Specifications does not involve a significant 

reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, Dominion 

Resources Services, Inc., Millstone 

Power Station, Building 475, 5th Floor, 

Rope Ferry Road, Rt. 156, Waterford, 

Connecticut 06385. 

NRC Branch Chief: Evangelos C. 

Marinos. 

Previously Published Notices of 

Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The following notices were previously 

published as separate individual 

notices. The notice content was the 

same as above. They were published as 

individual notices either because time 

did not allow the Commission to wait 

for this biweekly notice or because the 

action involved exigent circumstances. 

They are repeated here because the 

biweekly notice lists all amendments 

issued or proposed to be issued 

involving no significant hazards 

consideration. 

For details, see the individual notice 

in the Federal Register on the day and 

page cited. This notice does not extend 

the notice period of the original notice. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: July 20, 

2006. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The proposed amendment 

would revise the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2, 

Technical Specifications (TS) 5.5.9, 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
56194 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Notices 

‘‘Steam Generator (SG) Tube 

Surveillance Program,’’ to incorporate 

changes in the SG inspection scope for 

VEGP, Unit 1 during Refueling Outage 

13 and the subsequent operating cycle, 

and VEGP Unit 2 during Refueling 

Outage 12 and the subsequent operating 

cycle. The proposed changes modify the 

inspection requirements for portions of 

SG tubes within the tubesheet region of 

the SGs. 

Date of publication of individual 

notice in Federal Register: July 31, 

2006 (71 FR 43225). 

Expiration date of individual notice: 

30-day August 30, 2006; 60-day, 

September 29, 2006. 

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application 

complies with the standards and 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for A Hearing in 

connection with these actions was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) 

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items are available for public inspection 

at the Commission’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 

North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. Publicly available records 

will be accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the internet at the 

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR 

Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–4209, 

(301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et al., 

Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean 

County, New Jersey 

Date of application for amendment: 

October 18, 2005, as supplemented by 

letter dated May 26, 2006. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Oyster Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station Technical 

Specifications (TSs) Surveillance 

Requirement (SR) 4.4.B.1 to provide an 

alternative means for testing the 

electromatic relief valves located on the 

main steam system. The revised SR 

allows demonstration of the capability 

of the valves to perform their function 

without requiring that the valves be 

cycled with steam pressure while 

installed. 

Date of Issuance: September 1, 2006. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, to be implemented within 60 

days. 

Amendment No.: 260. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

16: The amendment revised the TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 20, 2005 (70 FR 

75490). The May 26, 2006, letter 

provided clarifying information within 

the scope of the original application and 

did not change the staff’s initial 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of this amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 1, 

2006. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 

50–369 and 50–370, McGuire Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg 

County, North Carolina 

Date of application for amendments: 

October 27, 2004. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the facility 

operating licenses by removal of Section 

2.E, that lists reporting requirements 

with regard to Maximum Power Level, 

Updated, Fire Protection, Protection of 

the Environment (Unit 2 only) and 

Physical Protection. 

Date of issuance: September 7, 2006. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 233 and 215. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF 9 and NPF–17: Amendments 

revised the licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 5, 2005 (70 FR 38717). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 7, 

2006. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–333, James A. FitzPatrick 

Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, 

New York 

Date of application for amendment: 

April 27, 2005, as supplemented by 

letters dated November 22, 2005, and 

August 1, 2006. The August 1, 2006, 

submittal reduced the scope of the 

changes to only revise Technical 

Specification Limiting Condition for 

Operation 3.8.4, ‘‘DC SourcesOperating.’’

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the Technical 

Specifications to allow a battery charger 

to be out of service for up to 7 days. 

Date of issuance: September 14, 2006. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 286. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

59: The amendment revised the License 

and the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 19, 2005 (70 FR 41444). 

The November 22, 2005, and August 1, 

2006, supplements provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 14, 

2006. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50–

455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Ogle County, Illinois, Docket Nos. STN 

50–456 and STN 50–457, Braidwood 

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 

Will County, Illinois 

Date of application for amendment: 

February 15, 2005, as supplemented by 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Notices 56195 

letters dated November 28 and 

December 9, 2005 (two letters), and 

January 27, February 13, March 17 and 

July 14, 2006. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments fully implement an 

alternative source term. 

Date of issuance: September 8, 2006. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 147, 147, 140 and 

140. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

37, NPF–66, NPF–72 and NPF–77: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications and License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 10, 2005 (70 FR 24650). 

The November 28 and December 9, 2005 

(two letters), and January 27, February 

13, March 17 and July 14, 2006 

supplements, contained clarifying 

information and did not change the NRC 

staff’s initial proposed finding of no 

significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 

2006. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, 

Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 

and 3, Grundy County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC and 

MidAmerican Energy Company, Docket 

Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad Cities 

Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Rock Island County, Illinois 

Date of application for amendments: 

October 10, 2002, as supplemented by 

letters dated March 21, March 28, 

August 4, September 15 and October 31, 

2003, and June 30, August 6, September 

3, September 10, September 22, 

November 2 and November 5, 2004, and 

March 3, August 22, September 3 and 

September 27, 2005, and February 17 

and May 25, 2006. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments adopt the alternative 

source term methodology as prescribed 

in Title 10 to the Code of Federal 

Regulations Section 50.67. 

Date of issuance: September 11, 2006. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 180 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 221/212, 233/229. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–19, DPR–25, DPR–29 and 

DPR–30. The amendments revised the 

Technical Specifications, Surveillance 

Requirements and Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 19, 2003 (68 FR 

49816). The supplements dated March 

21, March 28, August 4, September 15 

and October 31, 2003, and June 30, 

August 6, September 3, September 10, 

September 22, November 2, and 

November 5, 2004, and March 3, August 

22, September 3 and September 27, 

2005, and February 17 and May 25, 

2006, contained clarifying information 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

initial proposed finding of no significant 

hazards consideration. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 11, 

2006. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Indiana Michigan Power Company, 

Docket No. 50–315, Donald C. Cook 

Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Berrien County, 

Michigan 

Date of application for amendment: 

April 10, 2006, as supplemented by 

letters dated April 12, 13 (2 letters), and 

June 27, 2006. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Surveillance 

Requirement 3.8.1.11 of the DCCNP–1 

Technical Specifications, raising the 

diesel generator load rejection voltage 

test limit from 5000 volts to 5350 volts. 

Date of issuance: September 1, 2006. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 45 days. 

Amendment No.: 295. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

58: Amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 1, 2006 (71 FR 43534). 

The supplemental letters contained 

clarifying information and did not 

change the initial no significant hazards 

consideration determination, and did 

not expand the scope of the original 

Federal Register notice. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 1, 

2006. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station, 

Nemaha County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: 

September 29, 2005, as supplemented 

by letters dated January 16, and April 7, 

2006. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment eliminated operability 

requirements for secondary 

containment, secondary containment 

isolation valves, the standby gas 

treatment system, and secondary 

containment isolation instrumentation 

when handling irradiated fuel that has 

decayed for 24 hours since critical 

reactor operations, and when 

performing core alterations. Similar 

technical specification relaxations are 

granted for the Control Room 

Emergency Filter System and its 

initiation instrumentation after a decay 

period of 7 days. 

Date of issuance: September 5, 2006. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 222. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

46: Amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 3, 2006 (71 FR 149). 

The supplements dated January 16 and 

April 17, 2006, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 5, 

2006. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station, 

Nemaha County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: March 7, 

2006, as supplemented by letter dated 

May 10, 2006. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) Section 5.5.6, 

‘‘Inservice Testing Program,’’ by 

replacing references to Section Xl of the 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure 

Vessel Code with ASME Code for 

Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear 

Power Plants (OM Code). Section 50.55a 

of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) requires that the 

Inservice Testing (IST) Program be 

updated to the latest Edition and 

Addenda of the Code incorporated by 

reference in 10 CFR 50.55a(b) 12 months 

before the start of the applicable 10-year 

interval. Section Xl of the ASME Boiler 

and Pressure Vessel Code has been 

replaced with the ASME OM Code as 

the code of reference for IST programs. 

Thus, the ASME OM Code is the code 

of reference for the IST Program for the 

10-year interval that began March 1, 

2006. In addition, the amendment 

expanded the scope of frequencies 

specified to be within the applicability 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
56196 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Notices 

of Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.2 

by adding mention of other normal and 

accelerated frequencies specified in the 

IST Program. This will eliminate any 

confusion regarding the applicability of 

SR 3.0.2 to IST Program Frequencies. 

Date of issuance: September 6, 2006. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 223. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

46: Amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 5, 2006 (71 FR 38184). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 6, 

2006. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Omaha Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 

No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: July 1, 

2005, as supplemented on September 

16, 2005, November 15, 2005, December 

14, 2005, February 16, 2006, and July 6, 

2006. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the Updated Safety 

Analysis Report, Section 14.10, 

‘‘Malfunctions of the Feedwater 

System,’’ to describe an existing 

Emergency Operating Procedure 

operator action to isolate the steam 

generator blowdown within 15 minutes 

of a reactor trip during a loss-of-main 

feedwater event. 

Date of issuance: September 11, 2006. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 242. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–40: The amendment revised 

the Updated Safety Analysis Report. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 2, 2005 (70 FR 44403). 

The September 16, 2005, November 15, 

2005, December 14, 2005, February 16, 

2006, and July 6, 2006, supplemental 

letters provided information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

safety evaluation dated September 11, 

2006. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272 

and 50–311, Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem 

County, New Jersey 

Date of application for amendments: 

September 26, 2005, as supplemented 

by letter dated June 28, 2006. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

proposed amendments revised the 

Salem Technical Specifications (TSs) to 

eliminate certain Surveillance 

Requirements (SRs) for containment 

isolation valves. The changes deleted SR 

4.6.3.1.1 and SR 4.6.3.1 for Salem Unit 

Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. These SRs 

require a complete valve stroke and 

stroke time measurement when a valve 

is returned to service after maintenance, 

repair, or replacement work. The 

changes are intended to minimize 

unnecessary testing and plant 

transients. Other Salem TS containment 

isolation valve SRs ensure that the 

valves remain operable. 

Date of issuance: August 31, 2006. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, to be implemented within 60 

days. 

Amendment Nos.: 274 and 255. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

70 and DPR–75: The amendments 

revised the License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 18, 2006 (71 FR 40739). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 31, 

2006. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of application for amendments: 

January 27, 2005, as supplemented by 

letters dated September 30, 2005, and 

January 25 and May 5, 2006. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications by extending the 

surveillance test interval for 

components of the reactor protection 

system. 

Date of issuance: September 1, 2006. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 145 and 125 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

68 and NPF–81: Amendments revised 

the licenses and the technical 

specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 8, 2005 (70 FR 

67751). The supplements dated 

September 30, 2005, and January 25 and 

May 5, 2006, provided clarifying 

information that did not change the 

scope of the January 27, 2005, 

application nor the initial proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 1, 

2006. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of application for amendments: 

July 20, 2006, as supplemented by letter 

dated August 4, 2006. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised Technical 

Specification 5.5.9, ‘‘Steam Generator 

(SG) Tube Surveillance Program,’’

regarding the required SG inspection 

scope for Vogtle, Unit 1, during 

Refueling Outage 13 and the subsequent 

operating cycle and Vogtle, Unit 2, 

during Refueling Outage 12, and the 

subsequent operating cycle. The 

proposed changes modify the inspection 

requirements for portions of the SG 

tubes within the hot leg tubesheet 

region of the SGs. 

Date of issuance: September 12, 2006. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 146 and 126. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

68 and NPF–81: Amendments revised 

the licenses and the technical 

specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 31, 2006 (71 FR 43225). 

The supplement dated August 4, 2006, 

provided clarifying information that did 

not expand the scope of the July 20, 

2006, application nor the initial 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 12, 

2006. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296, 

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, 

and 3, Limestone County, Alabama 

Date of application for amendments: 

January 10, 2006 as supplemented by 

letters April 14, August 1, September 5 

and 14, 2006. 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Notices 56197 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments revised Technical 

Specifications 3.3.1.1 and 3.3.5.1 to 

specify the methodology used for 

determining, setting, and evaluating asfound setpoints for drift-susceptible 

instruments that are necessary to ensure 

compliance with a Safety Limit or are 

critical in ensuring the fuel peak 

cladding temperature acceptance 

criterion are met. 

Date of issuance: September 14, 2006. 

Effective date: Date of issuance, to be 

implemented within 90 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 257, 296 and 254. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–33, DPR–52, and DPR–68: 

Amendments revised the Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 28, 2006 (71 FR 

15487). The supplements dated April 

14, August 1, September 5 and 14, 2006, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the NRC 

staff’s original proposed no significant 

hazards determination as published in 

the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 14, 

2006. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

TXU Generation Company LP, Docket 

Nos. 50–445 and 50–446, Comanche 

Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit Nos. 

1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas 

Date of amendments request: 

December 16, 2005, as supplemented by 

letter dated June 7, 2006. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the steam 

generator tube surveillance program 

technical specifications (TSs) to be 

consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF) 

traveler TSTF–449, Revision 4, ‘‘Steam 

Generator Tube Integrity.’’

Date of issuance: September 12, 2006. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 128/128. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

87 and NPF–89: The amendments 

revised the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 14, 2006 (71 FR 

13181). The supplement dated June 7, 

2006, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed, and did not change 

the staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination as published in the 

Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated September 12, 

2006. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses and Final 

Determination of No Significant 

Hazards Consideration and 

Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent 

Public Announcement or Emergency 

Circumstances) 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application for the 

amendment complies with the 

standards and requirements of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), and the Commission’s rules 

and regulations. The Commission has 

made appropriate findings as required 

by the Act and the Commission’s rules 

and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, 

which are set forth in the license 

amendment. 

Because of exigent or emergency 

circumstances associated with the date 

the amendment was needed, there was 

not time for the Commission to publish, 

for public comment before issuance, its 

usual Notice of Consideration of 

Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No 

Significant Hazards Consideration 

Determination, and Opportunity for a 

Hearing. 

For exigent circumstances, the 

Commission has either issued a Federal 

Register notice providing opportunity 

for public comment or has used local 

media to provide notice to the public in 

the area surrounding a licensee’s facility 

of the licensee’s application and of the 

Commission’s proposed determination 

of no significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission has provided a 

reasonable opportunity for the public to 

comment, using its best efforts to make 

available to the public means of 

communication for the public to 

respond quickly, and in the case of 

telephone comments, the comments 

have been recorded or transcribed as 

appropriate and the licensee has been 

informed of the public comments. 

In circumstances where failure to act 

in a timely way would have resulted, for 

example, in derating or shutdown of a 

nuclear power plant or in prevention of 

either resumption of operation or of 

increase in power output up to the 

plant’s licensed power level, the 

Commission may not have had an 

opportunity to provide for public 

comment on its no significant hazards 

consideration determination. In such 

case, the license amendment has been 

issued without opportunity for 

comment. If there has been some time 

for public comment but less than 30 

days, the Commission may provide an 

opportunity for public comment. If 

comments have been requested, it is so 

stated. In either event, the State has 

been consulted by telephone whenever 

possible. 

Under its regulations, the Commission 

may issue and make an amendment 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the pendency before it of a request for 

a hearing from any person, in advance 

of the holding and completion of any 

required hearing, where it has 

determined that no significant hazards 

consideration is involved. 

The Commission has applied the 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made 

a final determination that the 

amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration. The basis for this 

determination is contained in the 

documents related to this action. 

Accordingly, the amendments have 

been issued and made effective as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the application for 

amendment, (2) the amendment to 

Facility Operating License, and (3) the 

Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment, as indicated. All of these 

items are available for public inspection 

at the Commission’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 

North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. Publicly available records 

will be accessible from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR 

Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–4209, 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
56198 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Notices 

1To the extent that the applications contain 

attachments and supporting documents that are not 

publicly available because they are asserted to 

contain safeguards or proprietary information, 

petitioners desiring access to this information 

should contact the applicant or applicant’s counsel 

and discuss the need for a protective order. 

(301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

The Commission is also offering an 

opportunity for a hearing with respect to 

the issuance of the amendment. Within 

60 days after the date of publication of 

this notice, the licensee may file a 

request for a hearing with respect to 

issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license and 

any person whose interest may be 

affected by this proceeding and who 

wishes to participate as a party in the 

proceeding must file a written request 

for a hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 

petition for leave to intervene shall be 

filed in accordance with the 

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for 

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 

CFR part 2. Interested persons should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the Commission’s 

PDR, located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville 

Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 

and electronically on the Internet at the 

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there 

are problems in accessing the document, 

contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 

(800) 397–4209, (301) 415–4737, or by email to pdr@nrc.gov. If a request for a 

hearing or petition for leave to intervene 

is filed by the above date, the 

Commission or a presiding officer 

designated by the Commission or by the 

Chief Administrative Judge of the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel, will rule on the request and/or 

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also identify the specific 

contentions which the petitioner/ 

requestor seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the petitioner/requestor shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner must also 

provide references to those specific 

sources and documents of which the 

petitioner is aware and on which the 

petitioner intends to rely to establish 

those facts or expert opinion. The 

petition must include sufficient 

information to show that a genuine 

dispute exists with the applicant on a 

material issue of law or fact.1

Contentions shall be limited to matters 

within the scope of the amendment 

under consideration. The contention 

must be one which, if proven, would 

entitle the petitioner to relief. A 

petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy 

these requirements with respect to at 

least one contention will not be 

permitted to participate as a party. 

Each contention shall be given a 

separate numeric or alpha designation 

within one of the following groups: 

1. Technical—primarily concerns/ 

issues relating to technical and/or 

health and safety matters discussed or 

referenced in the applications. 

2. Environmental—primarily 

concerns/issues relating to matters 

discussed or referenced in the 

environmental analysis for the 

applications. 

3. Miscellaneous—does not fall into 

one of the categories outlined above. 

As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two 

or more petitioners/requestors seek to 

co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/ 

requestors shall jointly designate a 

representative who shall have the 

authority to act for the petitioners/ 

requestors with respect to that 

contention. If a petitioner/requestor 

seeks to adopt the contention of another 

sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the 

petitioner/requestor who seeks to adopt 

the contention must either agree that the 

sponsoring petitioner/requestor shall act 

as the representative with respect to that 

contention, or jointly designate with the 

sponsoring petitioner/requestor a 

representative who shall have the 

authority to act for the petitioners/ 

requestors with respect to that 

contention. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. Since the Commission has 

made a final determination that the 

amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, if a hearing is 

requested, it will not stay the 

effectiveness of the amendment. Any 

hearing held would take place while the 

amendment is in effect. 

A request for a hearing or a petition 

for leave to intervene must be filed by: 

(1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express 

mail, and expedited delivery services: 

Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, 

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, 

Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail 

addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

HearingDocket@nrc.gov; or (4) facsimile 

transmission addressed to the Office of 

the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC, 

Attention: Rulemakings and 

Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101, 

verification number is (301) 415–1966. 

A copy of the request for hearing and 

petition for leave to intervene should 

also be sent to the Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and it is requested that copies be 

transmitted either by means of facsimile 

transmission to (301) 415–3725 or by email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy 

of the request for hearing and petition 

for leave to intervene should also be 

sent to the attorney for the licensee. 

Nontimely requests and/or petitions 

and contentions will not be entertained 

absent a determination by the 

Commission or the presiding officer or 

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

that the petition, request and/or the 

contentions should be granted based on 

a balancing of the factors specified in 10 

CFR 2.309(a)(1)(I)–(viii). 

Omaha Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 

No. 1 (FCS), Washington County, 

Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: June 2, 

2006. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment deleted Technical 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Notices 56199 

1Applicants request that any relief granted 

pursuant to the application also apply to any future 

series of the Trust and any other existing or future 

registered open-end management investment 

company or series thereof that: (a) is advised by the 

Adviser; (b) uses the management structure 

described in the application; and (c) complies with 

the terms and conditions of the application 

(included in the term ‘‘Funds’’). The Trust is the 

only existing registered open-end management 

investment company that currently intends to rely 

on the order. All references to the term ‘‘Adviser’’

include (a) the Adviser and (b) an entity controlling, 

controlled by, or under common control with the 

Adviser. If the name of any Fund contains the name 

of a Subadviser (as defined below), the name of the 

Adviser that serves as primary adviser to the Fund 

will precede the name of the Subadviser. 

Specifications (TSs) 4.3.1.2b and TS 

4.3.1.2c of the FCS TSs. The amendment 

also made an administrative change to 

TS 4.3.1.2 to correct the current wording 

of TS 4.3.1.2 and TS 4.3.1.2d. TS 4.3.1.2 

implied that more than one new fuel 

storage rack at FCS is installed when 

there is actually only one new fuel 

storage rack. In addition, Omaha Public 

Power District (OPPD) will complete 

additional procedural enhancements of 

administrative controls for compliance 

with 10 CFR 50.68(b)(2) and (b)(3) prior 

to receipt of new fuel for the 2006 

Refueling. 

Date of issuance: June 27, 2006. 

Effective date: The license 

amendment is effective as of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 7 days of issuance. OPPD will 

complete additional enhancements of 

administrative controls for compliance 

with 10 CFR 50.68(b)(2) and (b)(3) prior 

to receipt of new fuel for the 2006 

Refueling. 

Amendment No.: 240. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–40: Amendment revised the 

Technical Specifications. 

Public comments requested as to 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration (NSHC): 

Yes. Omaha World-Herald on June 11, 

2006. The notice provided an 

opportunity to submit comments on the 

Commission’s proposed NSHC 

determination. No comments have been 

received. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment, finding of exigent 

circumstances, state consultation, and 

final NSHC determination are contained 

in a safety evaluation dated August 31, 

2006. 

Attorney for licensee: James R. 

Curtiss, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006–

3817. 

NRC Branch Chief: David Terao. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th 

Day of September 2006. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Catherine Haney, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 06–8014 Filed 9–25–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Investment Company Act Release No. 

27494 ; 812–13209] 

Quaker Investment Trust and Quaker 

Funds, Inc.; Notice of Application 

September 20, 2006. 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’). 

ACTION: Notice of application for an 

order under section 6(c) of the 

Investment Company Act of 1940 (the 

‘‘Act’’) for an exemption from section 

15(a) of the Act and rule 18f–2 under 

the Act, as well as certain disclosure 

requirements. 

Summary of Application: Applicants 

request an order that would permit them 

to enter into and materially amend 

subadvisory agreements without 

shareholder approval and would grant 

relief from certain disclosure 

requirements. 

Applicants: Quaker Investment Trust 

(the ‘‘Trust’’) and Quaker Funds, Inc. 

(the ‘‘Adviser’’). 

Filing Dates: The application was 

filed on July 6, 2005, and amended on 

September 5, 2006. 

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An 

order granting the application will be 

issued unless the Commission orders a 

hearing. Interested persons may request 

a hearing by writing to the 

Commission’s Secretary and serving 

applicants with a copy of the request, 

personally or by mail. Hearing requests 

should be received by the Commission 

by 5:30 p.m. on October 16, 2006, and 

should be accompanied by proof of 

service on the applicants, in the form of 

an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate 

of service. Hearing requests should state 

the nature of the writer’s interest, the 

reason for the request, and the issues 

contested. Persons who wish to be 

notified of a hearing may request 

notification by writing to the 

Commission’s Secretary. 

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities & 

Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20549–1090; 

Applicants, 309 Technology Drive, 

Malvern, PA 19355. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bruce R. MacNeil, Senior Counsel, at 

(202) 551–6817 or Stacy L. Fuller, 

Branch Chief, at (202) 551–6821 

(Division of Investment Management, 

Office of Investment Company 

Regulation). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following is a summary of the 

application. The complete application 

may be obtained for a fee at the 

Commission’s Public Reference Branch, 

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20549–0102 (telephone (202) 551–5850). 

Applicants’ Representations 

1. The Trust, a Massachusetts 

business trust, is registered under the 

Act as an open-end management 

investment company. The Trust 

currently is comprised of eight series 

(each a ‘‘Fund’’ and collectively, the 

‘‘Funds’’), each with a separate 

investment objective, policy and 

restrictions.1 The Adviser is registered 

as an investment adviser under the 

Investment Advisers Act of 1940 

(‘‘Advisers Act’’) and serves as 

investment adviser to the Funds 

pursuant to an investment advisory 

agreement (‘‘Advisory Agreement’’) with 

the Trust. The Advisory Agreement has 

been approved by the Trust’s board of 

trustees (the ‘‘Board’’), including a 

majority of the trustees who are not 

‘‘interested persons,’’ as defined in 

section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of the Trust 

or the Adviser (‘‘Independent 

Trustees’’), as well as by each Fund’s 

shareholders. 

2. Under the terms of the Advisory 

Agreement, the Adviser provides 

investment advisory services to each 

Fund, supervises the investment 

program for each Fund, and has the 

authority, subject to Board approval, to 

enter into investment subadvisory 

agreements (‘‘Subadvisory Agreements’’) 

with one or more investment 

subadvisers (‘‘Subadvisers’’). The 

Adviser monitors and evaluates the 

Subadvisers and recommends to the 

Board their hiring, retention or 

termination. Subadvisers recommended 

to the Board by the Adviser must be 

selected and approved by the Board, 

including a majority of the Independent 

Trustees. Each Subadviser to a Fund is, 

and any future Subadviser to a Fund 

will be, an investment adviser registered 

under the Advisers Act. The Adviser 

compensates each Subadviser out of the 

fees paid to the Adviser under the 

Advisory Agreement. 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES