Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices 5857

account which the broker-dealer

includes to determine eligibility.

(e) The combined total of all fees for

the provision of services to the IRA or

Keogh Plan is not in excess of

reasonable compensation within the

meaning of section 4975(d)(2) of the

Code.

(f) The investment performance of the

IRA or Keogh Plan investment is no less

favorable than the investment

performance of an identical

investment(s) that could have been

made at the same time by a customer of

the broker-dealer who is not eligible for

(or who does not receive) reduced or no

cost services.

(g) The services offered under the

arrangement to the IRA or Keogh Plan

customer must be the same as are

offered to non-IRA or non-Keogh Plan

customers with account values of the

same amount or the same amount of fees

generated.

Section III: Definitions

The following definitions apply to

this exemption:

(a) The term ‘‘broker-dealer’’ means a

broker-dealer registered under the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

(b) The term ‘‘IRA’’ means an

individual retirement account described

in Code section 408(a). For purposes of

this exemption, the term IRA shall not

include an IRA which is an employee

benefit plan covered by Title I of ERISA,

except for a Simplified Employee

Pension (SEP) described in section

408(k) of the Code or a Simple

Retirement Account described in

section 408(p) of the Code which

provides participants with the

unrestricted authority to transfer their

balances to IRAs or Simple Retirement

Accounts sponsored by different

financial institutions.

(c) The term ‘‘Keogh Plan’’ means a

pension, profit-sharing, or stock bonus

plan qualified under Code section

401(a) and exempt from taxation under

Code section 501(a) under which some

or all of the participants are employees

described in section 401(c) of the Code.

For purposes of this exemption, the

term Keogh Plan shall not include a

Keogh Plan which is an employee

benefit plan covered by Title I of ERISA.

(d) The term ‘‘account value’’ means

investments in cash or securities held in

the account for which market quotations

are readily available. For purposes of

this exemption, the term cash shall

include savings accounts that are

insured by a federal deposit insurance

agency that constitute deposits as that

term is defined in section 29 CFR

2550.408b–4(c)(3). The term account

value shall not include investments in

securities that are offered by the brokerdealer [or its affiliate] exclusively to

IRAs and Keogh Plans.

(e) An affiliate of a broker-dealer

includes any person directly or

indirectly controlling, controlled by, or

under common control with the brokerdealer. The term control means the

power to exercise a controlling

influence over the management or

policies of a person other than an

individual.

(f) The term ‘‘members of his or her

family’’ refers to beneficiaries of the

individual for whose benefit the IRA or

Keogh Plan is established or

maintained, who would be members of

the family as that term is defined in

Code section 4975(e)(6), or a brother, a

sister, or spouse of a brother or sister.

(g) The term ‘‘service’’ includes

incidental products of a de minimis

value which are directly related to the

provision of services covered by the

exemption.

(h) The term ‘‘fees’’ means

commissions and other fees received by

the broker-dealer from the IRA or Keogh

Plan for the provision of services,

including, but not limited to, brokerage

commissions, investment management

fees, custodial fees, and administrative

fees.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 31st day of

January 1997.

Alan D. Lebowitz,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Program

Operations, Pension and Welfare Benefits

Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.

[FR Doc. 97–3030 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–M

Advisory Council on Employee Welfare

and Pension Benefit Plans; Notice of

Meeting

Pursuant to the authority contained in

Section 512 of the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29

U.S.C. 1142, a public meeting of the

Advisory Council on Employee Welfare

and Pension Benefit Plans will be held

March 6, 1997, in Room S2508, U.S.

Department of Labor Building, Third

and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20210.

The purpose of the meeting, which

will begin at 1:00 p.m. and end at

approximately 3:30 p.m., is to consider

the items listed below and to invite

public comment on any aspect of the

administration of ERISA.

I. Welcome and Introduction of New

Council Members

II. Assistant Secretary’s Report

A. PWBA Priorities for 1997

B. Announcement of Council Chair

and Vice Chair

III. Introduction of PWBA Senior Staff

and Swearing In of New Members

IV. Report of Advisory Council Working

Groups (1996 Term)

V. Determination of Council Working

Groups for 1997

VI. Statements from the General Public

VII. Adjourn

Members of the public are encouraged

to file a written statement pertaining to

any topic concerning ERISA by

submitting 20 copies on or before

February 27, 1997 to Sharon Morrissey,

Acting Executive Secretary, ERISA

Advisory Council, U.S. Department of

Labor, Suite N–5677, 200 Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210.

Individuals or representatives of

organizations wishing to address the

Advisory Council should forward their

request to the Acting Executive

Secretary or telephone (202) 219–8753.

Oral presentations will be limited to ten

minutes, but extended statements may

be submitted for the record. Individuals

with disabilities, who need special

accommodations, should contact Sharon

Morrissey by February 27, at the address

indicated.

Organizations or individuals may also

submit statements for the record

without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of

such statements should be sent to the

Acting Executive Secretary of the

Advisory Council at the above address.

Papers will be accepted and included in

the record of the meeting if received on

or before February 27, 1997.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of

February, 1997.

Olena Berg,

Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare

Benefits Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–3094 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–306]

Northern States Power Company;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–42

and DPR–60 issued to Northern States

Power Company (the licensee), for

operation of the Prairie Island Nuclear

Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, located

in Goodhue County, Minnesota.
5858 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices

The proposed amendments would

change the Bases for the technical

specifications and the licensing basis for

the operating licenses relating to the

cooling water system emergency intake

line flow capacity. The licensee

determined through testing that the

emergency intake line flow capacity was

less than the design value stated in the

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

(USAR). The proposed changes reflect

the use of operator actions to control

cooling water system flow following a

seismic event. The proposed changes

also reclassify the intake canal for use

during a seismic event, which would be

an additional source of cooling water

during a seismic event.

In its letter dated January 29, 1997,

the licensee requested that this

amendment be reviewed under exigent

circumstances. Prairie Island Unit 2

shut down for refueling on January 25,

1997, and is scheduled to restart on

March 5, 1997. Without review and

approval of this license amendment

request by the end of the Unit 2 outage,

Prairie Island would be prevented from

resumption of plant operation.

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.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for

amendments to be granted under

exigent circumstances, the NRC staff

must determine 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:

1. The proposed amendment will not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

Probability

The accident of concern for this issue is a

seismic event. None of the proposed changes

can have any effect on the probability of a

seismic event.

Consequences

(1) The intake canal has been evaluated for

stability during a postulated seismic event.

The results of the evaluation demonstrates

that the banks of the canal will not liquefy

or lose strength during the event. Therefore,

taking credit for the intake canal stability

does not increase the consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

(2) The use of operator action for systems

important to safety to perform properly has

been evaluated. There are adequate

indications to allow the operator to recognize

the occurrence of the event. A procedure

provides guidance to the operator for

reducing cooling water system demand. This

procedure is available in the control room

and all actions are accomplished in the

control room. Adequate time is available for

the operator to perform the tasks and to get

feedback on the actions’ success or failure.

The operators have been trained on the use

of the procedure and continuing training is

planned. Therefore, the use of operator action

does not significantly increase the

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

(3) The potential for operator acts of

omission or commission while reducing

cooling water system demand has been

evaluated.

An operator act of omission while initially

performing the procedure to reduce cooling

water flow could result in cooling water

system demand exceeding the emergency

intake line capacity. However, due to the

long time period within which the procedure

must be implemented, control room

management oversight and control room

indications and alarms, it is unlikely that this

condition would not be corrected.

Three types of operator acts of commission

while performing the procedure to reduce

cooling water flow were considered. (1) Acts

which could increase flow and damage the

cooling water pumps are not credible since

the cooling water system flow is assumed to

be near its maximum due to loss of the

instrument air and non-safeguards power

when the earthquake occurs. (2) Acts which

would reduce flow to systems required for

safe shutdown of the plant were evaluated.

These acts would be indicated by control

room alarms and corrected or out-plant

actions would be required which involves

more than a simple act of commission, thus,

loss of function of supported systems due to

loss of cooling water flow is not considered

credible. (3) Acts which isolate a cooling

water pump incorrectly were considered.

This is a long term wear issue, but not a

pump failure issue.

Operator acts of omission or commission

have also been evaluated probabilistically.

This evaluation demonstrated that the

probability of an act of omission or

commission is comparable to or less than

other operator evolutions which have

previously been licensed for effective

performance of systems important to safety.

This compliments the conclusions from the

deterministic evaluation that these changes

do not involve a significant increase in the

probability of a previously evaluated

accident.

Therefore, the potential of an operator act

of omission or commission does not

significantly increase the consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

2. The proposed amendment will not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously analyzed.

The Cooling Water System is provided in

the plant to mitigate accidents and it is not

a design basis accident initiator, thus these

proposed changes do not increase the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident.

The consideration of operator acts of

omission or commission is limited to those

acts arising from performance of the cooling

water load management procedure. The

evaluation of these actions showed that a

new or different type of accident is not

created.

In total, the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated would not be created by

these changes to the plant licensing basis or

amendments to the Cooling Water Technical

Specifications.

3. The proposed amendment will not

involve a significant reduction in the margin

of safety.

The proposed changes do not involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety

because the current Technical Specifications

requirements for safe operation of the Prairie

Island plant are maintained or increased.

Plant margin of safety may be reduced by the

reduced flow capacity of the emergency

intake line. However, plant margin is

restored by the remedial operator actions

which preserve safe plant operation. Analysis

shows that the intake canal will not fail

during a seismic event and thus sufficient

time for reducing cooling water system

demand is provided. The procedure for

reducing cooling water demand has been

demonstrated on the plant simulator and

operators have been trained. This procedure

can be performed entirely from the control

room. Thus, the changes proposed in this

license amendment request do not involve a

significant reduction in the margin of safety.

Additionally, probabilistic evaluation

complements the conclusion that the

likelihood for successful reduction of the

cooling water system flow is very high.

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.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 15 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 15-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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices 5859

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

15-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. 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 Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

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 NRC Public 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 March 10, 1997, 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 at the local public

document room located at the

Minneapolis Public Library, Technology

and Science Department, 300 Nicollet

Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 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 a 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 the amendment is issued before the

expiration of the 30-day hearing period,

the Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. If a

hearing is requested, 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:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to John N.

Hannon, Director, Project Directorate

III–1: petitioner’s name and telephone

number, date petition was mailed, plant

name, and publication date and page

number of this Federal Register notice.

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 Jay Silberg, Esq., Shaw,

Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge, 2300 N

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037,

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
5860 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices

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 January 29, 1997,

which is available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the

local public document room, located at

the Minneapolis Public Library,

Technology and Science Department,

300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis,

Minnesota 55401.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of February 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Beth A. Wetzel,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–1,

Division of Reactor Projects–III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–3055 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–344]

Portland General Electric Company;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License 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–

1, issued to Portland General Electric

Company (the licensee), for operation of

the Trojan Nuclear Plant located in

Rainier, Oregon.

The proposed amendment would

allow the licensee to process and handle

spent fuel pool debris in the Trojan Fuel

Building. 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.

By March 10, 1997, 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 at the local public

document room located at the Portland

State University Science Library, 951

SW Hall St., Portland OR. 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 a 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.

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:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to NonPower Reactors and Decommissioning

Project Directorate: petitioner’s name

and telephone number; date petition

was mailed; plant name; and

publication date and page number of

this Federal Register notice. 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

Douglas Nichols, 1 WTC 1301, 121 S.W.

Salmon Street, Portland OR, 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).

If a request for a hearing is received,

the Commission’s staff may issue the

amendment after it completes its

technical review and prior to the

completion of any required hearing if it

publishes a further notice for public

comment of its proposed finding of no