Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices 75737

189 to Facility Operating License No.

NPF–49, and (3) the Commission’s

related Safety Evaluation. All of these

items are available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

MD, and accessible electronically

through the ADAMS Public Electronic

Reading Room link at the NRC Web site

(http://www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 28th day

of November 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James W. Clifford,

Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division

of Licensing Project Management, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–30784 Filed 12–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–336 and 50–423]

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et

al.; Notice of Issuance of Amendments

to Facility Operating Licenses and

Final Determination of No Significant

Hazards Consideration

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (Commission) has issued

Amendment Nos. 250 and 188 to

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–65

and NPF–49, issued to Northeast

Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO),

which revised the Technical

Specifications (TSs) for operation of the

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit

Nos. 2 and 3 located in New London,

Connecticut. The amendment was

effective as of the date of its issuance.

The amendments revise the TSs to

relocate selected procedural details

contained in the radiological effluent

technical specifications (RETS) to the

Radiological Effluent Monitoring and

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual which

is a licensee-controlled document. The

relocation will be done in accordance

with NRC guidance provided in: (1)

Generic Letter 89–01, ‘‘Implementation

of Programmatic Controls for

Radiological Effluent Technical

Specifications in the Administrative

Controls Section of the Technical

Specifications and the Relocation of

Procedural Details of RETS to the Offsite

Dose Calculation Manual or to the

Process Control Program;’’ (2) NUREG–

1431, ‘‘Standard Technical

Specifications Westinghouse Plants;’’

and (3) NUREG–1432, ‘‘Standard

Technical Specifications Combustion

Engineering Plants.’’ In addition, several

administrative changes to the TSs for

Unit 2 are included.

The application for the amendments

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 amendments.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment and Proposed No

Significant Hazards Consideration

Determination and Opportunity for

Hearing in connection with this action

was published in the Federal Register

on August 9, 2000, (65 FR 48754). A

request for a hearing was filed on

September 8, 2000, by the Connecticut

Coalition Against Millstone and the

STAR (Standing for Truth About

Radiation) Foundation.

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

amendments involve no significant

hazards consideration. The basis for this

determination is contained in the Safety

Evaluation related to this action.

Accordingly, as described above, the

amendments have been issued and

made immediately effective and any

hearing will be held after issuance.

The Commission has determined that

the 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.

For further details with respect to this

action see (1) the application for

amendments dated February 22, 2000,

as supplemented August 28, 2000, (2)

Amendment Nos. 250 and 188 to

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–65

and NPF–49, and (3) the Commission’s

related Safety Evaluation. All of these

items are available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

MD, and accessible electronically

through the ADAMS Public Electronic

Reading Room link at the NRC Web site

(http://www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of November 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James W. Clifford,

Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division

of Licensing Project Management, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–30788 Filed 12–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–445 and 50–446]

TXU Utilities Electric Company, et al.;

Comanche Peak Steam Electric

Station, Units 1 and 2; 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 or NRC)

is considering issuance of amendments

to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

87 and NPF–89 issued to TXU Electric

Company, et al. (the licensee), for

operation of the Comanche Peak Steam

Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2,

respectively. The CPSES facility is

located at the licensee’s site in

Somervell County, Texas.

The proposed amendments would

revise the technical specifications to

reconfigure spent fuel storage in the

spent fuel pool and increase the spent

fuel pool storage capacity from 2,026 to

3,373 fuel assemblies.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendments, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration. Under

the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR

50.92, this means that operation of the

facility in accordance with the proposed

amendments 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. Do the proposed changes involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

75738 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices

This proposed license amendment

includes changes which provide the criteria

for acceptable fuel storage in Region I/Region

II racks. The revised criteria for acceptable

fuel storage in the Region I/Region II racks

are discussed below.

The Region I/Region II racks proposed for

Spent Fuel Pool One (SFP1) and Spent Fuel

Pool Two (SFP2), are a nominal 10.6 × 11

inch and nominal 9 × 9 inch center to center

spacing respectively. The SFP1 Region II

racks are similar to the existing Region II

racks in SFP2 (nominal 9 × 9 inch center to

center). The proposed Region I/Region II

racks and the existing Region II racks in SFP2

are free standing whereas the low density

racks being removed from SFP1 are bolted to

the pool. Administrative controls are used to

maintain the specified storage patterns and to

assure storage of a fuel assembly in a proper

location based on initial U–235 enrichment,

burnup, and decay time. The increased

storage capacity results in added weight in

the pools and additional heat loads.

There is no significant increase in the

probability of an accident concerning the

potential insertion of a fuel assembly in an

incorrect location in the Region I/Region II

racks. TXU Electric has used administrative

controls to move fuel assemblies from

location to location since the initial receipt

of fuel on site. Fuel assembly placement will

continue to be controlled pursuant to

approved fuel handling procedures and will

be in accordance with the Technical

Specification spent fuel rack storage

configuration limitations.

There is no increase in the probability of

the loss of normal cooling to the fuel storage

pool water due to the presence of soluble

boron in the pool water for subcriticality

control. A concentration of soluble boron

similar to that currently approved (Technical

Specification 3.7.16) has always been

maintained in the fuel storage pool water.

The amount of soluble boron required to

offset the reactivity increase associated with

water temperature outside the normal range

was established for the proposed storage

configurations.

The consequences of all of these changes

have been assessed and the current

acceptance criteria in the licensing basis of

CPSES will continue to be met. The nuclear

criticality, thermal-hydraulic, mechanical,

material and structural designs will

accommodate these changes. Potentially

affected analyses, including a dropped spent

fuel assembly, a loss of spent fuel pool

cooling, a seismic event, a fuel assembly

placed in a location other than a prescribed

location, and a stuck fuel assembly and the

associated uplift force continue to satisfy the

CPSES licensing basis acceptance criteria.

The analysis methods used by TXU Electric

are consistent with methods used by TXU

Electric in the past or methods used

elsewhere in the industry and accepted by

the NRC.

Based on the acceptability of the

methodology used and compliance with the

current CPSES licensing basis, use of the

Region I/Region II racks and the increase in

storage capacity do not involve a significant

increase in the probability or consequences

of an accident previously evaluated.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. Do the proposed changes create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The potential for criticality in the spent

fuel pool is not a new or different type of

accident. The potential criticality accidents

have been reanalyzed to demonstrate that the

pool remains subcritical.

Soluble boron has been maintained in the

fuel storage pool water since its initial

operation. The possibility of a fuel storage

pool dilution is not affected by the proposed

change to the Technical Specifications.

Therefore, extending the Technical

Specification controls for the soluble boron

to include the Region II racks in SFP1 will

not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accidental pool dilution.

With credit for soluble boron now a major

factor in controlling subcriticality for the

Region II racks in SFP1 (with no neutron

absorber installed), the evaluation of fuel

storage pool dilution events previously

performed was updated. The results of the

updated evaluation concluded that an event

which would result in a reduction of the

criticality margin below the 5% margin

recommended by the NRC is not credible. In

addition, the no soluble boron 95/95

criticality analysis assures that a boron

concentration of zero ppm [parts per million]

will not result in criticality.

The proposed changes which ensure the

maintenance of the fuel storage pool boron

concentration and storage configuration, do

not represent new concepts. The actual boron

concentration in the fuel storage pool is

currently maintained at 2,400 ppm for SFP1

and SFP2 for refueling purposes. The

criticality analysis determined that a boron

concentration of 800 ppm (non-accident) and

1,900 ppm (accident) results in a keff ≤2 0.95.

For the Region I racks, credit is taken in

the reactivity control analysis for the neutron

absorber Boral (soluble boron is not credited).

The criticality evaluation concluded that the

requirement of keff ≤ 0.95 when fully flooded

with unborated water, including

uncertainties, remain satisfied.

There is no significant change in plant

configuration, equipment design, or usage of

plant equipment. The safety analysis for

boron dilution has been performed; however,

the criticality analyses assure that the pool

will remain subcritical with no credit for

soluble boron. Therefore, the proposed

changes will not create the possibility of a

new or different kind of accident.

The installation and removal of racks meet

the requirements of NUREG 0612, ‘‘Control of

Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants,’’ and

current CPSES Technical Requirement

13.9.34, ‘‘Refueling—Crane Travel—Spent

Fuel Storage Areas.’’

Therefore, the proposed change does not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any previously

evaluated.

3. Do the proposed changes involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The NRC guidance has established that an

evaluation of margin of safety should address

the following areas:

(1) Nuclear criticality considerations

(2) Thermal-Hydraulic considerations

(3) Mechanical, material and structural

consideration

Proposed Technical Specifications 3.7.17

and 4.3 and the associated fuel storage

requirements will provide adequate margin

to assure that the fuel storage array (Region

I and Region II) will always remain

subcritical by the 5% margin recommended

by the NRC.

While the criticality analysis for Region II

utilized credit for soluble boron, the storage

configurations have been defined using keff

calculations to ensure that the spent fuel rack

keff will be less than 1.0 with no soluble

boron. The criticality analysis for Region I

utilized credit for the neutron absorber

material Boral, the storage configurations

have been defined using keff calculations to

ensure that the spent fuel rack keff will be less

than or equal to 0.95 with no soluble boron.

Soluble boron credit is used to offset offnormal conditions (such as a misplaced

assembly) and to provide subcritical margin

such that the fuel storage pool keff is

maintained less than or equal to 0.95.

The loss of substantial amount[s] of soluble

boron from the spent fuel pools, which could

lead to exceeding a keff of 0.95, has been

evaluated and shown not to be credible.

These evaluations show that the dilution of

the spent fuel pools boron concentration

from 1,900 ppm to 800 ppm is not credible

and that the Region II spent fuel rack keff will

remain less than 1.0 when flooded with

unborated water.

The thermal-hydraulic evaluation of spent

fuel pool cooling demonstrates that the

temperature margin of safety will be

maintained. Evaluation of the spent fuel pool

cooling system for the increased heat loads

shows that the spent fuel cooling system will

maintain the temperature of the bulk spent

fuel pool water within the limits of the

existing licensing basis. Additionally, it

shows that the maximum temperature will be

within the existing design temperatures for

the Region I / Region II racks, liner, structure,

and cooling system and will not have any

significant impact on the spent fuel pool

demineralizers. Thus, the existing licensing

basis remains valid, and there is no

significant reduction in the margin of safety

for the thermal-hydraulic design or spent fuel

cooling.

The main safety function of the spent fuel

pool and the Region I / Region II racks is to

maintain the spent fuel assemblies in a safe

configuration through normal and abnormal

operating conditions. The design basis floor

responses of the Fuel Building were

confirmed to be adequate and conservative

and the floor loading will not exceed the

capacity of the Fuel Building. The structural

considerations of the Region I / Region II

racks maintain margin of safety against tilting

and deflection or movement, such that the

Region I / Region II racks do not impact each

other or the pool walls, damage spent fuel

assemblies, or cause criticality concerns.

Thus, the margin of safety with respect to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices 75739

mechanical, material or structural

considerations is not significantly reduced by

the use of the Region I / Region II racks.

Therefore the proposed change does not

involve a 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.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendments until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendments before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendments involve no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received. Should

the Commission take this action, it will

publish in the Federal Register a notice

of issuance and provide for opportunity

for a hearing after issuance. The

Commission expects that the need to

take this action will occur very

infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Chief, Rules and

Directives Branch, Division of

Administrative Services, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and should cite the publication

date and page number of this Federal

Register notice. Written comments may

also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852 from

7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.

Copies of written comments received

may be examined at the NRC’s Public

Document Room, located at One White

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, Maryland, 20852 or by

electronically accessing the ADAMS

Public Electronic Reading Room link at

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

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By January 3, 2001, the licensee may

file a request for a hearing with respect

to issuance of the amendments to the

subject facility operating licenses 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 NRC’s Public

Document Room, located at One White

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852 or by

electronically accessing the ADAMS

Public Electronic Reading Room link at

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

If a request for a hearing or petition for

leave to intervene is filed by the above

date, the Commission or an Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board, designated

by the Commission or by the Chairman

of the Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board Panel, will rule on the request

and/or petition; and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of hearing or

an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made party to the proceeding, (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding, and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendments

and make them immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendments.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the NRC’s Public

Document Room, located at One White

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, Maryland, 20852 by

the above date. A copy of the petition

should also be sent to the Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

75740 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3 In Amendment No. 1, the CSE requested

accelerated effectiveness of the proposed rule

change and provided reasons therefor. See Letter

from James M. Flynn, Staff Attorney, CSE, to

Michael Gaw, Attorney-Adviser, Division of Market

Regulation, Commission (November 16, 2000). The

CSE in fact meant to request accelerated approval

under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act in Amendment

No. 1. Telephone conversation between James M.

Flynn, Staff Attorney, CSE, and Michael Gaw,

Attorney-Adviser, Division of Market Regulation,

Commission, on November 21, 2000. Amendment

No. 1 also made certain minor changes to the text

of the proposed rule language, discussed below.

4 In the proposed rule language submitted by the

CSE, the term ‘‘Index Fund Share’’ as used here

inadvertently had the letter ‘‘s’’ at the end. In the

final rule text, the word ‘‘Share’’ will be in the

singular. See Amendment No. 1.

DC 20555–0001, and to George L. Edgar,

Esq., Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, 1800

M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036,

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).

The Commission hereby provides

notice that this is a proceeding on an

application for license amendments

falling within the scope of section 134

of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

(NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 10154. Under

section 134 of the NWPA, the

Commission, at the request of any party

to the proceeding, must use hybrid

hearing procedures with respect to ‘‘any

matter which the Commission

determines to be in controversy among

the parties.’’

The hybrid procedures in section 134

provide for oral argument on matters in

controversy, preceded by discovery

under the Commission’s rules, and the

designation, following argument, of only

those factual issues that involve a

genuine and substantial dispute,

together with any remaining questions

of law, to be resolved in an adjudicatory

hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings

are to be held on only those issues

found to meet the criteria of section 134

and set for hearing after oral argument.

The Commission’s rules

implementing section 134 of the NWPA

are found in 10 CFR part 2, subpart K,

‘‘Hybrid Hearing Procedures for

Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage

Capacity at Civilian Nuclear Power

Reactors’ (published at 50 FR 41662,

dated October 15, 1985). Under those

rules, any party to the proceeding may

invoke the hybrid hearing procedures by

filing with the presiding officer a

written request for oral argument under

10 CFR 2.1109. To be timely, the request

must be filed within ten (10) days of an

order granting a request for hearing or

petition to intervene. The presiding

officer must grant a timely request for

oral argument. The presiding officer

may grant an untimely request for oral

argument only upon a showing of good

cause by the requesting party for the

failure to file on time and after

providing the other parties an

opportunity to respond to the untimely

request. If the presiding officer grants a

request for oral argument, any hearing

held on the application must be

conducted in accordance with the

hybrid hearing procedures. In essence,

those procedures limit the time

available for discovery and require that

an oral argument be held to determine

whether any contentions must be

resolved in an adjudicatory hearing. If

no party to the proceeding timely

requests oral argument, and if all

untimely requests for oral argument are

denied, then the usual procedures in 10

CFR part 2, subpart G apply.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendments dated October 4, 2000,

which is available for public inspection

at the NRC’s Public Document Room,

located at One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland, 20852 and accessible

electronically through the ADAMS

Public Electronic Reading Room link at

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

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day

of November 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David H. Jaffe,

Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate IV & Decommissioning, Division

of Licensing Project Management, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–30785 Filed 12–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–43620; File No. SR–CSE–

00–06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing and Order Granting

Accelerated Approval of Proposed

Rule Change and Amendment No. 1

Thereto by the Cincinnati Stock

Exchange, Inc., To Provide for the

Listing and Trading of Index Fund

Shares

November 27, 2000.

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 2 thereunder,

notice is hereby given that on October

13, 2000, the Cincinnati Stock

Exchange, Inc. (‘‘CSE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’)

filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the

proposed rule change as described in

Items I and II below, which Items have

been prepared primarily by the

Exchange. On November 17, 2000, the

CSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the

proposal.3 The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule change

and Amendment No. 1 from interested

persons, and to grant accelerated

approval of the proposed rule change

and Amendment No. 1.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

The CSE proposes to amend its rules

to adopt listing standards and trading

rules for Index Fund Shares, including

generic listing standards, which would

permit the Exchange to trade, either by

listing or pursuant to unlisted trading

privileges (‘‘UTP’’), series of Index Fund

Shares. Below is the text of the

proposed rule change; new language is

in italics.

* * * * *

Chapter XI

Trading Rules

Rule 11.9 National Securities Trading

System

* * * * *

Rule 11.9(x) Index Fund Shares

(1) Applicability. This Chapter is

applicable only to Index Fund Shares.

Except to the extent inconsistent with

this Chapter, or unless the context

otherwise requires, the provisions of the

Constitution and all other rules and

policies of the Exchange shall be

applicable to the trading on the

Exchange of Index Fund Shares. Index

Fund Shares are included within the

definition of ‘‘security’’ or ‘‘securities’’

as such terms are used in the

Constitution and Rules of the Exchange.

(2) Definitions. The following terms as

used in the Rules shall, unless the

context otherwise requires, have the

meanings herein specified.

(a) Index Fund Share 4 means a

security (a) that is issued by an openend management investment company

based on a portfolio of stocks that seeks

to provide investment results that

correspond generally to the price and

yield performance of a specified foreign

or domestic stock index; (b) that is