Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2005 / Notices 56191 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–445] 

TXU Generation Company LP; 

Comanche Peak Steam Electric 

Station, Unit 1; Notice of Consideration 

of Issuance of Amendment to Facility 

Operating License No. NPF–87 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination, and 

Opportunity for a Hearing 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission) is 

considering issuance of amendment to 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–87, 

issued to TXU Generation Company LP 

(the licensee), for operation of the 

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 

(CPSES), Unit 1, located in Somervell 

County, Texas. 

The proposed amendment would 

revise Technical Specification (TS) 

5.6.5, ‘‘Core Operating Limits Report 

(COLR),’’ by adding topical report 

WCAP–13060–P–A, ‘‘Westinghouse 

Fuel Assembly Reconstitution 

Evaluation Methodology,’’ to the list of 

NRC approved methodologies to be used 

at CPSES, Unit 1. 

By application dated April 27, 2005, 

as supplemented by letter dated July 20, 

2005, the licensee requested the 

approval of the proposed amendment by 

October 8, 2005. The approval of the 

proposed amendment is needed to 

permit the licensee to use the 

reconstitution method of fuel assembly 

repair at CPSES Unit 1. The NRC staff 

inadvertently did not publish a Federal 

Register notice of Consideration of 

Issuance of Amendments to Facility 

Operating Licenses, and Proposed No 

Significant Hazards Consideration 

Determination, in time to permit a 30 

days period for prior public comment as 

required by Section 50.91 of Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR). The Commission finds that 

exigent circumstances exist, in that the 

licensee and the Commission must act 

quickly and that time does not permit 

the Commission to publish a Federal 

Register notice allowing 30 days for 

prior public comment, and it also 

determines that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards. 

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. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change is 

administrative in nature and as such 

does not impact the condition or 

performance of any plant structure, 

system or component. The core 

operating limits are established to 

support Technical Specifications 3.1, 

3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.9. The core operating 

limits ensure that fuel design limits are 

not exceeded during any conditions of 

normal operation or in the event of any 

Anticipated Operational Occurrence 

(AOO). The methods used to determine 

the core operating limits for each 

operating cycle are based on methods 

previously found acceptable by the NRC 

and listed in TS section 5.6.5.b. 

Application of these approved methods 

will continue to ensure that acceptable 

operating limits are established to 

protect the fuel cladding integrity 

during normal operation and AOOs. The 

requested Technical Specification 

change does not involve any plant 

modifications or operational changes 

that could affect system reliability, 

performance, or possibility of operator 

error. The requested change does not 

affect any postulated accident 

precursors, does not affect any accident 

mitigation systems, and does not 

introduce any new accident initiation 

mechanisms. 

As a result, the proposed change to 

the CPSES Technical Specifications 

does not involve any 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 administrative change. 

2. Do the proposed changes create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change is 

administrative in nature, and therefore 

does not involve any change in station 

operation or physical modifications to 

the plant. In addition, no changes are 

being made in the methods used to 

respond to plant transients that have 

been previously analyzed. No changes 

are being made to plant parameters 

within which the plant is normally 

operated or in the setpoints, which 

initiate protective or mitigative actions, 

and no new failure modes are being 

introduced. 

Therefore, the proposed 

administrative change to the CPSES 

Technical Specifications does not create 

the possibility of a new or different kind 

of accident or malfunction of equipment 

important to safety from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of 

safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change is 

administrative in nature and does not 

impact station operation or any plant 

structure, system or component that is 

relied upon for accident mitigation. 

Furthermore, the margin of safety 

assumed in the plant safety analysis is 

not affected in any way by the proposed 

administrative change. 

Therefore, the proposed change to the 

CPSES Technical Specifications does 

not involve any 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 14 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 14-day notice period. 

However, should circumstances change 

during the notice period, such that 

failure to act in a timely way would 

result, for example, in derating or 

shutdown of the facility, the 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before the expiration of the 

14-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 

56192 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2005 / Notices 

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 and 

Directives Branch, Division of 

Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and should cite the publication 

date and page number of this Federal 

Register notice. Written comments may 

also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two 

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 

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

Documents may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR), located at One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike 

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

The filing of requests for 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 and 

Issuance of Orders’’ 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 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/requestor must 

also provide references to those specific 

sources and documents of which the 

petitioner/requestor is aware and on 

which the petitioner/requestor intends 

to rely to establish those facts or expert 

opinion. The petitioner/requestor 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 

amendments 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, 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. 

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(c)(1)(i)–(viii). 

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 George L. Edgar, Esq., Morgan, 

Lewis and Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20036, attorney for the 

licensee. 

For further details with respect to this 

action, see the application for 

amendments dated April 27, 2005, and 

supplement dated July 20, 2005, which 

are available for public inspection at the 

Commission’s 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 ADAMS Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

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

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2005 / Notices 56193 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

5See File No. SR–Amex–2005–087 (filed on 

August 31, 2004, and pending before the 

Commission). 

reading-rm.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, 301–

415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day 

of September 2005. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Mohan C. Thadani, 

Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project 

Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project 

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 05–19236 Filed 9–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–52469; File No. SR–Amex–

2005–089] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

American Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice 

of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness 

of Proposed Rule Change to Adopt 

Options Licensing Fees for Certain 

Vanguard ETF Options 

September 19, 2005. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

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

notice is hereby given that on 

September 9, 2005, the American Stock 

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

filed with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the 

proposed rule change as described in 

Items I, II and III below, which Items 

have been prepared by Amex. Amex 

submitted the proposed rule change 

under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3

and Rule 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder,4 which 

renders the proposal effective upon 

filing with the Commission. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to modify its 

options fee schedule by adopting a percontract side licensing fee for the orders 

of specialists, registered options traders 

(‘‘ROTs’’), firms, non-member market 

makers, and broker-dealers in 

connection with transactions in options 

on certain Vanguard exchange-traded 

funds (‘‘ETFs’’). 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on Amex’s Web site 

http://www.amex.com, at Amex’s 

principal office, and at the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, 

Amex included statements concerning 

the purpose of and basis for the 

proposed rule change and discussed any 

comments it received on the proposed 

rule change. The text of these statements 

may be examined at the places specified 

in Item IV below. Amex has prepared 

summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, 

and C below, of the most significant 

aspects of such statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange has entered into 

numerous license agreements with 

issuers and owners of indexes for the 

purpose of trading options on certain 

ETFs. The requirement to pay an index 

licensing fee to third parties is a 

condition to the listing and trading of 

these ETF options. In many cases, the 

Exchange is required to pay a significant 

licensing fee to issuers or index owners 

that may not be reimbursed. In an effort 

to recoup the costs associated with 

certain index licenses, the Exchange has 

established a per-contract side licensing 

fee for the orders of specialists, ROTs, 

firms, non-member market makers, and 

broker-dealers collected on every 

transaction in certain designated 

products in which such market 

participant is a party.5

The purpose of the proposal is to 

charge a per-contract side licensing fee 

in connection with transactions in 

certain options on the Vanguard ETFs 

(‘‘Vanguard ETF Options’’). Specifically, 

Amex seeks to charge an options 

licensing fee of $0.10 per contract side 

for specialist, ROT, firm, non-member 

market maker, and broker-dealer orders 

executed on the Exchange in connection 

with the following Vanguard ETFs: 

(1) Vanguard Consumer Discretionary 

VIPERs (symbol: VCR); 

(2) Vanguard Consumer Staples 

VIPERs (symbol: VDC); 

(3) Vanguard Energy VIPERs (symbol: 

VDE); 

(4) Vanguard Financials VIPERs 

(symbol: VFH); 

(5) Vanguard Health Care VIPERs 

(symbol: VHT); 

(6) Vanguard Industrials VIPERs 

(symbol: VIS); 

(7) Vanguard Information Technology 

VIPERs (symbol: VGT); 

(8) Vanguard Materials VIPERs 

(symbol: VAW); 

(9) Vanguard Utilities VIPERs 

(symbol: VPU); 

(10) Vanguard Telecommunication 

Services VIPERs (symbol: VOX); 

(11) Vanguard REIT VIPERs (symbol: 

VNQ); 

(12) Vanguard Small-Cap Growth 

VIPERs (symbol: VBK); 

(13) Vanguard Small-Cap Value 

VIPERs (symbol: VBR); 

(14) Vanguard Mid-Cap VIPERs 

(symbol: VO); 

(15) Vanguard Large-Cap VIPERs 

(symbol: VV); 

(16) Vanguard Growth VIPERs 

(symbol: VUG); 

(17) Vanguard Value VIPERs (symbol: 

VTV); and 

(18) Vanguard Small-Cap VIPERs 

(symbol: VB). 

In addition, the Exchange also 

proposes to charge an options licensing 

fee of $0.09 per contract side for 

specialist, ROT, firm, non-member 

market maker, and broker-dealer orders 

executed on the Exchange in connection 

with the Vanguard Extended Market 

VIPERs (symbol: VXF). The proposal 

also revises Section V (Options 

Licensing Fee) of the Options Fee 

Schedule to designate the SPDR O-Strip 

by its symbol ‘‘OOO.’’ In all cases, the 

fees set forth in the Options Fee 

Schedule are charged only to Exchange 

members through whom the orders are 

placed. 

The proposed options licensing fees 

will allow the Exchange to recoup its 

costs in connection with index licensing 

fees for the trading of the Vanguard ETF 

Options. The fees will be collected on 

every Vanguard ETF Option order of a 

specialist, ROT, firm, non-member 

market maker, and broker-dealer 

executed on the Exchange. The 

Exchange believes that collection of a 

per-contract side licensing fee in 

connection with Vanguard ETF Options 

orders placed by those market 

participants that are the beneficiaries of 

the Exchange’s index license agreements 

is justified and consistent with the rules 

of the Exchange. 

The Exchange notes that Amex in 

recent years has revised a number of 

fees to better align Exchange fees with 

the actual cost of delivering services and 

to reduce Exchange subsidies of such