32468 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Notices

of the publication of this notice in the

Federal Register; must be served on the

NRC staff (Executive Director for

Operations, One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD

20852) and on the licensee (Fansteel,

Inc., Number Ten Tantalum Place,

Muskogee, OK 74401); and must comply

with the requirements for requesting a

hearing set forth in the Commission’s

regulation 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L,

‘‘Informal Hearings Procedures for

Adjudications in Materials Licensing

Proceedings.’’

These requirements, which the

requestor must address in detail, are:

1. The interest of the requestor in the

proceeding;

2. How that interest may be affected

by the results of the proceeding,

including the reasons why the requestor

should be permitted a hearing;

3. The requestor’s area of concern

about the licensing activity that is the

subject matter of the proceeding; and

4. The circumstances establishing that

the request for hearing is timely, that is,

filed within 30 days of the date of this

notice.

In addressing how the requestor’s

interest may be affected by the

proceeding, the request should describe

the nature of the requestor’s right under

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, to be made a party to the

proceeding; the nature and extent of the

requestor’s property, financial, or other

(e.g., health, safety) interest in the

proceeding; and the possible effect of

any order that may be entered in the

proceeding upon the requestor’s

interest.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day

of June 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert C. Pierson,

Chief, Licensing Branch, Division of Fuel

Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS.

[FR Doc. 96–15989 Filed 6–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Docket Nos. 50–272 and 50–311]

Public Service Electric and Gas

Company; Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendment To Facility

Operating License, Proposed No

Significant Hazards Consideration

Determination, and Opportunity for a

Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

70 and DPR–75 issued to Public Service

Electric & Gas Company (the licensee)

for operation of Salem Nuclear

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,

located in Salem County, New Jersey.

The proposed amendments would

revise Technical Specification 3/4.7.6,

‘‘Control Room Emergency Air

Conditioning System [CREACS],’’ to

reflect a control room design in which

the common Salem Unit 1 and Unit 2

control room envelope is supplied by 2

one-hundred percent capable Control

Room Emergency Air Conditioning

System trains.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration. Under

the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR

50.92, this means that operation of the

facility in accordance with the proposed

amendment would not (1) involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from

any accident previously evaluated; or

(3) involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its

analysis of the issue of no significant

hazards consideration, which is

presented below:

1. The proposed change does not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

CREACS ensures adequate protection after

an accident and is not an accident initiator.

The changes to the emergency operating

mode and configuration of the CREACS,

while modifying the control room dose

assessment, do not affect the probability of an

accident.

The proposed operation of the CREACS in

the pressurization mode at the initiation of

an accident will reduce overall operator

doses from such an event and will ensure

that the requirements of General Design

Criterion (GDC) 19 will be met. Operation in

the recirculation mode to mitigate the

consequences of a fire or a toxic release, if

necessary, or as a compensatory measure

when receiving ammonium hydroxide does

not significantly increase the consequences

of other accidents due to the short duration

of these events, the ability to re-align the

system to the pressurization mode manually,

and the suspension of Core Alterations or

fuel movement.

The CREACS as modified satisfies

[technical specification] TS Bases 3.7.6. The

CREACS ensures that (1) the ambient air

temperature does not exceed the allowable

temperature for continuous duty rating for

equipment and instrumentation cooled by

the CREACS and (2) the Control Room will

remain habitable for operations personnel

during and following all credible accident

conditions.

The proposed changes reflect the

commonality of the Salem Unit 1 and Unit

2 [common room envelope] CRE and the

supporting CREACS trains by adopting the

guidance for required actions, allowed outage

times, and testing provided in the [Standard

Technical Specification] STS.

Therefore, the proposed TS change does

not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. The proposed change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The establishment of the CREACS as a

shared system for both Units 1 and 2 will not

result in a new accident release scenario. The

upgraded CREACS reflected by this submittal

revises the emergency operating mode from

the original recirculation mode to a

pressurization mode in the event of a

radiological emergency. This change in

CREACS operating philosophy is in support

of compliance with the limits of GDC 19.

Modifications to the Salem control rooms

regarding the controlled atmospheric

boundary configuration and how the

configuration is maintained cannot result in

new accident scenarios.

Therefore, the proposed TS change does

not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. The proposed change does not involve

a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed changes support

modifications to the CREACS as part of

corrective actions identified in Licensee

Event Reports with the intent of compliance

with General Design Criterion 19 limits. The

changes do no[t] impact the existing safety

analyses while retaining and meeting current

requirements and General Design Criteria

limitations and gaining a redundancy in the

affected system. The modified CREACS

meets the TS Bases 3.7.6 requirements.

CREACS ensures that (1) the ambient air

temperature does not exceed the allowable

temperature for continuous duty rating for

equipment and instrumentation cooled by

the CREACS and (2) the Control Room will

remain habitable for operations personnel

during and following all credible accident

conditions. This clarification of the CREACS

operability requirements and the application

of more conservative requirements to Unit 1

will result in a net increase to operator safety.

Therefore, the proposed TS change does

not involve a significant reduction in the

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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Notices 32469

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received. Should

the Commission take this action, it will

publish in the Federal Register a notice

of issuance and provide for opportunity

for a hearing after issuance. The

Commission expects that the need to

take this action will occur very

infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the 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 July 24, 1996, 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 Salem

Free Public Library, 112 West

Broadway, Salem, New Jersey. If a

request for a hearing or petition for

leave to intervene is filed by the above

date, the Commission or an Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board, designated

by the Commission or by the Chairman

of the Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board Panel, will rule on the request

and/or petition; and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of hearing or

an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

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 F.

Stolz: 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 Mark J. Wetterhahn,

Esquire, Winston and Strawn, 1400 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005–

3502, attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests
32470 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Notices

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3The Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to

clarify the duties of the OEX Market Performance

Committee, as described more fully herein. See

Letter from Timothy Thompson, Senior Attorney,

CBOE, to John Ayanian, Attorney, Office of Market

Supervision (‘‘OMS’’), Division of Market

Regulation (‘‘Market Regulation’’), Commission,

dated June 4, 1996 (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’).

4The ‘‘expiration month’’ is from the Monday

following an expiration date to the next expiration

date. For example, the July expiration month starts

on June 24, 1996, and ends on July 19, 1996.

5The OEX Market Performance Committee was

created in November 1995 in order to evaluate the

performance of the OEX trading crowd in fulfilling

its general market-related duties and to make

recommendations on how to improve trading crowd

performance. The OEXMPC will, among other

things, recommend rules and programs to enhance

market performance, respond to market

performance related issues in the OEX trading

crowd including RAES and firm quote concerns,

monitor the opening rotation procedures used in

OEX, and conduct OEX crowd evaluation surveys.

See Amendment No. 1, supra note 3.

6Telephone Conversation between Timothy

Thompson, Senior Attorney, CBOE, to John

Ayanian, Attorney, OMS, Market Regulation,

Commission, on June 12, 1996.

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1) (i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated June 10, 1996, 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

Salem Free Public Library, 112 West

Broadway, Salem, New Jersey.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day

of June 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Leonard N. Olshan,

Project Manager, Project Directorate I–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 96–15988 Filed 6–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–37313; File No. SR–CBOE–

96–30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness

of Proposed Rule Change by the

Chicago Board Options Exchange,

Incorporated Relating to Its Retail

Automatic Execution System

Participation Requirements in OEX

Options

June 14, 1996.

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 May 9,

1996, the Chicago Board Options

Exchange, Incorporated (‘‘CBOE’’ 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 the Exchange. The

Exchange submitted to the Commission

Amendment No. 1 on June 12, 1996.3

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 amend its

rules respecting eligibility to participate

in the CBOE’s Retail Automatic

Execution System (‘‘RAES’’) for

transactions in Standard & Poor’s 100

Index (‘‘OEX’’) options. The text of the

proposed rule change is available at the

Office of the Secretary, the Exchange,

and at the Commission.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission, the

Exchange included statements

concerning the purpose of and basis for

the proposed rule change. The text of

these statements may be examined at

the places specified in Item IV below.

The Exchange has prepared summaries,

set forth in Section (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

The purpose of the proposed rule

change is to amend Rule 24.17 (‘‘RAES

Eligibility in OEX’’) to require

individual market-makers, who are

eligible to participate on OEX RAES, to

log onto OEX RAES any time they are

present in the OEX trading crowd until

the expiration date if they have logged

onto OEX RAES at any earlier time in

that expiration month.4 This rule

proposal would conform the OEX RAES

eligibility rule to a similar requirement

in the SPX RAES eligibility rule and the

RAES eligibility rule for equity options.

The rule proposal also would move

authority over certain of the provisions

of the rule from the OEX Floor

Procedure Committee to the OEX

Market Performance Committee

(‘‘OEXMPC’’). The OEXMPC was

recently formed by the Exchange to

handle market performance issues of the

OEX trading post, including RAES

related issues.5 The Exchange represents

that it will issue a regulatory circular to

its membership outlining the duties to

be performed by the OEXMPC.6

By requiring market-makers to log

onto OEX RAES each time they are in

the trading crowd, the Exchange expects

to ensure that there is always adequate

participation in RAES to handle the

small customer orders that are eligible

for RAES, even in the busiest market

conditions, without having to assign an

inordinate number of RAES trades to

any particular market-maker. Currently,

the Rule does not permit the Exchange

to require RAES participation by

members of the OEX trading crowd in

the event there appears to be inadequate

participation. The Exchange believes,

however, that this proposed rule change

will help to avoid forced participation.

The Exchange believes that the

proposed rule change is consistent with

Section 6 of the Act, in general, and

furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),

in particular, in that it is designed to

promote just and equitable principles of

trade, to foster cooperation with persons

engaged in facilitating and clearing

transactions in securities, and to protect

investors and the public interest.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Exchange does not believe that

the proposed rule change will impose

any burden on competition.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received from

Members, Participants or Others

No written comments were solicited

or received with respect to the proposed

rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

Because the foregoing proposed rule

change: (1) Does not significantly affect

the protection of investors or the public

interest; (2) does not impose any

significant burden on competition; (3)

was provided to the Commission for its

review at least five days prior to the

filing date; and (4) does not become

operative for 30 days from June 12,

1996,7 the rule change proposal has