42146 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Notices

licensing used as a bases for analyses

the value of 1518.5 MWt or an

appropriate multiple of 1518.5, as

required. Only one current analysis,

fluence values affecting 10 CFR part 50,

Appendix G, specifically referenced a

power level of 1518 MWt. The licensee

concluded that the results of this

analysis are insensitive to the change in

power level and sufficient assurance

regarding the effect of fluence levels is

obtained in analyzing material

specimens.

This administrative change will not

increase the probability or consequences

of accidents, no changes are being made

in the types of any effluents that may be

released offsite, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action is administrative in nature and

does not involve any physical features

of the plant. Thus, it does not affect

nonradiological plant effluents and has

no other environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, any alternatives with equal or

greater environmental impact need not

be evaluated. As an alternative to the

proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. Denial of

the application would result in no

change in current environmental

impacts. The environmental impacts of

the proposed action and the alternative

action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the Point Beach Nuclear

Plant, Units 1 and 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on July 17, 1997, the staff consulted

with the Wisconsin State official, Sarah

Jenkins of the Wisconsin Public Service

Commission, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated August 22, 1996, as supplemented

on July 14, 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 Lester

Public Library, 1001 Adams Street, Two

Rivers, Wisconsin 54241.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of July 1997.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Linda L. Gundrum,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–20545 Filed 8–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–309]

Maine Yankee Atomic Power

Company; Maine Yankee Atomic

Power Station; Issuance of Director’s

Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that the

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, has taken action with regard

to a Petition for action under 10 CFR

2.206 received from Mr. Patrick M.

Sears (Petitioner), dated August 19,

1996, and revised on April 14, 1997,

with regard to the Maine Yankee Atomic

Power Station.

The Petitioner requested the NRC to

(1) fine Maine Yankee Atomic Power

Company (MYAPCO) and Yankee

Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) if

records regarding use of the computer

code RELAP have not been kept in

accordance with YAEC’s computer code

quality assurance procedures and (2)

inspect all users of RELAP and fine

those users not operating within

required computer code verification

procedures.

The Director of the Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation has acknowledged

parts (1) and (2) of the Petition. The

reasons for this decision are explained

in the ‘‘Director’s Decision Pursuant to

10 CFR 2.206’’ (DD–97–17), the

complete text of which follows this

notice and 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

for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power

Station located at the Wiscasset Public

Library, High Street, P. O. Box 367,

Wiscasset, Maine 04578.

A copy of this Decision will be filed

with the Secretary of the Commission

for the Commission’s review in

accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c). As

provided by this regulation, this

Decision will constitute the final action

of the Commission 25 days after the date

of issuance unless the Commission, on

its own motion, institutes review of the

Decision within that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day

of July 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

Director’s Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

I. Introduction

On August 19, 1996, Patrick M. Sears

(Petitioner) filed a Petition with the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

pursuant to Section 2.206 of Title 10 of

the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR

2.206). Petitioner requested the NRC to

(1) Fine Maine Yankee Atomic Power

Company (MYAPCO) and Yankee

Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) if

records regarding use of the computer

code RELAP5YA have not been kept in

accordance with YAEC’s computer code

quality assurance (QA) procedures, and

(2) inspect all users of RELAP and fine

those users not operating within

required computer code verification

procedures.

As the basis for these requests, the

Petition states that (1) The May 5, 1989,

oral statement of Steve Nichols, then

licensing supervisor of MYAPCO, to

Petitioner, then NRC Project Manager

for Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station

(MYAPS), that RELAP5YA was

‘‘operable’’ and would be used for

subsequent reloads was false; (2) no

computer code inspections were

performed by NRC before a 1992

inspection at YAEC by Mr. Sears, and

not again until 1995; (3) when Mr. Sears

was in the Vendor Inspection Branch,

he was told not to do any more

computer code inspections; (4) RELAP

is widely used; (5) RELAP has been

shown to have serious deficiencies; and

(6) the RELAP problem is not confined

to the MYAPS but is endemic to the

industry as a whole.

On September 24, 1996, Mr. William

T. Russell, then Director of the Office of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Notices 42147

1 Among other things, the Order limited

operation of MYAPS to 2440 MWt, pending NRC

review and approval of a plant-specific SBLOCA

analysis which conforms to TMI Action Plan Items

II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 and which meets the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.46.

Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

acknowledged receipt of the Petition. By

letter dated April 14, 1997, Petitioner

supplemented his Petition by correcting

his characterization of Mr. Nichols’

comment, substituting the word

‘‘operational’’ for ‘‘operable’’.

II. Background

As a result of concerns regarding

small-break loss-of-coolant accident

(SBLOCA) analyses of emergency core

cooling systems (ECCS) raised by the

1979 accident at Three Mile Island Unit

2, and pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f), the

NRC required licensees to submit

revised, documented SBLOCA analyses

which were to meet the guidance

provided in NRC’s ‘‘Clarification of TMI

Action Plan Requirements’’ (NUREG–

0737 or TMI Action Plan), Item

II.K.3.30. and II.K.3.31. In response to

the guidance of Item II.K.3.30, on

January 14, 1983, Maine Yankee

submitted a report, YAEC–1300P,

‘‘RELAP5YA: A Computer Program for

Light Water Reactor System ThermalHydraulic Analysis’’ to the NRC. In

January 1989, the NRC approved

RELAP5YA for use by Maine Yankee as

a 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K,

evaluation model, acceptable to

demonstrate compliance with the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.46,

‘‘Acceptance criteria for emergency core

cooling systems for light water nuclear

power reactors.’’ RELAP5YA is a

generic, non-plant-specific LOCA

computer code for calculating ECCS

performance over the small-break

portion of the break spectrum.

Item II.K.3.31 of the TMI Action Plan

states that licensees are to submit plantspecific calculations using the SBLOCA

evaluation model approved by the NRC

pursuant to Item II.K.3.30. In response

to TMI Action Plan Item II.K.3.31, YAEC

prepared for Maine Yankee a plantspecific Appendix K, RELAP5YA

SBLOCA evaluation model analysis and

prepared a report in June 1993

identified as YAEC–1868: ‘‘Maine

Yankee Small Break LOCA Analysis.’’

The SBLOCA analysis described in

YAEC–1868 was used to prepare Core

Performance Analysis Reports (CPARs)

which were submitted to the NRC as

part of Maine Yankee’s reload analyses

for Cycle 14 and Cycle 15 operations,

and was the SBLOCA analysis of record

throughout Cycle 14 operations; it was

not used during Cycle 15 operations

because of the intervening January 3,

1996, ‘‘Confirmatory Order Suspending

Authority for and Limiting Power

Operation and Containment Pressure

(Effective Immediately), and Demand for

Information’’ (Order).1 61 FR 735

(January 10, 1996).

On December 4, 1995, the NRC

received allegations that, among other

things, YAEC, acting as agent for the

licensee, knowingly performed

inadequate analyses of the emergency

core cooling system (ECCS) to support

two license amendment applications to

increase the rated thermal power at

which MYAPS operates to 2630 MWt,

and then to 2700 MWt. It was further

alleged that YAEC management knew

that the ECCS for Maine Yankee, if

evaluated in accordance with 10 CFR

50.46, using the RELAP5YA SBLOCA

evaluation model, did not meet

licensing requirements.

In response to the allegations, NRC

dispatched an Assessment Team to

YAEC headquarters between December

11 and 14, 1995, to examine, among

other things, SBLOCA analyses,

especially the SBLOCA analysis which

supported the licensee’s operating Cycle

15 reload application. Based on the

Assessment Team review, and a meeting

held with the licensee on December 18,

1995, the NRC staff issued its January 3,

1996, Order. The Order concluded, inter

alia, that the licensee had not

demonstrated that computer code

RELAP5YA would reliably calculate the

peak cladding temperature for all break

sizes in the small-break LOCA spectrum

for Maine Yankee and that, for a variety

of reasons, the plant-specific application

of RELAP5YA did not conform to the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and thus

was not acceptable for use by the

licensee. The Order required the

licensee to submit a SBLOCA analysis

specific to Maine Yankee for operation

at power levels up to 2700 MWt, which

must meet the requirements of 10 CFR

50.46, and which must conform to the

guidance of NUREG–0737, Items

II.K.3.30 and 31, ‘‘SBLOCA Methods’’

and ‘‘Plant-specific Analysis,’’

respectively, and NUREG–0737, Item

II.K.3.5, ‘‘Automatic Trip of Reactor

Coolant Pumps During LOCA’’. The

Order suspended authority to operate

Maine Yankee at 2700 MWt maximum

power and limited power to 2440 MWt,

pending NRC review and approval of

the required SBLOCA analysis.

MYAPCO submitted the required

SBLOCA analysis specific to Maine

Yankee on April 25, 1996, and the NRC

staff is currently reviewing it.

The NRC also initiated an

investigation by the NRC Office of

Investigations (OI) to examine possible

wrongdoing. The NRC staff is currently

reviewing the results of that

investigation.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Do MYAPCo and Other NRC

Licensees Who Use RELAP Operate

Within Required Computer Code

Verification Procedures?

Petitioner requests that the NRC

inspect all users of RELAP and fine

those users not operating within

required computer code verification

procedures. The staff presumes that the

phrase ‘‘required computer code

verification procedures,’’ as used by

Petitioner, means the conditions, if any,

of the NRC’s approval of the computer

code, as well as the licensee or vendor

quality assurance (QA) procedures

pursuant to 10 CFR part 50, Appendix

B.

There are many vintages of RELAP,

which was developed by Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory, such as

RELAP4, RELAP5/MOD1, RELAP5/

MOD2, and RELAP5/MOD3 (higher

suffix numbers indicate more current

vintages). Major improvements were

made in each new vintage, including the

use of more sophisticated modeling of

two-phase flow. For example, RELAP5/

MOD1 has a ‘‘mixture’’ model with five

governing equations, whereas RELAP5/

MOD2 has a full two-fluid treatment

with six equations.

Each vintage of RELAP has many

versions, representing primarily

modifications in supporting models on

constitutive relationships and

corrections of errors. Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory maintains a

reporting system for problems

discovered by users of the code, which

are prioritized and referred to the code

development staff for resolution.

Therefore, it cannot be assumed that a

problem with a particular RELAP

vintage or version also exists in other

RELAP vintages or versions.

Vendors or licensees who use RELAP

codes to support license applications

normally take a specific vintage or

version of RELAP and create their own

variations by making modifications and

adding certain features, such as those

required by 10 CFR part 50, Appendix

K. The RELAP codes used by different

vendors and licensees are not

necessarily developed from the same

versions or vintages of RELAP. For

example, the RELAP5YA code used by

YAEC for Maine Yankee SBLOCA

analysis was derived from RELAP5/

MOD1, while most other RELAP codes

used for the ECCS analyses of NRClicensed nuclear plants were derived
42148 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Notices

from different vintages, namely,

RELAP4 or RELAP5/MOD2.

Before a vendor-modified or licenseemodified RELAP code is used for

licensing applications, it must be

reviewed and approved by the staff. The

staff’s review and approval will require,

among other things, benchmark

comparison of the code’s predictions

against experimental test data. In many

cases, the staff’s approval of a licensing

RELAP code imposes conditions or

restrictions for application of the code

to ensure that licensing calculations are

acceptably conservative, in accordance

with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46

and Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50. The

implementation by a licensee or vendor

of an approved emergency core cooling

system (ECCS) code is controlled by the

licensee or vendor’s own quality

assurance programs in accordance with

Appendix B to 10 CFR part 50.

In view of the above, it cannot be

presumed that all other vintages of

RELAP codes used by the industry have

the same deficiencies as those

experienced by Maine Yankee with its

particular vintage of RELAP, that is

RELAP5/MOD1. Two NRC licensees

other than Maine Yankee, however,

used the RELAP5/MOD1 vintage, that is,

Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station

and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Station. Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power

Station has been permanently shut

down for decommissioning since

October 1, 1991. In May 1996, the NRC

staff conducted an ECCS code and

analysis inspection, and in June 1996, a

special inspection of Vermont Yankee.

As a result, the NRC issued a Notice of

Violation and Proposed Imposition of

Civil Penalty—$50,000 (EA 96–210) on

August 23, 1996, for the licensee’s

failure to assume a specific failure

scenario in the LOCA analysis. In that

enforcement action, the NRC staff also

concluded that Vermont Yankee’s

corrective actions were prompt and

comprehensive. With respect to Maine

Yankee, the NRC staff has examined

MYAPCO’s use of RELAP5YA through

the Assessment Team review and the OI

investigation. The staff’s evaluation of

Maine Yankee’s use of RELAP5YA is

ongoing with regard to any violations of

NRC requirements, including 10 CFR

50.46. The staff will keep Petitioner

informed by providing Petitioner with

copies of publicly available inspection

reports and enforcement actions.

Petitioner, nonetheless, correctly

points out that the NRC staff should

conduct ECCS code and analysis

inspections more frequently. In

February 1997, the staff’s Maine Yankee

Lessons Learned Task Group provided

its report to the Commission, ‘‘Report of

the Maine Yankee Lessons Learned Task

Group’’ (December 5, 1996), Attachment

1 to SECY–97–042, ‘‘Response to OIG

Event Inquiry Regarding Maine Yankee’’

(February 18, 1997). The Task Group

identified a need to place additional

emphasis on (1) audits and inspections

of implementation by licensees and

vendors of their ECCS codes and

methodologies, not limited to the

various RELAP codes, and (2)

verification of the conformance by

licensees and vendors with the

conditions specified in the NRC staff’s

Safety Evaluation Reports as a basis for

determining whether codes and

methodologies conform with NRC

requirements. The Task Group also

addressed inspections pursuant to the

Core Performance Action Plan,

performed to assess the impact of reload

core design activities on plant safety.

Licensees or vendors found to be in

violation of NRC regulations will be

subject to enforcement actions.

As explained above, there is no basis

to conclude that the problems identified

with the RELAP5/MOD1 vintage ECCS

code used by Maine Yankee are or may

be present in the different RELAP code

vintages at other NRC-licensed plants.

Additionally, the two other users of the

RELAP5/MOD1 code vintage have either

been inspected (Vermont Yankee) or are

permanently shut down (Yankee Rowe).

Nevertheless, the NRC will conduct

computer code inspections of selected

NRC licensees and vendors, not limited

to users of RELAP, as explained above.

In view of the above, Petitioner’s

request to inspect all users of RELAP

and to fine those users not operating

within required computer code

verification procedures is granted in

part, since some users of RELAP will be

included in forthcoming computer code

inspections and since Maine Yankee

and Vermont Yankee have already been

inspected.

B. Have MYAPCO and YAEC Kept

Records of the Use of the RELAP ECCS

Computer Code in Accordance with

YAEC’s Computer Code Quality

Assurance Procedures?

Petitioner requests that the NRC fine

MYAPCO and YAEC if records

regarding use of the computer code

RELAP5YA have not been kept in

accordance with YAEC’s computer code

quality assurance (QA) procedures. The

NRC staff’s review of the application of

RELAP5YA for Maine Yankee between

December 11 and 14, 1995, focused on

the adequacy of the RELAP5YA

SBLOCA analysis to support operation

of Maine Yankee during Cycle 15. In

particular, the staff evaluated

conformance of the code to SER

conditions and compliance of the ECCS

evaluation model with regulatory

requirements. Although the staff’s

review did not focus on record keeping

requirements, the staff did not identify

instances in which the appropriate

records had not been kept. The staff is

continuing its evaluation of RELAP5YA

for compliance with other NRC

requirements.

Siemens Power Corporation (SPC) has

prepared a plant-specific SBLOCA ECCS

evaluation model for Maine Yankee,

which has been submitted by Maine

Yankee in response to the January 3,

1996, Order. The evaluation model is

based on SPC’s ANF–RELAP SBLOCA

methodology, which was originally

approved by the NRC in 1989, with

further modifications approved by the

NRC in 1994. Between February 10,

1997 and April 4, 1997, the staff

conducted a four-week QA inspection of

SPC. The inspection included a

comprehensive review of

documentation associated with SPC’s

LBLOCA and SBLOCA ECCS evaluation

models, including the approved ANFRELAP SBLOCA methodology. The

staff’s findings associated with ANFRELAP will be documented in the

inspection report, which will be issued

by the NRC in the near future. A copy

of the inspection report will be provided

to Petitioner when it is publicly

available. In addition, the NRC staff is

currently performing a detailed

technical review of the plant-specific

ANF-RELAP ECCS evaluation model

prepared by SPC for Maine Yankee, and

submitted by Maine Yankee. The staff’s

evaluation of the plant-specific

evaluation model will be documented in

a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) when

completed. The staff concludes that

these activities respond directly to the

issues raised by Petitioner.

In view of the above, the Petitioner’s

request for a QA inspection of Maine

Yankee’s and YAEC’s use of RELAP is

granted in part, by virtue of the staff’s

previous and current inspection and

review activities. Additionally, the staff

will keep Petitioner informed by

providing Petitioner with publicly

available inspection reports,

enforcement actions, and other

documents as appropriate.

IV. Conclusion

As explained above, Petitioner’s

request to inspect all users of RELAP

and fine those users not operating

within required computer code

verification procedures is granted in

part. Petitioner’s request to fine

MYAPCO and YAEC if records

regarding use of the computer code

RELAP have not been kept in
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Notices 42149

accordance with YAEC’s computer code

quality assurance procedures is also

granted in part.

A copy of this Director’s Decision will

be filed with the Secretary of the

Commission for Commission review in

accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c) of the

Commission’s regulations. As provided

by this regulation, this Director’s

Decision will constitute the final action

of the Commission 25 days after

issuance unless the Commission, on its

own motion, institutes review of the

Decision within that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day

of July 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–20546 Filed 8–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION

[Docket No. R97–1]

Notice of the U.S. Postal Service’s

Filing of Proposed Postal Rate, Fee,

and Classification Changes and Order

Instituting Proceedings; Notice of

Extension of Deadline for Intervention

Notice is hereby given that in

Commission Docket No. R97–1

published at 62 FR 39660, July 23, 1997,

the date for intervention as of right

under Commission rule 3001.20(c)(39

CFR 3001.20(c)) has been extended from

August 6, 1997 to August 13, 1997.

(Authority: 39 U.S.C. 404(b), 3603, 3622–24,

3661, 3662)

Margaret P. Crenshaw,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–20559 Filed 8–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270–54 OMB Control No.

3235–0056]

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request; Revisions; Form 8–

A

Upon Written Request, Copies

Available From: Securities and

Exchange Commission, Office of Filings

and Information Services, Washington,

DC 20459.

Notice is hereby given that pursuant

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities

and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget

requests for approval of revisions to the

following form:

Form 8–A is the special form for the

registration of additional classes or

series of securities by an issuer that is

required to file reports pursuant to

Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’).

Form 8–A does not require as detailed

disclosure about the issuer’s business as

other Exchange Act registration forms

because it presupposes that more

detailed information is or will be

available through periodic reports

pursuant to Sections 13 or 15(d). The

form currently contains a disclosure of

information concerning the particular

class of securities being registered. This

information may be provided by

incorporation by reference to a

comparable description contained in

any other filing with the Commission.

The Commission believes this

information is essential to a

determination by an investor of the

merits of the security.

The principal function of Commission

rules and forms under the securities

laws disclosure provisions is to make

information available to the securities

markets. Private contractors reproduce

much of the filed information directly

from the Commission’s public files.

Thus, information in filings on Form

8–A can be, and is, used by security

holders, investors, brokers, dealers,

investment banking firms, professional

securities analysts and others in

evaluating securities and making

investment and voting decisions with

respect to them. In addition, all

investors benefit indirectly from filings

on Form 8–A, as direct users of the

information in such filings effect

transactions in securities on the basis of

the current information included in

such filings, thereby causing the market

prices of the securities to reflect such

information.

On July 18, 1997, the Commission

adopted revisions to Form 8–A. As a

result of these revisions, the

Commission estimates that 1,940

respondents will file Form 8–A for a

total annual burden of 13,050 hours.

General comments regarding the

estimated burden hours should be

directed to the Desk Officer for the

Securities and Exchange Commission at

the address below. Any comments

concerning the accuracy of the

estimated average burden hours for

compliance with Commission rules and

forms should be directed to Michael E.

Bartell, Associate Executive Director,

Office of Information Technology,

Securities and Exchange Commission,

450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC

20549 and Desk Officer for the

Securities and Exchange Commission,

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, Room 3208, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: July 22, 1997.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–20509 Filed 8–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Notice of Application To Withdraw

From Listing and Registration on the

Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. Issuer

Delisting; Notice of Application To

Withdraw From Listing and

Registration; (B.O.S. Better On-Line

Solutions Ltd., Ordinary Shares Par

Vale NIS 1.00; Ordinary Share

Purchase Warrants) File No. 1–14184

July 30, 1997.

B.O.S. Better On-Line Solutions Ltd.

(‘‘Company’’) has filed an application

with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant

to section 12(d) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘’Act’’) and Rule

12d2–2(d) promulgated thereunder, to

withdraw the above specified securities

(‘‘Securities’’) from listing and

registration on the Boston Stock

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

The reasons cited in the application

for withdrawing the Security from

listing and registration include the

following:

According to the Company, the

Securities are listed on the Nasdaq

SmallCap Market and the BSE, pursuant

to a Registration Statement on Form F–

1 that was declared effective by the

Commission on April 2, 1996. The

issuer cannot justify the expense of

being listed on two exchanges and

therefore wishes to withdraw from the

BSE.

The Company has notified the BSE of

its intent to withdraw its Securities from

listing and registration. According to the

Company, the BSE has raised no

objection to the delistings.

Any interested person may, on or

before August 20, 1997, submit by letter

to the Secretary of the Securities and

Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549, facts

hearing upon whether the application

has been made in accordance with the

rules of the exchanges and what terms,

it any, should be imposed by the

Commission for the protection of

investors. The Commission, based on

the information submitted to it, will

issue an order granting the application