Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Notices 42609

defense and security and are otherwise in the

public interest.

Section 70.24(d) of 10 CFR states that

Any licensee who believes that good cause

exists why he should be granted an

exemption in whole or in part from the

requirements of this section may apply to the

Commission for such exemption.

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that good cause is present as

defined in 10 CFR 70.24(d). The

Commission has further determined

that, pursuant to 10 CFR 70.14, the

exemption is authorized by law and will

not endanger life or property or the

common defense and security and are

otherwise in the public interest.

Therefore, the Commission hereby

grants Duke Power Company an

exemption from the requirement of 10

CFR 70.24(a)(1), (2), and (3) for

McGuire, Units 1 and 2, on the bases as

stated in Section II above.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that

granting of this exemption will have no

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment (62 FR 41101).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day

of July 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–20878 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Public Service Electric and Gas

Company, Philadelphia Electric

Company, Delmarva Power and Light

Company, Atlantic City Electric

Company, Salem Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 1 and 2 and Public

Service Electric and Gas Company,

Atlantic City Electric Company, Hope

Creek Generating Station; Exemption

[Docket Nos. 50–272 and 50–311; Docket

No. 50–354]

I.

The Public Service Electric and Gas

Company, et al. (PSE&G, the licensee),

is the holder of Facility Operating

License Nos. DPR–70, DPR–75 and

NPF–57, which authorize operation of

the Salem Nuclear Generating Station,

Units 1 and 2, and Hope Creek

Generating Station (Salem/Hope Creek).

The licenses provide, among other

things, that the licensee is subject to all

rules, regulations, and orders of the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the

Commission) now and hereafter in

effect.

The facilities consist of two

pressurized water reactors, Salem Units

1 and 2, and a boiling water reactor,

Hope Creek, located at the licensee’s site

in Salem County, New Jersey.

II.

It is stated in 10 CFR 73.55,

‘‘Requirements for physical protection

of licensed activities in nuclear power

reactors against radiological sabotage,’’

paragraph (a), ‘‘General performance

objective and requirements,’’ that ‘‘The

licensee shall establish and maintain an

onsite physical protection system and

security organization which will have as

its objective to provide high assurance

that activities involving special nuclear

material are not inimical to the common

defense and security and do not

constitute an unreasonable risk to the

public health and safety.’’

It is specified in 10 CFR 73.55(d),

‘‘Access Requirements,’’ paragraph (1),

that ‘‘The licensee shall control all

points of personnel and vehicle access

into a protected area.’’ It is specified in

10 CFR 73.55(d)(5) that ‘‘A numbered

picture badge identification system shall

be used for all individuals who are

authorized access to protected areas

without escort. . . .’’ It also states that

an individual not employed by the

licensee (i.e., contractors) may be

authorized access to protected areas

without escort provided the individual

‘‘receives a picture badge upon entrance

into the protected area which must be

returned upon exit from the protected

area. . .’’

The licensee proposed to implement

an alternative unescorted access control

system which would eliminate the need

to issue and retrieve badges at each

entrance/exit location and would allow

all individuals with unescorted access

to keep their badge with them when

departing the site.

An exemption from 10 CFR

73.55(d)(5) is required to allow

contractors who have unescorted access

to take their badges offsite instead of

returning them when exiting the site. By

letter dated January 17, 1997, the

licensee requested an exemption from

certain requirements of 10 CFR

73.55(d)(5) for this purpose.

III

Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.5, ‘‘Specific

exemptions,’’ the Commission may,

upon application of any interested

person or upon its own initiative, grant

such exemptions in this part as it

determines are authorized by law and

will not endanger life or property or the

common defense and security, and are

otherwise in the public interest.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55, the

Commission may authorize a licensee to

provide measures for protection against

radiological sabotage provided the

licensee demonstrates that the measures

have ‘‘the same high assurance

objective’’ and meet ‘‘the general

performance requirements’’ of the

regulation, and ‘‘the overall level of

system performance provides protection

against radiological sabotage

equivalent’’ to that which would be

provided by the regulation.

At the Salem/Hope Creek site,

unescorted access into protected areas is

controlled through the use of a

photograph on a combination badge and

keycard. (Hereafter, these are referred to

as a ‘‘badge’’). The security officers at

the entrance station use the photograph

on the badge to visually identify the

individual requesting access. The

badges for both licensee employees and

contractor personnel who have been

granted unescorted access are issued

upon entrance at the entrance/exit

location and are returned upon exit. The

badges are stored and are retrievable at

the entrance/exit location. In

accordance with 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5),

contractor individuals are not allowed

to take badges offsite. In accordance

with the plant’s physical security plan,

neither licensee employee nor

contractors are allowed to take badges

offsite.

Under the proposed system, each

individual who is authorized for

unescorted access into protected areas

would have the physical characteristics

of their hand (hand geometry) registered

with their badge number in the access

control system. When an individual

enters the badge into the card reader

and places the hand on the measuring

surface, the system would record the

individual’s hand image. The unique

characteristics of the extracted hand

image would be compared with the

previously stored template in the access

control system to verify authorization

for entry. Individuals, including

licensee employees and contractors,

would be allowed to keep their badges

with them when they depart the site and

thus eliminate the process to issue,

retrieve and store badges at the entrance

stations to the plant. Badges do not

carry any information other than a

unique identification number.

All other access processes, including

search function capability, would

remain the same. This system would not

be used for persons requiring escorted

access, i.e., visitors.

Based on a Sandia report entitled, ‘‘A

Performance Evaluation of Biometric

Identification Devices’’ (SAND91—0276
42610 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Notices

UC—906 Unlimited Release, Printed

June 1991), and on the licensee’s

experience with the current photoidentification system, the licensee stated

that the hand geometry system

performance is comparable to, or

superior to, that of the current system.

The biometric system has been in use

for a number of years at several sensitive

Department of Energy facilities. The

licensee will implement a process for

testing the proposed system to ensure

continued overall level of performance

equivalent to that specified in the

regulation. The Physical Security Plan

for Salem/Hope Creek will be revised to

include implementation and testing of

the hand geometry access control

system and to allow licensee employees

and contractors to take their badges

offsite.

The licensee will control all points of

personnel access into a protected area

under the observation of security

personnel through the use of a badge

and verification of hand geometry. A

numbered picture badge identification

system will continue to be used for all

individuals who are authorized

unescorted access to protected areas.

Badges will continue to be displayed by

all individuals while inside the

protected area.

Since both the badges and hand

geometry would be necessary for access

into the protected areas, the proposed

system would provide for a positive

verification process and the potential

loss of a badge by an individual, as a

result of taking the badge offsite, would

not enable an unauthorized entry into

protected areas.

For the foregoing reasons, pursuant to

10 CFR 73.55, the NRC staff has

determined that the proposed

alternative measures for protection

against radiological sabotage meet ‘‘the

same high assurance objective,’’ and

‘‘the general performance requirements’’

of the regulation and that ‘‘the overall

level of system performance provides

protection against radiological sabotage

equivalent’’ to that which would be

provided by the regulation.

IV

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR

73.5, an exemption is authorized by law,

will not endanger life or property or

common defense and security, and is

otherwise in the public interest.

Therefore, the Commission hereby

grants an exemption from those

requirements of 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5)

relating to the returning of picture

badges upon exit from the protected

area such that individuals not employed

by the licensee, i.e., contractors, who are

authorized unescorted access into the

protected area, may take their picture

badges offsite. This exemption is

granted on the condition that the

licensee implements a process for

testing the proposed system and revises

the security plan for each site as

discussed in Section III above.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will have no

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment (62 FR 40551).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day

of July 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–20876 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available

From: Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of Filings and

Information Services, 450 Fifth Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20549.

Extensions:

Rule 11a–3, SEC File No. 270–321,

OMB Control No. 3235–0358

Rule 17g–1, SEC File No. 270–208,

OMB Control No. 3235–0213

Rule 206(4)–3, SEC File No. 270–218,

OMB Control No. 3235–0242

Rule 206(4)–4, SEC File No. 270–304,

OMB Control No. 3235–0345

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 extension of the previously

approved collections of information

discussed below.

Rule 11a–3 under the Investment

Company Act of 1940 is an exemptive

rule that permits open-end investment

companies (‘‘funds’’), other than

insurance company separate accounts,

and funds’ principal underwriters, to

make certain exchange offers to fund

shareholders and shareholders of other

funds in the same group of investment

companies. The rule requires a fund,

among other things, (i) to disclose in its

prospectus and advertising literature the

amount of any administrative or

redemption fee imposed on an exchange

transaction, (ii) if the fund imposes an

administrative fee on exchange

transactions, other than a nominal one,

to maintain and preserve records with

respect to the actual costs incurred in

connection with exchanges for at least

six years, and (iii) give the fund’s

shareholders a sixty day notice of a

termination of an exchange offer or any

material amendment to the terms of an

exchange offer (unless the only material

effect of an amendment is to reduce or

eliminate an administrative fee, sales

load or redemption fee payable at the

time of an exchange).

The rule’s requirements are designed

to protect investors against abuses

associated with exchange offers, provide

fund shareholders with information

necessary to evaluate exchange offers

and certain material changes in the

terms of exchange offers, and enable the

Commission staff to monitor funds’ use

of administrative fees charged in

connection with exchange transactions.

It is estimated that approximately

2,500 funds may choose to rely on the

rule, and each fund may spend one hour

annually complying with the

recordkeeping requirement and another

hour annually complying with the

notice requirement. The total annual

burden associated with the rule is

estimated to be 5,000 hours. The

burdens associated with the disclosure

requirement of the rule are accounted

for in the burdens associated with the

Form N–1A registration statement for

funds.

Rule 17g–1 under the Investment

Company Act of 1940 governs the

fidelity bonding of officers and

employees of registered management

investment companies (‘‘funds’’). Rule

17g–1 requires, among other things,

that:

(i) Fidelity Bond Content Requirements.

The fidelity bond must provide that it shall

not be cancelled, terminated or modified

except upon a 60-day written notice by the

acting party to the affected party. In the case

of a ‘‘joint bond’’ covering several funds or

certain other parties, the notice also must be

given to each fund and to the Commission.

In addition, a joint bond must provide that

a copy of the bond, any amendments to the

bond, any formal filing of a claim on the

bond, and notification of the terms of any

settlement on such claim, will be furnished

to each fund promptly after the execution.

(ii) Independent Directors’ Approval

Requirements. At least annually, the

independent directors of a fund must

approve the form and amount of the fidelity

bond. The amount of any premium paid for

any joint bond also must be approved by the

independent directors of a fund.

(iii) Joint Bond Agreement Requirement. A

fund that is insured by a joint bond must

enter into an agreement with all other parties