Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Notices 4365

related to the planned unloading of Cask

No. 4 and the loading of additional

casks at Palisades will be at the

discretion of the licensee. As noted

above, the NRC staff has committed to

open the exit meeting with the licensee

to the public at the conclusion of the

ongoing inspection and will document

its review in an inspection report that

will be available for public review.

(3) Require the Licensee to Pay a

Substantial Penalty

On the basis of the contention that the

licensee’s original unloading procedure

was inadequate, the Petitioners

requested that the NRC levy a monetary

penalty of $1.3 million against the

licensee. As previously mentioned, the

NRC staff determined that, although

finding that the deficiencies in the

original unloading procedure violated

NRC requirements, the violation

satisfied the criteria to be treated as a

Non-Cited Violation because of the

limited safety significance of the

procedural deficiencies and

consideration of mitigating factors

defined in the NRC Enforcement Policy.

Enforcement sanctions, including

issuance of civil penalties and orders,

are normally used as a deterrent to

emphasize the importance of

compliance with requirements, and to

encourage prompt identification and

prompt, comprehensive correction of

violations. In this case, the licensee

identified the deficiencies that

constituted the violation of NRC

requirements and subsequently revised

the unloading procedure to resolve the

identified technical issues. It was the

judgement of the NRC staff that the

violation should be dispositioned as a

Non-Cited Violation in order to convey

the appropriate regulatory message in

this case. Further, even if the violation

had been cited, it is the NRC staff’s

judgment that it would have been

categorized at a Severity Level IV, for

which a civil penalty would not

ordinarily be issued.

In regard to the hydrogen issues

identified in the amendment to the

Petition, the NRC staff has utilized an

administrative mechanism in its

enforcement policy (CALs) to ensure

that the licensee takes certain actions to

resolve this safety concern. As

previously mentioned, the specific

contentions raised by the Petitioners

pertaining to hydrogen issues and the

original unloading procedure do not

warrant additional enforcement actions

by the NRC.

(4) Allow Petitioners to Review

Procedure, Require NRC to Hold

Hearings, and Allow Petitioners to

Participate in Proceedings

The original unloading procedure and

the first revision of the unloading

procedure have been provided to the

Petitioners. In addition, correspondence

between the NRC and the licensee

regarding the procedures have been

furnished to the Petitioners. Further,

due to the course of events following the

licensee’s decision to unload Cask No.

4—including the licensee’s evaluation

of the original unloading procedure,

identification of improvements to the

unloading process, and the submittal of

this Petition—the original and first

revision of the unloading procedure and

related documentation have been

available for public review.

Accordingly, Petitioners have had the

opportunity to review the unloading

procedure. Further, as noted elsewhere,

it is the NRC staff’s intention to hold a

public meeting in the vicinity of the

Palisades Nuclear Plant at the

conclusion of its ongoing inspection of

the licensee’s revised unloading

procedure.

The Petitioners’ request for hearings

and participation in proceedings has

been addressed in previous

correspondence with the Petitioners and

the Attorney General for the State of

Michigan. In that correspondence, the

NRC staff explained that neither the

general licensing provisions of 10 CFR

part 72 nor the petition process

described in 10 CFR 2.206 require the

NRC to institute a proceeding. Under

§ 2.206, the NRC office director

responsible for the subject matter of the

request ‘‘shall either institute the

requested proceeding in accordance

with this subpart or shall advise the

person who made the request in writing

that no proceeding will be instituted in

whole or in part, with respect to the

request, and the reasons for the

decision.’’

As set forth in this Director’s

Decision, the NRC has determined not

to institute the proceeding as requested

by the Petition.

IV. Conclusion

Petitioners requested that the NRC

determine that Consumers Power

Company violated NRC requirements,

suspend the licensee’s use of the general

license, impose a substantial penalty,

and hold hearings related to the

licensee’s unloading procedure for dry

storage casks. In response, the NRC

determined the licensee violated NRC

requirements insofar as the original

unloading procedure (Revision 0) would

have required revision in order to have

completed the unloading process.

Further, NRC staff determined that the

violation, which was identified and

corrected by the licensee, should be

treated as a Non-Cited Violation

consistent with the NRC’s Enforcement

Policy. Therefore, to this extent,

Petitioners’ request for a determination

that the licensee violated NRC

requirements is granted. The available

information is sufficient to conclude,

however, that no substantial safety issue

has been raised regarding the operation

of Palisades or its associated ISFSI given

the licensee’s commitment not to load

or unload a cask until the NRC staff is

satisfied that the licensee’s procedures

are adequate. Therefore, the NRC has

determined that no adequate basis exists

for granting Petitioners’ requests for

suspension of Consumers Power

Company’s use of the general license for

dry cask storage of spent nuclear fuel at

Palisades or imposition of a civil

penalty.

A copy of this decision will be filed

with the Secretary of the Commission

for the Commission to 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

issuance, unless the Commission, on its

own motion, institutes a review of the

decision within that time.

Dated at Rockville, Md., this 23d day of

January 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frank J. Miraglia,

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–2162 Filed 1–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7690–01–P

Individual Plant Examination Program;

Perspectives on Reactor Safety and

Plant Performance Volume 1, Part 1

and Volume 2, Parts 2–5, Draft

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of revised deadlines for

public comments on draft NUREG–

1560.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission has published a draft of

‘‘Individual Plant Examination Program:

Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant

Performance,’’ NUREG–1560, Volumes 1

and 2. Volume 1, Part 1 is a summary

report from a review of the Individual

Plant Examinations (IPE) submitted to

the agency in response to Generic Letter
4366 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Notices

88–20. Volume 2, Part 2–5 provides an

in-depth discussion of the insights and

findings summarized in Volume 1, Part

1. In addition, the NRC staff will

conduct a public workshop (April 7, 8,

9, 1997) to discuss the contents of the

draft NUREG and to solicit comments

(See FR notices 61 FR 58429 and 61 FR

65248). In response to requests for

additional time to comment, the

deadline for public comments on the

draft NUREG–1560 is postponed for one

month to March 14, 1997, and any

additional public comments after the

workshop are due within 30 days of the

workshop, by May 9, 1997.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Draft

NUREG–1560 (Volume 1, Part 1 and

Volume 2, Parts 2–5) is available for

inspection and copying for a fee at the

NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L

Street N.W. (Lower Level), Washington

DC 20555–0001. A free single copy of

Draft NUREG–1560, to the extent of

supply, may be requested by writing to

Distribution Series, Printing and Mail

Services Branch, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001.

Since there is a wealth of information

in the draft NUREG–1560 which

provides in-depth discussions on

insight findings, the staff recognizes that

the public may need extra time to

review the draft NUREG and provide

relevant comments on the accuracy of

the reported results in the IPEs and the

appropriateness of the interpretation of

the results. In addition, some IPEs/PRAs

have been modified and may have an

impact on the perspectives discussed in

the draft NUREG. Therefore, the

deadline for public comments has been

extended from February 14, 1997 to

March 14, 1997, and any additional

public comments after the workshop are

due within 30 days of the workshop, by

May 9, 1997.

Mail comments on Draft NUREG–

1560 (Volumes 1 and 2) by March 14,

1997 to Branch Chief, Rules Review and

Directive Branch, Office of

Administration, MS: T6-D59, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward Chow, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, MS T10E50, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, (301) 415–6571.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 21st day

of January 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Mark Cunningham,

Chief, Probabilistic Risk Analysis Branch,

Division of Systems Technology, Office of

Nuclear Regulatory Research.

[FR Doc. 97–2163 Filed 1–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Request for Public Comment

Upon Written Request, Copies Available

From: Securities and Exchange Commission,

Office of Filings and Information Services,

Washington, DC 20549.

Extension:

Rule 30a–1; File No. 270–210; OMB

Control No. 3235–0219

Form N–54A; File No. 270–182; OMB

Control No. 3235–0237

Form N–54C; File No. 270–184; OMB

Control No. 3235–0236

Form N–6F; File No. 270–185; OMB

Control No. 3235–0238

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’’) is publishing the

following summaries of collections for

public comment.

Form N–54A [17 CFR 274.53] is the

notification of election to be regulated

as a business development company.

The annual burden is about .5 hours per

respondent.

Form N–54C [17 CFR 274.54] is used

to notify the Commission that a

company withdraws its election to be

regulated as a business development

company. The annual burden is about 1

hour per respondent.

Form N–6F [17 CFR 274.15] permits

a company that has lost its exclusion

from the Investment Company Act of

1940 because it intends to make a public

offering as a business development

company, but is not ready to file Form

N–54A, to remain exempt from the Act

for up to 90 days. The annual burden is

about .5 hour per respondent.

Rule 30a–1 [17 CFR 270.30a–1]

requires every registered investment

company to file a semi-annual report

with the Commission. The burden of

meeting the requirement of this rule is

the burden of filing Form N–SAR, the

reporting form prescribed under the

rule. Approval for Form N–SAR has

been given separately.

The estimates of burden hours set

forth above are made solely for the

purposes of the Paperwork Reduction

Act and are not derived from a

comprehensive or even representative

survey or study of the cost of SEC rules

and forms.

Written comments are invited on: (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate

of the burden of the proposed collection

of information; (c) ways to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected; and (d)

ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on

respondents, including through the use

of automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Consideration will be given to

comments and suggestions submitted in

writing within 60 days of this

publication.

Direct your written comments to

Michael E. Bartell, Associate Executive

Director, Office of Information

Technology, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 5th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20549.

Dated: January 15, 1997.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–2098 Filed 1–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[File No. 1–12546]

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application

to Withdraw From Listing and

Registration (Pacific Gulf Properties

Inc., Common Stock, $.01 Par Value)

January 23, 1997.

Pacific Gulf Properties Inc.

(‘‘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 security

(‘‘Security’’) from listing and

registration on the American Stock

Exchange, Inc. (‘‘Amex’’).

The reasons alleged in the application

for withdrawing the Security from

listing and registration include the

following:

According to the Company, it has

complied with Rule 18 of the Amex by

filing with such Exchange a certified

copy of preambles and resolutions

adopted by the Company’s Board of

Directors authorizing the withdrawal of

its securities from listing on the Amex

and by setting forth in detail to such

Exchange the reasons for such proposed

withdrawal, and the facts in support

thereof. The Security of the Company

has been listed on the New York Stock

Exchange, Inc. (‘‘NYSE’’) as of October