Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 183 / Monday, September 22, 1997 / Notices 49541

new fuel stored in the new fuel pit

storage racks or spent fuel storage racks.

The new fuel storage area at North

Anna is used to receive and store new

fuel in a dry condition upon arrival

onsite and prior to loading into the

reactor. The new fuel is stored vertically

in an array with a distance of 21 inches

between assemblies to assure Keff is less

than or equal to 0.98 with fuel of the

highest anticipated enrichment in place

assuming optimum moderation, e.g., an

aqueous foam envelopment as a result of

local fire fighting operations. Both

irradiated and unirradiated fuel are

moved to and from the reactor vessel

and the spent fuel pool to accommodate

refueling operations, as well as within

the reactor vessel and spent fuel pool.

Unirradiated fuel is also moved into the

Fuel Building for storage and to and

from the new fuel storage area. In every

case, fuel movement is procedurally

controlled and designed to preclude

criticality concerns. In addition, the TS

specifically address refueling operations

and impose restrictions on fuel

movement to preclude an accidental

criticality, as well as limit the

movement of certain loads over the

spent fuel in the reactor vessel and the

spent fuel pool.

The proposed exemption would not

result in any significant radiological

impacts. The proposed exemption

would not affect radiological effluents

nor cause any significant occupational

exposures since the TS, design controls,

including geometric spacing of fuel

assembly storage spaces, and

administrative controls preclude

inadvertent criticality. The amount of

radioactive waste would not be changed

by the proposed exemption.

The proposed exemption does not

result in any significant nonradiological

environmental impacts. The proposed

exemption involves features located

entirely within the restricted area as

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. 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

that 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 exemption,

the staff has considered denial of the

requested exemption. Denial of the

request 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 resources not previously considered

in connection with the Final

Environmental Statement related to the

operation of North Anna Power Station,

Units 1 and 2, issued by the

Commission in April 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the NRC staff consulted with Mr.

Foldesi of the Virginia Department of

Health on July 14, 1997, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. Mr. Foldesi had no comments on

behalf of the Commonwealth of

Virginia.

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 exemption.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the request for exemption

dated January 28, 1997, as

supplemented March 3, 1997, which is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC

20555 and at the local public document

room located at the Alderman Library,

Special Collections Department,

University of Virginia, Charlottesville,

Virginia 22903–2498.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 16th day

of September, 1997.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Gordon E. Edison,

Acting Director, Project Directorate II–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–25079 Filed 9–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on

Reactor Fuels, Onsite Fuel Storage,

and Decommissioning; Notice of

Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on Reactor

Fuels, Onsite Fuel Storage, and

Decommissioning will hold a meeting

on October 9, 1997, Room T–2B3, 11545

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to

public attendance.

The agenda for the subject meeting

shall be as follows:

Thursday, October 9, 1997—8:30 a.m.

until the conclusion of business.

The Subcommittee will discuss the

basis of the NRC proposed fuel failure

criterion for high burnup conditions,

and the behavior and adequacy of NRC

fuel codes under accident conditions.

The Electric Power Research Institute

representatives will present their views

on this matter. The purpose of this

meeting is to gather information,

analyze relevant issues and facts, and to

formulate proposed positions and

actions, as appropriate, for deliberation

by the full Committee.

Oral statements may be presented by

members of the public with the

concurrence of the Subcommittee

Chairman; written statements will be

accepted and made available to the

Committee. Electronic recordings will

be permitted only during those portions

of the meeting that are open to the

public, and questions may be asked only

by members of the Subcommittee, its

consultants, and staff. Persons desiring

to make oral statements should notify

the cognizant ACRS staff engineer

named below five days prior to the

meeting, if possible, so that appropriate

arrangements can be made.

During the initial portion of the

meeting, the Subcommittee, along with

any of its consultants who may be

present, may exchange preliminary

views regarding matters to be

considered during the balance of the

meeting.

The Subcommittee will then hear

presentations by and hold discussions

with representatives of the Electric

Power Research Institute, Nuclear

Energy Institute, the NRC staff, their

consultants, and other interested

persons regarding this review.

Further information regarding topics

to be discussed, whether the meeting

has been cancelled or rescheduled, the

Chairman’s ruling on requests for the

opportunity to present oral statements

and the time allotted therefor can be

obtained by contacting the cognizant

ACRS staff engineer, Dr. Medhat ElZeftawy (telephone 301/415–6889)

between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EDT).

Persons planning to attend this meeting

are urged to contact the above named

individual one or two working days

prior to the meeting to be advised of any

potential changes in the proposed

agenda, etc., that may have occurred.
49542 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 183 / Monday, September 22, 1997 / Notices

Dated: September 15, 1997.

Noel F. Dudley

Acting Chief Nuclear Reactors Branch.

[FR Doc. 97–25076 Filed 9–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Rel. No. IC–22822; 812–10736]

Liberty All-Star Growth Fund, Inc.;

Notice of Application

September 15, 1997.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘SEC’’).

ACTION: Notice of application for

exemption under the Investment

Company Act of 1940 (the ‘‘Act’’).

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicant

requests an order under section 6(c) of

the Act granting an exemption from

section 19(b) and under rule 19b–1 to

permit it to make up to four

distributions of net long-term capital

gains in any one taxable year, so long as

it maintains in effect a distribution

policy calling for quarterly distributions

of a fixed percentage of its net asset

value.

FILING DATE: The application was filed

on July 23, 1997.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An

order granting the application will be

issued unless the SEC orders a hearing.

Interested persons may request a

hearing by writing to the SEC’s

Secretary and serving applicant with a

copy of the request, personally or by

mail. Hearing requests should be

received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on

October 9, 1997, and should be

accompanied by proof of service on

applicant, in the form of an affidavit or,

for lawyers, a certificate of service.

Hearing requests should state the nature

of the writer’s interest, the reason for the

request, and the issues contested.

Persons may request notification of a

hearing by writing to the SEC’s

Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, SEC, 450 5th

Street N.W., Washington, DC 20549.

Applicant, 600 Atlantic Ave., Federal

Reserve Plaza, Boston, MA 02210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa

McCrea, Attorney Adviser, at (202) 942–

0562, or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief,

at (202) 942–0564 (Division of

Investment Management, Office of

Investment Company Regulation.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

following is a summary of the

application. The complete application

may be obtained for a fee at the SEC’s

Public Reference Branch, 450 5th Street

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549 (tel. 202–

942–8090).

Applicant’s Representations

1. Applicant is a closed-end

management investment company

organized as a Maryland corporation.

Applicant’s investment objective is to

invest primarily in a diversified

portfolio of equity securities.

2. On February 20, 1997, applicant

adopted a distribution policy (the

‘‘Distribution Policy’’) that calls for

quarterly distributions of 2.5% of

applicant’s net asset value at the time of

declaration, for a total of approximately

10% of net asset value per year. If the

total distributions required by the

Distribution Policy exceed applicant’s

investment income and net realized

capital gains, the excess will be treated

as a return of capital. If applicant’s net

investment income, net short-term

realized gains and net long-term

realized gains for any year exceed the

amount required to be distributed under

its Distribution Policy, applicant at its

discretion may retain, and not

distribute, net realized long-term capital

gains to the extent of such excess.

3. Applicant states that the

distributions will provide a steady cash

flow to shareholders, and, during

periods when their per share net asset

value is increasing, a means for

shareholders to receive on a regular

basis some of the appreciation in value

of their shares. Applicant also believes

that the Distribution Policy plays a role

in reducing the discount from net asset

value at which applicant’s shares

typically trade.

4. Applicant requests relief to permit

applicant to make up to four

distributions of net long-term capital

gains in any one taxable year, so long as

it maintains in effect a distribution

policy calling for quarterly distributions

of a fixed percentage of its net asset

value.

Applicant’s Legal Analysis

1. Section 19(b) of the Act provides

that a registered investment company

may not, in contravention of such rules,

regulations, or orders as the SEC may

prescribe, distribute long-term capital

gains more often than once every twelve

months. Rule 19b–1(a) permits a

registered investment company, with

respect to any one taxable year, to make

one capital gains distribution, as

defined in section 852(b)(3)(C) of the

Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as

amended (the ‘‘Code’’). Rule 19b–1(a)

also permits a supplemental distribution

to be made pursuant to section 855 of

the Code not exceeding 10% of the total

amount distributed for the year. Rule

19b–1(f) permits one additional longterm capital gains distribution to be

made to avoid the excise tax under

section 4982 of the Code.

2. Applicant asserts that the limitation

on the number of net long-term capital

gains distributions in rule 19b–1

prohibits applicant from including

available net long-term capital gains in

certain of its fixed quarterly

distributions. As a result, applicant

states that it must fund these quarterly

distributions with returns on capital (to

the extent net investment income and

realized short-term capital gains are

insufficient to cover a quarterly

distribution). Applicant further asserts

that, in order to distribute all of its longterm capital gains within the limits on

the number of long-term capital gains

distributions in rule 19b–1, applicant

may be required to make certain of its

quarterly distributions in excess of the

total annual amount called for by the

Distribution Policy. Alternatively,

applicant states that it may be forced to

retain long-term capital gains and pay

the applicable taxes. Applicant asserts

that the application of rule 19b–1 to its

Distribution Policy may cause

anomalous results and create pressure to

limit the realization of long-term capital

gains based on considerations unrelated

to investment goals.

3. Applicant believes that the

concerns underlying section 19(b) and

rule 19b–1 are not present in applicant’s

situation. One of these concerns is that

shareholders might not be able to

distinguish between frequent

distributions of capital gains and

dividends from investment income.

Applicant states that the Distribution

Policy has been disclosed in applicant’s

communications to its shareholders,

including its 1996 annual report, and

applicant will disclose the Distribution

Policy in future quarterly and annual

reports to shareholders. Applicant

further states that, in accordance with

rule 19a-1 under the Act, a separate

statement showing the source of the

distribution (net investment income, net

realized capital gain or return of capital)

will accompany each distribution (or

the confirmation of the reinvestment

under applicant’s dividend

reinvestment plan). In addition, a

statement showing the amount and

source of each quarterly distribution

received during the year will be

included with applicant’s IRS Form

1099–DIV report sent to each

shareholder who received distributions

during the year (including shareholders

who sold shares during the year).

Applicant believes that its shareholders

fully understand that their distributions