Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Notices 54885

be accomplished when a source range

neutron detector is inoperable with the

plant shutdown. The proposed wording

change will clarify the times and order

in which these actions are to be

performed.

Date of issuance: September 29, 1997

Effective date: September 29, 1997, to

be implemented within 30 days from

the date of issuance.

Amendment No.: 111

Facility Operating License No. NPF42: The amendment revised the

Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: August 27, 1997 (62 FR 45467)

The Commission’s related evaluation of

the amendment is contained in a Safety

Evaluation dated September 29, 1997.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room

locations: Emporia State University,

William Allen White Library, 1200

Commercial Street, Emporia, Kansas

66801 and Washburn University School

of Law Library, Topeka, Kansas 66621

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating

Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf

Creek Generating Station, Coffey

County, Kansas

Date of amendment request:

September 6, 1997

Brief description of amendment: This

amendment allows the testing of certain

contacts in the emergency diesel

generator load sequencer to be done

with the unit at power (Mode 1) and

provides an additional 24 hours to the

time allowed by TS 4.0.3 to complete

the testing.

Date of issuance: October 7, 1997

Effective date: October 7, 1997

Amendment No.: 112

Facility Operating License No. NPF42. The amendment revised the

Technical Specifications. Public

comments requested as to proposed no

significant hazards consideration: Yes

(62 FR 49261 dated September 19,

1997). The notice provided an

opportunity to submit comments on the

Commission’s proposed no significant

hazards consideration determination.

No comments have been received. The

notice also provided for an opportunity

to request a hearing by October 20,

1997, but indicated that if the

Commission makes a final no significant

hazards consideration determination

any such hearing would take place after

issuance of the amendment. The

Commission’s related evaluation of the

amendment, finding of exigent

circumstances, and final determination

of no significant hazards consideration

are contained in a Safety Evaluation

dated October 7, 1997.

Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq.,

Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge,

2300 N Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20037

Local Public Document Room

locations: Emporia State University,

William Allen White Library, 1200

Commercial Street, Emporia, Kansas

66801 and Washburn University School

of Law Library, Topeka, Kansas 66621

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day

of October 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Elinor G. Adensam,

Acting DirectorDivision of Reactor Projects

- III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

[Doc. 97-27877 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-F

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[NUREG–1569]

Draft Standard Review Plan For In Situ

Uranium Extraction License

Applications

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability;

opportunity for comment.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is soliciting

comments on a Draft Standard Review

Plan for in Situ Uranium Extraction

License Applications (NUREG–1569)

from interested parties. A NRC source

and byproduct material license is

required under the provisions of Title

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

Part 40 (10 CFR Part 40), Domestic

Licensing of Source Material, to recover

uranium by in situ leach uranium

extraction mining techniques (in situ

leaching). An applicant for a new

operating license, or for the renewal or

amendment of an existing license, is

required to provide detailed information

on the facilities, equipment, and

procedures to be used, and if

appropriate, an environmental report

that discusses the effect of proposed

operations on public health and safety

and on the environment. This

information is used by Nuclear

Regulatory Commission staff to

determine whether the proposed

activities will be protective of public

health and safety and be

environmentally acceptable. The

purpose of this standard review plan is

to provide NRC staff with specific

guidance on the review of this

information and will be used to ensure

a consistent quality and uniformity of

staff reviews. Each section in the review

plan provides guidance on what is to be

reviewed, the basis for the review, how

the staff review is to be accomplished,

what the staff will find acceptable in a

demonstration of compliance with the

regulations, and the conclusions that are

sought regarding the applicable sections

in 10 CFR. The review plan is also

intended to improve the understanding

of the staff review process by interested

members of the public and the uranium

recovery industry. The draft was

developed using input from (1) staff

review precedents; (2) staff inspection

experiences; (3) public meetings with

industry; and (4) experience from the

State of Texas, which is an agreement

state for uranium recovery and has 15

licensed in situ leach operations.

Opportunity to Comment: Interested

parties are invited to comment on the

review plan. Interested parties are also

asked to comment on the level and

extent that staff could rely on technical

reviews performed by non-agreement

states in areas where the NRC and the

State have concurrent regulatory

authority. These areas include land

application, nonradiological soil

cleanup, upper control limit, and

groundwater restoration reviews. A final

review plan will be prepared after the

NRC staff has evaluated public

comments received on the draft review

plan.

DATES: Written comments must be

received prior to December 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the draft

review plan should be sent to the Chief,

Rules and Directives, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555.

AVAILABILITY: A copy of the Draft

Standard Review Plan (NUREG–1569)

may be obtained by writing to the

Printing and Graphics Branch, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20555–0001.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day

of October 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Joseph J. Holonich,

Chief, Uranium Recovery Projects Branch,

Division of Waste Management, Office of

Nuclear Material, Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–28002 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Applications, Hearings,

Determinations, Etc. Tivoli Industries,

Inc.

October 16, 1997.

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application

to Withdraw from Listing and
54886 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Notices

1 15 U.S.C. § 78s(b)(1).

Registration; (Tivoli Industries, Inc.,

Common Stock, $.001 Par Value;

Redeemable Class A Warrants to

Purchase $.001 Par Value Common

Stock, expiring Sept. 21, 1997;

Redeemable Class B Warrants to

Purchase $.001 Par Value Common

Stock, expiring Sept. 21, 1997) File No.

1–13338.

Tivoli Industries, 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 securities

(‘‘Securities’’) from listing and

registration on the Boston Stock

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

The reasons cited in the application

for withdrawing the Securities from

listing and registration include the

following:

The Company’s Securities have been

listed for trading on both the BSE and

Nasdaq Small Cap Stock Market since

September 21, 1994.

The Company has complied with the

rules of BSE by setting forth in detail to

such Exchange the reasons for such

proposed withdrawal, and the facts in

support thereof. In making the decision

to withdraw its Securities from listing

on the BSE, the Company considered

the direct and indirect costs and

expenses attendant on maintaining the

dual listing of its Securities on the

NASDAQ SmallCap Stock Market and

the BSE. The Company does not see any

particular advantage in the dual trading

of its Securities and believes that dual

listing would fragment the market for its

securities.

By letter dated September 23, 1997,

the BSE has informed the Company that

it has no objection to the withdrawal of

the Company’s Securities from listing

on the BSE.

Any interested person may, on or

before November 6, 1997, submit by

letter to the Secretary of the Securities

and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth

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

facts bearing upon whether the

application has been made in

accordance with the rules of the

exchange and what terms, if 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 after the date

mentioned above, unless the

Commission determines to order a

hearing on the matter.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–27901 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 39235; File No. SR–CTA/CQ–

97–2]

Consolidated Tape Association; Notice

of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness

of Second Charges Amendment to the

Second Restatement of the

Consolidated Tape Association Plan

and First Charges Amendment to the

Restated Consolidated Quotation Plan

October 14, 1997.

Pursuant to Rule 11Aa3–2 of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’) 1, notice is hereby given that on

September 26, 1997, the Consolidated

Tape Association (‘‘CTA’’) and the

Consolidated Quotation (‘‘CQ’’) Plan

Participants (‘‘Participants’’) filed with

the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘SEC’’)

amendments to the Restated CTA Plan

and CQ Plan. The amendments (a)

establish a new Network A fee (i.e., one

cent per ‘‘quote packet’’) for

interrogation services that vendors offer

on a pay-for-use basis, (b) eliminate the

Network A Class F and Class H program

classification charges, (c) reclassify the

Network A Class G program

classification charge and (d) raise the

monthly Network A fee applicable to

nonprofessional subscribers from $4.25

to $5.25. In addition, the amendment to

the CTA Plan raises the monthly

connection fee for delivery of the ticker

signal by means of AT&T from $200 to

$250.

Pursuant to Rule 11Aa3–2(c)(3)(i), the

CTA and CQ Participants have

designated the amendments as

establishing or changing fees and other

charges collected on behalf of all of the

sponsors and participants, which

renders the amendments effective upon

receipt of this filing by the Commission.

The Commission is publishing this

notice to solicit comments from

interested persons on the amendments.

I. Description and Purpose of the

Amendments

A. Rule 11Aa3–2

The purpose of the amendments is to

allow the Participants under the Plans

that make Network A last sale

information and quotation information

available (‘‘the Network A Participants’’)

to establish a new and additional

pricing alternative for vendors of, and

subscribers to, certain Network A

market data interrogation services. That

pricing alternative has proved popular

and successful in the context of a pilot

program. In addition, the amendments

eliminate two categories of program

classification fees, reclassify a third

category of program classification fee

and increase the monthly

nonprofessional subscriber fee by $1.

The amendment to the CTA Plan also

increases the monthly connection fee

that applies for delivery of the ticker

signal by AT&T by $50.

1. Usage-Based Charge

a. One Cent Per Quote. The Network

A Participants propose to establish a fee

of one cent for each real-time ‘‘quote

packet’’ that vendors disseminate to

subscribers on a pay-for-use basis

during the hours that the Network A

Participants are open for trading (a ‘‘perquote charge’’). For the purposes of this

charge, a ‘‘quote packet’’ refers to a

group of one or more data elements

relating to the same issue. Last sale

price, bid, offer, transaction size,

quotation size, opening price, high

price, low price, trading volume and net

change in price are all examples of data

elements that might be part of the same

‘‘quote packet,’’ either individually or in

combination. An index value qualifies

as a ‘‘quote packet’’ in and of itself.

In order to take advantage of the perquote charge, a vendor must document

in its Exhibit A that it has the ability to

measure accurately the number of quote

packets and must have the ability to

report aggregate quote packet quantities

to the Network A Participants on a

monthly basis.

The Network A Participants will

impose the per-quote charge only on the

dissemination of the real-time market

data. Vendors may provide delayed data

services in the same manner as they do

today.

The per-quote charge is payable on a

monthly basis and is payable by the

vendor providing the service, rather

than the vendor’s subscribers. It

represents a new and additional

alternative to existing rates. That is,

vendors may elect to continue to offer

monthly display device services subject

to the current rates for per-device

services (rather than the newly

established per-quote charge) and also

may elect, either in addition or as a

substitute, to disseminate data pursuant

to the per-quote charge.