Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Notices 66151

Effective date: December 2, 1997.

Amendment No.: 216

Facility Operating License No. NPF–3:

Amendment revised the Technical

Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: March 12, 1997 (62 FR 11498).

The Commission’s related evaluation of

the amendment is contained in a Safety

Evaluation dated December 2, 1997.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room

location: University of Toledo, William

Carlson Library, Government

Documents Collection, 2801 West

Bancroft Avenue, Toledo, Ohio 43606.

Toledo Edison Company, Centerior

Service Company, and The Cleveland

Electric Illuminating Company, Docket

No. 50–346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power

Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County,

Ohio

Date of application for amendment:

September 17, 1996, as supplemented

by letters dated November 27, 1996, and

October 14, 1997.

Brief description of amendment: This

amendment revises the surveillance

interval from 18 months to less than or

equal to 730 days, nominally 24 months,

for Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.5.2,

‘‘Emergency Core Cooling Systems—

ECCS Subsystems—Tavg greater than or

equal to 280 degrees F’’; TS 3/4.6.5.1,

‘‘Containment Systems—Shield

Building—Emergency Ventilation

System’’; TS 3/4.7.6.1, ‘‘Plant Systems—

Control Room Emergency Ventilation

System’’; TS 3/4.7.7, ‘‘Plant Systems—

Snubbers’’; TS 3/4.9.12, ‘‘Refueling

Operations—Storage Pool Ventilation’’;

and TS Bases 3/4.7.7—‘‘Snubbers.’’

Date of issuance: December 2, 1997.

Effective date: Immediately, and shall

be implemented no later than 120 days

after issuance.

Amendment No.: 217.

Facility Operating License No. NPF–3:

Amendment revised the Technical

Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: October 9, 1996 (61 FR 52972).

The supplemental information

submitted by the licensees did not

impact the initial proposed no

significant hazards consideration

determination.

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated December 2,

1997.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No.

Local Public Document Room

location: University of Toledo, William

Carlson Library, Government

Documents Collection, 2801 West

Bancroft Avenue, Toledo, Ohio 43606.

Toledo Edison Company, Centerior

Service Company, and The Cleveland

Electric Illuminating Company, Docket

No. 50–346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power

Station, Unit 1, Ottawa County, Ohio

Date of application for amendment:

December 11, 1996 (as supplemented by

letter dated January 6, 1997), January 30,

1997 (as supplemented by letter dated

September 15, 1997), and April 18,

1997.

Brief description of amendment: This

amendment extends surveillance

requirement intervals from 18 to 24

months, revises setpoints, and revises

TS 2.2, ‘‘Limiting Safety System

Settings.’’ Administrative changes have

also been made.

Date of issuance: December 2, 1997.

Effective date: December 2, 1997.

Amendment No.: 218.

Facility Operating License No. NPF–3:

Amendment revised the Technical

Specifications.

Dates of initial notice in Federal

Register: January 15, 1997 (62 FR 2194),

March 12, 1997 (62 FR 11498) and June

4, 1997 (62 FR 30654). The

Commission’s related evaluation of the

amendment is contained in a Safety

Evaluation dated December 2, 1997.

No significant hazards consideration

comments received: No. The

supplemental information provided by

the licensees did not affect the proposed

no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room

location: University of Toledo, William

Carlson Library, Government

Documents Collection, 2801 West

Bancroft Avenue, Toledo, OH 43606.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day

of December 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Elinor G. Adensam,

Acting Director, Division of Reactor Projects—

III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–32763 Filed 12–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316]

American Electric Power Company;

Receipt of Petition for Director’s

Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that by Petition

dated October 9, 1997, David A.

Lochbaum, on behalf of the Union of

Concerned Scientists, has requested that

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) take action with

regard to Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant,

Units 1 and 2, operated by American

Electric Power Company (the Licensee).

The Petition requests that the operating

licenses for D.C. Cook, Units 1 and 2, be

modified, revoked, or suspended until

there is reasonable assurance that the

Licensee’s systems are in conformance

with design-and licensing-bases

requirements. The Petition requests that

systems with a safety function at D.C.

Cook be qualified and capable of

performing their required function

under all design conditions before

restart. The Petition also requests that a

public hearing into this matter be held

in the Washington, DC, area before the

first unit at D.C. Cook is authorized to

restart.

As the basis for these requests, the

Petition states that the NRC recently

completed an architect/engineer design

inspection at D.C. Cook. The Licensee

had previously reviewed the same

systems as part of its design-basis

documentation reconstitution program.

Findings by the NRC inspection team

led to a shutdown of both units and has

necessitated changes to the plant’s

physical configuration. Therefore, the

Petition asserts that the Licensee’s

design-basis documentation

reconstitution and updated final safety

analysis report validation programs lack

the necessary rigor and focus. The

Petition further asserts that deficiencies

in the Licensee’s design control

programs may also be responsible for

similar problems in its safety systems,

which were not examined by the NRC.

The request is being treated pursuant

to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission’s

regulations. The request has been

referred to the Director of the Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As

provided by 10 CFR 2.206, appropriate

action will be taken on this Petition

within a reasonable time. A copy of the

Petition is available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, located at the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day

of December 1997.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–32878 Filed 12–16–97; 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
66152 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Notices

Commission, Office of Filings and

Information Services, Washington, DC

20549

Extension:

Rule 17Ad–2(c), (d), and (h), SEC File No.

270–149 OMB Control No. 3235–0130

Rule 17Ad–10, SEC File No. 270–265 OMB

Control No. 3235–0273

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 17Ad–2(c), (d) and (h) Transfer

Agent Turnaround, Processing and

Forwarding Requirements

Rule 17Ad–2(c), (d), and (h), under

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,

enumerate the requirements with which

transfer agents must comply to inform

the Commission or the appropriate

regulator of a transfer agent’s failure to

meet the minimum performance

standards set by the Commission rule by

filing a notice.

While it is estimated there are 1,326

transfer agents, approximately ten

notices pursuant to 17Ad–2(c), (d), and

(h) are filed annually. In view of (a) the

readily available nature of most of the

information required to be included in

the notice (since that information must

be compiled and retained pursuant to

other Commission rules); (b) the

summary fashion that such information

must be presented in the notice (most

notices are one page or less in length);

and (c) the experience of the staff

regarding the notices, the Commission

staff estimates that, on the average, most

Notices require approximately one-half

hour to prepare. The Commission staff

estimates a cost of approximately $30.00

for each half hour spent preparing the

notices per year, transfer agents spend

an average of five hours per year

complying with the rule at a cost of

$300.

Rule 17Ad–10 Prompt Posting of

Certificate Detail to Master

Securityholder Files; Maintenance of

Accurate Securityholder Files and

Control Book; and Retention of

Certificate Detail

Rule 17Ad–10, under the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934, requires

approximately 1,326 registered transfer

agent to create and maintain minimum

information on securityholders’

ownership of an issue of securities for

which it performs transfer agent

functions, including the purchase,

transfer and redemptions of securities.

In addition, the rule also requires

transfer agents that maintain

securityholder records to keep

certificate detail that has been cancelled

from those records for a minimum of six

years and to maintain and keep current

an accurate record of the number of

shares or principle dollar amount of

debt securities that the issuer has

authorized to be outstanding (a ‘‘control

book’’). These recordkeeping

requirements assist in the creation and

maintenance of accurate securityholder

records, the ability to research errors,

and ensure the transfer agent is aware of

the number of securities that are

properly authorized by the issuer,

thereby avoiding overissuance.

The staff estimates that the average

number of hours necessary for each

transfer agent to comply with Rule

17Ad–10 is approximately 20 hours per

year, totalling 26,520 hours industrywide. The average cost is approximately

$20 per hour, with the industry-wide

cost estimated at approximately

$530,400. However, the information

required by Rule 17Ad–10 generally

already is maintained by registered

transfer agents. The amount of time

devoted to compliance with Rule 17Ad–

10 varies according to differences in

business activity.

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid

control number.

Written comments regarding the

above information should be directed to

the following persons: (i) 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; and (ii) Michael

E. Bartell, Associate Executive Director,

Office of Information Technology,

Securities and Exchange Commission,

450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC

20549. Comments must be submitted to

OMB within 30 days of this notice.

Dated: December 8, 1997.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–32826 Filed 12–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application

to Withdraw From Listing and

Registration; (Ballantyne of Omaha,

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

File No. 1–13906

December 11, 1997.

Ballantyne of Omaha, 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’’ or

‘‘Exchange’’).

The reasons cited in the application

for withdrawing the Security from

listing and registration include the

following:

The Security recently was listed for

trading on the New York Stock

Exchange (‘‘NYSE’’) pursuant to a

Registration Statement which became

effective December 1, 1997. Trading in

the Security commenced on the NYSE

on December 5, 1997. The Company’s

Board of Directors determined that in

order to avoid the costs and the division

of the market resulting from a duallisting, the Security should be

withdrawn from listing and registration

on the Amex.

The Company has complied with

Amex Rule 18 by filing with the

Exchange a certified copy of the

resolutions adopted by the Company’s

Board of Directors authorizing the

withdrawal of the Security from listing

and registration on the Amex, and by

setting forth in detail to the Exchange

the reasons and facts supporting the

withdrawal.

In making the decision to withdraw

its Security from listing and registration

on the Amex, the Company also

considered the increased visibility and

liquidity that a listing on the NYSE may

provide.

By letter dated November 14, 1997,

the Amex informed the Company that it

had no objection to the withdrawal of

the Company’s Security from listing and

registration on the Amex.

By reason of Section 12(b) of the Act

and the rules thereunder, the Company

shall continue to be obligated to file

reports with the Commission and the

Exchange under Section 13 of the Act.

Any interested person may, on or

before January 6, 1998, submit by letter

to the Secretary of the Securities and

Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street,