7284 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 1997 / Notices

6The staff has reconsidered this violation in

accordance with the guidance in the current

enforcement policy and has concluded that the

violation is below the level of significance of

Severity Level IV violations. This determination is

based on the fact that there was negligible impact

on safety; the violation does not indicate a

programmatic problem that could have safety or

regulatory impact; if the violation recurred, it

would not be considered a significant concern; and

the violation was not willful. Therefore this

violation is classified as a minor violation and, as

previously discussed, minor violations are not

normally the subject of formal enforcement action

and are usually not cited in inspection reports. To

the extent that such violations are described, they

are characterized as non-cited violations.

days of Revision 0 of Procedure WC–8

(June 20, 1994). In its letter, NNECO

stated that no documentation indicating

that training was conducted for

Procedure WC–8, Rev. 0, had been

found. While no training records were

located, NNECO stated that the

Millstone Unit 1 Maintenance Manager

recalled that the procedure was

discussed at a Maintenance Department

meeting within 60 days of its effective

date.

The NRC staff reviewed Procedure

DC–1 and determined that since NNECO

could not locate the training records for

Procedure WC–8, Rev. 0, and that

training by the Maintenance Department

or the Nuclear Training Department was

not conducted within 60 days of the

effective date for Procedure WC–8, Rev.

0, NNECO was in violation of Procedure

DC–1.

The staff’s review of NNECO’s April

26, 1995, response to the NRC letter

dated February 14, 1995, was

documented in IR 95–22. The staff has

reviewed NNECO’s corrective actions

that included NNECO management

reemphasizing the importance of

training on new or revised procedures

and following procedures, the revising

of Procedure WC–8, and training on the

revised procedure. Based on that

review, the staff has determined that the

corrective actions the licensee has taken

are acceptable. The staff has further

determined that since there were no

safety consequences as a result of this

event, it was not a violation that could

reasonably be expected to have been

prevented by the licensee’s corrective

action for a previous violation or a

previous licensee finding that occurred

within the past 2 years of the inspection

at issue, adequate corrective actions

were implemented, and the violation

was not willful, the violation would

have been categorized in accordance

with the enforcement policy in effect at

the time of the inspection as a non-cited

Severity Level V violation and would

not have been the subject of formal

enforcement action.6

III. Conclusion

The institution of a proceeding

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 is appropriate

only if substantial health and safety

issues have been raised. See

Consolidated Edison Company of New

York (Indian Point Units 1, 2, and 3)

CLI–75–8, 2 NRC 173, 175 (1975) and

Washington Public Power Supply

System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2),

DD–84–7 19 NRC 899, 924 (1984). This

is the standard that has been applied to

the concerns raised by the Petitioner to

determine whether the action requested

by the Petitioner, or other enforcement

action, is warranted.

On the basis of the above assessment,

I have concluded that, although certain

minor procedural violations occurred,

no substantial health and safety issues

have been raised by the Petition

regarding Millstone Unit 1 that would

require initiation of enforcement action.

Therefore, to the extent that the

Petitioner requests that escalated

enforcement action be taken against

individuals and NU for violations of

Procedure WC–8 or failure to train

employees on the procedure, the

Petition has been denied. However, as

described above, the NRC conducted an

inspection into the alleged violations of

Procedure WC–8 from May 15 through

June 23, 1995, and conducted an audit

of the custody and usage record sheets.

Therefore, to the extent that the

Petitioner has requested an NRC

‘‘investigation into the above mentioned

procedure violations’’ and for the NRC

to ‘‘audit the Unit 1 maintenance

department, M&TE folders,’’ the Petition

has been granted.

As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c), a

copy of this Decision will be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission for the

Commission’s review. 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 in that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day

of February 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frank J. Miraglia, Jr.,

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–3888 Filed 2–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

Extension: Rule 15c1–7 SEC File No.

270–146, OMB Control No 3235–0134.

Upon Written Request, Copies

Available From: Securities and

Exchange Commission, Office of Filings

and Information Services, Washington,

DC 20549.

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 approval of extension on

the following rule:

Rule 15c1–7 requires broker-dealers to

make a record of each transaction it

effects for customer accounts over

which the broker-dealer has discretion.

The Commission estimates that 500

respondents collect information

annually under Rule 15c1–7 and that

approximately 33,333 hours would be

required annually for these collection.

The total annual burden hours have

been increased from 16,667 hours as a

result of the growth in the securities

market.

General comments regarding the

estimated burden hours should be

directed to the Desk Officer for the

Securities and Exchange Commission at

the address below. Any comments

concerning the accuracy of the estimate

average burden hours for compliance

with Commission rules and forms

should be directed to Michael E. Bartell,

Associate Executive Director, Office of

Information Technology, Securities and

Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549 and Desk

Officer for Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, Room 3208,

New Executive Office Building,

Washington, D.C. 20503.

Dated: February 10, 1997.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–3917 Filed 2–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application

to Withdraw From Listing and

Registration; (Chyron Corporation,

Common Stock. $.01 Par Value) File

No. 1–9014

February 12, 1997.

Chyron Corporation (‘‘Company’’) has

filed an application with the Securities
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 1997 / Notices 7285

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2The Commission notes that any imposition of

transaction charges for FLEX Equity Options would

have to be submitted to the Commission pursuant

to Section 19(b) of the Act.

3The fees may actually be less than these

amounts pursuant to the Exchange’s Prospective

Fee Reduction Schedule, the Customer Large Trade

Discount Program, and rebate programs that have

been filed with the Commission as part of the

Exchange’s fee schedule.

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

Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘CHX’’).

The reasons alleged in the application

for withdrawing the Security from

listing and registration include the

following:

According to the Company, the

Security is currently listed both on the

Chicago Stock Exchange and the New

York Stock Exchange. The Security

involved is the common stock of the

Company traded on the CHX. The

Company filed this application because

it no longer wishes its Security to be

listed on the CHX. The reasons alleged

in the application include the fact that

the Company wishes to avoid the direct

and indirect costs of dual listings.

Any interested person may, on or

before March 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 exchanges 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. 97–3914 Filed 2–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

Sunshine Act Meeting

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to

the provisions of the Government in the

Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94–409, that the

Securities and Exchange Commission

will hold the following open meeting

during the week of February 17, 1997.

An open meeting will be held on

Tuesday, February 18, 1997, at 10 a.m.,

in Room 1C30.

The subject matter of the open

meeting scheduled for Tuesday,

February 18, 1997, at 10 a.m., will be:

(1) The commission will consider

whether to issue a release adopting

amendments shortening the holding

periods under Rule 144.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE

CONTACT: Martin P. Dunn or Elizabeth

M. Murphy, Office of Chief Counsel,

Division of Corporation Finance, at

(202) 942–2900.

(2) The Commission will consider

whether to issue a release proposing

amendments to the Regulation S safe

harbor procedures and related changes

for offshore sales of equity securities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE

CONTACT: Paul M. Dudek or Walter G.

Van Dorn, Jr., Office of International

Corporate Finance, Division of

Corporation Finance, at (202) 942–2990.

Commissioner Hunt, as duty officer,

determined that no earlier notice thereof

was possible.

At times, changes in Commission

priorities require alterations in the

scheduling of meeting items. For further

information and to ascertain what, if

any, matters have been added, deleted

or postponed, please contact: The Office

of the Secretary at (202) 942–7070.

Dated: February 13, 1997.

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–4090 Filed 2–13–97; 3:57 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECRUTIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–38262; File No. SR–CBOE–

97–05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness

of Proposed Rule Change by the

Chicago Board Options Exchange,

Incorporated Relating to Waiver of

Transaction Charges for FLEX Equity

Options

February 10, 1997.

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

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

January 30, 1997, the Chicago Board

Options Exchange, Incorporated

(‘‘CBOE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘SEC’’) the proposed

rule change as described in Items I, II,

and III below, which Items have been

prepared by the CBOE. The Commission

is publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule change

from interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

The CBOE proposes to extend its

waiver of Exchange fees on transactions

in Equity FLEX options traded on the

Exchange until further notice. The text

of the proposed rule change is available

at the Office of the Secretary, CBOE and

at the Commission.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission, the

CBOE included statements concerning

the purpose of and basis for the

proposed rule change and discussed any

comments it received on the proposed

rule change. The text of these statements

may be examined at the places specified

in Item IV below. The CBOE has

prepared summaries, set forth in

sections A, B, and C below, of the most

significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of and

Statutory Basis for, Proposed Rule

Change

Purpose

In conjunction with the start of

trading of FLEX Equity options, the

Exchange waived Exchanges fees related

to transactions in Equity FLEX until

January 31, 1997. The Exchange has

now determined to extend the waiver of

the transaction fees because the

Exchange believes that the waiver will

encourage trading in this new product

and will place the Exchange in a

position to compete effectively for

business in Equity FLEX options with

other exchanges trading the same

product.

The Exchange intends to establish

transaction charges for FLEX Equity

options at some time in the future.2

However, the Exchange is now

proposing to waive the transaction fees

until further notice. The fees affected

and the amount of the fees absent any

reduction or rebate 3 are: (1) Exchange

transaction fees, which are $.05 per

contract side for market-makers, $.06 for

member firm proprietary trades, $.15 for

customer trades for options under $1,

and $.30 for customer trade for options

of $1 or more; (2) trade match fees,

which are $.04 per contract side for all

trades; and (3) floor broker fees, which

are $.03 per contract side for all trades.

The forgoing fee changes are being