Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Notices 15943

to radiation workers accessing the fuel

handling building. This training will be

provided as necessary until dry fuel

handling in 1997 is complete and the

subject material has been incorporated

into general employee training. The staff

has determined that the licensee’s

procedures and training meet the intent

of 10 CFR 70.24(a)(3); therefore,

adherence to the specific requirements

of this section is not necessary to serve

the underlying purpose of the rule.

Because inadvertent criticality is

precluded by both design and

procedure, because adequate radiation

monitoring is present, and because the

licensee maintains emergency

procedures for the areas in which fuel

is handled, the staff has concluded that

there is reasonable assurance that

irradiated and unirradiated fuel will

remain subcritical; furthermore, there is

reasonable assurance that, should an

inadvertent criticality occur, the

licensee will detect such a criticality

and workers will respond properly. The

combination of plant design features,

fuel handling procedures, the use of a

portable criticality monitor, radiological

emergency procedures and radiation

worker training constitute good cause

for granting an exemption to the

requirements of 10 CFR 70.24.

IV

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR

70.14, this exemption is authorized by

law, will not endanger life or property

or the common defense and security,

and is otherwise in the public interest.

Therefore, the Commission hereby

grants the following exemption:

The Power Authority of the State of New

York is exempt from the requirements of 10

CFR 70.24(a), 10 CFR 70.24(a)(1), and 10 CFR

70.24(a)(3) for Indian Point Nuclear

Generating Unit No. 3. This exemption is

contingent on the facility’s maintaining the

hardware, procedure, and training described

in Section III above.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will have no

significant impact on the quality of the

human environment (62 FR 14705).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 27th day of

March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Frank J. Miraglia, Jr.,

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–8545 Filed 4–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket 70–7001]

Notice of Amendment to Certificate of

Compliance GDP–1 for the U.S.

Enrichment Corporation, Paducah

Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah,

Kentucky

The Director, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, has

made a determination that the following

amendment request is not significant in

accordance with 10 CFR 76.45. In

making that determination the staff

concluded that (1) there is no change in

the types or significant increase in the

amounts of any effluents that may be

released offsite; (2) there is no

significant increase in individual or

cumulative occupational radiation

exposure; (3) there is no significant

construction impact; (4) there is no

significant increase in the potential for,

or radiological or chemical

consequences from, previously analyzed

accidents; (5) the proposed changes do

not result in the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident; (6) there is no

significant reduction in any margin of

safety; and (7) the proposed changes

will not result in an overall decrease in

the effectiveness of the plant’s safety,

safeguards or security programs. The

basis for this determination for the

amendment request is shown below.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

certificate amendment application and

concluded that it provides reasonable

assurance of adequate safety, safeguards,

and security, and compliance with NRC

requirements. Therefore, the Director,

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards, is prepared to issue an

amendment to the Certificate of

Compliance for the Paducah Gaseous

Diffusion Plant. The staff has prepared

a Compliance Evaluation Report which

provides details of the staff’s evaluation.

The NRC staff has determined that

this amendment satisfies the criteria for

a categorical exclusion in accordance

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental

impact statement or environmental

assessment need be prepared for this

amendment.

USEC or any person whose interest

may be affected may file a petition, not

exceeding 30 pages, requesting review

of the Director’s Decision. The petition

must be filed with the Commission not

later than 15 days after publication of

this Federal Register Notice. A petition

for review of the Director’s Decision

shall set forth with particularity the

interest of the petitioner and how that

interest may be affected by the results of

the decision. The petition should

specifically explain the reasons why

review of the Decision should be

permitted with particular reference to

the following factors: (1) The interest of

the petitioner; (2) how that interest may

be affected by the Decision, including

the reasons why the petitioner should

be permitted a review of the Decision;

and (3) the petitioner’s areas of concern

about the activity that is the subject

matter of the Decision. Any person

described in this paragraph (USEC or

any person who filed a petition) may

file a response to any petition for

review, not to exceed 30 pages, within

10 days after filing of the petition. If no

petition is received within the

designated 15-day period, the Director

will issue the final amendment to the

Certificate of Compliance without

further delay. If a petition for review is

received, the decision on the

amendment application will become

final in 60 days, unless the Commission

grants the petition for review or

otherwise acts within 60 days after

publication of this Federal Register

Notice.

A petition for review must be filed

with the Secretary of the Commission,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC, by

the above date.

For further details with respect to the

action see (1) the application for

amendment and (2) the Commission’s

Compliance Evaluation Report. These

items are available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW, Washington, DC, and at the

Local Public Document Room.

Date of amendment request: February

14, 1997, revised March 10, 1997.

Brief description of amendment: The

amendment revises the Technical Safety

Requirement for the design features for

the cranes in the feed facilities and

reflects the associated changes to the

Safety Analysis Report.

Basis for finding of no significance:

1. The proposed amendment will not

result in a change in the types or

significant increase in the amounts of

any effluents that may be released

offsite.

The proposed change to TSR 2.2.5.2

involves a change to the design features

of the hoist brakes for the feed facility

cranes. These changes have no impact

on plant effluents and will not result in

any impact to the environment.

2. The proposed amendment will not

result in a significant increase in

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure.
15944 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Notices

The proposed design change for the

brakes will not affect individual or

cumulative occupational radiation

exposure.

3. The proposed amendment will not

result in a significant construction

impact.

The proposed change will not result

in any construction, therefore, there will

be no construction impacts.

4. The proposed amendment will not

result in a significant increase in the

potential for, or radiological or chemical

consequences from, previously analyzed

accidents.

The proposed change involves a

change to the description of the safety

features on the feed facility cranes. The

changes are being made to reflect the

field configuration of the cranes. The

brake design in question complies with

the requirements of ANSI B30.2–1990

and will continue to perform its safety

function. As such, the potential of

occurrence of an evaluated event is

unaffected. The consequences of

previously evaluated accidents are not

increased.

5. The proposed amendment will not

result in the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident.

The proposed changes revise the

design feature for the brakes of the feed

facility cranes to match the field

configuration. The brakes meet ANSI

B30.2–1990 and will continue to meet

their safety feature. The change does not

create the possibility for a new or

different type of accident.

6. The proposed amendment will not

result in a significant reduction in any

margin of safety.

The brake designs for the cranes

comply with the requirements of ANSI

B30.2–1990. The TSR change is

necessary to reflect the field

configuration of the brakes. The

accident analysis is not affected by this

change. The proposed changes cause no

reductions in the margins of safety.

7. The proposed amendment will not

result in an overall decrease in the

effectiveness of the plant’s safety,

safeguards or security programs.

The proposed TSR change is being

made to reflect the field configuration of

the brakes for the feed facility cranes.

The effectiveness of the safety,

safeguards, and security programs is not

decreased.

Effective date: Upon issuance of

amendment.

Certificate of Compliance No. GDP–1:

Amendment will revise a Technical

Safety Requirement on crane design and

incorporate Safety Analysis Report

changes.

Local Public Document Room

location: Paducah Public Library, 555

Washington Street, Paducah, Kentucky

42003.

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 27th day of

March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Carl J. Paperiello, Director,

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–8546 Filed 4–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Agency Forms Submitted for OMB

Review

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad

Retirement Board has submitted the

following proposal(s) for the collection

of information to the Office of

Management and Budget for review and

approval.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL(S):

(1) Collection title: Application and

Claim for Unemployment Benefits and

Employment Service.

(2) Form(s) submitted: UI–1, UI–3.

(3) OMB Number: 3220–0022.

(4) Expiration date of current OMB

clearance: 4/30/98.

(5) Type of request: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

(6) Respondents: Individuals or

households.

(7) Estimated annual number of

respondents: 294,000.

(8) Total annual responses: 294,000.

(9) Total annual reporting hours:

31,333.

(10) Collection description: Under

Section 2 of the Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Act,

unemployment benefits are provided for

qualified railroad employees. The

collection obtains the information

needed for determining the eligibility to

and amount of such benefits from

railroad employees.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS:

Copies of the form and supporting

documents can be obtained from Chuck

Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer

(312–751–3363). Comments regarding

the information collection should be

addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad

Retirement Board, 844 North Rush

Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611–2092 and

the OMB reviewer, Laura Oliven (202–

395–7316), Office of Management and

Budget, Room 10230, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Chuck Mierzwa,

Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–8524 Filed 4–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7905–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available

From: Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of Filings and

Information Services, Washington, DC

20549

Extension:

Rule 17a–8, SEC File No. 270–225, OMB

Control No. 3235–0235

Form N–8F, SEC File No. 270–136, OMB

Control No. 3235–0157

Form N–23C–1, SEC File No. 270–230,

OMB Control No. 3235–0230

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

previously approved collections of

information:

Rule 17a–8 exempts certain mergers

and similar business combinations

(‘‘mergers’’) of affiliated registered

investment companies (‘‘funds’’) from

section 17(a)’s prohibitions on

purchases and sales between a fund and

its affiliates. The rule requires fund

directors to consider certain issues and

to record their findings in board

minutes. The average annual burden of

meeting the requirements of Rule 17a–

8 is estimated to be 1.5 hours for each

fund. The Commission estimates that

about seventeen funds rely each year on

the rule. The total average annual

burden for all respondents is therefore

twenty-six hours.

Form N–8F is the form prescribed for

use by registered investment companies

in certain circumstances to request

orders of the Commission declaring that

they have ceased to be investment

companies. The form takes

approximately 6 hours to complete. It is

estimated that approximately 160

investment companies file Form N–8F

annually, for a total annual burden of

960 hours.

Form N–23C–1 assists the

Commission and the public in

monitoring repurchases by closed-end

investment companies (‘‘closed-end

funds’’) of their own securities under

Rule 23c–1, which permits such

repurchases in limited circumstances

subject to certain safeguards. The form,

which must be filed within the first 10

days of the calendar month following

any month in which securities are

repurchased, requires the closed-end

fund to report certain information

including the date, amount, and price of

repurchases and other information. It is