20224 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Notices

and the Technical Specifications (TS)

appended to Facility Operating License

No. DPR–50 for the TMI–1 plant.

Specifically, the proposed action would

amend the license to reflect the change

in the legal name of the operator from

GPU Nuclear Corporation to GPU

Nuclear, Inc. and to reflect the

registered trade name of GPU Energy

under which the owners of TMI–1 are

now conducting business. In addition,

the TMI–1 TSs would be revised to

reflect the new legal name of the

operator of TMI–1.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendment dated December 16, 1996,

as supplemented September 11, 1997

and March 25, 1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed actions are necessary

because on or about August 1, 1996, the

owners of TMI–1 registered to do

business under the trade name of GPU

Energy. Also on or about August 1,

1996, the legal name of the operator of

TMI–1 was changed from GPU Nuclear

Corporation to GPU Nuclear, Inc.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action. As

stated by the licensee,

The corporate existence of all three Owners

and the operator of TMI–1 continues

uninterrupted, and all legal characteristics

remain the same. The name changes do not

alter the state of incorporation, registered

agent, registered office, directors, officers,

rights or liabilities of the Owners of TMI–1

or the operator of TMI–1. Similarly, the name

changes do not alter the function of either the

Owners or the operator of TMI–1, or the way

they do business. The Owner’s financial

responsibility for TMI–1 and their sources of

funds to support the facility remain the same.

These name changes do not impact the

existing ownership of TMI–1 and do not alter

any of the existing licensing conditions

applicable to TMI–1. There is no change to

GPU Nuclear, Inc.’s ability to comply with

these licensing conditions or with any other

obligation or responsibility under the license.

Specifically, the Owners of TMI–1 remain

regulated electric utilities. The funds accrued

by the Owners continue to be available to

fulfill all obligations related to TMI–1 as they

were before the name changes.

There will be no impact on the safe

operation of TMI–1 as a result of the name

changes. Access to funds necessary to safely

operate TMI–1 to the end of the license is

unaffected. Access to decommissioning trust

funds to ensure that TMI–1 can be

decommissioned in accordance with NRC

regulations remains as it was prior to the

name changes.

In light of the foregoing, the

Commission concludes that the change

will not increase the probability or

consequences of accidents, no changes

are being made in the types of any

effluents that may be released offsite,

and there will be no significant increase

in the allowable individual or

cumulative occupational radiation

exposure. Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

radiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action is administrative in nature and

does not involve any physical features

of the plant. Thus, 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

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 action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. Denial of

the application 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 any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the TMI–1 plant.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on March 16, 1998, the staff consulted

with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr.

Stan J. Maingi, of the Bureau of

Radiation Protection, Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental

Resources, regarding the environmental

impact of the proposed action. The State

Official had no comments.

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 action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s

submittals dated December 16, 1996,

September 11, 1997 and March 25,

1998, which 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

located at the LAW/Government

Publications Section, State Library of

Pennsylvania, (Regional Dispository)

Walnut Street and Commonwealth

Avenue, P.O. Box 1601, Harrisburg, PA

17105.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day

of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Cecil O. Thomas,

Director, Project Directorate I–3, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–10845 Filed 4–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Consolidated Guidance About

Materials Licenses: Program-Specific

Guidance, Irradiator Licenses;

Availability of Draft NUREG

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability and

request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission is announcing the

availability of and requesting comment

on draft NUREG–1556, Volume 6,

‘‘Consolidated Guidance about Materials

Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance

about 10 CFR Part 36 Irradiator

Licenses,’’ dated March 1998.

NRC is using Business Process

Redesign (BPR) techniques to redesign

its materials licensing process, as

described in NUREG–1539,

‘‘Methodology and Findings of the

NRC’s Materials Licensing Process

Redesign.’’ A critical element of the new

process is consolidating and updating

numerous guidance documents into a

NUREG-series of reports. This draft

NUREG report is the sixth programspecific guidance developed to support

an improved materials licensing

process.

It is intended for use by applicants,

licensees, NRC license reviewers, and

other NRC personnel. It combines and

updates the guidance for applicants and

licensees previously found in Draft

Regulatory Guide DG–0003, ‘‘Guide for

the Preparation of Applications for

Licenses for Non-Self-Contained

Irradiators,’’ dated January 1994, and

the guidance for licensing staff

previously found in NMSS Policy and

Guidance Directive, FC 84–23,

‘‘Standard Review Plan for Licenses for
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Notices 20225

the Use of Panoramic Dry SourceStorage Irradiators, Self-Contained Wet

Source-Storage, and Panoramic Wet

Source-Storage Irradiators,’’ dated

December 27, 1984. In addition, this

draft report also contains pertinent

information found in Technical

Assistance Requests and Information

Notices.

This draft report is for public

comment only, and is NOT for use in

preparing or reviewing applications for

10 CFR Part 36 irradiators until it is

published in final form. It is being

distributed for comment to encourage

public participation in its development.

DATES: The comment period ends July

22, 1998. Comments received after that

time will be considered if practicable.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch,

Division of Administrative Services,

Office of Administration, U. S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001. Hand deliver

comments to 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland, between 7:15 a.m.

and 4:30 p.m. on Federal workdays.

Comments may also be submitted

through the Internet by addressing

electronic mail to DLM1@NRC.GOV.

Those considering public comment

may request a free single copy of draft

NUREG–1556, Volume 6, by writing to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, ATTN: Mrs. Sally L.

Merchant, Mail Stop TWFN 8F5,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

Alternatively, submit requests through

the Internet by addressing electronic

mail to SLM2@NRC.GOV. A copy of

draft NUREG–1556, Volume 6, is also

available for inspection and/or copying

for a fee in the NRC Public Document

Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower

Level), Washington, DC 20555–0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs.

Sally L. Merchant, Mail Stop TWFN 8–

F5, Division of Industrial and Medical

Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear

Materials Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301)

415–7874; electronic mail address:

SLM2@NRC.GOV.

Electronic Access

Draft NUREG–1556, Vol. 6 is also

available electronically by visiting

NRC’s Home Page (http://www.nrc.gov/

NRC/nucmat.html).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day

of April, 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Donald A. Cool,

Director, Division of Industrial and Medical

Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 98–10846 Filed 4–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–39878; File No. SR–Amex–

98–18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness

of Proposed Rule Change by the

American Stock Exchange, Inc.,

Relating to the Elimination of Fixed

Percentage Tests for Trading Halts in

Index Options

April 16, 1998.

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1), notice is

hereby given that on April 10, 1998, the

American Stock Exchange, Incorporated

(the ‘‘Amex’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed

with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the

proposed rule change as described in

Items I and II below, which Items have

been prepared by the Exchange. 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 Amex proposes to amend

Exchange Rule 918C to eliminate certain

fixed percentage tests that presently

apply to the decision to halt trading in

index options as well as the decision to

resume trading after such a halt. The

text of the proposed rule change is

available at the Office of the Secretary,

Amex 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

Amex 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 Amex 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 the

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

1. Purpose

The Exchange seeks to amend

Exchange Rule 918C, ‘‘Trading Halts or

Suspensions,’’ to eliminate certain fixed

percentage tests that presently apply to

the decision to halt trading in index

options as well as the decision to

resume trading after such a halt.

a. Trading halts. Currently, under

Exchange Rule 918C, one of the

enumerated factors that the designated

Exchange officials may consider in

deciding whether to halt trading in an

index option is whether trading has

been halted or suspended in underlying

stocks whose weighted value represents

‘‘20% or more of the current index

group value.’’ The Exchange is

concerned that by including a fixed

percentage test among those factors that

‘‘may be considered,’’ the present rule

may imply that it would be improper for

the designated Exchange officials to

consider trading interruptions in

underlying stocks whose weighted value

represents less than 20% of the index

value.

The Exchange believes such an

interpretation would conflict with the

purpose of Exchange Rule 918C, which

grants designated Exchange officials the

discretion to halt index option trading

whenever they ‘‘deem such action

appropriate in the interest of a fair and

orderly market or to protect investors.’’

Because Exchange Rule 918C(b) sets

forth a non-exclusive list of factors that

Exchange officials may consider in

exercising that discretion, the Exchange

contends it would be inappropriate to

prohibit those officials from considering

trading disruptions in underlying stocks

that fall below a predetermined level.

Accordingly, the proposed rule change

would clarify that Exchange officials, in

evaluating whether to halt trading in

index options, are not limited to

situations in which 20% of the

underlying stocks have halted, but

rather may consider ‘‘the extent to

which’’ trading is not occurring in the

underlying stocks.

In addition, the proposed rule change

would provide Exchange officials with

the flexibility to consider not only

whether trading in underlying stocks

has been ‘‘halted or suspended,’’ but

also whether such trading is ‘‘not

occurring.’’ The term ‘‘halted or

suspended’’ indicates that Exchange

authorities have taken formal action to

discontinue trading in a stock. However,

in deciding whether to continue trading

a derivative instrument like an index