25886 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

physical systems or processes,

preferably by use of geometrically safe

configurations. This is met at Surry

Units 1 and 2, as identified in the TS.

Surry TS Section 5.4, Fuel Storage,

states that the new fuel assemblies are

stored vertically in an array with a

distance of 21 inches between

assemblies to assure that the effective

neutron multiplication factor, Keff, will

remain ≤ 0.95 if fully flooded with

unborated water, and to assure Keff ≤

0.98 under conditions of low-density

optimum moderation. The spent fuel

assemblies are stored vertically in an

array with a distance of 14 inches

between assemblies to assure Keff ≤ 0.95

if fully flooded with unborated water.

The proposed exemption would not

result in any significant radiological

impacts. The proposed exemption

would not affect radiological plant

effluents nor cause any significant

occupational exposures since the TS,

design controls, including geometric

spacing of fuel assembly storage spaces,

and administrative controls preclude

inadvertent criticality. The amount of

radioactive waste would not be changed

by the proposed exemption.

The proposed exemption does not

result in any significant nonradiological

environmental impacts. The proposed

exemption involves features located

entirely within the restricted area as

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. 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

that 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 exemption,

the staff considered denial of the

requested exemption. Denial of the

request 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 Surry Power Station.’’

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy

the NRC staff consulted with Mr.

Foldesi of the Virginia Department of

Health on April 22, 1998, 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 letter

dated January 14, 1998, which is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

which is located at The Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at the Swem

Library, College of William and Mary,

Williamsburg, Virginia.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day

of May 1998.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Pao-Tsin Kuo,

Acting Director, Project Directorate II–1,

Division of Reactor Projects I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–12393 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

DATE: Wednesday, May 13, 1998.

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Wednesday, May 13

10:30 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting)

a. Final Rule: Amendments to 10 CFR

Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72-SelfGuarantee of Decommissioning

Funding by Non-Profit and NonBond Issuing Licensee.

b. Final Rule: Revision of 10 CFR

32.14 (D) to Place Timepieces

Containing Gaseous Tritium Light

Sources on the Same Regulatory

Basis as Timepieces Containing

Tritium Paint (Contact: Ken Hart,

301–415–1659).

* The schedule for Commission

meetings is subject to change on short

notice. To verify the status of meetings

call (recording)—(301) 415–1292.

Contact person for more information:

Bill Hill (301) 415–1661.

This notice is distributed by mail to

several hundred subscribers; if you no

longer wish to receive it, or would like

to be added to it, please contact the

Office of the Secretary, Attn: Operations

Branch, Washington, D.C. 20555 (301–

415–1963).

In addition, distribution of this

meeting notice over the internet system

is available. If you are interested in

receiving this Commission meeting

schedule electronically, please send an

electronic message to wmh@nrc.gov or

dkw@nrc.gov.

Dated: May 6, 1998.

William M. Hill, Jr.,

Secretary, Tracking Officer, Office of the

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–12528 Filed 5–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–335, 50–389, 50–250, 50–

251 License Nos. DPR–67, NPF–16, DPR–

31, DPR–41]

Florida Power and Light; Receipt of

Petition for Director’s Decision Under

10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that by

Petitions dated February 26 and 27,

March 6, 15, 17, 29, and 30, and April

4, 1998, Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. and

National Litigation Consultants

(Petitioners) have requested that the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) take action with regard to Florida

Power and Light’s (FPL’s) St. Lucie

Plant, Units 1 and 2, and Turkey Point

Plant, Units 3 and 4.

Petitioners request that the NRC take

numerous actions, including certain

immediate actions, with regard to the

FPL St. Lucie and Turkey Point

facilities. These actions include that the

NRC: (1) Take escalated enforcement

action, including modifying,

suspending, or revoking FPL’s operating

licenses until it demonstrates that there

is a work environment which

encourages employees to raise safety

concerns directly to the NRC, and the

issuance of civil penalties for violations

of the NRC’s requirements; (2) permit

Petitioners to intervene in a public

hearing regarding whether FPL has

violated the NRC’s employee protection

regulations and require FPL to allow the

National Litigation Consultants to assist

its employees in understanding and

exercising their rights under these

regulations; (3) conduct investigations
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 25887

and require FPL to obtain appraisals and

third-party oversight in order to

determine whether its work

environment encourages employees to

freely raise nuclear safety concerns; (4)

inform all employees of their rights

under the Energy Reorganization Act

and NRC’s regulations to raise such

concerns; and (5) establish a website on

the Internet to allow employees to raise

concerns to the NRC. As grounds for

these requests, Petitioners assert that

there is a widespread hostile work

environment at FPL’s facilities and that

certain employees have been subjected

to discrimination for raising nuclear

safety concerns, and that the NRC’s

process for handling allegations and

responding to concerns of

discrimination has been ineffective. In

addition, the Petition requests that the

NRC immediately investigate concerns

that contamination occurred and

remains uncorrected because of the flow

of water from a radioactive

contaminated area at St. Lucie into an

unlined pond, that FPL is improperly

grouping work orders, thereby reducing

the number of work open orders, that an

excessive amount of contract labor

remains onsite, and that, because NRC

inspectors are only assigned to the day

shift, many employees do not have

access to the NRC onsite and inspectors

cannot monitor safety-related work

functions outside the day shift. As

grounds for these requests, Petitioners

assert that the storm drains from FPL’s

radioactive contaminated area flow into

the pond and that FPL is aware of the

problem but has failed to identify or

correct this and directs its Health

Physics personnel to survey the pond by

sampling only surface water.

The requests are being treated

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the

Commission’s regulations. The requests

have been referred to the Director of the

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

The Petitioners’ requests for immediate

action were denied by letter dated May

4, 1998. Copies of the Petitions are

available for inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room

at 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC

20555.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day

of May 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

[FR Doc. 98–12394 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Requests Under Review by Office of

Management and Budget

Upon written request, copies available from:

Securities and Exchange Commission,

Office of Filings and Information

Services, Washington, DC 20549.

Extension: Rule 15a–6

SEC File No. 270–329

OMB Control No. 3235–0371

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 a

request for extension of the previously

approved collection of information

discussed below.

Rule 15a–6 [17 C.F.R. 240.15a–6]

under the Securities Exchange Act of

1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (‘‘Exchange

Act’’), which provides, among other

things, an exemption from broker-dealer

registration for foreign broker-dealers

that effect trades with or for U.S.

institutional investors through a U.S.

registered broker-dealer, provided that

the U.S. broker-dealer obtains certain

information about, and consents to

service of process from, the personnel of

the foreign broker-dealer involved in

such transactions, and maintains certain

records in connection therewith.

These requirements are intended to

ensure (a) that the U.S. broker-dealer

will receive notice of the identity of,

and has reviewed the background of,

foreign personnel who will contact U.S.

institutional investors, (b) that the

foreign broker-dealer and its personnel

effectively may be served with process

in the event enforcement action is

necessary, and (c) that the Securities

and Exchange Commission has ready

access to information concerning these

persons and their U.S. securities

activities.

In general, the records to be

maintained under Rule 15a–6 must be

kept for the applicable time periods as

set forth in Rule 17a–4 [17 C.F.R.

240.17a–4] under the Exchange Act or,

with respect to the consents to service

of process, for a period of not less than

six years after the applicable person

ceases engaging in U.S. securities

activities. Reliance on the exemption set

forth in Rule 15a–6 is voluntary, but if

a foreign broker-dealer elects to rely

such exemption, the collection of

information described therein is

mandatory. The collection does not

involve confidential information. Please

note that 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.

It is estimated that approximately

2,000 respondents will incur an average

burden of three hours per year to

comply with this rule, for a total burden

of 6,000 hours. The average cost per

hour is approximately $100. Therefore,

the total cost of compliance for the

respondents is $600,000.

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

estimated average burden hours for

compliance with Commission rules and

forms should be directed to: (i) Michael

E. Bartell, Associate Executive Director,

Office of Information Technology,

Securities and Exchange Commission,

450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20549; and (ii) 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, D.C.

20503. Comments must be submitted

within 30 days of this notice.

Dated: April 30, 1998.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–12348 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Rel. No. IC–23169; 812–10746]

CypressTree Asset Management

Corporation, Inc. and North American

Funds; Notice of Application

May 4, 1998.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘SEC’’).

ACTION: Notice of application for

exemption under section 6(c) of the

Investment Company Act of 1940 (the

‘‘Act’’) from section 15(a) of the Act and

rule 18f–2 under the Act as well as

certain disclosure requirements.

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicants,

CypressTree Asset Management

Corporation, Inc. (‘‘CAM’’) and North

American Funds (the ‘‘Fund’’), request

an order that would (a) permit

applicants to hire subadvisers

(‘‘Managers’’) and materially amend

sub-advisory agreements (‘‘Portfolio

Management Agreements’’) without

shareholder approval and (b) grant relief

from certain disclosure requirements.