Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Notices 27607

licensee calculated the thyroid and

whole body doses at the EAB as 13 rem

and 0.55 rem, respectively.

The LPZ doses, which were reported

for the first time by the licensee, were

calculated as 5 rem thyroid and 0.15

whole body. The second case, which

was evaluated, assumed primary coolant

was at the maximum instantaneous

technical specification value of dose

equivalent 131 I of 60μCi/g. The results

of this case were presented for the first

time. The licensee calculated the doses

at the EAB as 22 rem thyroid and 0.66

rem whole body. The LPZ doses were

calculated as 6 rem thyroid and 0.18

rem whole body.

Even though there is some increase in

dose for the Seized Rotor Event, the

actual total dose is a fraction of the

limits of 10 CFR part 100, as noted

above, and there is a low probability of

these accidents. This change does not

significantly affect the risk of any

dominant accident scenario, and the

effect on overall risk of an accident at

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant is

insignificant. 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 is 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.

The staff has performed confirmatory

calculations of the consequences of an

MSLB, SGTR and Seized Rotor Events.

The staff has confirmed that the

consequences of these accidents will

result in offsite doses which are a small

fraction of the 10 CFR part 100 dose

guidelines. In addition, the staff has

determined that the proposed action

will not result in an increase in normal

radiological effluents from the Calvert

Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant such that 10

CFR part 20 and Appendix I to 10 CFR

part 50 will continue to be met.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does involve 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

The principal alternative to approving

the license amendment request needed

to allow plugging up to 2500 tubes per

steam generator would be to deny the

request and retain the current coolant

flow limitations. However, this

alternative could reduce operational

flexibility as it may prevent a Unit 1

start-up following the upcoming

refueling outage, if the steam generator

tube inspections necessitate plugging

greater than 800 tubes in either of the

unit’s two steam generators.

Furthermore, denial of the amendment

would not significantly enhance the

protection of the environment as the

impacts of this alternative and the

proposed 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 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear

Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 dated

April 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on May 5, 1998, the staff consulted with

the Maryland State official, Richard I.

McLean of the Maryland Department of

Natural 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 letter

dated January 31, 1997, as

supplemented by letters dated February

13, February 28, March 25, April 16,

August 16, and September 29, 1997, and

January 22, March 17, April 8, and April

21, 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 Calvert County Library,

Prince Frederick, Maryland 20678.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day

of May 1998.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

S. Singh Bajwa,

Director, Project Directorate I–1, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–13188 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Year 2000 Readiness of Computer

Systems at Nuclear Power Plants;

Issue

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Issuance.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has issued Generic

Letter (GL) 98–01 to all holders of

operating licenses for nuclear power

plants, except those who have

permanently ceased operations and

have certified that fuel has been

permanently removed from the reactor

vessel, to require the submittal of

written responses that will give the NRC

the necessary assurance that addressees

are effectively addressing the year 2000

(Y2K) problem in computer systems at

their respective facilities. Simply stated,

the Y2K problem pertains to the

potential for a system or an application

to experience date-related problems,

such as misreading ‘‘00’’ as the year

1900 rather than 2000. This generic

letter requires the following information

from addressees, under the provisions of

Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR

50.54(f): (1) Written confirmation that

each addressee is implementing an

effective plan to address the Y2K

problem and provide for safe operation

of their respective facilities prior to

January 1, 2000, and (2) written

certification that the facilities are Y2K

ready with regard to compliance with

the terms and conditions of the facility

licenses and NRC regulations.

The generic letter is a ‘‘rule’’ for

purposes of the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5

U.S.C., Chapter 8). The staff has

received confirmation from the Office of

Management and Budget that the

generic letter is a non-major rule.

The generic letter is available in the

NRC Public Document Room under

accession number 9805050192.

DATES: The generic letter was issued on

May 11, 1998.

ADDRESSEES: Not applicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew Chiramal, at (301) 415–2845.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

generic letter only requires information

from addressees under the provisions of

Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR

50.54(f). The generic letter does not

constitute a backfit as defined in 10 CFR

50.109(a)(1) since it does not impose

modifications of or additions to
27608 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Notices

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

2NYSE Rule 344 states that ‘‘Supervisory

Analysts * * * shall be acceptable to, and

approved by, the Exchange.’’ NYSE Rule 344,

Supplementary Material .10 sets forth qualifications

to be considered by the Exchange.

3See NYSE Rule 344, Supplementary Material

.10.

structures, systems or components or to

design or operation of an addressee’s

facility. It also does not impose an

interpretation of the Commission’s rules

that is either new or different from a

previous staff position. The staff,

therefore, has not performed a backfit

analysis.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day

of May 1998.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David B. Matthews,

Acting Director, Division of Reactor Program

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–13190 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–39985; File No. SR–NASD–

98–28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by

the National Association of Securities

Dealers, Inc. Relating to Approval of

Research Reports

May 12, 1998.

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

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

April 27, 1998, the NASD Regulation,

Inc. (‘‘NASD Regulation’’) filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule

change as described in Items I, II, and

III below, which Items have been

prepared by NASD Regulation. 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

NASD Regulation is proposing to

amend Rule 2210, ‘‘Communications

with the Public,’’ of the Conduct Rules

of the National Association of Securities

Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’ or

‘‘Association’’), to permit the approval

of research reports by a supervisory

analyst acceptable to the New York

Stock Exchange (‘‘NYSE;’’) under NYSE

Rule 344, ‘‘Supervisory Analysts,’’ 2 to

satisfy NASD requirements that research

reports be approved by a registered

principal. Below is the text of the

proposed rule change. Proposed new

language is in italics.

2200. Communications with Customers

and the Public

2210. Communications with the Public

* * * * *

(b) Approval and Recordkeeping.

(1) Each item of advertising and sales

literature shall be approved by signature

or initial, prior to use or filing with the

Association, by a registered principal of

the member. This requirement may be

met, only with respect to corporate debt

and equity securities that are the subject

of research reports as that term is

defined in Rule 472 of the New York

Stock Exchange, by the signature or

initial of a supervisory analyst approved

pursuant to Rule 344 of the New York

Stock Exchange.

* * * * *

II. Self-Regulatory Organizations’

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission,

NASD Regulation 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.

NASD Regulation 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, the Proposed Rule

Change

1. Purpose

a. Background. Subparagraph (b)(1) to

NASD Rule 2210 regarding

Communications with the Public

requires each item of advertising and

sales literature to be approved by

signature or initial of a registered

principal of an NASD member prior to

use or filing with NASD Regulation. The

definition of ‘‘sales literature’’ in

subparagraph (a)(2) to NASD Rule 2210

includes research reports.

Paragraph (b) to NYSE Rule 472,

‘‘Communications with the Public,’’

requires that research reports be

prepared or approved by a supervisory

analyst acceptable to the NYSE under

NYSE Rule 334. NYSE Rule 472,

Supplementary Material .10 defines

‘‘research reports’’ as ‘‘* * * an analysis

of individual companies, industries,

market conditions, securities or other

investment vehicles which provide

information reasonably sufficient upon

which to base an investment decision.’’

In order to become a supervisory analyst

under NYSE Rule 344, an applicant may

present evidence of appropriate

experience and either (i) pass an NYSE

Supervisory Analysts Examination, or

(ii) successfully complete a specified

level of the Chartered Financial

Analysts Examination prescribed by the

NYSE and pass only that portion of the

NYSE Supervisory Analysts

Examination dealing with Exchange

rules on research standards and related

matters.3

A joint NASD/NYSE member raised

the issue of whether the approval of

research reports by a supervisory

analyst approved by the NYSE under

NYSE Rule 344 could satisfy the NASD

requirement that each item of

advertising and sales literature be

approved by signature or initial of a

registered principal prior to use or filing

with NASD Regulation.

b. Discussion. The NYSE designation

of ‘‘supervisory analyst’’ does not

constitute a registration category for

NASD principals. The NASD Regulation

staff reviewed the content outline for

the supervisory analyst examination.

The particular categories of securities

addressed in the ‘‘securities analysis’’

section of the outline are fixed income

securities and equity securities. The

NASD Regulation staff concluded that

the coverage in the supervisory analysts

examination of the NYSE

communication rules is comparable to

the communication materials covered in

the NASD principal examination. Thus,

NASD Regulation believes that with

respect to the level of training and

experience necessary for the review of

research reports on debt and equity, the

level of supervisory analyst registration

is comparable to the level of NASD

principal registration.

Given that the scope of approval

authority is limited to research reports

and that the material in the NYSE

supervisory analyst examination and the

NASD principal examination is

comparable in this area, the NASD

Regulation staff concluded that the

investor protection goals intended by

the NASD’s current principal review

requirement rule could be satisfied by

NYSE requirements in this area.

The proposed rule change amends

subparagraph (b)(1) to NASD Rule 2210

to state that the requirement that

advertising and sales literature be

approved by a registered principal of an

NASD member firm may be met, with

respect to corporate debt and equity

securities that are the subject of research