34946 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no significant environmental

impact associated with the proposed

amendments, any alternatives with

equal or greater environmental impact

need not be evaluated. The principal

alternative to this action would be to

deny the request for the amendment.

Such action would not reduce the

environmental impacts of plant

operations.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action did not involve the use of

any resources not previously considered

in the Final Environmental Statement

related to the operation of the BFN

Units 1, 2 and 3 Electric Generating

Plants.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on June 18, 1998, the staff consulted

with the State official, Mr. David Walter,

of the Department of Environment and

Natural Resources, Division of Radiation

Protection. 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 amendment.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendments dated September 6, 1996

as supplemented June 6, and December

11, 1996; April 11, May 1, August 14,

October 15, November 5 and 14,

December 3, 4, 15, 22, 23, 29, and 30,

1997; January 23, March 12 and 13,

April 16, 20, and 28, May 7, 14, 19 and

27, and June 5 and 10, 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

Athens Public Library, 405 E. South

Street, Athens, Alabama.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frederick J. Hebdon,

Director, Project Directorate II–3, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–17097 Filed 6–25–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

The Role of Industry Stakeholder

Meeting

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The objective of the meeting

is to obtain stakeholder insights into

potential approaches or options the NRC

could implement to more efficiently and

effectively utilize consensus standards,

industry initiatives that would be

substitutes for regulatory action, and

improvements to the regulatory

framework. Plenary and breakout

sessions will be held. Concurrent

breakout sessions will provide a forum

for discussion and feedback on (1)

Consensus Codes and Standards

Development and Endorsement/Use, (2)

Industry Initiatives as Substitutes for

Regulatory Action, and (3)

Improvements to the Regulatory

Framework.

DATES: Pre-registration will be August

31, 1998. The stakeholder meeting will

be held on September 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The stakeholder meeting

will be held at the Hyatt Regency

O’Hare Hotel, 9300 West Bryn Mawr

Avenue, Rosemont, Illinois, 60018.

Telephone: (847) 696–1234, Facsimile:

(847) 698–1039. (Refer to NRC Meeting

for special conference rate.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information contact: Thomas

N. Cerovski, USNRC, Telephone: (301)

415–8099; FAX: (301) 415–5151;

Internet: tnc@nrc.gov.

Participation

This conference is open to the general

public; however, advance registration by

August 1, 1998 is recommended. To

register, contact: Thomas N. Cerovski,

USNRC, Telephone: (301) 415–8099;

Facsimile: (301) 415–5151; Internet:

tnc@nrc.gov.

Program

Following is the preliminary program

for the meeting:

August 31, 1998

Pre-Registration 5:00 p.m.–8:00 p.m.

September 1, 1998

Registration—7:00 a.m.–8:00 am.

Plenary Session—Opening and

Welcome—8:00 a.m.–9:00 a.m.

Morning Breakout Sessions (I, II, and

III)—9:00 a.m.–11:30 a.m.

Lunch—11:30 a.m.–1:00 p.m.

Afternoon Breakout Sessions (I, II, and

III)—1:00 p.m.–4:00 p.m.

Plenary Session—Closing and

Summary—4:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m.

* * * * *

The agenda for each breakout session

is as follows:

Breakout Session I: Codes and

Standards Development and

Endorsement/Use

Open discussion is invited on the

following topics:

(1) Actions the NRC is taking to

implement PL 104–113, ‘‘National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995,’’ March 7, 1996, (2) Options

for NRC participation in the

development of consensus codes and

standards organizations,

(3) Whether the NRC should make

greater use of available codes and

standards in its regulations and

regulatory guides,

(4) Options for endorsement/use of

codes and standards, including

potential changes regarding

requirements for licensees to upgrade

every 120-months to the latest ASME

Code edition and addenda incorporated

by reference in § 50.55a,

(5) Options for a process to interact

with standards development

organizations to discuss potential needs

for new codes, standards, and guides

and recommendations for areas of

emphasis,

(6) Impediments to the adoption of

updated codes and standards.

Breakout Session II: Industry Initiatives

as Substitutes for Regulatory Action

Open discussion is invited on the

proposed NRC review process of

industry initiatives as substitutes for

regulatory action:

A. Proposed process to be used by the

NRC for review of industry initiatives:

(1) Industry submittal: defines

parameters of issue, schedule, resources,

end products,

(2) Acceptance review by NRC:

resources, public access, fees,

monitoring activities, enforcement

policy,

(3) Detailed technical review by NRC:

maintenance of desired level of safety

and boundary conditions relative to

agency policy.

B. Discussion of the process:

(1) Process will be used to determine

whether an industry initiative can be

relied on as an adequate and effective

substitute for NRC regulatory activities:

a. Is the process workable from a

conceptual perspective?

b. Should it be refined or more clearly

defined?

(2) Are there similar processes which

have been developed by public agencies

or the governments of other countries

from which the NRC could learn?
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices 34947

(3) How should NRC assure that

public access is maintained in the

following areas: a. In the agency’s review of the

industry initiatives? b. To information related to the bases

for the agency’s acceptance of the

initiative?

Breakout Session III: Improvements to

Regulatory Framework

Open discussion is invited on the

following topics:

A. Reactor event reporting

requirements. 10 CFR § 50.72,

‘‘Immediate notification requirements

for operating nuclear power reactors,’’

and 10 CFR § 50.73, ‘‘Licensee event

report system’’ are currently the subject

of a rulemaking effort to: (a) update the

current rules, including reducing the

reporting burden associated with events

of little or no safety significance, and (b)

better align the rules with the NRC’s

current needs, including (i) obtaining

information better related to risk and (ii)

reconsidering the required reporting

times in relation to the need for prompt

NRC action.

(1) Other reporting requirements

applicable to nuclear power plants. Are

there additional areas (outside of § 50.72

and § 50.73) where event reporting

requirements can be risk-informed and/

or simplified? (2) What changes should be made in

those areas? For example, the time limit

for reporting could be adjusted based on

the safety significance of the event and

the need for NRC’s immediate action.

The burden associated with reporting

events or conditions with little or no

safety or risk significance should be

minimized.

(3) What would be the change in

reporting burden associated with such

changes? B. Development of a systematic

process and identification of candidate

issues for improving the effectiveness

and efficiency of rules, standards,

regulatory guidance, and their

application. (1) NRC Process Development. The

staff will discuss and seek comments

from stakeholders on the staff process of

(i) candidate issue identification

utilizing a variety of readily available

sources and databases; (ii) the analysis

of the candidate issue for generic

applicability, risk, effectiveness and

efficiency; (iii) issue prioritization and

disposal, and (iiii) the initiative to

achieve more performance-based

regulation. (2) Candidate Issue Proposals. The

staff welcomes the proposal of

candidate issues for improving rules,

standards, regulatory guidance, and

their application. This will include

consideration of issues that may

improve safety, as well as issues that

may reduce regulatory impact.

Candidate issues will be most seriously

addressed if they are provided with a

discussion of (i) resource impact on the

industry and the NRC, (ii) a quantitative

or qualitative assessment of their impact

on risk, and (iii) options of ways to

address the issue.

Dated in Rockville, Maryland this 23rd day

of June, 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frank C. Cherny,

Acting Chief, Generic Safety Issues Branch,

Division of Regulatory Applications, Office

of Nuclear Regulatory Research.

[FR Doc. 98–17094 Filed 6–25–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No.

23263; 812–10804]

The Lipper Funds, Inc.; Notice of

Application

June 22, 1998.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘SEC’’).

ACTION: Notice of application for an

order under section 6(c) of the

Investment Company Act of 1940

(‘‘Act’’).

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicants

request an exemption from section

15(f)(1)(A) of the Act to permit a former

director (Mr. Biderman) of the Company

to rejoin the Company’s board of

directors.

APPLICANTS: The Lipper Funds, Inc. and

Prime Lipper Asset Management.

FILING DATES: The application was filed

on October 1, 1997, and amended on

June 2, 1998. Applicants have agreed to

file an additional amendment, the

substance of which is incorporated in

this notice, during the notice period.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An

order granting the application will be

issued unless the SEC orders a hearing.

Interested persons may request a

hearing by writing to the SEC’s

Secretary and serving applicants with a

copy of the request, personally or by

mail. Hearing requests should be

received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on July

17, 1998 and should be accompanied by

proof of service on applicants, in the

form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a

certificate of service. Hearing requests

should state the nature of the writer’s

interest, the reason for the request, and

the issues contested. Persons may

request notification of a hearing by

writing to the SEC’s Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, SEC, 450 Fifth

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549.

Applicants: The Lipper Funds, Inc. and

Prime Lipper Asset Management, 101

Park Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10178.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary T. Geffroy, Senior Counsel, at

(202) 942–0553, or Mary Kay Frech,

Branch Chief at (202) 942–0564

(Division of Investment Management,

Office of Investment Company

Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

following is a summary of the

application. The complete application

may be obtained for a fee from the SEC’s

Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549

(tel. (202) 8090).

Applicant’s Representations

1. The Lipper Funds, Inc. (the

‘‘Company’’) is an open-end

management investment company

registered under the Act. The Company

consists of three investment portfolios,

one of which is the Prime Lipper Europe

Equity Fund (the ‘‘Europe Equity

Fund’’). Prime Lipper Asset

Management (‘‘PLAM’’), a New York

general partnership and an investment

adviser registered under the Investment

Advisers Act of 1940, serves as

investment adviser for the Europe

Equity Fund.

2. PLAM is a joint venture owned

equally by its two general partners,

Lipper Europe L.P. and Prime U.S.A.

Inc. (‘‘Prime USA’’). Lipper Europe L.P.

(‘‘Lipper Europe’’) is a Delaware limited

partnership controlled by Lipper &

Company, Inc. (‘‘Lipper Inc.’’). Prime

USA, a Delaware corporation, is a

wholly-owned subsidiary of Prime

S.p.A., an asset management firm. Prime

S.p.A. currently is controlled by

Assicurazioni Generali (‘‘Generali’’), an

Italian insurance company. Generali

acquired control of Prime S.p.A. on

December 20, 1996, when Fiat S.p.A.

sold to Generali 95.1% of the

outstanding stock of Prime S.p.A. (the

‘‘Transaction’’). The Transaction was

deemed to result in an assignment of

PLAM’s investment advisory agreement

with the Europe Equity Fund under the

Act.

3. PLAM is governed by a

management committee of four

individuals. Each general partner

appointed two members to the

management committee. Mr. Biderman

is an employee of Lipper Inc. and serves

on the management committee on

PLAM as one of the two Lipper Europe

representatives.