Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices 37605

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, by the above date. A

copy of the petition should also be sent

to the Office of the General Counsel,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to Jay

Silberg, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts and

Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20037, attorney for the

licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

The Commission hereby provides

notice that this is a proceeding on an

application for a license amendment

falling within the scope of Section 134

of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

(NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 10154. Under

Section 134 of the NWPA, the

Commission, at the request of any party

to the proceeding, must use hybrid

hearing procedures with respect to ‘‘any

matter which the Commission

determines to be in controversy among

the parties.’’ The hybrid procedures in

Section 134 provide for oral argument

on matters in controversy, preceded by

discovery under the Commission’s

rules, and the designation, following

argument, of only those factual issues

that involve a genuine and substantial

dispute, together with any remaining

questions of law, to be resolved in an

adjudicatory hearing. Actual

adjudicatory hearings are to be held on

only those issues found to meet the

criteria of Section 134 and set for

hearing after oral argument.

The Commission’s rules

implementing Section 134 of the NWPA

are found in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart K,

‘‘Hybrid Hearing Procedures for

Expansion of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear

Power Reactors’’ (published at 50 FR

41670, October 15, 1985) to 10 CFR

2.1101 et seq. Under those rules, any

party to the proceeding may invoke the

hybrid hearing procedures by filing with

the presiding officer a written request

for oral argument under 10 CFR 2.1109.

To be timely, the request must be filed

within 10 days of an order granting a

request for hearing or petition to

intervene. (As outlined above, the

Commission’s rules in 10 CFR Part 2,

Subpart G, and 2.714 in particular,

continue to govern the filing of requests

for a hearing or petitions to intervene,

as well as the admission of contentions.)

The presiding officer shall grant a

timely request for oral argument. The

presiding officer may grant an untimely

request for oral argument only upon

showing of good cause by the requesting

party for the failure to file on time and

after providing the other parties an

opportunity to respond to the untimely

request. If the presiding officer grants a

request for oral argument, any hearing

held on the application shall be

conducted in accordance with the

hybrid hearing procedures. In essence,

those procedures limit the time

available for discovery and require that

an oral argument be held to determine

whether any contentions must be

resolved in adjudicatory hearing. If no

party to the proceedings requests oral

argument, or if all untimely requests for

oral argument are denied, then the usual

procedures in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G,

apply.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated March 20, 1998, as

supplemented by letter dated May 28,

1998, which is 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 Emporia State University,

William Allen White Library, 1200

Commercial Street, Emporia, Kansas

66801 and Washburn University School

of Law Library, Topeka, Kansas 66621.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day

of July 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Kristine M. Thomas,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV–2,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–18544 Filed 7–10–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–271]

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Corporation, Vermont Yankee Nuclear

Power Station; Receipt of Petition for

Director’s Decision Under 10 CFR

2.206

Notice is hereby given that by Petition

dated May 27, 1998, Mr. Jonathan M.

Block, on behalf of the Citizens

Awareness Network, Inc. (CAN or

Petitioner), requested that the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

take immediate action with regard to the

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.

The Petitioner requested that the NRC

take immediate enforcement action by

suspending the operating license for

Vermont Yankee until the entire facility

has been subjected to an independent

safety analysis review similar to the one

conducted at the Maine Yankee Atomic

Power Station. As an alternative, the

Petitioner requested that the NRC

immediately act to modify the operating

license for the facility by requiring that,

before restart (1) Vermont Yankee

management certify under oath that all

backup safety systems and all security

systems are fully operable, and that all

safety systems and security systems

meet and comply with NRC

requirements; (2) Vermont Yankee be

held to compliance with all of the

restart criteria and protocols in the NRC

Inspection Manual; (3) Vermont Yankee

only be allowed to resume operations

after the NRC has conducted a ‘‘vertical

slice’’ examination of the degree to

which the new design-basis documents

(DBDs) and FSAR accurately describe at

least two of the primary safety systems

for the Vermont Yankee reactor; (4) once

operation resumes, Vermont Yankee

only be allowed to continue operation

for as long as it adheres to its schedule

for coming into compliance and

completing the DBD and FSAR project;

and (5) the NRC holds a public hearing

before restart to discuss the changes to

the torus, Vermont Yankee DBD and

FSAR projects, and Vermont Yankee’s

scheduled completion of these projects

in relation to operational safety.

As the basis for this request, the

Petitioner raised concerns about the

operation of the Vermont Yankee
37606 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices

1Prevention of Certain Unlawful Activities With

Respect To Registered Investment Companies,

Investment Company Act Release No. 11421 (Oct.

31, 1980) [45 FR 73915 (Nov. 7, 1980)].

2Rule 17j–1 defines ‘‘access person’’ to include

directors, officers, general partners, and any

employee who, in connection with his or her

regular functions or duties, participates in the

selection of a fund’s portfolio securities or who has

access to information regarding a fund’s upcoming

purchases or sales of portfolio securities.

3Personal Investment Activities of Investment

Company Personnel and Codes of Ethics of

Investment Companies and their Investment

facility, including challenges to the

single-failure criterion, inadequate

safety evaluations, potential

overreliance on Yankee Atomic Electric

Company analyses, an inadequate

operational experience review program,

high potential for other serious safety

problems, and lack of adequate

perimeter security. The Petitioner also

attached four documents prepared by

the Union of Concerned Scientists

(UCS). One UCS document, dated May

14, 1998, provided a review of Vermont

Yankee Daily Event Reports (DERs)

made over the previous year as

requested by CAN. DERs are verbal

reports made by licensees under 10 CFR

50.72 to the NRC and put in written

form by the NRC. Another UCS

document, dated January 29, 1998, was

addressed to the NRC Region I Senior

Allegation Coordinator; it discussed a

specific concern with NRC Daily Event

Report 33545 of January 15, 1998,

associated with Vermont Yankee water

hammer on certain systems. The third

document, a UCS letter dated May 5,

1997, to the NRC Chairman and

Commissioners, discussed mislocated

fuel bundle loading errors. The final

UCS document attached was titled

‘‘Potential Nuclear Safety Hazard

Reactor Operation with Failed Fuel

Cladding,’’ dated April 2, 1998. By letter

dated June 9, 1998, Petitioner renewed

the request for relief based on the events

occurring on June 9, 1998, at Vermont

Yankee and reported by the licensee in

DER 34366. This event involved the

automatic shutdown of the reactor due

to problems in the feedwater system.

The Petitioner states that this event

indicates a lack of reasonable assurance

that safety-related systems at Vermont

Yankee will perform adequately.

The request is being treated pursuant

to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission’s

regulations. The request has been

referred to the Director of the Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As

provided by Section 2.206, appropriate

action will be taken on this petition

within a reasonable time.

By letter dated July 6, 1998, the

Director denied Petitioner’s request for

immediate action at Vermont Yankee

Nuclear Power Station.

A copy of the petition is available for

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room at 2120 L Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20555–0001 and at the

local public document room located at

Brooks Memorial Library, 224 Main

Street, Brattleboro, VT 05301.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day

of July, 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–18547 Filed 7–10–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Fire Barrier Penetration Seals in

Nuclear Power Plants; Availability of

Draft NUREG–1552, Supp. 1

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission is announcing the

availability of Draft NUREG–1552,

Supplement 1, ‘‘Fire Barrier Penetration

Seals in Nuclear Power Plants,’’ dated

June 1998, for public comment.

Comments on the previously published

NUREG–1552, ‘‘Fire Barrier Penetration

Seals in Nuclear Power Plants,’’ July

1996, are also being accepted.

DATES: Submit comments by September

11, 1998. Comments received after this

date will be considered if it is practical

to do so, but the Commission is able to

ensure consideration only for comments

received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: NUREG–1552 and Draft

NUREG–1552, Supplement 1 are

available for inspection and copying for

a fee at the NRC Public Document

Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC 20038. A free single

copy of Draft NUREG–1552,

Supplement 1, to the extent of supply,

may be requested by writing to U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Printing and Graphics Branch,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris Bajwa, Plant Systems Branch,

Division of Systems Safety and

Analysis, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. Telephone: 301–415–1237

Electronic Access

Draft NUREG–1552, Supplement 1, is

also available electronically by visiting

NRC’s Home Page (http://www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day

of July, 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Gary Holahan,

Director, Division of Systems Safety and

Analysis, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–18549 Filed 7–10–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Existing Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available

From: Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of Filings and

Information Services, 450 5th Street,

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

Extension:

Rule 17j–1 [17 CFR 270.17j–1], SEC File

No. 270–239, OMB Control No. 3235–

0224

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Securities

and Exchange Commission (the

‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments

on the collection of information

summarized below. The Commission

plans to submit this existing collection

of information to the Office of

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for

extension and approval.

Rule 17j–1 under the Investment

Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a)

(the ‘‘Investment Company Act’’)

addresses conflicts of interest between

registered investment company (‘‘fund’’)

personnel and their funds that may arise

when fund personnel buy or sell

securities for their personal accounts

(‘‘personal investment activities’’). Rule

17j–1, which the Commission adopted

in 1980,1 generally prohibits fund

personnel from engaging in fraud in

connection with personal transactions

in securities held or to be acquired by

the fund. In order to prevent fraud, the

rule currently: (i) Requires a fund and

each investment adviser and principal

underwriter to the fund (collectively,

‘‘rule 17j–1 organizations’’) to adopt a

code of ethics (‘‘code’’) designed to

prevent ‘‘access persons’’ 2 from

engaging in fraudulent securities

activities, (ii) requires an access person

to report personal securities transactions

to his or her rule 17j–1 organization at

least quarterly, and (iii) requires a rule

17j–1 organization to maintain certain

records.

In 1995, the Commission issued a

release proposing amendments to rule

17j–1 (‘‘Proposing Release’’).3 The