25746 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices

Volume III

Tennessee

TN950065 (May 12, 1995)

TN950066 (May 12, 1995)

TN950067 (May 12, 1995)

Modification to General Wage

Determination Decisions

The number of decisions listed in the

Government Printing Office document

entitled ‘‘General Wage Determinations

Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and

Related Acts’’ being modified and listed

by Volume and State. Dates of

publication in the Federal Register are

in parentheses following the decisions

being modified.

Volume I

Massachusetts

MA950001 (Feb. 10, 1995)

MA950002 (Feb. 10, 1995)

MA950003 (Feb. 10, 1995)

MA950006 (Feb. 10, 1995)

MA950007 (Feb. 10, 1995)

MA950008 (Feb. 10, 1995)

MA950009 (Feb. 10, 1995)

MA950013 (Feb. 10, 1995)

MA950017 (Feb. 10, 1995)

MA950018 (Feb. 10, 1995)

MA950019 (Feb. 10, 1995)

MA950020 (Feb. 10, 1995)

MA950021 (Feb. 10, 1995)

New York

NY950004 (Feb. 10, 1995)

NY950009 (Feb. 10, 1995)

NY950010 (Feb. 10, 1995)

NY950013 (Feb. 10, 1995)

NY950038 (Feb. 10, 1995)

NY950048 (Feb. 10, 1995)

Volume II

Maryland

MD950002 (Feb. 10, 1995)

MD950043 (Feb. 10, 1995)

Volume III

Alabama

AL950034 (Feb. 10, 1995)

Florida

FL950001 (Feb. 10, 1995)

FL950009 (Feb. 10, 1995)

FL950014 (Feb. 10, 1995)

FL950016 (Feb. 10, 1995)

FL950017 (Feb. 10, 1995)

FL950032 (Feb. 10, 1995)

FL950046 (Feb. 10, 1995)

FL950066 (Feb. 10, 1995)

Georgia

GA950033 (Feb. 10, 1995)

GA950050 (Feb. 10, 1995)

GA950065 (Feb. 10, 1995)

Kentucky

KY950001 (Feb. 10, 1995)

KY950002 (Feb. 10, 1995)

KY950003 (Feb. 10, 1995)

KY950004 (Feb. 10, 1995)

KY950006 (Feb. 10, 1995)

KY950007 (Feb. 10, 1995)

KY950025 (Feb. 10, 1995)

KY950026 (Feb. 10, 1995)

KY950027 (Feb. 10, 1995)

KY950029 (Feb. 10, 1995)

KY950032 (Feb. 10, 1995)

KY950035 (Feb. 10, 1995)

KY950044 (Feb. 10, 1995)

KY950054 (Feb. 10, 1995)

South Carolina

SC950003 (Feb. 10, 1995)

SC950009 (Feb. 10, 1995)

SC950010 (Feb. 10, 1995)

SC950011 (Feb. 10, 1995)

SC950020 (Feb. 10, 1995)

SC950021 (Feb. 10, 1995)

SC950023 (Feb. 10, 1995)

SC950024 (Feb. 10, 1995)

SC950025 (Feb. 10, 1995)

SC950026 (Feb. 10, 1995)

SC950027 (Feb. 10, 1995)

SC950028 (Feb. 10, 1995)

SC950033 (Feb. 10, 1995)

Tennessee

TN950001 (Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950002 (Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950003 (Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950005 (Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950018 (Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950038 (Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950039 (Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950041 (Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950042 (Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950043 (Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950044 (Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950049 (Feb. 10, 1995)

TN950058 (Mar. 17, 1995)

TN950059 (Mar. 17, 1995)

TN950062 (Mar. 31, 1995)

Volume IV

Illinois

IL950015 (Feb. 10, 1995)

Michigan

MI950001 (Feb. 10, 1995)

MI950002 (Feb. 10, 1995)

MI950003 (Feb. 10, 1995)

MI950004 (Feb. 10, 1995)

MI950012 (Feb. 10, 1995)

Volume V

Kansas

KS950012 (Feb. 10, 1995)

Louisiana

LA950005 (Feb 10, 1995)

LA950018 (Feb 10, 1995)

Texas

TX950005 (Feb. 10, 1995)

TX950010 (Feb. 10, 1995)

TX950018 (Feb. 10, 1995)

TX950055 (Feb. 10, 1995)

Volume VI

Alaska

AK950001 (Feb. 10, 1995)

California

CA950001 (Feb. 10, 1995)

CA950002 (Feb. 10, 1995)

CA950004 (Feb. 10, 1995)

CA950028 (Feb. 10, 1995)

Washington

WA950009 (Feb. 10, 1995)

General Wage Determination

Publication

General wage determinations issued

under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts,

including those noted above, may be

found in the Government Printing Office

(GPO) document entitled ‘‘General Wage

Determination Issued Under The Davis

Bacon and Related Acts’’. This

publication is available at each of the 50

Regional Government Depository

Libraries and many of the 1,400

Government Depository Libraries across

the country.

The general wage determination

issued under the Davis-Bacon and

related Acts are available electronically

by subscription to the FedWorld

Bulletin Board System of the National

Technical Information Service (NTIS) of

the U.S. Department of Commerce at

(703) 487–4630.

Hard-copy subscriptions may be

purchased from: Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 (202)

512–1800.

When ordering hard-copy

subscription(s), be sure to specify the

State(s) of interest, since subscriptions

may be ordered for any or all of the six

separate volumes, arranged by State.

Subscriptions include an annual edition

(issued in January or February) which

includes all current general wage

determinations for the States covered by

each volume. Throughout the remainder

of the year, regular weekly updates will

be distributed to subscriber.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 5th day of

May, 1995.

Alan L. Moss,

Director, Division of Wage Determinations.

[FR Doc. 95–11584 Filed 5–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–27–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–213]

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power

Co.; Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

61, issued to Connecticut Yankee

Atomic Power Company (the licensee),

for operation of the Haddam Neck Plant

located in Middlesex County,

Connecticut.

The proposed amendment will delete

Technical Specification (TS) Sections

1.38 and 1.39, ‘‘Definitions, Fuel

Assembly Types,’’ revise TS Sections 3/

4.9.3, ‘‘Refueling Operations, Decay

Time’’ and TS 3/4.9.14, ‘‘Refueling

Operations, Spent Fuel Pool—Reactivity

Condition,’’ replace TS Sections 5.6.1.1,

‘‘Spent Fuel,’’ and TS 5.6.3, ‘‘Capacity,’’

and add a new TS Section 3/4.9.15,

‘‘Refueling Operations, Spent Fuel Pool
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices 25747

Cooling.’’ These changes would support

a rerack of the spent fuel pool to expand

the spent fuel pool’s storage capacity

from 1168 assemblies to 1480

assemblies so as to accommodate a fullcore-discharge through the current

validity date of the Haddam Neck

operating license (2007).

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration. Under

the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR

50.92, this means that operation of the

facility in accordance with the proposed

amendment would not (1) involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from

any accident previously evaluated; or

(3) involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR

50.91(a), the licenses has provided its

analysis of the issue of no significant

hazards consideration, which is

presented below:

1. Involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

In the analysis of the safety issues

concerning the expanded pool storage

capacity, CYAPCO has considered the

following potential accident scenarios:

a. A spent fuel assembly drop in the spent

fuel pool.

b. Loss of spent fuel pool cooling flow.

c. A seismic event.

d. An accident drop of a rack module

during constructional activity in the pool.

The probability that any of the first three

accidents in the above list can occur is not

significantly increased by the modification

itself. All work in the pool area will be

controlled and performed in strict

accordance with the specific written

procedures. As for a construction accident,

safe load paths will be established that will

prevent heavy loads from being transported

over the spent fuel. Operability of the cranes

will be checked and verified before the reracking operation. All lift rigging and the

refueling crane/hoist system will be verified

that they comply with the provisions of

CMAA Specification No. 70, ANSI B30.2,

B30.9, and B30.11. All heavy lifts will be

performed in accordance with established

station procedures, which will comply with

NUREG–0612, ‘‘Control of Heavy Loads at

Nuclear Power Plants.’’ This will minimize

the possibility of a heavy load drop accident.

Accordingly, the proposed modification

does not involve a significant increase in the

probability of an accident previously

evaluated.

CYAPCO has evaluated the consequences

of accidental drop of a fuel assembly in the

spent fuel pool. The results show that such

an accident will not distort the racks

sufficiently to impair their functionality. The

minimum subscripticality margin, Keff≤0.95,

will be maintained. The radiological

consequences of a fuel assembly drop are not

increased. Thus the consequences of such an

accident remain acceptable and are not

different from any previously evaluated

accidents that have been reviewed and found

acceptable by the NRC.

The consequences of a loss of the spent

fuel pool cooling have been evaluated and

found acceptable. The expansion of the pool

storage capacity does not increase the failure

modes of the pool cooling system. In the

unlikely event that all pool cooling is lost,

sufficient time is available for the operators

to provide alternate means of cooling before

the onset of pool boiling.

The consequences of a design basis seismic

event have been evaluated and found

acceptable. The new and the existing racks

have been analyzed in their new

configuration and found safe and impact-free

during seismic motion. The structural

capability of the pool will not be exceeded

under the dead weight, thermal, and seismic

loads. The fuel building and the yard crane

structure will retain the necessary safety

margins during a seismic event. Thus, the

consequences of a seismic event are not

significantly increased.

The consequences of a spent fuel cask drop

into the pool have not been addressed in this

submittal since CYAPCO is not currently

licensed to move a fuel cask into the spent

fuel pool area.

The consequences of an accidental drop of

a rack module into the pool during

placement have been evaluated. The analysis

confirmed that very limited damage to the

liner could occur which is repairable. All

movements of heavy loads over the pool will

comply with the applicable guidelines.

Therefore, the consequences of a

construction accident are not increased from

any previously evaluated accident.

Therefore it is concluded that the proposed

changes do not significantly increase the

probability or consequences of any accident

previously evaluated.

2. Create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

previously analyzed.

The change does not alter the operating

requirements of the plant or of the equipment

credited in the mitigation of the design basis

accidents. Therefore, the potential for an unanalyzed accident is not created. The

postulated failure modes associated with the

change do not significantly decrease the

coolability of the spent fuel in the pool. The

resulting structural, thermal, and seismic

loads are acceptable.

Therefore, the change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any previously analyzed.

3. Involve a significant reduction in the

margin of safety.

The function of the spent fuel pool is to

store the fuel assemblies in a subcritical and

coolable configuration through all

environmental and abnormal loadings, such

as an earthquake, fuel assembly drop, or drop

of any other heavy object. The new rack

design must meet all applicable requirements

for safe storage and be functionally

compatible with the other rack designs in the

spent fuel pool.

CYAPCO has addressed the safety issues

related to the expanded pool storage capacity

in the following areas:

1. Material, mechanical and structural

considerations.

2. Nuclear criticality.

3. Thermal-hydraulic and pool cooling.

The mechanical, material, and structural

designs of the new racks have been reviewed

in accordance with the applicable provisions

of the NRC Guidance entitled, ‘‘Review and

Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and

Handling Applications’’. The rack materials

used are compatible with the spent fuel

assemblies and the spent fuel pool

environment. The design of the new racks

preserves the proper margin of safety during

abnormal loads such as a dropped assembly

and tensile loads from a stuck assembly. It

has been shown that such loads will not

invalidate the mechanical design and

material selection to safely store fuel in a

coolable and subcritical configuration.

The methodology used in the critically

analysis of the expanded spent fuel pool

meets the appropriate NRC guidelines and

the ANSI standards. The margin of safety for

subcriticality is determined by the neutron

multiplication factor equal to, or less than,

0.95 under all accident conditions, including

uncertainties. This criterion has been

preserved in all analyzed accidents.

The thermo-hydraulic and cooling

evaluation of the pool demonstrated that the

pool can be maintained below the specified

thermal limits under the conditions of the

maximum heat load and during all credible

accident sequences and seismic events. The

pool temperature will not exceed 150° F

during the worst single failure of a cooling

pump. The maximum local water

temperature in the hot channel will remain

below the boiling point. The fuel will not

undergo any significant heat up after an

accidential drop of a fuel assembly on top of

the rack blocking the flow path. A loss of

cooling to the pool will allow sufficient time

for the operators to intervene and line up

alternate cooling paths and the means of

inventory make-up in time before the onset

of boiling.

Thus, it is concluded that the changes do

not involve a significant reduction in the

margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

licensee’s analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the
25748 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received. Should

the Commission take this action, it will

publish in the Federal Register a notice

of issuance and provide for opportunity

for a hearing after issuance. The

Commission expects that the need to

take this action will occur very

infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Rules Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

Services, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, and should cite

the publication date and page number of

this Federal Register notice. Written

comments may also be delivered to

Room 6D22, Two White Flint North,

11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.

Federal workdays. Copies of written

comments received may be examined at

the NRC Public Document Room, the

Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By June 12, 1995, the licensee may

file a request for a hearing with respect

to issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available 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 Russell

Library, 123 Broad Street, Middletown,

CT 06457. If a request for a hearing or

petition for leave to intervene is filed by

the above date, the Commission or an

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board,

designated by the Commission or by the

Chairman of the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the

request and/or petition; and the

Secretary or the designated Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a

notice of hearing or an appropriate

order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularly the interest of the

petitioner in the proceeding, and how

that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

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, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to Phillip

F. McKee: petitioner’s name and

telephone number, date petition was

mailed, plant name, and publication

date and page number of this Federal

Register notice. A copy of the petition

should also be sent to the Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, and to Ms. L. M. Cuoco,

Senior Nuclear Counsel, Northeast

Utilities Service Company, Post Office

Box 270, Hartford, CT 06141–0270,

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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices 25749

1The NASD initially submitted the proposed rule

change on February 6, 1995. Amendment No. 1,

submitted on March 22, 1995, replaced the initial

submission in its entirety.

2 15 U.S.C. 73s(b)(1).

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

4NASD Manual, Rules of Fair Practice, Art. III,

Sec. 1 (CCH) ¶ 2151.05.

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 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, proceeded 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 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 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 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 31, 1995,

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 Russell Library, 123 Broad Street,

Middletown, CT 06457.

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 5th day of

May 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Alan B. Wang,

Project Manager, Project Directorate I–3,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–11758 Filed 5–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Requests Under Review by Office of

Management and Budget

Agency Clearance Officer: Michael E.

Bartell, (202) 942–8800

Upon written request copies available

from: Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of Filings and

Information Services, 450 Fifth Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20549

Extension:

Rule 19d–3—File No. 270–245

Rule 19h–1—File No. 270–247

Notice is hereby given that pursuant

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities

and Exchange Commission

(Commission ) has submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget

requests for approval of extension on

previously approved collections for the

following:

Rule 19d–3 prescribes the form and

content of application to the

Commission for review of final

disciplinary sanctions, denials of

membership, participation or

association with a member or

prohibitions or limitations of access to

services imposed by self-regulatory

organizations. it is estimated that

approximately 50 respondents will

incur an average burden of 18 hours per

year to comply with this rule, for a total

annual burden of 900 hours.

Rule 19h–1 prescribes the form and

content of notices and applications by

self-regulatory organizations regarding

proposed admissions to, or

continuances in, membership,

participation or association with a

member of any person subject to a

statutory disqualification. It is estimated

that approximately 70 respondents will

incur an average burden of 4.5 hours per

year to comply with this rule, for a total

annual burden of 315 hours.

Direct general comments to the

Clearance Officer for the Securities and

Exchange Commission at the address

below. Direct any comments concerning

the accuracy of the estimated average

burden hours for compliance with the

Commission rules and forms to Michael

E. Bartell, Associate Executive Director,

Office of Information Technology,

Securities and Exchange Commission,

450 Fifth Street NW., Washington, DC

20549 and the Clearance Officer for the

Securities and Exchange Commission,

Office of Management and Budget,

Project numbers 3235–0204 (Rule 19d–

3) and 3235–0259 (Rule 19h–1), Room

3208, New Executive Office Building,

Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: May 1, 1995.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11771 Filed 5–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 34–35681; File No. SR–NASD–

95–06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order

Approving Proposed Rule Change by

National Association of Securities

Dealers, Inc. Relating to Interpretation

of the Board of Governors—

Forwarding of Proxy and Other

Material Under Article III, Section 1 of

the NASD Rules of Fair Practice

May 5, 1995.

On March 22, 1995,1 the National

Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.

(‘‘NASD’’ or ‘‘Association’’) filed with

the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’)

a proposed rule change pursuant to

Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),2 and

Rule 19b–4 thereunder.3 The proposed

rule change amends its Interpretation of

the Board of Governors—Forwarding of

Proxy and Other Material under Article

III, Section 1 of the NASD Rules of Fair

Practice 4 (‘‘Interpretation’’) to allow a