27140 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Notices

18The applicant represents that where a trust

sponsor is an affiliate of Rothschild, sales to plans

by the sponsor may be exempt under PTE 75–1, Part

II (relating to purchases and sales of securities by

broker-dealers and their affiliates), if Rothschild is

not a fiduciary with respect to plan assets to be

invested in certificates.

the Act.18 Likewise, issues are raised

under section 406(a)(1)(D) of the Act

where a plan fiduciary causes a plan to

purchase certificates where trust funds

will be used to benefit a party in

interest.

Additionally, Rothschild represents

that a trust sponsor, servicer, trustee,

insurer, and obligor with respect to

receivables contained in a trust, or an

underwriter of certificates representing

an interest in a trust may be a fiduciary

with respect to an investing plan.

Rothschild represents that the exercise

of fiduciary authority by any of these

parties to cause the plan to invest in

certificates representing an interest in

the trust would violate section 406(b)(1),

and in some cases section 406(b)(2), of

the Act.

Moreover, Rothschild represents that

to the extent there is a plan asset ‘‘look

through’’ to the underlying assets of a

trust, the investment in certificates by a

plan covering employees of an obligor

under receivables contained in a trust

may be prohibited by sections 406(a)

and 407(a) of the Act.

After consideration of the issues

involved, the Department has

determined to provide the limited

sections 406(b) and 407(a) relief as

specified in the proposed exemption.

NOTICE TO INTERESTED PERSONS: The

applicant represents that because those

potentially interested participants and

beneficiaries cannot all be identified,

the only practical means of notifying

such participants and beneficiaries of

this proposed exemption is by the

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. Comments and requests for a

hearing must be received by the

Department not later than 30 days from

the date of publication of this notice of

proposed exemption in the Federal

Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary

Lefkowitz of the Department, telephone

(202) 219–8881. (This is not a toll-free

number.)

General Information

The attention of interested persons is

directed to the following:

(1) The fact that a transaction is the

subject of an exemption under section

408(a) of the Act and/or section

4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve

a fiduciary or other party in interest of

disqualified person from certain other

provisions of the Act and/or the Code,

including any prohibited transaction

provisions to which the exemption does

not apply and the general fiduciary

responsibility provisions of section 404

of the Act, which among other things

require a fiduciary to discharge his

duties respecting the plan solely in the

interest of the participants and

beneficiaries of the plan and in a

prudent fashion in accordance with

section 404(a)(1)(b) of the act; nor does

it affect the requirement of section

401(a) of the Code that the plan must

operate for the exclusive benefit of the

employees of the employer maintaining

the plan and their beneficiaries;

(2) Before an exemption may be

granted under section 408(a) of the Act

and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code,

the Department must find that the

exemption is administratively feasible,

in the interests of the plan and of its

participants and beneficiaries and

protective of the rights of participants

and beneficiaries of the plan;

(3) The proposed exemptions, if

granted, will be supplemental to, and

not in derogation of, any other

provisions of the Act and/or the Code,

including statutory or administrative

exemptions and transitional rules.

Furthermore, the fact that a transaction

is subject to an administrative or

statutory exemption is not dispositive of

whether the transaction is in fact a

prohibited transaction; and

(4) The proposed exemptions, if

granted, will be subject to the express

condition that the material facts and

representations contained in each

application are true and complete, and

that each application accurately

describes all material terms of the

transaction which is the subject of the

exemption.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of

May, 1995.

Ivan Strasfeld,

Director of Exemption Determinations,

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration,

U.S. Department of Labor.

[FR Doc. 95–12502 Filed 5–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–267]

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact;

Public Service Company of Colorado

Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating

Station

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(the NRC) is considering the issuance of

an exemption from the requirements of

10 CFR 50.54(w) to maintain onsite

property insurance to the Public Service

Company of Colorado (PSC or the

licensee) for the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear

Generating Station (FSV) pursuant to

the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12.

Environmental assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The exemption will delete the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w) for the

licensee to maintain onsite property

insurance. FSV is permanently shut

down and all the fuel assemblies are

currently stored in an independent

spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI),

and the ISFSI is licensed under 10 CFR

Part 72. In addition, decommissioning

of FSV is approximately 65 percent

complete, and PSC estimates that the

facility license will be terminated and

the facility released for unrestricted use

in 1996.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The exemption is needed to eliminate

the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w),

which are appropriate for an operating

plant but are not needed at the

shutdown FSV. Granting the proposed

exemption would reduce unnecessary

costs for PSC.

Environmental Impact of the Proposed

Action

The proposed action to eliminate the

requirements for the licensee to have in

effect and to continue to maintain onsite

property insurance will have no

environmental impact because FSV is

permanently shut down, defueled, and

65 percent decommissioned. Thus, the

risk of an accident requiring reactor

stabilization or extensive

decontamination does not exist at FSV.

In addition, for the worst-case accident

at FSV, the radiological release from the

accident is a whole-body dose to an

individual of 8.30 mrem. This dose is

considerably less than 1 percent of the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

‘‘Protective Action Guidelines’’ dose of

1000 mrem that requires protective

action.

The requested exemption would not

authorize construction or operation,

would not authorize a change in

licensed activities, and would not effect

changes in the permitted types or

amounts of radiological effluent. With

regard to potential nonradiological

impacts, the NRC concludes that no

measurable radiological or

nonradiological impacts are associated

with the exemption.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Because the NRC concluded that there

are no significant environmental effects
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Notices 27141

that would result from the proposed

action, alternatives need not be

evaluated.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for FSV.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

The license initiated this exemption,

and the NRC staff is reviewing its

request. The State of Colorado was

notified of the proposed exemption.

State Officials had no comments on the

exemption.

Finding of No Significant Impact

NRC has determined not to prepare an

environmental impact statement for the

proposed exemption.

Based on this environmental

assessment, the staff concludes that the

proposed action will not have a

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment.

For further details on this action, see

the licensee’s application dated

February 16, 1995, which is available

for public inspection at the NRC’s

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20037, and at the

local public document room at the Weld

Library District.—Downtown Branch,

919 7th Street, Greeley, CO 80631.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day

of May, 1995.

Michael F. Weber,

Chief, Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning

Projects Branch, Division of Waste

Management, Office of Nuclear material

Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 95–12471 Filed 5–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Proposed Generic Communication

Testing of Safety-Related Logic

Circuits

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public

comment.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is proposing to issue

a generic letter concerning problems

with the testing of safety-related logic

circuits. This draft generic letter

requests addresses to review

surveillance procedures to determine

whether any of the procedures fail to

test all required portions of the logic

circuitry and, if any problems are found,

to correct the problems. The NRC is

seeking comment from interested parties

regarding both the technical and

regulatory aspects of the proposed

generic letter presented under the

Supplementary Information heading.

This proposed generic letter and

supporting documentation were

discussed in meeting number 272 of the

Committee to Review Generic

Requirements (CRGR) on April 25, 1995.

The relevant information that was sent

to the CRGR to support their review of

the proposed generic letter will be made

available in the NRC Public Document

Room. The NRC will consider

comments received from interested

parties in the final evaluation of the

proposed generic letter. The NRC’s final

evaluation will include a review of the

technical position and, when

appropriate, an analysis of the value/

impact on licensees. Should this generic

letter be issued by the NRC, it will

become available for public inspection

in the Public Document Rooms.

The staff recognizes that during

implementation of the requested actions

in the proposed generic letter, licensees

may identify conditions in violation of

their technical specifications or other

NRC requirements. Consequently, the

staff is considering the possibility of

exercising enforcement discretion under

certain circumstances during the period

of implementation of the requested

actions in order to encourage licensees

to perform effective reviews.

DATES: Comment period expires on July

21, 1995. Comments submitted after this

date will be considered if it is practical

to do so, but assurance of consideration

cannot be given except for comments

received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to Chief, Rules Review and Directives

Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Written comments may also be

delivered to 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 am to

4:15 pm, Federal workdays. Copies of

written comments received may be

examined at the NRC Public Document

Room, 2120 L Street, NW., (Lower

Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hukam Garg, (301) 415–2929.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

NRC Generic Letter No. 95–XX: Testing

of Safety-Related Logic Circuits

Addresses

All holders of operating licenses or

construction permits for nuclear power

reactors.

Purpose

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is issuing this

generic letter to: (1) notify addressees

about problems with testing of safetyrelated logic circuits, (2) request that all

addresses implement the actions

described herein, and (3) require that all

addressees submit a written response to

this generic letter regarding

implementation of the requested

actions.

Background

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

staff had previously issued the

following information notices (INs)

regarding problems with testing of

safety-related logic circuits: IN 88–83,

‘‘Inadequate Testing of Relay Contacts

in Safety-Related Logic Circuits,’’ dated

October 19, 1988; IN 91–13, ‘‘Inadequate

Testing of Emergency Diesel Generators

(EDGs),’’ dated March 4, 1991; IN 92–40,

‘‘Inadequate Testing of Emergency Bus

Undervoltage Logic Circuitry,’’ dated

May 27, 1992; IN 93–15, ‘‘Failure to

Verify the Continuity of Shunt Trip

Attachment Contacts in Manual Safety

Injection and Reactor Trip Switches,’’

dated February 18, 1993; and IN 93–38,

‘‘Inadequate Testing of Engineered

Safety Features Actuation Systems,’’

dated May 24, 1993. Despite these

notices, recent events have occurred

similar to those described in the INs

which indicate that licensees have not

taken sufficient action to correct

previously identified problems in logic

circuit surveillance testing. On March 7,

1995, NRC issued IN 95–15,

‘‘Inadequate Logic Testing of SafetyRelated Circuits,’’ which informed

licensees about these recent events at

Cooper Nuclear Station, Fermi 2,

Waterford 3, Grand Gulf Nuclear

Station, and Arkansas Nuclear One,

Unit 1 and Unit 2.

Description of Circumstances

The NRC has documented a

significant number of instances

involving problems with logic testing of

safety-related circuits in the information

notices described above. These

information notices discuss events at

various pressurized water and boiling

water reactors. The examples of

problems with logic testing cover a wide

range of systems including safety

injection system actuation, containment

spray system actuation, residual heat

removal system actuation, diesel

generator load sequencing, and rector

protection system actuation. In most

cases, the affected logic circuits

functioned properly when testing in

accordance with technical specification