23280 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2001 / Notices

Structural Material (M5) in PWR

[pressurized-water reactor] Reactor

Fuel,’’ submitted to the NRC for review

and approval on September 30, 1997,

and approved by the NRC in a letter

dated February 4, 2000, that the

effectiveness of the ECCS will not be

affected by a change from Zircaloy fuel

rod cladding to M5 fuel rod cladding.

The analysis described in BAW–

10227P–A also demonstrates that the

ECCS acceptance criteria applied to

reactors fueled with Zircaloy clad fuel

are also applicable to reactors fueled

with M5 fuel rod cladding. Therefore,

since the underlying purpose of 10 CFR

50.46 is achieved through the use of the

M5 advanced alloy as a fuel rod

cladding material, the special

circumstances required by 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii) for granting an exemption

from 10 CFR 50.46 exist. The underlying

purposes of 10 CFR 50.44 and appendix

K of 10 CFR 50 are to ensure that

cladding oxidation and hydrogen

generation are appropriately limited

during a postulated LOCA and

conservatively accounted for in the

ECCS evaluation model. The NRC staff

has evaluated the impact of using M5

advanced alloy as fuel cladding material

and determined that the impact is

within that considered in the design

basis for TMI–1. Therefore, the

underlying purposes of 10 CFR 50.44

and appendix K of 10 CFR Part 50 are

met. Since the underlying purposes of

10 CFR 50.44, 50.46, and appendix K of

10 CFR Part 50 are achieved with the

use of M5 advanced alloy as fuel rod

cladding material, the special

circumstances required by 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii) for granting the

exemption are met.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The NRC has completed its evaluation

of the proposed action and concludes

that the use of M5 advanced alloy as

fuel rod cladding will not have a

detrimental effect during a postulated

LOCA. The NRC staff has further

determined that since the geometry

differences between the M5 alloy and

Zircaloy are slight and would have

virtually no thermal-hydraulic effect

while fuel rods utilizing the two alloys

as cladding material are co-resident in

the same core, there is no need for a

mixed-core penalty in LOCA ECCS

model evaluations to compensate for

material differences.

The proposed action will not

significantly increase the probability or

consequences of accidents, no changes

are being made in the types of any

effluents that may be released off site,

and there is no significant increase in

occupational or public radiation

exposure. Therefore, there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not involve any historic

sites. It does not affect nonradiological

plant effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Therefore, there

are no significant nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that

there are no significant environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

As an alternative to the proposed

action, the staff considered denial of the

proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’

alternative). Denial of the application

would result in no change in current

environmental impacts. The

environmental impacts of the proposed

action and the alternative 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 Three Mile Island

Nuclear Station, Unit 1, dated December

1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on April 4, 2001, the staff consulted

with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr.

Michael Murphy of the Bureau of

Radiation Protection, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

On the basis of the environmental

assessment, the NRC concludes that the

proposed action will not have a

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

NRC 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 December 20, 2000, as

supplemented by letter dated March 14,

2001. Documents may be examined,

and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC’s

Public Document Room, located at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.

Publicly available records will be

accessible electronically from the

ADAMS Public Library component on

the NRC Web site, http:www.nrc.gov

(the Electronic Reading Room).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day

of May 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Timothy G. Colburn,

Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–11568 Filed 5–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards; Notice of Joint Meeting of

the ACRS Subcommittees on Materials

and Metallurgy, Thermal-Hydraulic

Phenomena and Reliability and

Probabilistic Risk Assessment

The ACRS Subcommittees on

Materials and Metallurgy, ThermalHydraulic Phenomena and Reliability

and Probabilistic Risk Assessment will

hold a joint meeting on May 25, 2001,

Room T–2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to

public attendance.

The agenda for the subject meeting

shall be as follows:

Friday, May 25, 2001–8:30 a.m. Until

the Conclusion of Business

The Subcommittees will discuss

proposed risk-informed revisions to 10

CFR 50.46 for emergency core cooling

systems. The Subcommittees will also

discuss proposed revisions to the

framework for risk-informing the

technical requirements of 10 CFR Part

50. The purpose of this meeting is to

gather information, analyze relevant

issues and facts, and to formulate

proposed positions and actions, as

appropriate, for deliberation by the full

Committee.

Oral statements may be presented by

members of the public with the

concurrence of the Subcommittee

Chairman; written statements will be

accepted and made available to the

Committee. Electronic recordings will

be permitted only during those portions

of the meeting that are open to the

public, and questions may be asked only

by members of the Subcommittee, its

consultants, and staff. Persons desiring

to make oral statements should notify

the cognizant ACRS staff engineer

named below five days prior to the

meeting, if possible, so that appropriate

arrangements can be made.

The Subcommittees will then hear

presentations by and hold discussions

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2001 / Notices 23281

with representatives of the NRC staff,

and other interested persons regarding

this review.

Further information regarding topics

to be discussed, whether the meeting

has been canceled or rescheduled, and

the Chairman’s ruling on requests for

the opportunity to present oral

statements and the time allotted

therefore can be obtained by contacting

the cognizant ACRS staff engineer, Mr.

Michael T. Markley (telephone 301/

415–6885) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15

p.m. (EDT). Persons planning to attend

this meeting are urged to contact the

above named individual one or two

working days prior to the meeting to be

advised of any potential changes to the

agenda, etc., that may have occurred.

Dated: May 2, 2001.

Howard J. Larson,

Special Assistant, ACRS/ACNW.

[FR Doc. 01–11554 Filed 5–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available

From: Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of Filings and

Information Services, Washington, DC

20549

Extension:

Rule 17f–1(g), SEC File No. 270–30,

OMB Control No. 3235–0290

Notice is hereby given that pursuant

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

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

and Exchange Commission

(‘‘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 for extension

and approval.

• Rule 17f–1(g) Requirements for

reporting and inquiry with respect to

missing, lost, counterfeit or stolen

securities.

Paragraph (g) of Rule 17f–1 requires

that all reporting institutions (i.e., every

national securities exchange, member

thereof, registered securities association,

broker, dealer, municipal securities

dealer, registered transfer agent,

registered clearing agency, participant

therein, member of the Federal Reserve

System and bank insured by the FDIC)

maintain and preserve a number of

documents related to their participation

in the Lost and Stolen Securities

Program (‘‘Program’’) under Rule 17f–1.

The following documents must be kept

in an easily accessible place for three

years, according to paragraph (g): (1)

Copies of all reports of theft or loss

(Form X–17F–1A) filed with the

Commission’s designee: (2) all

agreements between reporting

institutions regarding registration in the

Program or other aspects of Rule 17f–1;

and (3) all confirmations or other

information received from the

Commission or its designee as a result

of inquiry.

Reports institutions utilize these

records and reports (a) to report missing,

lost, stolen or counterfeit securities to

the database, (b) to confirm inquiry of

the database, and (c) to demonstrate

compliance with Rule 17f–1. The

Commission and the reporting

institutions’ examining authorities

utilize these records to monitor the

incidence of thefts and losses incurred

by reporting institutions and to

determine compliance with Rule 17f–1.

If such records were not retained by

reporting institutions, compliance with

Rule 17f–1 could not be monitored

effectively.

The Commission estimates that there

are 25,824 reporting institutions

(respondents) and, on average, each

respondent would need to retain 33

records annually, with each retention

requiring approximately 1 minute (33

minutes or .55 hours). The total

estimated annual burden is 14,203.2

hours (25,824 × .55 hours = 14,203.2).

Assuming an average hourly cost for

clerical work of $18.75, the average total

yearly record retention cost for each

respondent would be $10.30. Based on

these estimates, the total annual cost for

the estimated 25,824 reporting

institution would be approximately

$265,987.

Written comments are invited on: (a)

Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions to the

agency, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s

estimates of the burden of the proposed

collection of information; (c) ways to

enhance quality, utility, and clarity of

the information to be collected; and (d)

ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on

respondents, including through the use

of automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Consideration will be given to comment

and suggestions submitted in writing

within 60 days of this publication.

Please direct your written comments

to Michael E. Bartell, Associate

Executive Director, Office of

Information Technology, Securities and

Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street,

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

Dated: May 1, 2001.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–11517 Filed 5–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No.

24966; 812–12332]

BT Investment Funds, et al.; Notice of

Application

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’).

ACTION: Notice of an application for an

order under section 17(b) of the

Investment Company Act of 1940 (the

‘‘Act’’) for an exemption from section

17(a) of the Act.

Summary of the Application:

Applicants request an order to permit a

series of a registered open-end

management investment company to

acquire all of the assets and stated

liabilities of a series of another

registered open-end management

investment company. Because of certain

affiliations, applicants may not rely on

rule 17a–8 under the Act.

Applicants: BT Investment Funds, on

behalf of its underlying series Small Cap

Fund (‘‘Acquiring Fund’’), and Morgan

Grenfell Investment Trust, on behalf of

its underlying series Smaller Companies

Fund (‘‘Acquiring Fund’’) (the

Acquiring Fund and the Acquired Fund

collectively, the ‘‘Funds’’), Deutsche

Asset Management, Inc. (‘‘DeAm, Inc.’’),

and Bankers Trust Company (‘‘Bankers

Trust’’).

Filing Dates: The application was

filed on November 27, 2000. Applicants

have agreed to file an amendment

during the notice period, the substance

of which is reflected in this notice.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An

order granting the application will be

issued unless the Commission orders a

hearing. Interested persons may request

a hearing by writing to the

Commission’s Secretary and serving

applicant with a copy of the request,

personally or by mail. Hearing requests

should be received by the Commission

by 5:30 p.m. on May 24, 2001, 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 who wish to be