Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices 29187

for a hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer, or

the 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).

If a request for a hearing is received,

the Commission’s staff may issue the

amendment after it completes its

technical review and prior to the

completion of any required hearing if it

publishes a further notice for public

comment of its proposed finding of no

significant hazards consideration in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 10

CFR 50.92.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated April 5, 2001, which

is available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room

(PDR), located at One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),

Rockville, Maryland, and accessible

electronically through the Agencywide

Documents Access and Management

System (ADAMS) Public Electronic

Reading Room link at the NRC Web site

(http://www.nrc.gov). If there are

problems accessing the document

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–

415–4737, or send an email to

pdr@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day

of May 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David H. Jaffe,

Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate IV & Decommissioning Division

of Licensing Project Management, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–13398 Filed 5–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 30–595]

South Carolina Electric & Gas; V.C.

Summer Nuclear Station,

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

issuance of an exemption from 10 CFR

55.59 for Facility Operating License No.

NPF–12, issued to South Carolina

Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G, the

licensee), for operation of the V.C.

Summer Nuclear Station, located in

Jenkinsville, South Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow the

licensed operator requalification

examinations for the V.C. Summer

Nuclear Station to be rescheduled. The

requested exemption would extend the

completion date for the examinations

from May 31, 2001, to August 31, 2001.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption dated January 12, 2001.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action would extend

the current V.C. Summer Nuclear

Station requalification program from

May 31, 2001, to August 31, 2001. On

October 13, 2000, during routine

shutdown inspections, SCE&G

discovered a leak in a weld in the

reactor coolant system. Activities to

determine the root cause and extent of

condition and to repair the leak

extended through the end of February

2001, months beyond the original

scheduled plant restart. To provide the

necessary level of licensed operator

support to ensure safety throughout the

extended plant outage, SCE&G

postponed the training and other

requalification program activities

originally planned during that time.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The NRC has completed its evaluation

of the proposed action and concludes,

as set forth below, that there are no

environmental impacts associated with

the extension of the operator

requalification examinations from May

31, 2001, to August 31, 2001. The

proposed action will not significantly

increase the probability or consequences

of accidents, no changes are being made

in the types or amounts 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 V.C. Summer Nuclear

Station.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on May 18, 2001, the staff consulted

with the South Carolina State official,

Henry Porter of the Division of Waste

Management, 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 January 12, 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 Public Electronic Reading Room).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of May 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Karen R. Cotton,

Project Manager, Section 1, Project

Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–13399 Filed 5–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

Upon Written Request, Copies

Available From: Securities and

29188 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

Exchange Commission, Office of Filings

and Information Services, Washington,

DC 20549.

Extension: Rule 15a–4; SEC File No.

270–7; OMB Control No. 3235–0010.

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 15a–4 under the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 (the ‘‘Exchange

Act’’) permits a natural person member

of a securities exchange who terminates

his or her association with a registered

broker-dealer to continue to transact

business on the exchange while the

Commission reviews his or her

application for registration as a brokerdealer if the exchange files a statement

indicating that there does not appear to

be any ground for disapproving the

application. The total annual burden

imposed by Rule 15a–4 is

approximately 106 hours, based on

approximately 25 responses (25

Respondents × 1 Response/Respondent),

each requiring approximately 4.23 hours

to complete. The total annual cost

burden is $5,875, based on

approximately 25 responses, each

costing approximately $235 to complete.

The Commission uses the information

disclosed by applicants in Form BD: (1)

to determine whether the applicant

meets the standards for registration set

forth in the provisions of the Exchange

Act; (2) to develop a central information

resource where members of the public

may obtain relevant, up-to-date

information about broker-dealers,

municipal securities dealers and

government securities broker-dealers,

and where the Commission, other

regulators and SROs may obtain

information for investigatory purposes

in connection with securities litigation;

and (3) to develop statistical

information about broker-dealers,

municipal securities dealers and

government securities broker-dealers.

Without the information disclosed in

Form BD, the Commission could not

effectively implement policy objectives

of the Exchange Act with respect to its

investor protection function.

The statement submitted by the

exchange assures the Commission that

the applicant, in the opinion of the

exchange, is qualified to transact

business on the exchange during the

time that the applications are reviewed.

Written comments are invited on: (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate

of the burden of the proposed collection

of information; (c) ways to enhance the

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

comments 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 Fifth Street,

N.W. Washington, DC 20549.

Dated: May 18, 2001.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–13385 Filed 5–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–44327; File No. SR–ISE–

2001–04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by

the International Securities Exchange

LLC Relating to Its Disciplinary

Procedures

May 18, 2001.

Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on February

6, 2001, the International Securities

Exchange LLC (the ‘‘Exchange’’ or the

‘‘ISE’’) filed with the Securities and

Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’)

the proposed rule change, as described

in Items I, II, and III below, which Items

have been prepared by the ISE. The

Commission is publishing this notice to

solicit comments on the proposed rule

change from interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

The Exchange is proposing various

changes to its disciplinary rules and

procedures. A complete copy of the text

of the proposed rule change is available

at the Office of the Secretary, the ISE

and the Commission.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission, the

ISE included statements concerning the

purpose of and basis for the proposed

rule change and discussed any

comments it received on the proposed

rule change. The text of these statements

may be examined at the places specified

in Item IV below. The ISE has prepared

summaries, set forth in Sections A, B,

and C below, of the most significant

aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

1. Purpose

The Exchange has entered into a

regulatory services agreement with

NASD Regulation (‘‘NASDR’’) pursuant

to which, among other things, NASDR

provides services related to conducting

regulatory investigations and

disciplinary actions. The ISE is

proposing to make changes to its

disciplinary rules and procedures to

reflect and facilitate this ‘‘hybrid’’

regulatory system. In particular, the

Exchange seeks to conform its

disciplinary rules and procedures to

those of NASDR where appropriate. In

addition, the Exchange has carefully

reviewed the disciplinary rules

currently in place at the other selfregulatory organizations (‘‘SROs’’) and

seeks to incorporate rules and standards

found in the rule of the other SROs in

a manner tailored to fit the needs of the

Exchange, while assuring a disciplinary

process that is fair to the Exchange’s

members as required by the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934, as amended

(‘‘Exchange Act’’). The specific changes

are discussed below.

The Exchange proposes to include in

separate Rules the provisions currently

contained in Rule 1601 that (1) require

members and persons associated with

Members to provide information upon

the request of the Exchange, and (2)

specify the Exchange’s authority and

obligation to investigate possible

violations within the disciplinary

jurisdiction of the Exchange. These

provisions will be contained in Rules

1601 and 1602, respectively. While Rule

1615 already provides the Exchange

authority to contract with another SRO

to perform some or all of the Exchange’s