65694 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Notices

Specification (TS) 4.1.3.1.2, 4.4.6.2.2.b,

4.4.3.2, 4.6.2.1.d, 4.6.4.2, and Table 4.3-

3 in accordance with guidance provided

in NRC Generic Letter (GL) 93-05, ‘‘Line

Item Technical Specification

Improvements to Reduce Surveillance

Requirements for Testing During Power

Operations.’’ Additionally, the

amendment revises TS 4.1.1.1.1, 4.1.1.2,

3/4.1.3.1 and the associated Bases to

implement portions of NUREG-1431,

‘‘Standard Technical Specifications -

Westinghouse Plants.’’

Date of issuance: December 7, 1995

Effective date: December 7, 1995

Amendment No.: 105

Facility Operating License No. NPF30. The amendment revises the

Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: August 30, 1995 (60 FR

45187). The Commission’s related

evaluation of the amendment is

contained in a Safety Evaluation dated

December 7, 1995.No significant

hazards consideration comments

received: No.

Local Public Document Room

location:Callaway County Public

Library, 710 Court Street, Fulton,

Missouri 65251.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this

13th day of December 1995.For the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Steven A. Varga,

Director, Division of Reactor Projects - I/II,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

[Doc. 95–30755 Filed 12–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–F

Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

NUREG/BR–0058, Revision 2;

Issuance, Availability

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

has recently published ‘‘Regulatory

Analysis Guidelines of the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission,’’ NUREG/BR–

0058, Revision 2. For over 20 years the

NRC has conducted regulatory valueimpact analyses to determine whether

there is an adequate basis for imposing

new requirements on licensees. In

January 1983, the NRC first published

its Regulatory Analysis Guidelines

(NUREG/BR–0058) in order to clarify

and formalize its existing value-impact

guidance for the analysis of regulatory

actions. Revision 1 to NUREG/BR–0058

was issued in May 1984 to include

appropriate references to NUREG/CR–

3568; a handbook that provided

implementation guidance to the NRC

staff for the policy set forth in the

Guidelines.

In August 1993, the NRC published a

draft version of the Guidelines, Revision

2, and invited public comment on the

draft report. This revision reflects (1) the

NRC’s accumulated experience with

implementing the previous Guidelines;

(2) changes in NRC regulations and

procedures since 1984, especially the

backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109) and the

Policy Statement on Safety Goals for the

Operation of Nuclear Power Plants (51

FR 30028, August 21, 1986); (3)

advances and refinements in regulatory

analysis techniques; (4) regulatory

guidance for Federal agencies issued by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB); and (5) procedural changes

designed to enhance NRC’s regulatory

effectiveness.

In the draft report, the NRC indicated

that a review and analysis of the dollar

per person-rem conversion factor policy

was ongoing and until its completion,

the existing conversion factor policy

would remain operative. The conversion

factor is a central consideration because

it is the basis for translating radiological

exposure to a monetary value and, as

such, allows direct comparison between

the potential health and safety benefits

and the costs of a proposed regulatory

initiative. The staff’s reevaluation has

now been completed, and the

Commission has decided to implement

a $2000 per person-rem conversion

factor, subject it to present worth

considerations, and limit its scope

solely to health effects. This is in

contrast to the previous policy and staff

practice of using an undiscounted $1000

per person-rem conversion factor which

served as a surrogate for all offsite

consequences (health and offsite

property).

The new conversion factor policy is

based on a relatively simple and

straightforward logic in which the dollar

per person-rem conversion factor is

defined as the product of the dollar

value of the health detriment and a risk

coefficient that establishes the

probability of health effects as a result

of low doses of radiation. In the NRC’s

formulation, the value of the latter term

is on the order of 7×10¥4 per rem which

includes allowances for fatal cancers,

nonfatal cancers, and severe genetic

effects. The national and international

bodies (NCRP, ICRP) directly

responsible for evaluating and

recommending a risk coefficient for the

total health detriment are all in close

agreement, and NRC has adopted their

recommendations. For the dollar

valuation of the health detriment, the

NRC has adopted $3 million as a

representative value. This estimate is

consistent with OMB’s best estimate and

an extensive literature review performed

by the NRC. The resulting $2000

conversion factor was derived by

multiplying these two factors (7×10¥4

and $3 million) and expressing the

result with one significant digit.

In addition, to provide meaningful

summations of the costs and benefits

that accrue over time, the dollar

valuation of person-rem are to be

expressed on a present-worth basis.

Based on OMB guidance, present-worth

calculations are to use the

recommended discount rate specified in

the latest version of OMB Circular A–94.

This circular was most recently updated

in late 1992 and specifies the use of a

7-percent real discount rate.

The final change in conversion factor

policy concerns the treatment of offsite

property consequences. The $2000

conversion factor is now clearly defined

as the value of the health effects

associated with a person-rem of dose.

As such, it can no longer be used as a

surrogate value for other consequences

that could be attributable to offsite

radiological releases or exposures. Thus,

in those regulatory applications where

offsite property consequences could

result, these consequences would have

to be calculated separately, and

incorporated into the overall valueimpact assessment.

The net effect of this revised

conversion factor policy on the bottomline value-impact results is mixed. In

most regulatory applications the only

consequence of radiological exposure is

health effects. As a result, the dollar

valuation of a person-rem would shift

from an undiscounted $1000 to a $2000

conversion factor which would be

subject to present worth calculations. In

these circumstances, the doubling of the

conversion factor and discounting tend

to cancel each other. The differential in

total dollar valuation is not of major

significance and no improvement or

change in regulatory decisions is

expected. However, there are select

circumstances where improvements in

regulatory decisionmaking are possible.

In regulatory applications involving

certain severe power reactor accidents,

offsite property consequences are an

expected outcome. Under the new

policy, an additional dollar allowance

would need to be included, and in these

instances the change in total dollar

value could be important to the

regulatory decision.

The new conversion factor policy has

been incorporated in this final version

of the Guidelines without the

opportunity for public comment. This

position was adopted because the NRC

was interested in avoiding further delay

in publication of the Guidelines so that

analysts will have the benefit of other

areas of improved guidance.

Furthermore, in most regulatory
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Notices 65695

applications this policy shift will have

no meaningful effect on bottom-line

cost-benefit results. In addition, given

that this policy will be included in

regulatory analyses for specific

rulemakings, the opportunity to

comment on it also exists within the

context of individual regulatory

initiatives. Finally, these Guidelines are

not regulations and are not legally

binding on anyone and are merely

intended to inform the analyst as to

expected staff practice.

A more complete discussion of the

basis and implications of the new

person-rem conversion factor are

provided in NUREG 1530,

‘‘Reassessment of NRC’s Dollar Per

Person-Rem Conversion Factor Policy’’

(to be published in late 1995). Members

of the public who may wish to comment

on this issue are encouraged to do so,

and, on the basis of these comments, the

NRC holds open the possibility of

revising this policy in the future.

Copies of NUREG/BR–0058, Revision

2, as well as NUREG–1530 may be

purchased from the Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC

20402–9328. Copies are also available

from the National Technical Information

Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also

available for inspection and/or copying

for a fee in the NRC Public Document

Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower

Level), Washington, DC 20555–0001.

Mail comments to: Chief, Rules

Review and Directives Branch, Division

of Freedom of Information and

Publication Services, Mail Stop T–6

D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. Comments may be hand-delivered

to 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15

p.m. on Federal workdays.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day

of December, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–30888 Filed 12–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Determination of Quarterly Rate of

Excise Tax for Railroad Retirement

Supplemental Annuity Program

In accordance with directions in

Section 3221(c) of the Railroad

Retirement Tax Act (26 U.S.C., Section

3221(c)), the Railroad Retirement board

has determined that the excise tax

imposed by such Section 3221(c) on

every employer, with respect to having

individuals in his employ, for each

work-hour for which compensation is

paid by such employer for services

rendered to him during the quarter

beginning January 1, 1996, shall be at

the rate of 34 cents.

In accordance with directions in

Section 15(a) of the Railroad Retirement

Act of 1974, the Railroad Retirement

Board has determined that for the

quarter beginning January 1, 1996, 34.6

percent of the taxes collected under

Sections 3211(b) and 3221(c) of the

Railroad Retirement Tax Act shall be

credited to the Railroad Retirement

Account and 65.4 percent of the taxes

collected under such Sections 3211(b)

and 3221(c) plus 100 percent of the

taxes collected under Section 3221(d) of

the Railroad Retirement Tax Act shall be

credited to the Railroad Retirement

Supplemental Account.

Dated: December 14, 1995.

By Authority of the Board.

Beatrice Ezerski,

Secretary to the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–30895 Filed 12–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7905–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Request for Public Comment

Upon Written Request, Copies Available

From: Securities and Exchange Commission,

Office of Filings and Information Services,

Washington, DC 20549.

Extension:

Rule 31a–2, SEC File No. 270–174, OMB

Control No. 3235–0179;

Rule 7d–1, SEC File No. 270–176, OMB

Control No. 3235–0311;

Form N–14, SEC File No. 270–297, OMB

Control No. 3235–0336.

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 publishing the

following summaries of collections for

public comment.

Rule 31a–2 concerns preservation of

records by registered investment

companies and certain majority-owned

subsidiaries thereof. The Commission

periodically inspects the operations of

all registered investment companies to

ensure their compliance with the

provisions of the Investment Company

Act of 1940 (‘‘the Act’’) and the rules

thereunder. A significant portion of the

time used in these inspections is spent

reviewing the information contained in

the books and records required to be

preserved by Rule 31a–2. Each of the

4,902 respondents incur an average

estimated 15.4 burden hours annually to

comply with this requirement.

Rule 7d–1 specifies conditions under

which a Canadian (or other foreign)

management investment company may

request an order from the Commission

permitting it to register under the Act.

The rule’s information collection

requirements seek to ensure that the

substantive provisions of the Act may be

enforced as a matter of contract right in

the Untied States or Canada by the

company’s shareholders or the

Commission.

The Commission believes that three

Canadian investment companies and

one other foreign investment company

have registered under Rule 7d–1 and are

currently active. Apart from information

collection requirements imposed on all

registered investment companies (which

are reflected in the information

collection burdens applicable to those

requirements), Rule 7d-1 imposes

ongoing burdens to maintain in the

United States records of the company

and related records of its investment

adviser and to update, as necessary, a

list of affiliated persons of the company,

investment adviser, and principal

underwriter. The four companies and

their associated persons spend

approximately 101 hours annually

complying with the requirements of the

rule. This estimate is a revision of the

75 burden hours currently allocated to

Rule 7d–1. The revision reflects the

inclusion of an additional respondent

and the Commission staff’s

administrative experience with the rule.

Canadian and other foreign

investment companies have not sought

to register under the Act pursuant to

Rule 7d–1 in the past three years. If a

company were to file an application

under the rule, the Commission

estimates that the rule would impose

initial information collection burdens of

approximately 90 hours on the company

and its associated persons. Since no

fund has sought to register under the

Act pursuant to Rule 7d–1 in the last

three years, the Commission is not

including those burdens in its

calculation of the annual hours burdens.

After registration, a foreign company

may file a supplemental application

seeking special exemptive relief from

provisions of the Act based on the

company’s particular circumstances.

Because such filings are not mandated

by Rule 7d–1 and are made at a

company’s discretion, no burden hours

are allocated for such applications.

Form N–14 is the form for registration

of securities to be issued by investment

companies registered under the Act in

business combination transactions