8260 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 1995 / Notices

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Larry W. Camper,

Acting Chief, Medical, Academic, and

Commercial Use Safety Branch, Division of

Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, Office

of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 95–3521 Filed 2–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–313]

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Arkansas

Nuclear One, Unit 1); Exemption

I

Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee)

is the holder of Operating License No.

DPR–51, which authorizes operation of

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO–1).

The operating license provides, among

other things, that it is subject to all

rules, regulations, and orders of the

Commission now and hereafter in effect.

The facility consist of pressurized

water reactor at the licensee’s site in

Pope County, Arkansas.

II

Section III.D.1(a) of appendix J to 10

CFR part 50 requires, ‘‘* * * a set of

three Type A tests [Overall Integrated

Containment Leakage Rate Tests, or

ILRTs] shall be preformed, at

approximately equal intervals during

each 10-year service period. The third

test of each set shall be conducted when

the plant is shutdown for the 10-year

plant inservice inspection.’’ By letter

dated November 8, 1994, the licensee

requested an exemption from this

requirement of the Commission’s

regulations.

The NRC may grant exemptions from

the requirements of the regulations,

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, that (1) are

authorized by law, will not present an

undue risk to the public health and

safety, and are consistent with the

common defense and security; and (2)

present special circumstances. Section

50.12(a)(2) of 10 CFR part 50 describes

special circumstances as including cases

that would not serve the underlying

purpose of the rule or are not necessary

to achieve the underlying purpose of the

rule.

In its November 8, 1994, letter, the

licensee also applied for an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

51 to change related provisions of the

ANO–1 Technical Specifications (TSs).

The TS amendment request will be

addressed as a separate action.

III

The Type A test is defined in 10 CFR

part 50, appendix J, section II.F, as a

‘‘test intended to measure the primary

reactor containment overall integrated

leakage rate (1) after the containment

has been completed and is ready for

operation, and (2) at periodic intervals

thereafter.’’ A total of six Type A tests

(ILRT) has been performed on the ANO–

1 containment including the

preoperational ILRT that was performed

in 1973. Except for leakage detected by

Type B and C tests, containment leakage

rates have always been below the ANO–

1 acceptance criteria. The requested

exemption does not affect the

performance of Type B and C leakage

tests which are expected to detect the

most probable sources of containment

leakage.

In order to schedule the next ILRT

(the third ILRT of this service period)

such that it coincides with the 10-year

inservice inspections, the licensee has

requested a one-time exemption from

the appendix J requirements. The

exemption would permit the licensee to

perform the ILRT together with the 10-

year inservice inspections that are

schedule during the thirteenth refueling

outage. If performed during the

thirteenth refueling outage, the third

ILRT will not be completed until after

the end of the current 10-year service

period. To comply with regulations as

written, an ILRT would be required

during the twelfth refueling outage to

satisfy the requirement for three ILRTs

during the 10-year service period and

another ILRT would be required during

the thirteenth refueling outage to satisfy

the requirement for the third ILRT to be

performed when the plant is shutdown

for the 10-year inservice inspections.

The thirteenth refueling outage is

currently scheduled for the summer of

1996 and an ILRT performed during this

refueling outage would result in a test

interval between the second and third

ILRTs of approximately 53 months. If

the ILRT were performed during the

twelfth refueling outrage, currently

scheduled for early 1995, the interval

between the second and third ILRTs

would be approximately 34 months. In

the absence of the exemption and

related technical specification changes,

the licensee would be required to

perform ILRTs during both the twelfth

and thirteenth refueling outages. A

requirement to perform ILRTs during

two consecutive refueling is clearly

beyond the intent of the regulations and

given the satisfactory results of previous

tests at ANO–1, there is little, if

anything, to gain from two closely

spaced tests.

For the reasons set forth above, the

NRC staff concludes that this one-time

relief from the requirement to perform

the third ILRT within a 10-year service

period is not significant in terms of

complying with the intent of appendix

J, section III.D.1(a). Accordingly, the

staff finds that the performance of ILRTs

during both the twelfth and thirteenth

refueling outages would not result in a

commensuate increase in the confidence

of containment integrity. Therefore, the

subject exemption request meets the

special circumstances of 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii), in that in these particular

circumstances, the fourth test is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule.

On this basis, the NRC staff finds that

the licensee has demonstrated that

special circumstances are present as

required by 10 CFR 50.12. Further the

staff also finds that extending the

schedule for the third ILRT to beyond

the 10-year service period will not

present a undue risk to the public health

and safety.

IV

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a),

that this exemption is authorized by law

and will not endanger life or property or

the common defense and security and is

otherwise in the public interest.

Therefore, the Commission hereby

grants Entery Operations, Inc. an

exemption from the requirements of 10

CFR part 50, appendix J, section

III.D.1(a).

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will have no

significant impact of the quality of the

human environment (60 FR 6568).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 3rd day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Elinor G. Adensam,

Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects

III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–3522 Filed 2–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY

CORPORATION

Request for Review Under the

Paperwork Reduction Act; Collection

of Information Under 29 CFR Part 2645,

Extension of Special Withdrawal

Liability Rules

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of request for OMB

review.

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public

that the Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation has requested review by the

Office of Management and Budget for a

collection of information (1212–0023)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 1995 / Notices 8261

contained in its regulation on Extension

of Special Withdrawal Liability Rules

(29 CFR part 2645).

ADDRESSES: All written comments

should be addressed to: Office of

Management and Budget, Paperwork

Reduction Project (1212–0023),

Washington, DC 20503. The request for

review will be available for public

inspection at the PBGC

Communications and Public Affairs

Department, Suite 240, 1200 K Street

NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026,

between the hours at 9:00 a.m. and 4:00

p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah C. Murphy, Attorney, Office of

the General Counsel, Suite 340, Pension

Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K

Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–

4026, 202–326–4024 (202–326–4179 for

TTY and TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

collection of information is contained in

the Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation’s (‘‘PBGC’s’’) regulation on

Extension of Special Withdrawal

Liability Rules, 29 CFR part 2645.

Sections 4203(f) and 4208(e)(3) of the

Employee Retirement Income Security

Act of 1974 (‘‘ERISA’’) provide for the

PBGC’s issuance of regulations under

which the PBGC may approve a

multiemployer pension plan’s adoption

of special rules for determining whether

a complete or partial withdrawal from

the plan has occurred. Section 4203(f)

also sets standards for the approval of

such special rules. The PBGC’s

regulation on Extension of Special

Withdrawal Liability Rules requires the

plan sponsor of a plan that adopts

special rules to submit information

about the rules, the plan, and the

industry in which the plan operates

with its request for PBGC approval of

the rules. The PBGC uses that

information in determining whether the

plan’s special withdrawal liability rules

meet the requirements of ERISA.

The PBGC estimates that it receives

three requests per year under the

regulation and that each request takes

sixteen hours to prepare. Thus, the total

estimated burden is 48 hours per year.

Issued at Washington, DC, this 7th day of

February 1995.

Martin Slate,

Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 95–3447 Filed 2–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7708–01–M

Request for Review Under the

Paperwork Reduction Act; Collection

of Information Under 29 CFR Part 2672,

Mergers And Transfers Between

Multiemployer Plans

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of request for OMB

review.

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public

that the Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation has requested review by the

Office of Management and Budget for a

collection of information (1212–0022)

contained in its regulation on Mergers

and Transfers Between Multiemployer

Plans (29 CFR part 2672).

ADDRESSES: All written comments

should be addressed to: Office of

Management and Budget, Paperwork

Reduction Project (1212–0022),

Washington, DC 20503. The request for

review will be available for public

inspection at the PBGC

Communications and Public Affairs

Department, Suite 240, 1200 K Street

NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026,

between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah C. Murphy, Attorney, office of

the General Counsel, Suite 340, Pension

Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K

Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–

4026, 202–326–4024 (202–326–4179 for

TTY and TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

collection of information is contained in

the Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation’s (‘‘PBGC’s’’) regulation on

Mergers and Transfers Between

Multiemployer Plans, 29 CFR Part 2672.

Section 4231 of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

(ERISA) imposes requirements on

multiemployer plan mergers and

transfers and provides that a merger or

transfer will be deemed not to be in

violation of ERISA section 406 (a) or

(b)(2) (dealing with prohibited

transactions) if the PBGC determines

that those requirements are satisfied.

Pursuant to section 4231, the PBGC has

promulgated its regulation on Mergers

and Transfers Between Multiemployer

Plans (29 CFR part 2672), which sets

forth (in §§ 2672.2, 2672.7, and 2672.8)

the procedures a plan sponsor must

follow to give the PBGC notice of a

merger or transfer under section 4231 or

to request a PBGC determination that a

merger or transfer complies with the

requirements of section 4231. The PBGC

uses information submitted by

multiemployer plan sponsors under the

regulation to determine whether

mergers and transfers conform to the

requirements of ERISA section 4231 and

the regulation.

The PBGC estimates that it takes a

respondent an average of 5 hours to

prepare a submission under the

regulation and, based on its experience,

that about 20 submissions are made

each year.

Accordingly, the estimated burden of

the collection of information is 100

hours.

Issued at Washington, DC, this 7th day of

February 1995.

Martin Slate,

Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 95–3446 Filed 2–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7708–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Request Under Review by Office of

Management and Budget

Acting Agency Clearance Officer: David

T. Copenhafer, (202) 942–8800

Upon written request copies available

from: Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of Filings and

Information Services, Washington

DC 20549

Proposed Amendment Form BD File No.

270–19

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 has

submitted for the Office of Management

and Budget approval on the proposed

amendments to Form BD [17 CFR

249.501] under the Securities Exchange

Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).

Form BD is used to apply for

registration as a broker-dealer and for

firms other than banks and registered

broker-dealers to apply for registration

as a municipal securities dealer or a

government securities broker-dealer.

Form BD also is used to amend such

applications when any information

previously filed on Form BD becomes

inaccurate. It is estimated that 1,200

broker-dealers annually will incur an

average burden of 2.75 hours to file

initial or successor applications for

registration on Form BD for an annual

burden of 3,300 hours. It also is

estimated that broker-dealers will file

12,000 amendments annually, and will

incur an average burden of 20 minutes

to file amendments on Form BD for an

annual burden of 3,960 hours. The total

annual burden for Form BD and Form

BD amendments is 7,260 hours.

Direct general comments to the

Clearance Officer for the Securities and