14012 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices

That sentence reads, ‘‘[f]rom the date of

the initial contribution until the second

anniversary of the Split-Off, unless EDS

announces a merger with one or more

corporations, the Plan may not transfer

Class E stock to any person or related

group, if, as a result, such person or

group would own 5 percent (5%) or

more of the Class E stock then

outstanding.’’ GM states that the two

sentences quoted above, when read

together, mean that during the period

that begins on the initial contribution

date and ends on the first anniversary of

the Split-Off date, the Plan may not

transfer Class E stock to a person who

is (or, as a result of the transfer would

be) a ‘‘5 percent person.’’ However,

during the period that begins on the day

after the first anniversary of the SplitOff date and ends on the second

anniversary of the Split-Off date (or

later, in the case of a merger event

occurring before the second anniversary

of the Split-Off date), the Plan may

transfer Class E stock to a person who

would, as a result of the transfer,

constitute a ‘‘5 percent person,’’ if that

person agrees to be bound by the TRA.

The Department concurs.

In addition, to the comments from GM

described above, GM informed the

Department of an event which

transpired after the Notice was

published in the Federal Register. In

this regard, in item 12 on page 56545 of

the SFR, GM indicated that it

anticipated contributing $750 million to

the Plan before the end of 1994 which,

at its option, along with previous cash

contributions, could be considered part

of the $4 billion dollar contribution

which is the subject of this exemption.

In this regard, GM, in a letter dated

December 22, 1994, advised the

Department that this $750 million

contribution in cash was made on

December 12, 1994.

GM also clarified certain

representations regarding the

approximately 17 million shares of

Class E stock held by the Plan prior to

the contribution. On page 56546 of the

Notice, in the third full paragraph of the

center column, it is stated that the RRA

and the TRA ‘‘* * * will apply to all

Class E stock held by the Plan whether

acquired pursuant to the proposed

contribution in-kind or otherwise held

by the Plan at the time the exemption

is granted. In this regard, the 17 million

shares of Class E stock held by the Plan

prior to the contribution will be

surrendered to GM so that restrictions

may be placed on such shares.’’

Subsequent to the publication of the

Notice, it came to the attention of GM

that approximately 300,000 shares of the

17 million shares were acquired on the

open market by several independent

investment managers in the course of

implementing their respective portfolio

management strategies. These shares are

registered and tradable without

restriction. Because these shares are

registered, not subject to any trading

restrictions, and under management of

independent managers, GM believes

that it would be inappropriate to

transfer management of these shares to

UST pursuant to the exemption. Rather,

GM believes that these shares should

remain under the control of their

respective managers to be held and

disposed of in their discretion, as they

pursue their respective portfolio

management strategies. As a result,

these shares will not be subject to the

RRA and the TRA and will continue

under the control of their respective

managers, to be held or disposed of in

their discretion, rather than UST’s.

A number of individual commentators

requested a hearing with respect to the

exemption. Most of these commentators

appear to have requested a hearing

because of their belief that the

transaction would reduce their

retirement benefits. In addition, several

commentators requested a hearing but

did not state a reason for such request.

In response to these requests for

hearing, GM states that, given the

number of participants and beneficiaries

receiving the Notice of Proposed

Exemption, the number of requests for

a hearing is de minimis. Moreover, none

of the requests for a hearing presented

a compelling reason why such hearing

should be held.

The Department has considered the

concerns expressed by the individuals

who had requested a hearing and the

applicant’s written response addressing

such concerns. After consideration of

the materials provided, the Department

does not believe that any issues have

been raised which would require the

convening of a hearing. Further, after

giving full consideration to the record,

including the comments by

commentators and the responses of the

applicant, the Department has

determined to grant the exemption, as

described herein. In this regard, the

comments submitted to the Department

have been included as part of the public

record of the exemption application.

The complete application file, including

all supplemental submissions received

by the Department, is made available for

public inspection in the Public

Documents Room of the Pension

Welfare Benefits Administration, room

N–5507, U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,

DC 20210.

For a more complete statement of the

facts and representations supporting the

Department’s decision to grant this

exemption refer to the Notice published

on Monday, November 14, 1994, 59 FR

56541.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Angelena C. Le Blanc of the Department,

telephone (202) 219–8883 (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 or

disqualified person from certain other

provisions to which the exemptions

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) These exemptions are

supplemental to and not in derogation

of, any other provisions of the Act and/

or the Code, including statutory or

administrative exemptions and

transactional 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

(3) The availability of these

exemptions is subject to the express

condition that the material facts and

representations contained in each

application accurately describes all

material terms of the transaction which

is the subject of the exemption.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of

March, 1995.

Ivan Strasfeld,

Director of Exemption Determinations,

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration,

Department of Labor.

[FR Doc. 95–6345 Filed 3–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices 14013

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Cost Beneficial Licensing Actions

(CBLA) and Technical Specifications

Improvement Program (TSIP) Public

Workshop

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) will conduct a

public workshop on April 13, 1995, to

discuss the Commission’s Cost

Beneficial Licensing Actions (CBLA)

program, and its Administrative Letter

addressing the program. The

Administrative Letter was issued to

inform licensees of the CBLA program.

The CBLA program directs increased

management attention to license

amendments designated as cost

beneficial licensing actions and

provides for a more expeditious review.

Participation in the CBLA program is

voluntary. However, the purpose of the

workshop is also to encourage licensees

to develop CBLA programs if they have

not already done so, and receive public

comments on these activities.

Current activities within the

Technical Specification Improvement

Program (TSIP) will also be discussed.

The Technical Specification

Improvement Program was developed to

establish criteria for relocating certain

technical specifications from the facility

license to licensee-controlled

documents such as the final safety

analysis report. In July 1994 the NRC

proposed to amend the Technical

Specification regulations pertaining to

nuclear power reactors in order to

codify criteria for determining the

content of technical specifications.

Licensees may propose converting their

current technical specifications either in

parts, or at once (the preferred method)

to the improved Standard Technical

Specifications (STS). Participation in

the TSIP is voluntary. The principal

focus of this workshop will be on both

CBLA programs, and conversion to STS

at commercial power reactors. While the

NRC presentations will be broad in

nature, NRC staff representatives will be

present to address specific questions

with regard to the CBLA process or STS

conversions.

DATES: March 24, 1995—Advance

notification of intent to attend the

workshop, desire to comment or make a

statement during the workshop, or both

is requested by the NRC. Participants

are encouraged to submit written

comments, summaries, or both to the

staff by this date.

April 13, 1995—The Workshop will

be held at the NRC Auditorium from

7:30 am to 4:30 pm.

May 26, 1995—All written comments

on matters covered by the workshop

received by this date will be considered

by the staff. Written comments received

after May 26, 1995, will be considered

to the extent practical. Written

comments on the CBLA program and

the TSIP will be accepted before,

during, and after the workshop.

Advance comments, which could serve

to enhance the effectiveness of the

workshop, are particularly solicited.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held

in the NRC Auditorium. The NRC

Auditorium is located on an

underground level between the One

White Flint North Building and the Two

White Flint North Building at 11545

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland

20852. The NRC buildings are located

across from the entrance to the White

Flint Metro Station.

Notification of intent to attend, and

desire to make a statement should be

sent to Elizabeth L. Doolittle, Mail Stop

0–12–D–22, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. These notifications can also be

transmitted via facsimile or telephone.

The facsimile number is (301) 415–2279

and the telephone number is (301) 415–

1247. The facsimile cover sheet should

contain the address information listed

above. Letter or facsimile notifications

should contain, and people giving

notification via telephone should be

prepared to provide, the following preregistration information: full name of

participants/attendees, name of

organization or business, mailing

address, daytime telephone, facsimile

number, a statement concerning

whether the person or organization

wishes to provide comments or a

statement during the workshop, a

statement concerning whether the

person or organization intends to

provide written comments before or

after the workshop, and any specific

questions or comments that the

participant or organization would like to

be considered and/or addressed at the

workshop.

Copies of documents cited in the

Supplementary Information section are

available for inspection and/or for

reproduction for a fee at the NRC Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street NW

(Lower Level), Washington, DC 20037.

Written comments may be sent to the

Chief, Rules Review and Directives

Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. Hand-delivered comments to Two

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852 will be

received between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm

on Federal Workdays.

Copies of comments received and

relevant reference documents may be

examined at the NRC Public Document

Room at 2120 L Street NW (Lower

Level), Washington, DC, between the

hours of 7:45 am and 4:15 pm on

Federal workdays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth L. Doolittle, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, Mail Stop OWFN

12–D–22, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, telephone (301) 415–1247.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

II. Tentative Agenda

III. Workshop Content and Structure

I. Background

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory

Planning and Review,’’ issued by

President Clinton on September 30,

1993, required all agencies to perform a

periodic review of existing regulations

to eliminate unnecessary and

unproductive requirements. Although

the NRC already had several initiatives

underway that were focused on

improving the regulatory process by

identifying and eliminating

requirements that provided marginal

safety benefits, in May 1994 the

Commission established the policies,

practices and framework for

institutionalizing its ‘‘Continuing

Program for Regulatory Improvement.’’

The Continuing Program for Regulatory

Improvement described in SECY–94–

090 consists of three NRC initiatives:

1. The Marginal to Safety Program,

2. The Regulatory Review Group

Implementation Plan, and

3. The Cost Beneficial Licensing

Actions Program.

The NRC initiated its Marginal to

Safety Program (MSP) in the 1980s with

the purpose of identifying requirements

that were considered to be marginal to

safety and impose a substantial

regulatory burden on licensees, and

therefore should be relaxed or

eliminated. Over time the program was

redirected to focus on petitions for

rulemaking and regulatory guidance

identified by industry, since industry

was considered to be in the best

position to identify inefficient

regulations that impose heavy economic

burden.

Currently the NRC is proposing to

modify its regulations in 10 CFR 2.802

to provide guidance on the scope and

level of detail needed on petitions for

rulemaking to reduce regulatory burden.
14014 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices

The NRC prepared its Regulatory

Review Group (RRG) Implementation

Plan in 1993 with the purpose of

identifying topic areas within NRC’s

regulations and guidance where

prescriptive requirements might be

substituted with performance-based

requirements and guidance. The RRG

identified areas with significant

potential for relief of burden with little

or no adverse safety impact, as did NRC

as part of the MIS program.

More than 60 recommendations for

changes to the NRC’s regulations and

guidance were made, and the NRC

continues to make significant progress

toward completing these changes.

The NRC began its Cost Beneficial

Licensing Actions (CBLA) program on a

pilot basis in mid-1993, and beginning

in calendar year 1994, the CBLA option

was made available to all licensees with

the purpose of encouraging licensees to

request plant specific license

amendments that reduce or eliminate

license requirements that have an

incrementally small effect on safety but

a high economic burden. In the past,

licensee submittals of marginal safety

significance but high cost savings were

given the lowest priority for NRC staff

review, which may have discouraged

licensees from submitting this type of

request.

On February 23, 1995, the NRC issued

Administrative Letter 95–02, ‘‘Cost

Beneficial Licensing Actions’’ to inform

addressees of the CBLA program. The

letter explains that the CBLA program

will direct increased management

attention to license amendments

designated as cost beneficial licensing

actions and will provide for a more

expeditious review of certain

amendment requests. Participation in

the CBLA program is voluntary. Placing

additional emphasis on processing

CBLAs was meant to directly improve

safety by allowing licensees to shift

resources from activities that improve

safety by only an incrementally small

amount to those that more significantly

enhance safety.

CBLAs are not new. Many licensee

requests seek to modify or delete

requirements that have a small effect on

safety and are costly to implement.

However, before June 1993, the NRR

priority ranking system assigned the

lowest priority (priority 4) to most

licensing submittals addressing items

that benefited safety an incrementally

small amount without consideration of

the cost of implementation or restriction

of operational flexibility. As discussed

in Administrative Letter 95–02, the

priority ranking of CBLAs will be

further increased within the current

priority 3 ranking, so that a CBLA could

be expected to be reviewed before other

priority 3 licensing actions.

To assist in developing the CBLA

policy and tracking CBLAs, members of

the NRC staff have been dedicated to

serve in a CBLA group for a limited

time. The CBLA group, led by Eugene V.

Imbro, gives general CBLA policy

guidance to NRC and licensee staffs,

tracks and trends CBLA submittal and

approval data, and works with the staff

and industry to identify CBLAs with

generic implications. The CBLA group

has determined, based on licensee

estimates, that CBLAs approved in 1994

will result in an estimated industry

lifetime saving in excess of $257.2

million. Although the NRC licensing

project manager remains the primary

point of contact for all licensing actions

including CBLAs, licensees should

contact Mr. Imbro on (303) 415–2969 if

they have questions about the staff’s

implementation of the CBLA program.

One goal of the Technical

Specification Improvement Program is

similar to the goal of the CBLA program,

and that is to substantially reduce

regulatory burden. And, like the CBLA

program, participation in the Technical

Specification Improvement Program is

voluntary.

In July 1994, the NRC proposed to

amend technical specification

regulations pertaining to nuclear power

reactors through a rule change to 10 CFR

50.36, Technical Specifications. The

purpose of the rule was to codify the

July 1993, final policy statement criteria

for determining the content of technical

specifications. These criteria were

developed in recognition that the broad

use of technical specifications to impose

requirements has diverted both NRC

and licensee attention from the more

important requirements in the technical

specification documents. Broad use of

technical specifications has resulted in

an adverse but unquantifiable impact on

safety. Under this rule change licensees

may voluntarily use the criteria as a

basis to propose relocation of existing

technical specifications that do not meet

any of the criteria, from the facility

license to licensee-controlled

documents, such as the final safety

analysis report. Voluntary licensee

conversion of current technical

specifications in this manner is

expected to produce an improvement in

the safety of nuclear power plants

through a reduction in unnecessary

plant transients and more efficient use

of NRC and industry resources. While

the NRC will allow licensees to take

advantage of the opportunity to convert

their current technical specifications in

parts, the NRC strongly encourages and

gives priority to licensees considering

complete conversion of their current

technical specifications to the improved

Standard Technical Specifications. The

conversion to the improved Standard

Technical Specifications can save

licensees’ financial and staff resources

by relocating 30 to 40% of existing

technical specifications to licenseecontrolled documents and by

incorporating the benefits of numerous

Generic Letters, at once. While the

benefits of converting to the new

technical specifications are hard to

quantify, licensee owners’ groups

project annual saving of between

$150,000 and $1.13 million per unit.

Licensees for about 40 units are

currently pursuing conversion to the

improved Standard Technical

Specifications.

II. Tentative Agenda

April 13, 1995

7:30 a.m. Registration

8:30 a.m. Introduction

8:45 a.m. CBLA Administrative Letter

Overview

9:45 a.m. BREAK

10:00 a.m. Participant Presentations/

Panel Discussion in Response to

Participant Comments

11:45 a.m. Lunch

1:00 p.m. Technical Specification

Improvement Program

2:30 p.m. BREAK

2:45 p.m. Participant Presentations/

Panel Discussion in Response to

Participant Comments

4:15 p.m. Summary and Conclusions

(NRC)

4:30 p.m. Adjourn

III. Workshop Content and Structure

The workshop is structured to include

both NRC staff and licensees’

presentations during the morning and

afternoon. An opportunity for other

questions and comments following the

presentations is planned.

Participants will be allowed to

express their views during specific

comment periods. Participants who

wish to make statements will be

scheduled in the order in which they

notified the staff of their desire to make

a statement, and as time permits.

Comments will be taken from parties in

the order in which they notified the staff

of their intent to comment. The order of

comments will be:

(1) Parties who notified the staff by

April 10, 1995;

(2) Parties registering to comment

before 8:30 am the day of the workshop;

and

(3) Parties who have not given prior

notice.

Participants wishing to make

comments will be limited to 5 minutes.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices 14015

These time limits may be adjusted

depending on the number of

presentations and comment. The

workshop will be transcribed, and the

transcript will be available at the NRC

Public Document Room.

To foster meaningful discussions

during this session and to aid

participants in preparing their

presentations and comments,

participants should consider the

following set of questions:

• What impact will the CBLA

Administrative Letter have on those

organizations that the NRC regulates?

• Should the NRC develop a CBLA

database that could be made available to

the public?

• What are the reasons that the CBLA

program has not been used more widely

by licensees?

• What are the savings that can result

from conversion to the improved

Standard Technical Specifications?

Dated In Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day

of March , 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Eugene V. Imbro,

Director, RRG/CBLA Programs, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–6341 Filed 3–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Biweekly Notice

Applications and Amendments to

Facility Operating Licenses Involving

No Significant Hazards Considerations

I. Background

Pursuant to Public Law 97-415, the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(the Commission or NRC staff) is

publishing this regular biweekly notice.

Public Law 97-415 revised section 189

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended (the Act), to require the

Commission to publish notice of any

amendments issued, or proposed to be

issued, under a new provision of section

189 of the Act. This provision grants the

Commission the authority to issue and

make immediately effective any

amendment to an operating license

upon a determination by the

Commission that such amendment

involves no significant hazards

consideration, notwithstanding the

pendency before the Commission of a

request for a hearing from any person.

This biweekly notice includes all

notices of amendments issued, or

proposed to be issued from February 16,

1995, through March 3, 1995. The last

biweekly notice was published on

March 1, 1995.

Notice Of Consideration Of Issuance Of

Amendments To Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

And Opportunity For A Hearing

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

following amendment requests involve

no significant hazards consideration.

Under the Commission’s regulations in

10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation

of the facility in accordance with the

proposed amendment would not (1)

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated; or (2)

create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated; or (3)

involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. The basis for this

proposed determination for each

amendment request is shown below.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received before

action is taken. Should the Commission

take this action, it will publish in the

Federal Register a notice of issuance

and provide for opportunity for a

hearing after issuance. The Commission

expects that the need to take this action

will occur very infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Rules Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

Services, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, and should cite

the publication date and page number of

this Federal Register notice. Written

comments may also be delivered to

Room 6D22, Two White Flint North,

11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.

Federal workdays. Copies of written

comments received may be examined at

the NRC Public Document Room, the

Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC. The filing of requests

for a hearing and petitions for leave to

intervene is discussed below.

By April 14, 1995, the licensee may

file a request for a hearing with respect

to issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR Part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC and at the local public

document room for the particular

facility involved. If a request for a

hearing or petition for leave to intervene

is filed by the above date, the

Commission or an Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board, designated by the

Commission or by the Chairman of the

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Panel, will rule on the request and/or

petition; and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of a hearing or

an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) the nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made a party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.