15946 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Notices

containment leakage paths with the

Type A tests confirming the Type B and

C test results. The planned replacement

of the NA–2 steam generators affects

only the closed piping system inside

containment which includes the main

steam lines, the feedwater lines, and the

secondary side of the steam generators.

The affected area of the primary

containment boundary is also part of the

pressure boundary of an ASME Class 2

component/piping system and, as such,

the replacement of the NA–2 steam

generators are subject to the repair and

replacement requirements of ASME

Section XI. The ASME Section XI

surface, volumetric, and system

pressure test requirements are more

stringent than the Type A testing

requirements of Appendix J. The

acceptance criteria for ASME Section XI

system pressure testing of welded joints

is zero leakage and the test pressure for

the system pressure test will be in

excess of 20 times that of a type A test.

In addition, the steam generator

replacement activities do not affect the

containment structure or the

containment liner. The NRC staff

considers that these inspections provide

an important added level of confidence

in the continued integrity of the

containment boundary. The NRC staff

also notes that the containment is

maintained at a subatmospheric

pressure which provides a means for

continuously monitoring potential

containment leakage paths during

power operation. The change will not

increase the probability or consequences

of accidents, no changes are being made

in the types of any effluents that may be

released offsite, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does involve features located

entirely within the restricted area as

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not

affect nonradiological plant effluents

and has no other environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, any alternatives with equal or

greater environmental impact need not

be evaluated. As an alternative to the

proposed action, the NRC staff

considered denial of the proposed

action.

Denial of the application would result

in no change in current environmental

impacts.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for NA–2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the NRC staff consulted with the

Virginia State official regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission 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 March 2, 1995, which is available

for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

Swem Library, College of William and

Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185,

and The Alderman Library, Special

Collections Department, University of

Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia

22903–2498.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David B. Matthews,

Director Project Directorate II–2, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–7695 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Under Review by Office of

Management and Budget

Acting Agency Clearance Officer:

David T. Copenhafer, (202) 272–5407.

Upon written request copy available

from: Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of Filings and

Information Services, Washington, D.C.

20549.

PROPOSED REVISIONS

Regulation C ................ File No. 270–68.

PROPOSED REVISIONS—Continued

Form S–1 ..................... File No. 270–58.

Form S–2 ..................... File No. 270–60.

Form S–3 ..................... File No. 270–61.

Form S–11 ................... File No. 270–64.

Form SB–1 ................... File No. 270–374.

Form SB–2 ................... File No. 270–366.

Form F–1 ..................... File No. 270–249.

Form F–2 ..................... File No. 270–250.

Form F–3 ..................... File No. 270–251.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), that the Securities

and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) has submitted

proposed rule revisions for OMB

approval. Forms S–1, S–2, S–3, S–11,

SB–1, SB–2, F–1, F–2, and F–3 are used

to register securities under the

Securities Act of 1933 and Regulation C

governs the filing of such forms. The

staff estimates that if the proposed

amendments are adopted,

approximately 1,249 respondents would

file Form S–1 annually at an estimated

1,257 burden hours per response with a

total annual burden of 1,569,993 hours;

344 respondents would file Form S–2

annually at an estimated 487 burden

hours per response with a total annual

burden of 167,528 hours; 2,290

respondents would file Form S–3

annually at an estimated 413 burden

hours per response with a total annual

burden of 945,770 hours; 345

respondents would file Form S–11

annually at an estimated 859 burden

hours per response with a total annual

burden of 296,355 hours; 260

respondents would file Form SB–1

annually at an estimated 725 burden

hours per response with a total annual

burden of 188,500 hours; 269

respondents would file Form SB–2

annually at an estimated 893 burden

hours per response with a total annual

burden of 240,217 hours; 15

respondents would file Form F–1

annually at an estimated 1,885 burden

hours per response with a total annual

burden of 28,275 hours; 4 respondents

would file Form F–2 annually at an

estimated 575 burden hours per

response with a total annual burden of

2,300 hours; 6 respondents would file

Form F–3 annually at an estimated 180

burden hours per response with a total

annual burden of 1,080 hours and

Regulation C is assigned one burden

hour for administrative convenience

because the regulation simply prescribes

the disclosure that must appear in the

above referenced forms and other filings

under the federal securities laws.

General comments regarding the

estimated burden hours should be

directed to the Clearance Officer for the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Notices 15947

1Position limits impose a ceiling on the aggregate

number of options contracts on the same side of the

market that can be held or written by an investor

or group of investors acting in concert.

2See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 25738

(May 24, 1988), 53 FR 20201 (June 2, 1988).

3See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 25738

(May 24, 1988), 53 FR 20201 (June 2, 1988) (order

approving CBOE’s equity option hedge exemption

pilot programs); 25739 (May 24, 1988), 53 FR 20204

(June 2, 1988) (approving CBOE’s stock index

option hedge exemption pilot program); 27786

(March 8, 1990), 55 FR 9523 (March 14, 1990)

(order approving NYSE’s equity option and stock

index option hedge exemption pilot programs);

25811 (June 20, 1988), 53 FR 23821 (June 24, 1988)

(order approving PSE’s equity option hedge

exemption pilot program); and 32900 (September

14, 1993), 58 FR 49077 (September 21, 1993) (order

approving PSE’s stock index option hedge

exemption pilot program).

4See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 24986

(November 18, 1994), 59 FR 60856 (November 28,

1994) (order approving File Nos. SR–Amex–94–49,

SR–CBOE–94–41, SR–PSE–94–33, and SR–PHLX–

94–53); and 35194 (January 5, 1995), 60 FR 2800

(January 11, 1995) (order approving File Nos. SR–

NYSE–94–47).

5Under the pilot, the Exchanges must determine

on a case-by-case basis whether an instrument that

is being used as the basis for an underlying hedged

position is readily and immediately convertible into

a security that is convertible at a future date, but

which is not presently convertible, is not a

‘‘convertible’’ security for purposes of the equity

option position limit hedge exemption until the

date it becomes convertible. In addition, if the

convertible security used to hedge an options

position is called for redemption by the issuer, the

security would have to be converted into the

underlying security immediately or the

corresponding options position reduced

accordingly. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act

Release No. 32904 (September 14, 1993), 58 FR

49339 (September 2, 1993) (order approving File

No. SR–CBOE–91–43).

6Exercise limits prohibits the exercise by an

investor or group of investors acting in concert of

more than the number of options contracts specified

in the position limit rule within five consecutive

business days.

Securities Exchange Commission at the

address below. Any comments

concerning the accuracy of the

estimated average burden hours for

compliance with Commission rules and

forms should be directed to David T.

Copehafer, Acting Director, Securities

and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth

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

and Clearance Officer for the Securities/

Exchange Commission, Project Nos.

3235–0074; 3235–0065; 3235–0072;

33235–0073; 3235–0067; 3235–0423;

3235–0418; 3235–0258; 3235–0257; and

3235–0256, Office of Management and

Budget, Room 3208, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, D.C.

20503.

Dated: March 21, 1995.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–7532 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 34–35523; File Nos. SR–Amex–

95–13; SR–CBOE–95–13, SR–NYSE–9504,

SR–PSE–95–05, and SR–PHLX–95–10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Changes by

the American Stock Exchange, Inc., the

Chicago Board Options Exchange,

Inc., the New York Stock Exchange,

Inc., the Pacific Stock Exchange, Inc.,

and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange,

Inc., Relating to Permanent Approval

of the Hedge Exemption Pilot

Programs

March 22, 1995

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1), notice is

hereby given that on February 1, 1995,

the Chicago Board Options Exchange,

Inc. (‘‘CBOE’’); on February 3, 1995, the

Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.

(‘‘PHLX’’); on February 21, 1995, the

Pacific Stock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘PSE’’); on

February 28, 1995, the New York Stock

Exchange, Inc. (‘‘NYSE’’); and on March

14, 1995, the American Stock Exchange,

Inc. (‘‘Amex’’) (each individually

referred to as an ‘‘Exchange’’ and two or

more collectively referred to as

‘‘Exchanges’’) filed with the Securities

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or

‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule

changes as described in Items I, II, and

III below, which Items have been

prepared by the self-regulatory

organization. The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule changes

from interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organizations’

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Changes

The proposed rule changes filed by

the Amex and PHLX request permanent

approval of the Exchanges’ pilot

program for exemptions from equity

option position limits for certain hedged

positions.1

The proposals filed by the CBOE,

NYSE, and the PSE request permanent

approval of the Exchanges’ pilot

programs for position limit exemptions

for certain hedged equity option

positions and certain stock index option

positions.

The text of the proposals are available

at the Office of the Secretary of the

respective Exchanges and at the

Commission.

II. Self-Regulatory Organizations’

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Changes

In its filing with the Commission, the

self-regulatory organizations included

statements concerning the purpose of

and basis for the proposed rule changes

and discussed any comments it received

on the proposed rule changes. The text

of these statements may be examined at

the places specified in Item IV below.

The self-regulatory organizations have

prepared summaries, set forth in

sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the

most significant aspects of such

statements.

(A) Self-Regulatory Organizations’

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Changes

The Commission has previously

approved pilot programs proposed by

the Amex and the PHLX providing

exemptions from positions limits for

certain fully hedged equity option

positions.2 In addition, the Commission

has previously approved pilot programs

proposed by the CBOE, the NYSE and

the PSE providing exemptions from

position limits for certain fully hedged

equity option positions and/or stock

index option positions.3 The Exchanges’

pilot programs were most recently

extended through May 17, 1995.4

Each of the pilot programs allow the

underlying hedged positions to include

securities that are readily convertible

into common stock.5 Under all of the

pilot programs, exercise limits continue

to correspond to position limits, so that

investors are allowed to exercise, during

five consecutive business days, the

number of option contracts set forth as

the position limit, as well as those

contracts purchased pursuant to the

pilot program.6

The Exchanges believe that the

proposed rule changes are consistent

with Section 6(b) of the Act, in general,

and further the objectives of Section

6(b)(5), in particular, in that they are

designed to protect investors and the

public interest and to remove

impediments and perfect the

mechanism of a free and open market.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organizations’

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Exchanges do not believe that the

proposed rule changes will impose any

burden on competition.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organizations’

Statements on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Changes Received From

Members, Participants or Others

Written comments on the proposed

rule changes were neither solicited nor

received.