Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Notices 2799

There are twenty Installation

Restoration sites on Treasure Island

containing hazardous wastes cataloged

by the Navy. None of these are located

within the confines of the area that

would be transferred to the Department

of Labor for the proposed Job Corps

facility. Two of the seventy-five

Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) on

the base are within the boundaries of

the Job Corps site. These underground

storage tanks have been removed. One

of the sites requires further remediation

work, consisting of the removal and

treatment of soil with petroleum

hydrocarbon contamination and,

possibly, the treatment of contaminated

groundwater. Groundwater beneath

Treasure Island is not withdrawn for

any domestic or irrigation use.

Remediation of this UST site will be

completed by the Navy before base

closure is complete. The Navy intends

to conduct all remediation work with

proper site safety protocols; no adverse

impacts are projected.

PCB-containing transformers have

been removed from Treasure Island.

One of the identified Installation

Restoration sites, which will be cleaned,

has PCB contamination. This site,

however, is far from the buildings that

will be utilized by the Job Corps. No

impacts from PCB contamination are

projected.

Naval Station Treasure Island is a

regulated hazardous waste generator.

The sources of hazardous wastes

generated on the Island are primarily in

the military training and industrial

activities on the site, which are

concentrated on the eastern and

southern sides of the Island. Activities

resulting in the generation of hazardous

waste do not occur in the residential

and administrative buildings that would

be used by the Job Corps. The medical/

dental building generates small

quantities of medical wastes, which are

disposed of in accordance with

appropriate regulations. It is presumed

that these practices will be continued by

the Department of Labor, as required by

law, upon transfer of the medical

building. No adverse impacts to Job

Corps personnel is expected as a result

of on-site chemical use.

On February 3, 1994 the San

Francisco Board of Supervisors Select

Committee on Base Closure conducted a

Public Hearing on the proposed location

of a Job Corps Center at Treasure Island.

The Public Hearing was attended by

approximately 37 people, of which 18

offered comments and testimony. Every

piece of testimony offered was in

support of the project; no testimony was

submitted, in person or in writing, that

questioned or opposed a Job Corps

Center at Treasure Island.

The Alternatives considered in the

preparation of the EA were: (1) The ‘‘No

Build’’ Alternative, (2) the ‘‘Alternative

Sites’’ Alternative, and (3) the

‘‘Continued as Proposed’’ alternative.

The ‘‘No Build’’ Alternative would

mean that the Department of Labor

would not proceed with plans for

development of the proposed Job Corps

Center on Treasure Island, and a unique

opportunity for the youth of the area to

educationally benefit from a Job Corps

would be forgone. Although choosing

the ‘‘No Build’’ would result in no

environmental impact upon the area,

the opportunity to obtain land and

buildings that can be adapted to meet

Job Corps need would also be lost. The

benefits to the City of San Francisco and

to the region from the location of an

expanded Job Corps presence on

Treasure Island would also be foregone.

The Job Corps has investigated

alternative locations in the Bay Area for

the proposed center. However, the

alternative sites were rejected in favor of

Treasure Island because none of these

sites have the potential to be adapted to

Job Corps functions as quickly or as cost

effectively as the Treasure Island site. In

addition, two of the sites were within or

adjacent to residential areas and the

proposed Presidio, much of which will

be redeveloped as a Park. The other site

was considered significantly

constrained due to soil contamination.

The San Francisco Board of

Supervisors Select Committee on Base

closure conducted a Public Hearing on

February 3, 1994, regarding the

proposed location of a Job Corps Center

at Treasure Island. The Public Hearing

was attended by approximately 37

people. The results of the hearing

confirmed that there was unanimous

support from all participants at the

hearing for a Job Corps Center at

Treasure Island.

Based on the information gathered

during the preparation of the EA for the

Department of Labor, Employment and

Training Administration, the Office of

Job Corps finds that the development of

the Treasure Island Job Corps Center

will not cause any significant impact on

the environment and, therefore,

recommends that the project continue as

proposed. This proposed action is not

considered to be highly controversial.

Dated at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of

December 1994.

Peter E. Rell,

Director of Job Corps.

[FR Doc. 95–673 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Regulatory Guide; Issuance,

Availability

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

has issued a revision to a guide in its

Regulatory Guide Series. This series has

been developed to describe and make

available to the public such information

as methods acceptable to the NRC staff

for implementing specific parts of the

Commission’s regulations, techniques

used by the staff in evaluating specific

problems or postulated accidents, and

data needed by the staff in its review of

applications for permits and licenses.

Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide 5.52,

‘‘Standard Format and Content of a

Licensee Physical Protection Plan for

Strategic Special Nuclear Material at

Fixed Sites (Other than Nuclear Power

Plants),’’ describes the format

recommended by the NRC staff for

preparing physical protection plans for

formula quantities of strategic special

nuclear material at fixed sites other than

nuclear power plants. This Revision 3

also provides guidance on the content of

the physical protection plans.

Comments and suggestions in

connection with items for inclusion in

guides currently being developed or

improvements in all published guides

are encouraged at any time. Written

comments may be submitted 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.

Regulatory Guides are available for

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC. Copies of issued

guides may be purchased from the

Government Printing Office at the

current GPO price. Information on

current GPO prices may be obtained by

contacting the Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Post Office Box 37082,

Washington, DC 20013–7082, telephone

(202) 512–2249. Issued guides may also

be purchased from the National

Technical Information Service on a

standing order basis. Details on this

service may be obtained by writing

NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, VA 22161.

(5 U.S.C. 552(a))

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day

of December 1994.
2800 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Notices

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. 27786

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

(order approving File No. SR–NYSE–89–09).

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 29436

(July 12, 1991), 56 FR 33317 (July 19, 1991) (order

approving File No. SR–NYSE–91–19).

4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32901

(September 14, 1993), 58 FR 49073 (September 21,

1993) (order approving File No. SR–NYSE–92–23).

5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 33212

(November 17, 1993), 58 FR 62173 (November 24,

1993) (order approving File Nos. SR–Amex–93–38,

SR–CBOE–93–52, SR–NYSE–93–42, SR–PSE–93–

30, and SR–PHLX–93–46). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5) (1982).

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Eric S. Beckjord,

Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory

Research.

[FR Doc. 95–639 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–35194; File No. SR–NYSE–

94–47]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing and Order Granting

Accelerated Approval of Proposed

Rule Change by the New York Stock

Exchange, Inc., Relating to an

Extension of the Hedge Exemption

Pilot Program

January 5, 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 December 9, 1994,

the New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

(‘‘NYSE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed

rule change as described in Items I and

II below, which Items have been

prepared by the self-regulatory

organization. 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 NYSE proposes to amend NYSE

Rule 704, ‘‘Position Limits,’’ to extend

until May 17, 1995, the Exchange’s pilot

program for position limit exemptions

for certain hedged (1) equity option

positions; and (2) broad-based index

option positions.1

The text of the proposals are available

at the Office of the Secretary, NYSE, and

at 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

self-regulatory organization 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 self-regulatory organization 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

(a) Purpose

On March 14, 1990, the Commission

approved, on a pilot basis, amendments

to NYSE Rule 704 providing (1) an

exemption from equity option position

limits for certain equity option positions

that are fully hedged and (2) an

exemption from the broad-based index

option position limits for certain hedged

broad-based index option positions.2

On July 12, 1991, the Commission

approved both (1) an expansion of the

scope of the exemptions to include short

positions in the underlying hedged

portfolio and to allow the underlying

hedged portfolio to include securities

that are readily convertible into

common stock, and (2) an extension of

the termination date of the pilot

program.3

On September 14, 1993, the

Commission approved both (1) an

expansion of the equity option position

limit hedge exemption to include

‘‘securities readily converted into or

economically equivalent to that number

of shares of such stock’’ as the basis for

the exemption and (2) an extension of

the termination date of the pilot

program.4

On November 17, 1993, the

Commission approved an extension of

the termination date of the pilot

program until November 17, 1994.5 The

Exchange now proposes to extend the

pilot program for six months to May 17,

1995.

Early in 1995, the Exchange plans to

submit to the Commission a report on

the pilot program covering the period

ending December 31, 1994. In addition,

for the duration of the pilot program, the

NYSE will continue to monitor on a

daily basis (1) the use of the exemptions

to determine if the positions are being

maintained in accordance with all

conditions and requirements and (2) the

effects of the exemptions on the market.

(b) Basis

The Exchange believes that the

proposed rule change is consistent with

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

furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),

in particular, in that it is designed to

promote just and equitable principles of

trade, to remove impediments to and

perfect the mechanism of a free and

open market and a national system, and,

in general, to protect investors and the

public interest.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Exchange does not believe that

the proposed rule change imposes any

burden on competition that is not

necessary or appropriate in furtherance

of the purposes of the Act.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statements on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants or Others

The Exchange has not solicited, and

does not intend to solicit, comments on

the proposed rule change. The Exchange

has nor received any unsolicited written

comments from members or other

interested parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

The Exchange has requested that the

proposed rule change be given

accelerated effectiveness pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.

The Commission finds that the

proposed rule change to extend the pilot

program until May 17, 1995, is

consistent with the requirements of the

Act and the rules and regulations

thereunder applicable to a national

securities exchange, and, in particular,

the requirements of Section 6(b)(5)

thereunder.6 The Commission

concludes, as it did when originally

approving the pilot program, that

providing for increased position and

exercise limits for equity options and

stock index options in circumstances

where those excess positions are fully

hedged with offsetting stock positions

will provide greater depth and liquidity

to the market and allow investors to

hedge their stock portfolios more

effectively, without significantly

increasing concerns regarding

intermarket manipulations or

disruptions of either the options market

or the underlying stock market.