Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Notices 14309

for Type A testing at this time.

Therefore, application of the regulation

in this particular circumstance would

not serve, nor is it necessary to achieve,

the underlying purpose of the rule.

IV

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

CFR Part 50 states that a set of three

Type A leakage rate tests shall be

performed at approximately equal

intervals during each 10-year service

period.

The licensee proposes an exemption

to this section which would provide a

one-time interval extension for the Type

A test by approximately 24 months. The

Commission has determined, for the

reasons discussed below, that pursuant

to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1) this exemption is

authorized by law, will not present an

undue risk to the public health and

safety, and is consistent with the

common defense and security. The

Commission further determines that

special circumstances, as provided in 10

CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present justifying

the exemption; namely, that application

of the regulation of the particular

circumstances is not necessary to

achieve the underlying purpose of the

rule.

The underlying purpose of the

requirement to perform Type A

containment leak rate tests at intervals

during the 10-year service period, is to

ensure that any potential leakage

pathways through the containment

boundary are identified within a time

span that prevents significant

degradation from continuing or

becoming unknown. The NRC staff has

reviewed the basis and supporting

information provided by the licensee in

the exemption request. The NRC staff

has noted that the licensee has a good

record of ensuring a leaktight

containment. All Type A tests have

passed with significant margin and the

licensee has noted that the results of the

Type A testing have been confirmatory

of the Type B and C tests which will

continue to be performed. The licensee

has stated to the NRC Project Manager

that they will perform the general

containment inspection although it is

only required by Appendix J (Section

V.A.) to be performed in conjunction

with Type A tests. The NRC staff

considers that these inspections, though

limited in scope, provide an important

added level of confidence in the

continued integrity of the containment

boundary. The NRC staff also notes that

the unique IP2 Containment Penetration

and Weld Channel Pressurization

System provides a means for

continuously monitored potential

containment leakage paths.

The NRC staff has also made use of

the information in a draft staff report,

NUREG–1493, which provides the

technical justification for the present

Appendix J rulemaking effort which

also includes a 10-year test interval for

Type A tests. The integrated leakage rate

test, or Type A test, measures overall

containment leakage. However,

operating experience with all types of

containments used in this country

demonstrates that essentially all

containment leakage can be detected by

local leakage rate tests (Type B and C).

According to results given in NUREG–

1493, out of 180 ILRT reports covering

110 individual reactors and

approximately 770 years of operating

history, only 5 ILRT failures were found

which local leakage rate testing could

not detect. this is 3% of all failures. This

study agrees well with previous NRC

staff studies which show that Type B

and C testing can detect a very large

percentage of containment leaks. The

IP2 experience has also been consistent

with these results.

The Nuclear Management and

Resources Council (NUMARC), now the

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), collected

and provided the NRC staff with

summaries of data to assist in the

Appendix J rulemaking effort. NUMARC

collected results of 144 ILRTs from 33

units; 23 ILRTs exceeded 1.0La. Of

these, only nine were not due to Type

B or C leakage penalties. The NEI data

also added another perspective. The NEI

data show that in about one-third of the

cases exceeding allowable leakage, the

as-found leakage was less than 2La; in

one case the leakage was found to be

approximately 2La; in one case the asfound leakage was less than 3La; one

case approached 10La; and in one case

the leakage was found to be

approximately 21La. For about half of

the failed ILRTs the as-found leakage

was not quantified. These data show

that, for those ILRTs for which the

leakage was quantified, the leakage

values are small in comparison to the

leakage value at which the risk to the

public starts to increase over the value

of risk corresponding to La

(approximately 200La, as discussed in

NUREG–1493). Therefore, based on

these considerations, it is unlikely that

an extension of one cycle for the

performance of the Appendix J, Type A

test at IP2 would result in significant

degradation of the overall containment

integrity. As a result, the application of

the regulation in these particular

circumstances is not necessary to

achieve the underlying purpose of the

rule.

Based on generic and plant specific

data, the NRC staff finds the basis for

the licensee’s proposed exemption to

allow a one-time exemption to permit a

schedular extension of one cycle for the

performance of the Appendix J, Type A

test, provided that the general

containment inspection is performed, to

be acceptable.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that

granting this Exemption will not have a

significant impact on the environment

(60 FR 12787).

This Exemption is effective upon

issuance and shall expire at the

completion of the 1997 refueling outage.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Steven A. Varga,

Director, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–6483 Filed 3–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Agency Forms Submitted for OMB

Review

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad

Retirement Board has submitted the

following proposal(s) for the collection

of information to the Office of

Management and Budget for review and

approval.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL(S):

(1) Collection title: Withholding

Certificate for Railroad Retirement

Monthly Annuity Payments

(2) Form(s) submitted: RRB W–4P

(3) OMB Number: 3220–0149

(4) Expiration date of current OMB

clearance: April 30, 1995

(5) Type of request: Revision of a

currently approved collection

(6) Respondents: Individuals or

households

(7) Estimated annual number of

respondents: 31,000

(8) Total annual responses: 31,000

(9) Total annual reporting hours: 1

(10) Collection description: Under

Public Law 98–76 railroad retirement

beneficiaries’ Tier 2, dual vested and

supplemental benefits are subject to

income tax under private pension

rules. Under Public Law 99–514, the

non-social security equivalent benefit

portion of Tier 1 is also taxable under

private pension rules. The collection

obtains the information needed by the

Railroad Retirement Board to

implement the income tax

withholding provisions.
14310 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Notices

1The NASD originally submitted the proposed

rule change on February 21, 1995. As a result of

discussions on March 6, 1995, between the

Commission staff and the NASD certain minor

amendments to the filing were agreed upon. This

notice reflects those amendments.

2Operation of ITS/CAES is governed by a

national market system plan known as the ‘‘Plan for

the Purpose of Creating and Operating an

Intermarket Communications Linkage pursuant to

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS:

Copies of the form and supporting

documents can be obtained from Chuck

Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer

(312–751–3363). Comments regarding

the information collection should be

addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad

Retirement Board, 844 North Rush

Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611–2092 and

the OMB reviewer, Laura Oliven (202–

395–7316), Office of Management and

Budget, Room 10230, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, D.C.

20503.

Chuck Mierzwa,

Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–6492 Filed 3–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7905–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–35471; File No. SR–NASD–

95–9]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Proposed Rule Change by National

Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.,

Relating to the Trading of ExchangeListed Securities in the Over-theCounter Market

March 10, 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 March 6, 1995, the

National Association of Securities

Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’ or ‘‘Association’’)

filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘SEC’’)

the proposed rule change as described

in Items I, II, and III below, which Items

have been prepared by the NASD.1 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 NASD is proposing to make three

significant changes to rules governing

NASD members’ over-the-counter

(‘‘OTC’’) trading in exchange-listed

securities. First, the NASD proposes to

require NASD members registered as

Consolidated Quotations Service

(‘‘CQS’’) market makers to display

certain customer limit orders in their

quotes. Second, the NASD proposes to

prohibit NASD members who are not

Intermarket Trading System/Computer

Assisted Execution System Automated

Interface (‘‘ITS/CAES’’) market makers

from effecting a transaction in any ITS/

CAES-eligible security that ‘‘tradesthrough’’ (i.e., a purchase below the

lowest bid or a sell above the highest

offer) the best bid or offer displayed by

any ITS/CAES market maker or any ITS

Participant Exchange in that stock.

Third, the NASD proposes to require all

NASD members executing customer

orders in ITS-eligible securities to afford

such orders some opportunity for price

improvement.

The full text of the proposed rule

change is set forth below. (New

language is italicized.)

Schedule D

PART VI

CONSOLIDATED QUOTATIONS SERVICE

(CQS)

Sec. 2. Obligations of CQS Market Makers

(a) No Change

(b) No Change

(c) A CQS market maker shall be required

to process customer limit orders in securities

eligible for inclusion on the ITS/CAES

linkage in the following manner:

(i) if the limit order is for 500 shares or less,

the CQS market maker either must execute

the limit order immediately or display it in

its quotation with a minimum size of 500

shares (unless the specified minimum for

that security is less than 500 shares); or

(ii) if the limit order is for greater than 500

shares, the order’s price must be reflected in

the market maker’s quotation, provided

however, that if the size displayed with that

updated quotation price is less than the limit

order’s size, the balance of the limit order

must be executed at a price at least as

favorable as the displayed price.

* * * * *

Schedule G

* * * * *

Sec. 1. Definitions

* * * * *

(g) The terms ‘‘Participant Market,’’ ‘‘ITS

System,’’ ’’ITS/CAES Market Maker,’’ and

‘‘ITS Security’’ shall have the same meanings

as set forth in section (a) of The Rules of

Practice and Procedure for Intermarket

Trading System/Computer Assisted

Execution System Automated Interface.

* * * * *

Sec. 4. Trading Practices

* * * * *

(j) No member shall effect a trade in a

security eligible for inclusion in the ITS/

CAES Linkage, whether as principal or agent,

at a price that is lower than the best bid or

higher than the best offer currently displayed

by an ITS/CAES Market maker or another

Participant market (hereinafter referred to as

a ‘‘trade-through’’) between 9:30 a.m. and

4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (or such

shorter period of time coinciding with the

time that the primary market for a particular

ITS/CAES security is open) unless one of the

following conditions exists: (1) the size of the

bid or offer that is traded through is for 100

shares; (2) the transaction that constitutes the

trade-through is not a ‘‘regular way’’

contract; (3) the bid or offer that is tradedthrough is being displayed from a Participant

Market whose members are relieved of their

obligations under paragraph (c)(2) of

Securities Exchange Act Rule 11Ac1–1 with

respect to such bid of offer; or (4) the bid or

offer that is traded-through has caused a

locked or crossed market in the affected ITS

Security. The foregoing requirements shall

not apply to trade-throughs effected by ITS/

CAES Market Makers and governed by

Sections (h)(1)(A)–(H) of the ITS/CAES Rules.

(k) Between 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

Eastern Standard Time (or such shorter

period of time coinciding with the time that

the primary market for a particular ITSeligible security is open), no member shall

accept customer orders in securities eligible

for inclusion in the ITS System for execution

in the over-the-counter market, either as

agent or principal, unless the member affords

such orders some opportunity for price

improvement over the best bid (in the case of

a retail sell order) or best offer (in the case

of a retail buy order) prevailing among the

Participant Markets in the ITS System. A

member can satisfy this requirement either by

a manual procedure or an algorithm built

into its internal order processing system. The

specific parameters for granting price

improvement at a member firm will be

determined by competitive forces and the

business judgment of the firm’s management.

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

NASD 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 NASD 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

This proposal is intended to respond

to specific recommendations contained

in the SEC’s Market 2000 Report for

improving the efficiency and

effectiveness of the OTC dealer markets

in exchange-listed securities, including

ITS/CAES eligible securities.2 The