31022 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 94 / Monday, May 15, 2000 / Notices

proposed modifications to the

equipment and procedures for boron

precipitation control (BPC) during longterm operation following loss of coolant

accidents (LOCAs). These modifications

would be effective prior to returning to

power following the April 2000

refueling outage. The proposed action is

in accordance with the licensees’

application for exemption dated March

15, 2000, as supplemented by submittal

dated April 3, 2000.

The Need for Proposed Action

The Code of Federal Regulations at 10

CFR 50.46 provides acceptance criteria

for the ECCS, including long-term

cooling requirements in 50.46(b)(5) and

an option to develop the ECCS

evaluation model in accordance with

appendix K requirements

(50.46(a)(1)(ii)). Appendix K requires

that the ECCS remain operable

following the most damaging single

failure, and it also specifies the decay

heat generation rate that shall be used.

In licensee event report (LER) 98–008

(October 1, 1998), Davis-Besse Nuclear

Power Station (DBNPS) reported that for

some small-break LOCAs, initiation of

its active method of BPC could cause

steam binding in the suction piping of

both decay heat removal (DHR) pumps.

As part of the corrective action for LER

98–008, DBNPS committed to address

all issues related to long-term LOCA

BPC, and to complete a related plant

modification by the end of the 12th

refueling outage that began in April,

2000. In response to that commitment,

in its March 15, 2000 and April 3, 2000

submittals, the licensee described a new

active primary method for BPC—an

improved auxiliary spray path into the

pressurizer. The licensee also described

that a failure anywhere in the flow path

could result in failure of this method to

provide water to the pressurizer.

Consequently, a backup method was

provided that uses flow into the decay

heat removal suction pipe from a reactor

coolant system hot leg pipe. The

licensee conducted a common mode

failure evaluation of the two methods

and identified several areas where a

single failure could disable both the

primary and backup BPC methods. The

licensee further, when establishing that

boron precipitation will not occur in the

decay heat removal system cooler,

credited flow through hot leg nozzle

gaps while not establishing that the gaps

would always be effective, and it did

not include all of the specific

conservatisms required by appendix K.

The licensee recognized that its changes

did not meet all aspects of the singlefailure requirement and did not include

all of the specific required

conservatisms. Consequently, it

requested an exemption since it

believed it met the intent of the

regulations, and it justified its request

on the basis of a risk evaluation and

conservatisms in calculations that result

in over-prediction of the BPC problem.

The staff considers that the licensee

would also need to be exempted from

the specific decay heat generation rate

contained in 10 CFR part 50, appendix

K, section I.A.4. Approval of this

exemption request is needed to permit

the licensee to implement its plans to

ensure BPC.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

With regard to potential radiological

impacts to the general public, the

exemption under consideration involves

features located entirely within the

restricted area as defined in 10 CFR part

20. The new active methods of BPC are

an improvement when compared to the

existing methods and the entire issue of

BPC has been shown to have little effect

on overall risk. The proposed action

will not significantly increase the

probability or consequences of

accidents, no changes are being made in

the types of any effluents that may be

released off site, and there is no

significant increase in occupational or

public radiation exposure. Therefore,

there are no significant radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not involve any historic

sites. It does not affect nonradiological

plant effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Therefore, there

are no significant nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed actions.

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that

there are no significant environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

As an alternative to the proposed

action, the staff considered denial of the

proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’

alternative). Denial of the application

would result in no change in current

environmental impacts. However, the

licensee’s exemption request covers

improvements in response to a licensee

commitment to address an existing

deficiency, improvements that will

decrease the risk of BPC failure and

hence decrease the risk of core damage.

The licensee addressed further

hardware improvements to reduce the

likelihood of single-failure and

established there was little risk benefit

in doing so, an assessment the staff

determined to be acceptable. There is no

significant benefit in this alternative.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the ‘‘Final Environmental

Statement Related to the Operation of

DBNPS Unit 1,’’ October 1975.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on April 18, 2000, the staff consulted

with the Ohio State official, Carol

O’Claire, of the Ohio Emergency

Management Agency, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

On the basis of 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

letters dated March 15 and April 3,

2000, which are available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC.

Publicly available records are accessible

electronically from the ADAMS Public

Library component on the NRC Web

site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic

Reading Room).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day

of May 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Singh S. Bajwa,

Director, Project Directorate III, Division of

Licensing Project Management, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–12130 Filed 5–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY

CORPORATION

Interest Assumption for Determining

Variable-Rate Premium; Interest

Assumptions for Multiemployer Plan

Valuations Following Mass Withdrawal

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of interest rates and

assumptions.

SUMMARY: This notice informs the public

of the interest rates and assumptions to

be used under certain Pension Benefit

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 94 / Monday, May 15, 2000 / Notices 31023

Guaranty Corporation regulations. These

rates and assumptions are published

elsewhere (or are derivable from rates

published elsewhere), but are collected

and published in this notice for the

convenience of the public. Interest rates

are also published on the PBGC’s web

site (http://www.pbgc.gov).

DATES: The interest rate for determining

the variable-rate premium under part

4006 applies to premium payment years

beginning in May 2000. The interest

assumptions for performing

multiemployer plan valuations

following mass withdrawal under part

4281 apply to valuation dates occurring

in June 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Harold J. Ashner, Assistant General

Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,

1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC

20005, 202–326–4024. (For TTY/TDD

users, call the Federal relay service tollfree at 1–800–877–8339 and ask to be

connected to 202–326–4024.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Variable-Rate Premiums

Section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) of the

Employee Retirement Income Security

Act of 1974 (ERISA) and § 4006.4(b)(1)

of the PBGC’s regulation on Premium

Rates (29 CFR part 4006) prescribe use

of an assumed interest rate in

determining a single-employer plan’s

variable-rate premium. The rate is the

‘‘applicable percentage’’ (currently 85

percent) of the annual yield on 30-year

Treasury securities for the month

preceding the beginning of the plan year

for which premiums are being paid (the

‘‘premium payment year’’). The yield

figure is reported in Federal Reserve

Statistical Releases G.13 and H.15.

The assumed interest rate to be used

in determining variable-rate premiums

for premium payment years beginning

in May 2000 is 4.97 percent (i.e., 85

percent of the 5.85 percent yield figure

for April 2000).

The following table lists the assumed

interest rates to be used in determining

variable-rate premiums for premium

payment years beginning between June

1999 and May 2000.

For premium payment years

beginning in:

The assumed interest rate is:

June 1999 ................................. 4.94

July 1999 .................................. 5.13

August 1999 ............................. 5.08

September 1999 ....................... 5.16

October 1999 ............................ 5.16

November 1999 ........................ 5.32

December 1999 ........................ 5.23

January 2000 ............................ 5.40

February 2000 .......................... 5.64

For premium payment years

beginning in:

The assumed interest rate is:

March 2000 ............................... 5.30

April 2000 ................................. 5.14

May 2000 .................................. 4.97

Multiemployer Plan Valuations

Following Mass Withdrawal

The PBGC’s regulation on Duties of

Plan Sponsor Following Mass

Withdrawal (29 CFR part 4281)

prescribes the use of interest

assumptions under the PBGC’s

regulation on Allocation of Assets in

Single-employer Plans (29 CFR part

4044). The interest assumptions

applicable to valuation dates in June

2000 under part 4044 are contained in

an amendment to part 4044 published

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register.

Tables showing the assumptions

applicable to prior periods are codified

in appendix B to 29 CFR part 4044.

Issued in Washington, DC, on this 8th day

of May 2000.

John Seal,

Acting Executive Director, Pension Benefit

Guaranty Corporation.

[FR Doc. 00–12090 Filed 5–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7708–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Rel No. IC–24449; 812–12078]

BISYS Fund Services Limited

Partnership, et al.; Notice of

Application

May 9, 2000.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

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

ACTION: Notice of application for

exemption under sections 6(c) and 17(b)

of the Investment Company Act of 1940

(the ‘‘Act’’) from section 17(a) of the Act

and under section 17(d) of the Act and

rule 17d–1 under the Act to permit

certain joint transactions.

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicants

seek an order to permit certain

registered investment companies (a) to

pay BISYS Fund Services Limited

Partnership (‘‘BISYS’’) and certain of its

affiliated persons fees for acting as

lending agent with respect to a

securities lending program (‘‘Program’’);

(b) to lend portfolio securities to

affiliated broker-dealers; (c) to deposit

cash collateral received in connection

with the Program and other uninvested

cash in one or more joint trading

accounts; and (d) to use cash collateral

received in connection with the

Program to purchase shares of an

affiliated private investment company,

BISYS Securities Lending Management

LC (the ‘‘Trust’’).

APPLICANTS: BISYS, BISYS Fund

Services Ohio, Inc. (‘‘BISYS ohio’’), the

Trust, Fifth Third Funds, Fifth Third

Bank, BB&T Funds, Branch Banking &

Trust Company (‘‘BB&T’’), Pacific

Capital Funds, Pacific Century Trust

(‘‘Pacific Century’’), AmSouth Funds,

AmSouth Bank (‘‘AmSouth’’),

Nationwide Mutual Funds, Nationwide

Separate Account Trust (collectively,

Nationwide Mutual Funds and

Nationwide Separate Account Trust are

the ‘‘Nationwide Funds’’), Union Bond

& Trust Company (‘‘Union’’), and

Villanova Mutual Fund Capital Trust

(‘‘Villanova’’) (collectively, the Fifth

Third Funds, BB&T Funds, Pacific

Capital Funds, AmSouth Funds, and the

Nationwide Funds are the ‘‘Funds’’).

FILING DATES: The application was filed

on April 21, 2000. Applicants have

agreed to file an amendment, the

substance of which is reflected in this

notice, during the notice period.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An

order granting the application will be

issued unless the SEC orders a hearing.

Interested persons may request a

hearing by writing to the SEC’s

Secretary and serving applicants with a

copy of the request, personally or by

mail. Hearing requests should be

received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on

June 5, 2000, and should be

accompanied by proof of service on the

applicants, in the form of an affidavit or,

for lawyers, a certificate of service.

Hearing requests should state the nature

of the writer’s interest, the reason for the

request, and the issues contested.

Persons who wish to be notified of a

hearing may request notification by

writing to the SEC’s Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, SEC, 450 Fifth

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549–

0609. The Trust, AmSouth Funds, BB&T

Funds, Pacific Capital Funds, BISYS

Ohio, and BISYS, 3435 Stelzer Road,

Columbus, Ohio 43219–3035; AmSouth

Bank, 1901 Sixth Avenue-North,

Birmingham, Alabama 35203; BB&T,

435 Fayetteville Street Mall, Raleigh,

North Carolina 27601; Fifth Third

Funds and Fifth Third, 38 Fountain

Square Plaza, Cincinnati, Ohio 45263;

Pacific Century, Financial Plaza of the

Pacific, 111 S. King Street, Honolulu,

Hawaii 96813; Nationwide Funds and

Villanova, Three Nationwide Plaza,

Columbus, Ohio 43216; and Union,

5665 SW Meadows Road, Lake Oswego,

Oregon 97035.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elaine M. Boggs, Senior Counsel, at