26886 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Notices

and 2, has been previously evaluated by

the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in

the ‘‘Final Environmental Statement

Related to Operation of Salem Nuclear

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,’’

dated April 1973. In this evaluation, the

staff considered the potential doses due

to postulated accidents for the site, at

the site boundary, and to the population

within 50 miles of the site. With regard

to the consequences of postulated

accidents, the licensee has reevaluated

the current licensing basis analyses in

its application for license amendment

and determined the doses estimated in

existing evaluations to remain bounding

for the proposed 1.4% power uprate. No

increase in the probability of these

accidents is expected to occur. The

removal of Attachment 1 from the Salem

Unit No. 1 FOL and editorial changes to

the TS Bases will not impact the

probability or consequences of any

postulated accidents.

With regard to normal releases, the

current licensing basis analyses

estimates the dose received inside and

outside containment during normal

operation based on 3,558 MWt core

power. Therefore, the proposed 1.4%

power uprate to 3,459 MWt core power

is bounded by the current analyses and

the offsite doses from normal effluent

releases remain significantly below the

bounding limits of Title 10 of the Code

of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50,

Appendix I. Normal annual average

gaseous releases remain limited to a

small fraction of 10 CFR Part 20 limits

for identified mixtures. In addition, the

solid and liquid waste production may

increase slightly; however, the waste

production assumed in the analyses for

normal operations at 3,558 MWt core

power will bound the waste production

expected for the power uprate. Solid

and liquid waste processing systems are

expected to operate within their design

requirements. The removal of

Attachment 1 from the Salem Unit No.

1 FOL and editorial changes to the TS

Bases will not cause an increase in the

on site and off site radiation exposure or

in the amount of waste produced and

released during normal operations.

The staff has completed its evaluation

of the proposed action and concludes

that the proposed action will not

increase the probability or consequences

of accidents, no changes are being made

in the types of 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. With regard to thermal discharges

to the Delaware River estuary, Appendix

B to FOL Nos. DPR–70 and DPR–75,

‘‘Environmental Protection Plan,’’ states

that ‘‘[e]nvironmental concerns

identified in the FES–OL [Final

Environmental Statement—Operating

License Stage (dated April 1973)] which

relate to water quality matters are

regulated by way of the licensee’s

NJPDES [New Jersey Pollution

Discharge Elimination System] permit.’’

The current NJPDES Permit imposes

limits on Circulating Water System

(CWS) flow to a 30-day average of 3,024

million gallons per day. In addition, the

NJPDES limits the temperature of the

discharged water to 115 °F between June

1 and September 30, and 110 °F for the

remainder of the year. Also, the

maximum permissible differential

temperature of the water discharged

from Salem, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, is 27.5

°F. The licensee stated that normal

discharge water differential temperature

is approximately 15 °F, and that the

increase in temperature of the water

discharged to the Delaware River

resulting from the power uprate to 3,459

MWt core power will be approximately

0.3 °F. Existing administrative controls

will ensure the conduct of adequate

monitoring such that appropriate

actions can be taken to preclude

exceeding the limits imposed by the

NJPDES.

The removal of Attachment 1 from the

Salem Unit No. 1 FOL and editorial

changes to the TS Bases will not impact

thermal discharges to the Delaware

River. No additional requirements or

other changes are required as a result of

the power uprate and the associated

FOL and TS changes.

No other nonradiological impacts are

associated with the proposed action.

Based upon the above, the staff

concludes that the proposed action does

not significantly affect nonradiological

plant effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Therefore, there

are no significant nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

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. The

environmental impacts of the proposed

action and the alternative action are

similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the Salem Nuclear

Generating Station.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on May 1, 2001, the staff consulted with

the New Jersey State official, Mr. R.

Pinney of the New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection, 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 NRC concludes that the

proposed action will not have a

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

NRC 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

application dated November 10, 2000,

as supplemented by letters dated

December 5, 2000, March 28 and April

2, 2001, and three letters dated April 20,

2001 (LRN–01–0099, LRN–01–0115, and

LRN–01–0123). Documents may be

examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the

NRC’s Public Document Room, located

at One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland. Publicly available records

will be 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 8th day

of May 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert J. Fretz,

Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–12191 Filed 5–14–01; 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Notices 26887

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3See Letter from Claire P. McGrath, Vice

President and Special Counsel, Derivative

Securities, Amex, to Nancy Sanow, Assistant

Director, Division of Market Regulation,

Commission, dated April 26, 2001 (‘‘Amendment

No. 1’’). In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange

requested that the proposed rule change be

considered a ‘‘non-controversial’’ rule change under

paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b–4 under the Act, which

renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this

filing by the Commission, and requested that the

Commission accelerate the operative date of the

proposal. In addition, the Exchange amended

proposed Amex Rule 940(a)(6), which defines

‘‘eligible order,’’ to include a reference to

subparagraph (d) of the proposed rule.

4On January 30, 2001, the Commission approved

similar proposals submitted by the Chicago Board

Options Exchange, Inc. (‘‘CBOE’’) and the

International Securities Exchange LLC (‘‘ISE’’). See

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43904 (January

30, 2001), 66 FR 9112 (February 6, 2001). On

February 20, 2001, the Commission issued a notice

of filing and immediate effectiveness of a similar

proposal submitted by the Pacific Exchange, Inc.

(‘‘PCX’’). See Securities Exchange Act Release No.

43986 (February 20, 2001), 66 FR 12578 (February

27, 2001).

5Under the proposal, the interim linkage would

be for a pilot period expiring on January 31, 2002.

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

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 2001. The interest

assumptions for performing

multiemployer plan valuations

following mass withdrawal under part

4281 apply to valuation dates occurring

in June 2001.

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 2001 is 4.80 percent (i.e., 85

percent of the 5.65 percent yield figure

for April 2001).

The following table lists the assumed

interest rates to be used in determining

variable-rate premiums for premium

payment years beginning between June

2000 and May 2001.

For premium payment years

beginning in:

The assumed interest rate is:

June 2000 ................................. 5.23

July 2000 .................................. 5.04

For premium payment years

beginning in:

The assumed interest rate is:

August 2000 ............................. 4.97

September 2000 ....................... 4.86

October 2000 ............................ 4.96

November 2000 ........................ 4.93

December 2000 ........................ 4.91

January 2001 ............................ 4.67

February 2001 .......................... 4.71

March 2001 ............................... 4.63

April 2001 ................................. 4.54

May 2001 .................................. 4.80

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

2001 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 2001.

Joseph H. Grant,

Acting Executive Director, Pension Benefit

Guaranty Corporation.

[FR Doc. 01–12199 Filed 5–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7708–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–44271; File No. SR–Amex–

2001–20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness

of Proposed Rule Change by the

American Stock Exchange LLC

Relating to the Implementation of

‘‘Interim Linkages’’

May 7, 2001.

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on March 21,

2001, the American Stock Exchange LLC

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

Securities and Exchange Commission

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

rule change as described in Items I, II,

and III below, which Items have been

prepared by the self-regulatory

organization. On April 27, 2001, the

Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the

proposal.3 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 Amex proposes to adopt Amex

Rule 940 providing for the

implementation of ‘‘interim linkages’’

with the other option exchanges.4

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

Exchange 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

Exchange 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

1. Purpose

The purpose of this proposed rule

change is to implement certain aspects

of an intermarket options linkage on an

‘‘interim’’ basis.5 This interim linkage

would utilize existing systems to

facilitate the sending and receiving of

order flow between Amex specialists