Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 116 / Thursday, June 15, 2000 / Notices 37583

7. The estimated number of annual

respondents: 1.

8. An estimate of the total number of

hours needed annually to complete the

requirement or request: 120 (an average

of approximately 115 hours per

response for applications plus

approximately 5 hours per

recordkeeper).

9. An indication of whether section

3507(d), Pub. L. 104–13 applies: Not

applicable.

10. Abstract: 10 CFR part 72

establishes requirements, procedures,

and criteria for the issuance of licenses

to receive, transfer, and possess power

reactor spent fuel and other radioactive

materials associated with spent fuel

storage in an ISFSI, and requirements

for the issuance of licenses to the

Department of Energy to receive,

transfer, package, and possess power

reactor spent fuel and high-level

radioactive waste, and other associated

radioactive materials, in an MRS. This

proposed rulemaking would add the

ability for licensees to request a specific

license to allow the interim storage of

reactor-related GTCC waste within an

ISFSI or MRS to 10 CFR part 72. GTCC

waste is low-level radioactive waste that

exceeds the concentration limits of

radionuclides established for Class C

waste in 10 CFR 61.55. The information

will be used by the NRC staff in the

licensing process to review applications

requesting storage of GTCC waste within

an ISFSI or MRS. This rulemaking does

not preclude licensees from licensing

the storage of GTCC waste under the

existing provisions of 10 CFR parts 30

and/or 70. However, the NRC believes

that licensing under 10 CFR part 72

would simplify the licensing process

and reduce the potential burden on

licensees, the NRC, and Agreement

States with no adverse affect on public

health and safety, or the environment.

The revised estimate of burden reflects

the time necessary for licensees to

amend application request for storage of

spent fuel under 10 CFR part 72 to also

include GTCC waste.

Submit, by July 17, 2000, comments

that address the following questions:

1. Is the proposed collection of

information necessary for the NRC to

properly perform its functions? Does the

information have practical utility?

2. Is the burden estimate accurate?

3. Is there a way to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected?

4. How can the burden of the

information collection be minimized,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology?

A copy of the submittal may be

viewed free of charge at the NRC Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW

(lower level), Washington, DC. The

proposed rule indicated in ‘‘The title of

the information collection’’ is or has

been published in the Federal Register

within several days of the publication

date of this Federal Register Notice.

Instructions for accessing the electronic

OMB clearance package for the

rulemaking have been appended to the

electronic rulemaking. Members of the

public may access the electronic OMB

clearance package by following the

directions for electronic access provided

in the preamble to the titled rulemaking.

Comments and questions should be

directed to the OMB reviewer by July

17, 2000: Erik Godwin, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs

(3150–0132), NEOB–10202, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

DC 20503.

Comments can also be submitted by

telephone at (202) 395–3087.

The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda

Jo. Shelton, 301–415–7233.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day

of June 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Brenda Jo. Shelton,

NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief

Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–15193 Filed 6–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–271]

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Corporation; Vermont Yankee Nuclear

Power Station Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

amending, pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2002,

the previously granted approvals to

dispose of slightly contaminated septic

waste and cooling tower silt on-site by

expanding the allowable waste stream to

include slightly contaminated soil

generated as a residual by-product of

on-site construction activities as

requested by Vermont Yankee Nuclear

Power Corporation (the licensee), for

operation of the Vermont Yankee

Nuclear Power Station (Vermont

Yankee), located in Windham County,

Vermont.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would amend

the previously granted approvals to

dispose of slightly contaminated septic

waste and cooling tower silt on-site by

expanding the allowable waste stream to

include low-levels of radioactively

contaminated soil generated as a

residual by-product of on-site

construction and other activities.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s request dated June

23, 1999, as supplemented on January 4,

2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to

dispose of slightly contaminated soil onsite. The licensee identified 25.5 cubic

meters of soil to be disposed of on-site

immediately, and approximately 28.3

cubic meters of soil/sand material on an

annual basis until the expiration of the

plant’s operating license in 2013. The

25.5 cubic meters of contaminated soil

was generated as a result of on-site

construction activities. The anticipated

28.3 cubic meters of soil/sand material

will be generated from the annual

winter spreading of sand on roads and

walkways at the plant site.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The NRC has completed its evaluation

of the proposed action and concludes

that the proposed action will be bound

by the conditions for the on-site

disposals previously reviewed and

approved by the NRC. The licensee will

continue to use the designated and

approved areas of their property

(approximately 1.9 acres in size) that

currently receives the septic waste and

cooling tower silts. Determination of the

radiological dose impact of the new

material has been made based on the

same dose assessment models and

pathway assumptions used in the

previously approved submittals. The

licensee’s proposal was evaluated

against the NRC staff’s guidelines for onsite disposal and found to be acceptable.

The potential exposure to members of

the general public from the

radionuclides in material was

determined to be less than 1 mrem/year,

and meets the NRC staff’s guidelines.

Accordingly, the potential exposures are

acceptable.

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 offsite,

and there is no significant increase in

occupational or public radiation

37584 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 116 / Thursday, June 15, 2000 / Notices

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 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. Denial of the

application would result in no change

in current environmental impacts. As an

additional alternative, the material

could be shipped to an off-site low-level

radioactive waste disposal facility. The

costs associated with off-site disposal

greatly exceeds the cost of on-site

disposal without a compensating

improvement in the environmental

impacts. The environmental impacts of

the proposed action and the alternative

actions 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 Vermont Yankee Nuclear

Power Station.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on June 8, 2000, the staff consulted with

the Vermont State Official, William

Sherman, of the Department of Public

Service, 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 letter

dated June 23, 1999, as supplemented

on January 4, 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 will be accessible electronically

from the ADAMS Public Library

component on this NRC Web site, http:/

/www.nrc.gov (the Electronic Reading

Room).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day

of June 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Richard P. Croteau,

Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–15192 Filed 6–14–00; 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

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 June 2000. The interest

assumptions for performing

multiemployer plan valuations

following mass withdrawal under part

4281 apply to valuation dates occurring

in July 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 June 2000 is 5.23 percent (i.e., 85

percent of the 6.15 percent yield figure

for May 2000).

The following table lists the assumed

interest rates to be used in determining

variable-rate premiums for premium

payment years beginning between July

1999 and June 2000.

For premium payment years

beginning in

The assumed interest rate is

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

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

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

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

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

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 July

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 June 2000.

David M. Strauss,

Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 00–15119 Filed 6–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7708–01–P

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Sunshine Act Meeting

Notice is hereby given that the

Railroad Retirement Board will hold a