39208 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 122 / Friday, June 23, 2000 / Notices

northwest corner of the Reservation and

transporting SNF from the existing

railroad to the site by building a new

rail siding and rail line to connect the

proposed facility at Site A to the

existing Union Pacific main line at

Skunk Ridge, Utah. NRC published a

notice of intent to prepare an EIS and

conduct a scoping process in the

Federal Register on May 1, 1998 (63 FR

24197). As a part of the scoping process,

a public scoping meeting was conducted

to obtain comments on the intended

scope of the EIS on June 2, 1998, in Salt

Lake City, Utah. Two additional scoping

meetings were held on April 29, 1999

(64 FR 18451) in Salt Lake City and

Tooele, Utah, to address the PFS

proposal to construct and operate the

proposed rail line and to address any

environmental impacts associated with

the lease agreement that might not have

been discussed at the previous scoping

meeting.

This DEIS has been prepared in

compliance with NEPA, NRC

regulations for implementing NEPA (10

CFR Part 51), guidance provided by the

Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) regulations implementing the

procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR

Part 1500), STB regulations for

implementing NEPA (49 CFR Part 1105),

and BLM and BIA policy procedures

and guidance documents.

Federal agencies’ actions are

considered in this DEIS. NRC’s action is

to grant or deny a 20-year license to PFS

to receive, transfer, and possess SNF on

the Reservation. BIA’s action is to either

approve or disapprove a 25-year lease

between PFS and the Skull Valley Band

for use of Reservation land to construct

and operate the proposed facility. Both

the license and the lease may be

renewed. BLM’s action is to either grant

or deny one of two requests for rightsof-way through BLM land for

transporting SNF from the existing rail

line to the proposed facility site,

including amending its resource

management plan if necessary. STB’s

action is to grant or deny PFS’s

application for a license to construct

and operate a new rail line to the

proposed facility site.

This DEIS not only evaluates the

proposed action (Alternative 1)

described above, but also the

environmental impacts of the alternative

actions. Alternatives involving the Skull

Valley site include an alternative site

location on the Reservation (known as

Site B), and an alternative transportation

method (i.e., heavy-haul vehicles).

Consideration of an alternative site

location on the Reservation and an

alternative transportation method

resulted in evaluating the following

alternatives:

• Alternative 2—the construction and

operation of the proposed facility at Site

B on the Reservation with a rail siding

and a rail line similar to that described

above.

• Alternative 3—construction and

operation of the proposed facility at Site

A, construction and operation of a new

Intermodal Transfer Facility (ITF) near

Timpie, Utah, and use of heavy-haul

vehicles to transport SNF down Skull

Valley Road.

• Alternative 4—the construction and

operation of the proposed facility at Site

B with the same ITF and SNF transport

described in Alternative 3 above.

Additionally, the DEIS compares the

construction and operation of a SNF

storage facility in Wyoming in lieu of

the Skull Valley site. This comparison

was made to determine if an identified

alternative site is obviously superior to

the proposed site. Lastly, the DEIS

evaluates the no-action alternative, i.e,

not to build the proposed facility in

Skull Valley. Under the no-action

alternative, the potential impacts of

constructing and operating the proposed

facility and associated SNF

transportation facilities in Skull Valley

would not occur.

This DEIS assesses the impacts of the

proposed action and its alternatives for

minerals, soils, water resources, air

quality, ecological resources,

socioeconomics and community

resources, cultural resources, human

health impact, noise, scenic qualities,

recreation, and environmental justice.

Additionally, an analysis and

comparison of the costs and benefits of

the proposed action has been

performed.

Based on the evaluation in the DEIS,

the NRC’s preferred alternative is the

proposed action with implementation of

the mitigation measures recommended

by the cooperating agencies.

A BLM decision to grant a right-ofway to PFS would be dependent upon

the decisions made by the NRC and BIA.

If the NRC issues a license to PFS for the

proposed facility and BIA approves the

lease, then BLM’s preferred alternative

would be to amend the Pony Express

Resource Management Plan and issue a

right-of-way for the Skunk Ridge rail

siding and rail line. Absent such

findings by the NRC and BIA, BLM

would not grant either of PFS’ rights-ofway requests.

Based on the information and analysis

to date, the STB environmental review

staff’s preliminary conclusion is that the

proposed project, with the

implementation of the cooperating

agencies recommended mitigation

measures, would not result in

significant adverse impacts to the

environment; therefore, its preferred

alternative would be to recommend

approval of the construction and

operation of the proposed rail line.

BIA does not have a preferred

alternative but will choose one in the

Final EIS based upon its trust

responsibility to the Skull Valley Band,

including consideration of

environmental impacts and mitigation

measures identified in the DEIS and

public comments on the DEIS.

This DEIS is a preliminary analysis of

the environmental impacts of the PFS

proposal. The cooperating Federal

agencies will review the comments,

conduct any necessary analyses, and

make appropriate revisions in

developing the Final EIS.

Participation in the public process

does not entitle participants to become

parties to the adjudicatory proceeding

associated with the proposed NRC

licensing action. Participation in the

adjudicatory proceeding is governed by

the procedures specified in 10 CFR

2.714 and 2.715 and in the

aforementioned Federal Register Notice

(62 FR 41099).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day

of June 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

E. William Brach,

Director, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

Dated at Washington, D.C., this 15th day of

June 2000.

For the Surface Transportation Board.

Victoria J. Rutson,

Acting Chief, Section of Environmental

Analysis.

Dated at Salt Lake City, Utah, this 13th day

of June 2000.

For the Bureau of Land Management.

Glenn A. Carpenter,

Field Manager, Salt Lake Field Office.

Dated at Fort Duchesne, Utah, this 13th

day of June 2000.

For the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs.

David Allison,

Superintendent, Unitah and Ouray Agency.

[FR Doc. 00–15933 Filed 6–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY

CORPORATION

Submission of Information Collection

for OMB Review; Comment Request;

Qualified Domestic Relations Orders

Submitted to the PBGC

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 122 / Friday, June 23, 2000 / Notices 39209

ACTION: Notice of request for extension

of OMB approval.

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation (PBGC) is requesting that

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) extend approval, under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, of the

collection of information (OMB control

number 1212–0054; expires July 31,

2000) relating to model forms contained

in the PBGC booklet, Divorce Orders &

PBGC. The booklet provides guidance

on how to submit a proper qualified

domestic relations order (a ‘‘QDRO’’) to

the PBGC. This notice informs the

public of the PBGC’s request and solicits

public comment on the collection of

information.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

by July 24, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs of the Office of

Management and Budget, Attention:

Desk Officer for Pension Benefit

Guaranty Corporation, Washington, DC

20503. Copies of the request for

extension (including the collection of

information) may be obtained by writing

the Communications and Public Affairs

Department, suite 240, 1200 K Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026, or

visiting that office between 9 a.m. and

4 p.m. on business days.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James L. Beller, Attorney, Office of the

General Counsel, Pension Benefit

Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026, 202–

326–4024. (For TTY and TDD, call the

Federal relay service toll-free at 1–800–

877–8339 and request connection to

202–326–4024.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A defined

benefit pension plan that does not have

enough money to pay benefits may be

terminated if the employer responsible

for the plan faces severe financial

difficulty, such as bankruptcy, and is

unable to maintain the plan. In such an

event, the PBGC becomes trustee of the

plan and pays benefits, subject to legal

limits, to plan participants and

beneficiaries.

The benefits of a pension plan

participant generally may not be

assigned or alienated. Title I of ERISA

provides an exception for domestic

relations orders that relate to child

support, alimony payments, or marital

property rights of an alternate payee (a

spouse, former spouse, child, or other

dependent of a plan participant). The

exception applies only if the domestic

relations order meets specific legal

requirements that make it a qualified

domestic relations order.

When the PBGC is trustee of a plan,

it reviews submitted domestic relations

orders to determine whether the order is

qualified before paying benefits to an

alternate payee. For several years the

PBGC has provided the public with

model QDROs (and accompanying

guidance) in the booklet, Divorce Orders

& PBGC, that attorneys and other

professionals who are preparing QDROs

for plans trusteed by the PBGC may

submit to the PBGC after receiving court

approval. The models and the guidance

assist parties by making it easier to

comply with ERISA’s QDRO

requirements in plans trusteed by the

PBGC.

Before providing the model forms and

the QDRO booklet, the PBGC received

many inquiries on the requirements for

QDROs. Furthermore, many domestic

relations orders, both in draft and final

form, did not meet the applicable

requirements. The PBGC worked with

practitioners on a case-by-case basis to

ensure that their orders were amended

to meet applicable requirements. This

process was time-consuming for

practitioners and for the PBGC.

Since making the booklet and the

model forms available, the PBGC has

experienced a decrease in (1) the

number of inquiries about QDRO

requirements, (2) the number of orders

that do not meet the applicable

requirements, and (3) the amount of

time practitioners and the PBGC need to

spend to ensure that the orders meet the

applicable requirements.

The requirements for submitting a

QDRO are established by statute. The

model QDROs and accompanying

guidance do not create any additional

requirements and will result in a

reduction of the statutory burden. The

PBGC estimates that it will receive 300

QDROs each year from prospective

alternate payees; that the average

burden of preparing a QDRO with the

assistance of the guidance and model

QDROs in PBGC’s booklet will be 1⁄4

hour of the alternate payee’s time and

$400 in professional fees if the alternate

payee hires an attorney or other

professional to prepare the QDRO, or 10

hours of the alternate payee’s time if the

alternate payee prepares the QDRO

without hiring an attorney or other

professional; and that the total annual

burden will be 104.25 hours and

$118,800.

The PBGC is requesting a three-year

extension of the paperwork approval

relating to model forms contained in the

PBGC booklet, Divorce Orders & PBGC.

The collection of information has been

approved through July 31, 2000, by

OMB under control number 1212–0054.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor,

and a person is not required to respond

to, a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number.

Issued in Washington, D.C., this 20th day

of June, 2000.

Stuart Sirkin,

Director, Corporate Policy and Research

Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 00–15921 Filed 6–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7708–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Agency Meetings

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to

the provisions of the Government in the

Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94–409, that the

Securities and Exchange Commission

will hold the following meetings during

the week of June 26, 2000.

An open meeting will be held on

Tuesday, June 27, 2000 at 10 a.m. in

Room 1C30.

Commissioner Hunt, as duty officer,

determined that no earlier notice thereof

was possible.

The subject matter of the open

meeting scheduled for Tuesday, June 27,

2000 will be:

The Commission will consider

whether to propose rule amendments to

its auditor independence requirements.

The proposals are intended to

modernize the Commission’s

regulations regarding:

(1) Investments by auditors or their

family members in audit clients;

(2) Employment relationships

between auditors or their family

members and audit clients; and

(3) The scope of services provided by

audit firms to their audit clients.

In addition, the rules would require

companies to disclose in their annual

proxy statements certain information

about non-audit services provided by

their auditors during the last fiscal year.

For further information, please

contact John Morrissey or W. Scott

Bayless at (202) 942–4400.

A closed meeting will be held on

Wednesday, June 28, 2000 at 11 a.m.

Commissioners, Counsel to the

Commissioners, the Secretary to the

Commission, and recording secretaries

will attend the closed meeting. Certain

staff members who have an interest in

the matters may also be present.

The General Counsel of the

Commission, or his designee, has

certified that, in his opinion, one or

more of the exemptions set forth in 5

U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (8), (9)(A) and (10)

and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(4), (8), (9)(A) and