Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Notices 67417

Uranium Mining Project Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS),

dated February 1997 (NUREG–1508),

provide the basis for NRC’s decision to

issue a 10 CFR Part 40 source material

license to HRI. The staff will issue a

license to HRI 30 days from issuance of

the SER. The license will authorize HRI

to construct and operate in situ leach

(ISL) mining facilities at the Crownpoint

Project for a period of five years. In

preparing the SER, the NRC staff

reviewed HRI’s license application

submittals and its Consolidated

Operations Plan, Revision 2.0 (dated

August 15, 1997), against the applicable

regulations in 10 CFR parts 19, 20, 40,

and 71. The SER supports the NRC

staff’s finding that issuing the license to

HRI will be in accordance with the

aforementioned regulations, and with

all applicable safety requirements of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as

amended.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Robert D. Carlson of the Uranium

Recovery Branch, Mail Stop TWFN 7–

J9, Division of Waste Management,

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.

Telephone (301) 415–8165; e-mail

RDC@NRC.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

25, 1998, HRI submitted an application

to NRC proposing to construct and

operate an ISL uranium mining facility

in McKinley County, near Church Rock,

New Mexico. HRI later amended its

application to include additional ISL

operations in McKinley County, near an

area of land referred to as Unit 1, and

Crownpoint, NM. Together, the three

sites comprise HRI’s Crownpoint

Uranium Solution Mining Project.

The NRC staff’s environmental review

of the Crownpoint Project is

documented in the FEIS, pursuant to

CFR Part 51. The NRC staff concluded

that HRI’s proposed Crownpoint Project

was environmentally acceptable, and

that potential impacts of the proposed

project could be mitigated. These

mitigative measures will be enumerated

as conditions in HRI’s source materials

license. Additionally, the NRC staff

completed its safety evaluation of the

Crownpoint Project and documented its

review in the SER. Based on its review,

the NRC staff concluded that issuance of

a source material license, with certain

conditions specified in the license,

would not be inimical to the common

defense and security or to the public’s

health and safety, and otherwise meets

the requirements of 10 CFR parts 19, 20,

40, and 71, and the AEA. The NRC

staff’s conclusions in the FEIS and SER

provide the bases for NRC’s decision to

tissue a source material license to HRI

30 days from issuance of the SER.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day

of December 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Joseph J. Holonich,

Chief, Uranium Recovery Branch, Division

of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–33549 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2590–01–M

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL

REVIEW BOARD

Notice of Meeting

Board Meeting: January 20 (beginning

at 1 p.m.) & 21, 1998—Amargosa Valley,

Nevada: Department of Energy (DOE)

program update, public input to the

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board,

the DOE thermal testing program,

saturated zone hydrology, and the

saturated zone expert elicitation project.

Pursuant to its authority under

section 5051 of Public Law 100–203, the

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act

of 1987, the Nuclear Waste Technical

Review Board will hold its winter

meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday,

January 20–21, 1998, in Amargosa

Valley, Nevada. The meeting, which is

open to the public, will be held at the

Longstreet Inn and Casino, HCR 70, Box

559, Amargosa Valley, Nevada 89020;

Tel (702) 372–1777; Fax (702) 372–1280.

The meeting will include an update

on the DOE’s nuclear waste

management program and activities at

Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and sessions

on the DOE’s thermal testing program,

saturated zone flow and transport

modeling, and the saturated zone expert

elicitation project. A session also will be

held concerning the board’s activities

under the Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA). A detailed agenda

will be available approximately two

weeks prior to the meeting by fax or email, or at the Board’s website,

www.nwtrb.gov.

In 1993, the Congress passed the

Government Performance and Results

Act, intending to improve confidence in

government by holding agencies

accountable for activities that affect

taxpayers lives. The law requires every

federal agency to develop a strategic

plan, including the critical component

of a statement addressing how the

agency plans to conduct itself while

carrying out its mission. During the

GPRA session at the winter meeting in

Amargosa Valley, Nevada, the Board

would like to solicit comments from the

public concerning the Board’s value

statement, which follows.

The Board takes very seriously its role

as a major source of technical and

scientific peer review of the nation’s

program to package, transport, and

dispose of high-level radioactive waste

and spent nuclear fuel. To that end, the

Board will:

• Ensure Board practices and

procedures are conducted with integrity

and objectivity that are beyond

reproach.

• Produce timely, complete,

comprehensive, and thoughtful

scientific and techical analyses.

• Communicate the Board’s findings

and recommendations at least twice a

year clearly, and in a timely manner that

is most beneficial to the Congress, the

Department of Energy, and the public.

• Ensure the Board’s findings and

recommendations are based on current

and accurate information.

• Ensure the Board conducts itself in

an open and accessible manner.

The Board will ask those present to

answer three questions:

1. Does the Board conduct its

meetings in an open, objective, and fair

manner? For example, are members of

the public treated with respect and

consideration when participating in the

meetings?

2. Given the technical and often

detailed nature of the Board’s work,

does the Board explain its major points

and positions in reports and letters so

that they are understandable? For

example, is there a general

understanding of the reasons for the

Board’s recommendation to construct an

east-west crossing of the potential

repository block at Yucca Mountain?

3. Most important, to what extent is

the Board a credible source of scientific

and technical advice to the Department

of Energy and the Congress? In general,

what is the basis for your opinion?

In responding to these questions,

those present will be asked to keep in

mind that the scope of the Board’s work

is defined specifically in federal law.

That law, P.L. 100–203, December 22,

1987, mandates that the Board is to

evaluate the scientific and technical

work of the Department of Energy in its

commercial nuclear waste disposal

program, including waste packaging and

transportation activities.

Time has been set aside for oral

comments from the public on these

issues. Depending on the number of

speakers, time limits may have to be

imposed. Preprinted comment sheets

will be available at the meeting for use

in submitting written comments.

Also, additional time has been set

aside on both days for the public to
67418 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Notices

comment on the technical issues raised

during the meeting. Those wishing to

speak are encouraged to sign the Public

Comment Register at the check-in table.

A time limit may have to be set on the

length of individual remarks; however,

written comments of any length may be

submitted for the record.

Transcripts of this meeting will be

available via e-mail, on computer disk,

or on a library-loan basis in paper

format from Davonya Barnes, Board

staff, beginning February 18, 1998. For

further information, contact Frank

Randall, External Affairs, 2300

Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1300,

Arlington, Virginia 22201–3367; (Tel)

703–235–4473; (Fax) 703–235–4495; (Email) info@nwtrb.gov.

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review

Board was created by Congress in the

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act

of 1987 to evaluate the technical and

scientific validity of activities

undertaken by the DOE in its program

to manage the disposal of the nation’s

commercial spent nuclear fuel and

defense high-level waste. In the same

legislation, Congress directed the DOE

to characterize a site at Yucca Mountain,

Nevada, for its suitability as a potential

location for a permanent repository for

the disposal of that waste.

Dated: December 19, 1997.

William Barnard,

Executive Director, Nuclear Waste Technical

Review Board.

[FR Doc. 97–33569 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–AM–M

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY

CORPORATION

Proposed Submission of Information

Collection for OMB Review; Comment

Request; Notice of Termination for

Multiemployer Plans

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of intention to request

extension of OMB approval.

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation (‘‘PBGC’’) intends to

request that the Office of Management

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) extend approval,

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, of

a collection of information in its

regulation on Notice of Termination for

Multiemployer Plans (29 CFR Part

4041A Subpart B) (OMB control number

1212–0020; expires March 31, 1998).

This notice informs the public of the

PBGC’s intent and solicits public

comment on the collection of

information.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

by February 23, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

the Office of the General Counsel, suite

340, Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20005–4026, or

delivered to that address between 9 a.m.

and 4 p.m. on business days. Written

comments will be available for public

inspection at the PBGC’s

Communications and Public Affairs

Department, suite 240 at the same

address, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. on

business days.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah C. Murphy, 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 800–

877–8339 and request connection to

202–326–4024).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

4041A(f)(2) of the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974 (‘‘ERISA’’)

gives the PBGC authority to prescribe

reporting requirements for terminated

multiemployer pension plans covered

by Title IV of ERISA.

The PBGC’s regulation on Notice of

Termination for Multiemployer Plans

(29 CFR Part 4041A Subpart B) requires

the filing of a notice of termination with

the PBGC by a multiemployer plan that

has terminated either by plan

amendment or by mass withdrawal. The

notice must contain certain basic

information such as the plan’s identity,

the date of termination, and the plan’s

most recent Form 5500. In addition, a

plan that has terminated by mass

withdrawal must supply certain

financial information to enable the

PBGC to assess the likelihood of benefit

reductions or suspensions under the

plan and the need for PBGC financial

assistance to the plan. More information

is required with respect to mass

withdrawal terminations because the

risk of plan insolvency is greater in

these cases. (The regulation may be

accessed on the PBGC’s home page at

http://www.pbgc.gov.)

The collection of information under

the regulation has been approved by

OMB under control number 1212–0020

through March 31, 1998. The PBGC

intends to request that OMB extend its

approval for another three years. 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. The PBGC estimates that the

total annual hour burden of the

regulation is one hour and that the total

annual cost burden is $34,125.

The PBGC is soliciting public

comments to—

• Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of

responses.

Issued in Washington, DC, this 18th day of

December, 1997.

David M. Strauss,

Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 97–33576 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7708–01–P

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY

CORPORATION

Proposed Submission of Information

Collection for OMB Review; Comment

Request; Extension of Special

Withdrawal Liability Rules

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of intention to request

extension of OMB approval.

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation (‘‘PBGC’’) intends to

request that the Office of Management

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) extend approval,

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, of

a collection of information in its

regulation on Extension of Special

Withdrawal Liability Rules (29 CFR Part

4203) (OMB control number 1212–0023;

expires March 31, 1998). This notice

informs the public of the PBGC’s intent

and solicits public comment on the

collection of information.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

by February 23, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

the Office of the General Counsel, suite

340, Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20005–4026, or

delivered to that address between 9 a.m.

and 4 p.m. on business days. Written