34206 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices

percent uranium-235, and because

commercial nuclear plant licensees have

procedures and features that are

designed to prevent inadvertent

criticality, the staff has determined that

it is unlikely that an inadvertent

criticality could occur due to the

handling of special nuclear material at

a commercial power reactor. Therefore,

the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24 are

not necessary to ensure the safety of

personnel during the handling of special

nuclear materials at commercial power

reactors.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that inadvertent or accidental

criticality will be precluded through

compliance with the James A.

FitzPatrick Technical Specifications, the

design of the fuel storage racks

providing geometric spacing of fuel

assemblies in their storage locations,

and administrative controls imposed on

fuel handling procedures.

The proposed exemption would not

result in an increase in the probability

or consequences of accidents, affect

radiological plant effluents, or result in

a change in occupational or offsite dose.

Therefore, there are no radiological

impacts associated with the proposed

exemption.

The proposed exemption would not

result in a change in nonradiological

effluents and will have no other

nonradiological environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

that there is no significant

environmental impact associated with

the proposed action, any alternatives

with equal or greater environmental

impact need not be evaluated. As an

alternative to the proposed exemption,

the staff considered denial of the

requested exemption. Denial of the

request 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 related to the operation of the

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power

Plant dated March 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on June 4, 1998, the staff consulted with

the New York State Official, Jack Spath,

of the New York State Research and

Development Authority regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of no Significant Impact

Based upon 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 letter

dated April 24, 1998, which is available

for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room

located at the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the

local public document room located at

the Reference and Documents

Department, Penfield Library, State

University of New York, Oswego, New

York.

Dated at Rockville, Md., this 17th day of

June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

S. Singh Bajwa,

Director, Project Directorate I–1, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–16647 Filed 6–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY

CORPORATION

Proposed Submission of Information

Collections for OMB Review; Comment

Request; Multiemployer Plan

Regulations

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

collections of information in the PBGC’s

regulations on multiemployer plans

under the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). This

notice informs the public of the PBGC’s

intent and solicits public comment on

the collections of information.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by

August 24, 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/TDD users, call the

Federal relay service toll-free at 1–800–

877–8339 and ask to be connected to

202–326–4024.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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. OMB has approved and issued

control numbers for the collections of

information, described below, in the

PBGC’s regulations relating to

multiemployer plans. (The regulations

may be accessed on the PBGC’s web site

at http://www.pbgc.gov.) The PBGC

intends to request that OMB extend its

approval of these collections of

information for three years.

The PBGC is soliciting public

comments to—

• Evaluate whether the proposed

collections of information are 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 collections of information,

including the validity of the

methodologies and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the

collections 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.

Comments should identify the

specific part number(s) of the

regulation(s) they relate to.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices 34207

The collections of information for

which the PBGC intends to request

extension of OMB approval are as

follows:

1. Termination of Multiemployer Plans

(29 CFR Part 4041A) (OMB Control

Number 1212–0020)

Section 4041A(f)(2) of ERISA

authorizes the PBGC to prescribe

reporting requirements for and other

‘‘rules and standards for the

administration of’’ terminated

multiemployer plans. Section 4041A(c)

and (f)(1) of ERISA prohibit the payment

by a mass-withdrawal-terminated plan

of lump sums greater than $1,750 or of

nonvested plan benefits unless

authorized by the PBGC.

The regulation requires the plan

sponsor of a terminated plan to submit

a notice of termination to the PBGC. It

also requires the plan sponsor of a masswithdrawal-terminated plan that is

closing out to give notices to

participants regarding the election of

alternative forms of benefit distribution

and to obtain PBGC approval to pay

lump sums greater than $1,750 or to pay

nonvested plan benefits.

The PBGC uses the information in a

notice of termination to assess the

likelihood that PBGC financial

assistance will be needed. Plan

participants and beneficiaries use the

information on alternative forms of

benefit to make personal financial

decisions. The PBGC uses the

information in an application for

approval to pay lump sums greater than

$1,750 or to pay nonvested plan benefits

to determine whether such payments

should be permitted.

This collection of information is being

revised to include certain items that

were previously covered under OMB

control number 1212–0032 (because

they were in a different part of the

PBGC’s regulations) but that were

moved into Part 4041A when the PBGC

reorganized its regulations in 1996. As

revised, control number 1212–0020 will

cover all collection of information

requirements in Part 4041A.

The PBGC estimates that plan

sponsors each year (1) submit notices of

termination for 20 plans, (2) distribute

election notices to participants in 15 of

those plans, and (3) submit requests to

pay benefits or benefit forms not

otherwise permitted for 1 of those plans.

The estimated annual burden of the

collection of information is 48 hours

and $13,481.

2. Extension of Special Withdrawal

Liability Rules (29 CFR Part 4203)

(OMB Control Number 1212–0023)

Sections 4203(f) and 4208(e)(3) of

ERISA allow the PBGC to permit a

multiemployer plan to adopt special

rules for determining whether a

withdrawal from the plan has occurred,

subject to PBGC approval.

The regulation specifies the

information that a plan that adopts

special rules must submit to the PBGC

about the rules, the plan, and the

industry in which the plan operates.

The PBGC uses the information to

determine whether the rules are

appropriate for the industry in which

the plan functions and do not pose a

significant risk to the insurance system.

The PBGC estimates that at most 1

plan sponsor submits a request each

year under this regulation. The

estimated annual burden of the

collection of information is 1 hour and

$2,400.

3. Variances for Sale of Assets (29 CFR

Part 4204) (OMB Control Number 1212–

0021)

If an employer’s covered operations or

contribution obligation under a plan

ceases, the employer must generally pay

withdrawal liability to the plan. Section

4204 of ERISA provides an exception,

under certain conditions, where the

cessation results from a sale of assets.

Among other things, the buyer must

furnish a bond or escrow, and the sale

contract must provide for secondary

liability of the seller.

The regulation establishes general

variances (rules for avoiding the bond/

escrow and sale-contract requirements)

and authorizes plans to determine

whether the variances apply in

particular cases. It also allows buyers

and sellers to request individual

variances from the PBGC. Plans and the

PBGC use the information to determine

whether employers qualify for

variances.

The PBGC estimates that 11

employers submit variance requests to

plans, and 2 employers submit variance

requests to the PBGC, each year. The

estimated annual burden of the

collection of information is 1 hour and

$2,663.

4. Reduction or Waiver of Complete

Withdrawal Liability (29 CFR Part

4207) (OMB Control Number 1212–

0044)

Section 4207 of ERISA allows the

PBGC to provide for abatement of an

employer’s complete withdrawal

liability, and for plan adoption of

alternative abatement rules, where

appropriate.

Under the regulation, an employer

applies to a plan for an abatement

determination, providing information

the plan needs to determine whether

withdrawal liability should be abated,

and the plan notifies the employer of its

determination. The employer may,

pending plan action, furnish a bond or

escrow instead of making withdrawal

liability payments, and must notify the

plan if it does so. When the plan then

makes its determination, it must so

notify the bonding or escrow agent.

The regulation also permits plans to

adopt their own abatement rules and

request PBGC approval. The PBGC uses

the information in such a request to

determine whether the amendment

should be approved.

The PBGC estimates that 100

employers apply to plans for abatement

of complete withdrawal liability each

year and that 1 plan sponsor requests

approval of plan abatement rules each

year from the PBGC. The estimated

annual burden of the collection of

information is 25.5 hours and $15,000.

5. Reduction or Waiver of Partial

Withdrawal Liability (29 CFR Part

4208) (OMB Control Number 1212–

0039)

Section 4208 of ERISA provides for

abatement, in certain circumstances, of

an employer’s partial withdrawal

liability and authorizes the PBGC to

issue additional partial withdrawal

liability abatement rules.

Under the regulation, an employer

applies to a plan for an abatement

determination, providing information

the plan needs to determine whether

withdrawal liability should be abated,

and the plan notifies the employer of its

determination. The employer may,

pending plan action, furnish a bond or

escrow instead of making withdrawal

liability payments, and must notify the

plan if it does so. When the plan then

makes its determination, it must so

notify the bonding or escrow agent.

The regulation also permits plans to

adopt their own abatement rules and

request PBGC approval. The PBGC uses

the information in such a request to

determine whether the amendment

should be approved.

The PBGC estimates that 1,000

employers apply to plans for abatement

of partial withdrawal liability each year

and that 1 plan sponsor requests

approval of plan abatement rules each

year from the PBGC. The estimated

annual burden of the collection of

information is 250.5 hours and

$150,000.
34208 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices

6. Allocating Unfunded Vested Benefits

to Withdrawing Employers (29 CFR

Part 4211) (OMB Control Number 1212–

0035)

Section 4211(c)(5)(A) of ERISA

requires the PBGC to prescribe how

plans can, with PBGC approval, change

the way they allocate unfunded vested

benefits to withdrawing employers for

purposes of calculating withdrawal

liability.

The regulation prescribes the

information that must be submitted to

the PBGC by a plan seeking such

approval. The PBGC uses the

information to determine how the

amendment changes the way the plan

allocates unfunded vested benefits and

how it will affect the risk of loss to plan

participants and the PBGC.

The PBGC estimates that 5 plan

sponsors submit approval requests each

year under this regulation. The

estimated annual burden of the

collection of information is 10 hours.

7. Notice, Collection, and

Redetermination of Withdrawal

Liability (29 CFR Part 4219) (OMB

Control Number 1212–0034)

Section 4219(c)(1)(D) of ERISA

requires that the PBGC prescribe

regulations for the allocation of a plan’s

total unfunded vested benefits in the

event of a ‘‘mass withdrawal.’’ ERISA

section 4209(c) deals with an

employer’s liability for de minimis

amounts if the employer withdraws in

a ‘‘substantial withdrawal.’’

The reporting requirements in the

regulation give employers notice of a

mass withdrawal or substantial

withdrawal and advise them of their

rights and liabilities. They also provide

notice to the PBGC so that it can

monitor the plan, and they help the

PBGC assess the possible impact of a

withdrawal event on participants and

the multiemployer plan insurance

program.

The PBGC estimates that there is at

most 1 mass withdrawal and 1

substantial withdrawal per year. The

plan sponsor of a plan subject to a

withdrawal covered by the regulation

provides notices of the withdrawal to

the PBGC and to employers covered by

the plan, liability assessments to the

employers, and a certification to the

PBGC that assessments have been made.

(For a mass withdrawal, there are 2

assessments and 2 certifications that

deal with 2 different types of liability.

For a substantial withdrawal, there is 1

assessment and 1 certification

(combined with the withdrawal notice

to the PBGC).) The estimated annual

burden of the collection of information

is 4 hours and $3,939.

8. Procedures for PBGC Approval of

Plan Amendments (29 CFR Part 4220)

(OMB Control Number 1212–0031)

Under section 4220 of ERISA, a plan

may within certain limits adopt special

plan rules regarding when a withdrawal

from the plan occurs and how the

withdrawing employer’s withdrawal

liability is determined. Any such special

rule is effective only if, within 90 days

after receiving notice and a copy of the

rule, the PBGC either approves or fails

to disapprove the rule.

The regulation provides rules for

requesting the PBGC’s approval of an

amendment. The PBGC needs the

required information to identify the

plan, evaluate the risk of loss, if any,

posed by the plan amendment, and

determine whether to approve or

disapprove the amendment.

The PBGC estimates that 3 plan

sponsors submit approval requests per

year under this regulation. The

estimated annual burden of the

collection of information is 1.5 hours.

9. Mergers and Transfers Between

Multiemployer Plans (29 CFR Part

4231) (OMB Control Number 1212–

0022)

Section 4231(a) and (b) of ERISA

requires plans that are involved in a

merger or transfer to give the PBGC 120

days’ notice of the transaction and

provides that if the PBGC determines

that specified requirements are satisfied,

the transaction will be deemed not to be

in violation of ERISA section 406(a) or

(b)(2) (dealing with prohibited

transactions).

This regulation sets forth the

procedures for giving notice of a merger

or transfer under section 4231 and for

requesting a determination that a

transaction complies with section 4231.

The PBGC uses information submitted

by plan sponsors under the regulation to

determine whether mergers and

transfers conform to the requirements of

ERISA section 4231 and the regulation.

The PBGC estimates that there are 20

transactions each year for which plan

sponsors submit notices and approval

requests under this regulation. The

estimated annual burden of the

collection of information is 5 hours and

$2,500.

10. Notice of Insolvency (29 CFR Part

4245) (OMB Control Number 1212–

0033)

If the plan sponsor of a plan in

reorganization under ERISA section

4241 determines that the plan may

become insolvent, ERISA section

4245(e) requires the plan sponsor to give

a ‘‘notice of insolvency’’ to the PBGC,

contributing employers, and plan

participants and their unions in

accordance with PBGC rules.

For each insolvency year under

ERISA section 4245(b)(4), ERISA section

4245(e) also requires the plan sponsor to

give a ‘‘notice of insolvency benefit

level’’ to the same parties.

This regulation establishes the

procedure for giving these notices. The

PBGC uses the information submitted to

estimate cash needs for financial

assistance to troubled plans. Employers

and unions use the information to

decide whether additional plan

contributions will be made to avoid the

insolvency and consequent benefit

suspensions. Plan participants and

beneficiaries use the information in

personal financial decisions.

The PBGC estimates that 9 plan

sponsors give notices each year under

this regulation. The estimated annual

burden of the collection of information

is 1 hour and $7,633.

11. Duties of Plan Sponsor Following

Mass Withdrawal (29 CFR Part 4281)

(OMB Control Number 1212–0032)

Section 4281 of ERISA provides rules

for plans that have terminated by mass

withdrawal. Under section 4281, if

nonforfeitable benefits exceed plan

assets, the plan sponsor must amend the

plan to reduce benefits. If the plan

nevertheless becomes insolvent, the

plan sponsor must suspend certain

benefits that cannot be paid. If available

resources are inadequate to pay

guaranteed benefits, the plan sponsor

must request financial assistance from

the PBGC.

The regulation requires a plan

sponsor to give notices of benefit

reduction, notices of insolvency and

annual updates, and notices of

insolvency benefit level to the PBGC

and to participants and beneficiaries

and, if necessary, to apply to the PBGC

for financial assistance.

The PBGC uses the information it

receives to make determinations

required by ERISA, to identify and

estimate the cash needed for financial

assistance to terminated plans, and to

verify the appropriateness of financial

assistance payments. Plan participants

and beneficiaries use the information to

make personal financial decisions.

This collection of information is being

revised to exclude certain items that

were previously covered under OMB

control number 1212–0032 but that

were moved into Part 4041A when the

PBGC reorganized its regulations in

1996. As revised, control number 1212–

0032 will cover only collection of

information requirements in Part 4281.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices 34209

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3See Letter from Timothy Thompson, Director,

Regulatory Affairs, Legal Department, CBOE, to Ken

Rosen, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation,

Commission, dated May 11, 1998 (‘‘Amendment

No. 1’’).

4Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39992 (May

14, 1998), 63 FR 28019.

5See Amendment No. 1.

The PBGC estimates that plan

sponsors each year (1) give benefit

reduction notices for 1 plan, (2) give

notices of insolvency for 2 plans, (3)

give notices of insolvency benefit level

and annual updates for 23 plans, and (4)

submit requests for financial assistance

for 18 plans. The estimated annual

burden of the collection of information

is 1 hour and $66,900.

Issued in Washington, DC, this 18th day of

June 1998.

Stuart A. Sirkin,

Director, Corporate Policy and Research

Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 98–16679 Filed 6–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7708–01–P

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION

Facility Visit

AGENCY: Postal Rate Commission.

ACTION: Notice of visit.

SUMMARY: Arrangements have been

made for members of the Commission

and certain advisory staff members to

visit the World Headquarters and

Technology Center of Pitney Bowes in

Stamford, Connecticut. The purpose is

to gain a better understanding of new

and evolving technologies and their

potential impact on the nature of the

mailstream and postal operations.

Information obtained during the visit

will assist Commissioners and staff in

the execution of their duties.

DATES: The tour is scheduled for

Monday, July 20, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven L. Sharfman, General Counsel,

(202) 789–6820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A report

of the visit will be filed in the

Commission’s Docket Room.

(Authority: 39 U.S.C. 404(b), 3603, 3622–

3624, 3661, 3662)

Dated: June 17, 1998.

Margaret P. Crenshaw,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–16611 Filed 6–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–M

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIMES AND DATES: 1:00 p.m., Monday,

June 29, 1998; 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, June

30, 1998.

PLACE: Washington, D.C., at U.S. Postal

Service Headquarters, 475 L’Enfant

Plaza, S.W., in the Benjamin Franklin

Room.

STATUS: June 29 (Closed); June 30

(Open).

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Monday, June 29—1:00 p.m. (Closed)

1. Postal Rate Commission Opinion and

Recommended Decision in Docket No.

R97–1.

2. Post Office Online.

3. Compensation Issues.

Tuesday, June 30—8:30 a.m. (Open)

1. Minutes of the Previous Meeting, June

1–2, 1998.

2. Remarks of the Postmaster General/

Chief Executive Officer.

3. Consideration of Board Resolution on

Audit Committee Charter.

4. Capital Investments.

a. Delivery Operations Information

System (DOIS)—R&D.

b. 546 Delivery Bar Code Sorter

(DBCS) Output Subsystem Kits.

5. Tentative Agenda for the August 3–

4, 1998, meeting in Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Thomas J. Koerber, Secretary of the

Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L’Enfant

Plaza, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20260–

1000. Telephone (202) 268–4800.

Thomas J. Koerber,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–16722 Filed 6–18–98; 4:19 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–40096; File No. SR–CBOE–

98–13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order

Granting Accelerated Approval of

Proposed Rule Change By the Chicago

Board Options Exchange, Inc. Relating

to the Automatic Execution of Small

Retail Orders in Equity Options

June 16, 1998.

I. Introduction

On April 6, 1998, the Chicago Board

Options Exchange, Inc. (‘‘CBOE’’ or

‘‘Exchange’’) submitted to the Securities

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or

‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act

of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4

thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to

amend Interpretation and Policy .02

under CBOE Rule 6.8 governing the

operations of the Exchange’s Retail

Automatic Execution System (‘‘RAES’’).

On May 13, 1998, the CBOE filed with

the Commission Amendment No. 1 to

the proposed rule change.3 The

proposed rule change, as amended, was

published for comment in the Federal

Register on May 21, 1998.4 The

Commission received no comments

regarding the proposal. This order

approves the proposal, as amended, on

an accelerated basis.

II. Description of the Proposal

Presently, under CBOE Rule 6.8(a)(ii),

the execution price automatically

attached to an equity option order

executed in RAES is the prevailing

market quote on the CBOE at the time

the order is entered into the system. If

at that same time another market is

displaying a better quote for the option,

under CBOE Rules the order is not

automatically executed, but instead,

pursuant to Interpretation and Policy

.02 under CBOE Rule 6.8, is rerouted for

non-automated handling. In most cases,

especially where the market away from

the CBOE is better by only one ‘‘tick’’

(i.e., by one minimum quote interval),

the order is usually manually executed

on the CBOE at the better price.

The CBOE now proposes to amend

Interpretation and Policy .02 to

automate the process of filling equity

option orders through RAES at any

better price being quoted in another

market, so long as the price is better by

no more than one tick (‘‘RAES AutoStep-Up’’). If the market away from the

CBOE is better than the CBOE’s quoted

market by more than one tick, the

existing procedure will continue to

apply whereby the order is rerouted out

of RAES to the Designated Primary

Market Maker or Order Book Official for

non-automated handling.

While the Exchange expects that

eventually the Floor Procedure

Committees will determine to apply the

RAES Auto-Step-Up to all or nearly all

option classes traded on the floor, the

proposed rule change would permit the

program to be initiated on a class by

class or trading station by trading

station basis.5 To provide for the orderly

introduction of this change to the

Exchange’s RAES procedures and to

measure its effect before expanding it to

equity options floor-wide, the Exchange

intends to introduce the changed RAES

procedure to selected classes of equity