59376 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Notices 

position to licensed activities. In 

discrimination cases where an adverse 

action was initiated or approved by 

mid-level management within the 

organization but the specific manager 

cannot be identified, the Severity Level 

determination will consider the action 

taken as though a specific individual 

manager was identified. For example, 

during the course of an otherwise 

legitimate reduction in force, an 

employee is subject to the layoff, at least 

in part, due to engaging in a protected 

activity. In this example, a panel of midlevel managers approves the list of 

employees affected by the layoff, 

including the employee wrongly laid 

off, but no single mid-level manager is 

specifically identified as responsible for 

the adverse action. Therefore, Severity 

Level consideration would be based, in 

part, on mid-level management 

involvement. 

Potential site or organizational impact 

is the negative impact on the work 

environment that could occur if the 

adverse action is conspicuous and 

widely known to other employees. The 

NRC recognizes that this would be the 

most subjective of the proposed severity 

level factors and that precise criteria 

would likely be difficult to establish. 

Therefore, the NRC anticipates that this 

factor will only be used when the 

adverse action is clearly widely-known. 

Widely-known actions which could 

affect the organization by affecting the 

work environment for other employees 

include, for example, those actions that 

result in an individual being absent 

from the workplace, as a result of a 

termination, suspension, or relocation of 

work space. Adverse actions involving 

performance appraisals do not typically 

result in an employee’s absence and 

may not necessarily be known by other 

employees. Therefore, actions related to 

such things as performance appraisals 

would not typically be considered 

widely-known under this factor, unless 

evidence suggests otherwise. 

Although not specifically included as 

a severity level factor in the proposed 

revision, the NRC notes that the threat 

of an adverse action is also considered 

to constitute an adverse action because 

the threat affects the terms and 

conditions of employment, thereby 

affecting the work environment. The 

NRC recognizes, however, that the 

threat of an adverse action does not 

have the same consequences to an 

individual as an actual tangible adverse 

action. Under the proposed revision, a 

SL II violation, for example, could be 

appropriate, if a mid-level manager 

threatened to terminate an employee 

and the threat had widespread site or 

organizational impact, i.e., was widelyknown among employees. 

Accordingly, the proposed revision to 

the NRC Enforcement Policy, 

Supplement VII, reads as follows: 

NRC Enforcement Policy 

* * * * * 

Supplement VII—Miscellaneous Matters 

* * * * * 

A. Severity Level I—Violations 

Involving for Example 

* * * * * 

4. Employee Discrimination in 

violation of 10 CFR 50.7, or similar 

regulations, by a senior corporate officer 

or manager involving a significant 

tangible adverse action (e.g., substantial 

monetary action, such as termination or 

job demotion). 

B. Severity Level II—Violations 

Involving for Example 

* * * * * 

4. Employee Discrimination in 

violation of 10 CFR 50.7, or similar 

regulations where a tangible adverse 

action (e.g., an actual, negative effect on 

an employee, such as denial of training, 

lower performance rating, or denial of a 

small, routine annual pay increase) was 

taken or approved by a senior manager; 

or violations in which at least two of the 

following factors apply: 

(a) The adverse action was approved 

by at least a mid-level manager (e.g., a 

manager above a first-line supervisor) or 

at a level within the organization 

corresponding to a mid-level manager 

(in those cases where the specific midlevel manager cannot be identified); or 

(b) The adverse action was tangible 

and significant (e.g., substantial 

monetary action, such as termination or 

job demotion); or 

(c) The adverse action was widelyknown; or 

(d) The adverse action was taken 

because an employee came to the NRC 

or other government agency with a 

concern; or 

(e) The licensee, contractor or 

subcontractor’s management failed to 

followup on a discrimination complaint 

made by one of its own employees or 

the licensee’s management failed to 

followup on a discrimination complaint 

made to the licensee by a contractor or 

subcontractor employee. 

A. Severity Level III—Violations 

Involving for Example 

* * * * * 

5. Employee Discrimination in 

violation of 10 CFR 50.7, or similar 

regulations where at least one of the 

following factors apply: 

(a) The adverse action was approved 

by at least a mid-level manager (e.g., a 

manager above a first-line supervisor) or 

at a level within the organization 

corresponding to a mid-level manager 

(in those cases where the specific midlevel manager cannot be identified); or 

(b) The adverse action was tangible 

(e.g., an actual, negative effect on an 

employee, such as a denial of a small, 

routine annual pay increase, denial of 

training, or lower performance rating); 

or 

(c) The adverse action was widelyknown; or 

(d) The adverse action was taken 

because an employee came to the NRC 

or other government agency with a 

concern; or 

(e) The licensee, contractor or 

subcontractor’s management failed to 

followup on a discrimination complaint 

made by one of its own employees or 

the licensee’s management failed to 

followup on a discrimination complaint 

made to the licensee by a contractor or 

subcontractor employee. 

D. Severity Level IV—Violations 

Involving for Example 

* * * * * 

7. Employee Discrimination in 

violation of 10 CFR 50.7, or similar 

regulations which, in itself, does not 

warrant a Severity Level III 

categorization. 

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 27th day of 

September, 2005. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Michael R. Johnson, 

Director, Office of Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E5–5578 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Federal Register Notice 

DATES: Weeks of October 10, 17, 24, 31, 

November 7, 14, 2005. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and Closed. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Week of October 10, 2005 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the Week of October 10, 2005. 

Week of October 17, 2005—Tentative 

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 

9:30 a.m.—Briefing on 

Decommissioning Activities and 

Status (Public Meeting) (Contact: Dan 

Gillen, 301–415–7295). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Notices 59377 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—www.nrc.gov. 

Week of October 24, 2005—Tentative 

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 

1:30 p.m.—Discussion of Security Issues 

(Closed–Ex.1). 

Thursday, October 27, 2005 

10 a.m.—Discussion of Security Issues 

(Closed–Ex.1). 

Week of October 31, 2005—Tentative 

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 

9:30 a.m.—Briefing on Implementation 

of Davis-Besse Lessons Learned Task 

Force (DBLLTF) Recommendations 

(Public Meeting) (Contact: Brendan 

Moroney, 301–415–3974). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—www.nrc.gov. 

Week of November 7, 2005—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the Week of November 7, 2005. 

Week of November 14, 2005—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the Week of November 14, 2005. 

The schedule for Commission 

meetings is subject to change on short 

notice. To verify the status of meetings 

call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. 

Contact person for more information: 

Michelle Schroll, (301) 415–1662. 

* * * * * 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the Internet 

at: www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policymaking/schedule.html 

* * * * * 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g. 

braille, large print), please notify the 

NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator, 

August Spector, at 301–415–7080, TDD: 

301–415–2100, or by e-mail at 

aks@nrc.gov. Determinations on 

requests for reasonable accommodation 

will be made on a case-by-case basis. 

* * * * * 

This notice is distributed by mail to 

several hundred subscribers; if you no 

longer wish to receive it, or would like 

to be added to the distribution, please 

contact the Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969). 

In addition, distribution of this meeting 

notice over the Internet system is 

available. If you are interested in 

receiving this Commission meeting 

schedule electronically, please send an 

electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. 

Dated: October 6, 2005. 

Debra L. McCain, 

Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–20494 Filed 10–7–05; 10:10 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

Proposed Submission of Information 

Collection for OMB Review; Comment 

Request; Survey of Nonparticipating 

Single Premium Group Annuity Rates 

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 that is not 

contained in a regulation (OMB control 

number 1212–0030; expires January 31, 

2006). This voluntary collection of 

information is a quarterly survey of 

insurance company rates for pricing 

annuity contracts. The survey is 

conducted by the American Council of 

Life Insurers for the PBGC. 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 December 12, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed 

or delivered to the Legislative & 

Regulatory Department Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026. 

Comments also may be submitted by email to paperwork.comments@pbgc.gov 

or by fax to 202–326–4112. The PBGC 

will make all comments available on its 

Web site www.pbgc.gov. 

Copies of the collection of 

information may be obtained without 

charge by writing to the PBGC’s 

Communications and Public Affairs 

Department at Suite 240 at the above 

address or by visiting that office or 

calling 202–326–4040 during normal 

business hours. (TTY and TDD users 

may call the Federal relay service tollfree at 1–800–877–8339 and ask to be 

connected to 202–326–4040.) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas H. Gabriel, Attorney, 

Legislative & Regulatory Department, 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 

1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20005–4026, 202–326–4024. (TTY and 

TDD users may call the Federal relay 

service toll-free at 1–800–877–8339 and 

request connection to 202–326–4024). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s 

regulations prescribe actuarial valuation 

methods and assumptions (including 

interest rate assumptions) to be used in 

determining the actuarial present value 

of benefits under single-employer plans 

that terminate (29 CFR Part 4044) and 

under multiemployer plans that 

undergo a mass withdrawal of 

contributing employers (29 CFR Part 

4281). Each month the PBGC publishes 

the interest rates to be used under those 

regulations for plans terminating or 

undergoing mass withdrawal during the 

next month. 

The interest rates are intended to 

reflect current conditions in the annuity 

markets. To determine these interest 

rates, the PBGC gathers pricing data 

from insurance companies that are 

providing annuity contracts to 

terminating pension plans through a 

quarterly ‘‘Survey of Nonparticipating 

Single Premium Group Annuity Rates.’’

The survey is distributed by the 

American Council of Life Insurers and 

provides the PBGC with ‘‘blind’’ data 

(i.e., is conducted in such a way that the 

PBGC is unable to match responses with 

the companies that submitted them). 

The information from the survey is also 

used by the PBGC in determining the 

interest rates it uses to value benefits 

payable to participants and beneficiaries 

in PBGC-trusteed plans for purposes of 

the PBGC’s financial statements. 

The survey is directed at insurance 

companies that have volunteered to 

participate, most or all of which are 

members of the American Council of 

Life Insurers. The survey is conducted 

quarterly and will be sent to 

approximately 22 insurance companies. 

Based on experience under the current 

approval, the PBGC estimates that 11 

insurance companies will complete and 

return the survey. The PBGC further 

estimates that the average annual 

burden of this collection of information 

is 41 hours and $110. 

The collection of information under 

the regulation has been approved by 

OMB under control number 1212–0030 

through January 31, 2006. 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 is soliciting public 

comments to—

• Evaluate whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper