16758 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Notices 

attendance rates, and college persistence 

rates (where applicable and available)) 

for low-income and other educationally 

disadvantaged students served by the 

charter schools operated or managed by 

the applicant that are significantly 

above the average academic 

achievement results for such students in 

the State. 

(b) Contribution in assisting 

educationally disadvantaged students. 

The contribution the proposed project 

will make in assisting educationally 

disadvantaged students served by the 

applicant to meet or exceed State 

academic content standards and State 

student academic achievement 

standards, and to graduate college- and 

career-ready. When responding to this 

selection criterion, applicants must 

discuss the proposed locations of 

schools to be created or substantially 

expanded and the student populations 

to be served. 

(c) Quality of the project design. 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the design of the proposed project. In 

determining the quality of the design of 

the proposed project, the Secretary 

considers the extent to which the goals, 

objectives, and outcomes to be achieved 

by the proposed project are clearly 

specified, measurable, and attainable. 

Applicants proposing to open schools 

serving substantially different 

populations than those currently served 

by the model for which they have 

demonstrated evidence of success must 

address the attainability of outcomes 

given this difference. 

(d) Quality of the management plan 

and personnel. 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the management plan and personnel to 

replicate and substantially expand highquality charter schools. In determining 

the quality of the management plan and 

personnel for the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers: 

(1) The adequacy of the management 

plan to achieve the objectives of the 

proposed project on time and within 

budget, including clearly defined 

responsibilities, timelines, and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks. 

(2) The business plan for improving, 

sustaining, and ensuring the quality and 

performance of charter schools created 

or substantially expanded under these 

grants beyond the initial period of 

Federal funding in areas including, but 

not limited to, facilities, financial 

management, central office, student 

academic achievement, governance, 

oversight, and human resources of the 

charter schools. 

(3) A multi-year financial and 

operating model for the organization, a 

demonstrated commitment of current 

and future partners, and evidence of 

broad support from stakeholders critical 

to the project’s long-term success. 

(4) The plan for closing charter 

schools supported, overseen, or 

managed by the applicant that do not 

meet high standards of quality. 

(5) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of the 

project director, chief executive officer 

or organization leader, and key project 

personnel, especially in managing 

projects of the size and scope of the 

proposed project. 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria 

We will announce the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in a notice in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria after considering 

responses to this notice and other 

information available to the Department. 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Order 12866: This notice has 

been reviewed in accordance with 

Executive Order 12866. Under the terms 

of the order, we have assessed the 

potential costs and benefits of this 

proposed regulatory action. 

The potential costs associated with 

this proposed regulatory action are 

those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering this program effectively 

and efficiently. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this proposed regulatory 

action, we have determined that the 

benefits of the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria justify the costs. 

We have determined, also, that this 

proposed regulatory action does not 

unduly interfere with State, local, and 

Tribal governments in the exercise of 

their governmental functions. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

on request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You can view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at this site. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available via the 

Federal Digital System at: http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys. 

Dated: March 22, 2011. 

James H. Shelton, III, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7125 Filed 3–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

DOE Response to Recommendation 

2010–1 of the Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board, Safety Analysis 

Requirements for Defining Adequate 

Protection for the Public and the 

Workers 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 

2010–1, concerning Safety Analysis 

Requirements for Defining Adequate 

Protection for the Public and the 

Workers was published in the Federal 

Register on November 30, 2010 (75FR 

74022). In accordance with section 

315(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2286d(b), 

the Secretary of Energy transmitted the 

following response to the Defense 

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board on 

February 28, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments, data, 

views, or arguments concerning the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Notices 16759 

Secretary’s response to: Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana 

Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, 

DC 20004. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Amanda Anderson, Nuclear Engineer, 

Departmental Representative to the 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 

Office of Health, Safety and Security, 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 17, 

2011. 

Mari-Josette Campagnone, 

Departmental Representative to the Defense 

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Office of 

Health, Safety and Security. 

February 28, 2011 

The Honorable Peter S. Winokur 

Chairman, Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board 

625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, 

Washington, DC 20004. 

Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in 

response to your October 29, 2010, letter 

which provided Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) 

Recommendation 2010–1, Safety 

Analysis Requirements for Defining 

Adequate Protection for the Public and 

the Workers. 

The Department of Energy (DOE) is 

strongly dedicated to the safety of the 

public, our workers, and the 

environment at all of our facilities. We 

share your conviction that a clear set of 

requirements and standards is vital for 

safe operations. In 2008, we began a 

comprehensive re-examination of our 

nuclear safety requirements to assure 

they were clear, concise, complete, and 

current. In March 2010, we enhanced 

our Directives Reform effort to better 

define and expedite it, and we have 

made good progress in revising key 

nuclear safety Directives and the DOE 

Nuclear Safety Policy. 

We have not changed our 

interpretation of requirements for 

developing and approving Documented 

Safety Analyses (DSAs). We have made 

significant nuclear safety improvements 

by upgrading facility safety bases and 

designs and by improving our safety 

standards and procedures. Much has 

been learned and will continue to be 

learned about improving safety. With 

your assistance, we have applied the 

lessons learned from industry incidents 

to upgrade our requirements. Our 

improving safety record reflects these 

lessons. 

Though DOE has an improving safety 

record, we always strive to do better. 

Complacency will not be tolerated. With 

this in mind, the Department has 

carefully evaluated Recommendation 

2010–1 and how we can use it to 

improve nuclear safety at the 

Department. The Department partially 

accepts the Board’s Recommendation; a 

detailed explanation is provided below. 

We have clarified aspects of subrecommendation 1, 2, 3c, 4 and 5e. 

Several elements of Recommendation 

2010–1 will be addressed in the revision 

of Standard 3009, Preparation Guide for 

U.S. Department of Energy Nonreactor 

Nuclear Facility Documented Safety 

Analyses. As we develop the 

Implementation Plan for 

Recommendation 2010–1, we will 

further engage the Board. 

Sub-recommendation 1—Immediately 

affirm the requirement that unmitigated, 

bounding-type accident scenarios will 

be used at DOE’s defense nuclear 

facilities to estimate dose consequences 

at the site boundary, and that a 

sufficient combination of SSCs must be 

designated safety class to prevent 

exposures at the site boundary from 

approaching 25 rem TEDE [Total 

Effective Dose Equivalent]. 

DOE Standard 3009 details DOE’s 

expectations for accident analyses to 

identify hazard controls for most DOE 

nuclear facilities. DOE agrees that 

Standard 3009 specifies that the 

consequences of unmitigated accidents 

should to be compared to the 25 rem 

TEDE Evaluation Guideline to 

determine if safety class controls are 

warranted. As you know, new facilities 

follow the 25 rem TEDE limit as a siting 

criteria according to DOE Standard 

1189, Integration of Safety into the 

Design Process. For existing facilities 

safety class Structures, Systems and 

Components (SSCs) are normally 

utilized to prevent exposures from 

exceeding 25 rem TEDE. Standard 3009 

also includes provisions for use of other 

means and controls to assure safety 

where off-site exposures are not reduced 

to below 25 rem TEDE, or where SSCs 

are not available. The revised Standard 

3009 will further clarify the use of the 

Evaluation Guideline in accident 

analyses for both new and existing 

facilities. 

Sub-recommendation 2—For those 

defense nuclear facilities that have not 

implemented compensatory measures 

sufficient to reduce exposures at the site 

boundary below 25 rem TEDE, direct the 

responsible program secretarial officer 

to develop a formal plan to meet this 

requirement within a reasonable 

timeframe. 

DOE’s responsible Program Secretarial 

Officer has evaluated the safety 

measures planned or currently in place 

to protect the public at the few 

remaining defense nuclear facilities that 

have potential accident doses above the 

25 rem TEDE, and has determined that 

these measures provide adequate 

protection. This conclusion is based on 

an evaluation of all protective measures 

in place at these facilities, including 

disciplined formal operations, training, 

safety management programs, control of 

materials, and layers of controls to 

prevent accidents and/or mitigate their 

consequences. 

Consistent with DOE’s commitment to 

continuous safety improvement, we will 

continue to evaluate options for 

enhancing the safety of these facilities. 

In some cases, such as the Plutonium 

Facility (PF–4) at Los Alamos National 

Laboratory, DOE anticipates that several 

near-term planned improvements will 

reduce the bounding mitigated dose to 

below 25 rem TEDE. Additionally, we 

have already made substantial progress 

in reducing the projected offsite dose 

that could result from specific types of 

accidents. For many limited life 

facilities we will achieve permanent, 

long-term risk reduction through 

deactivation and decommissioning. 

Once we revise DOE Standard 3009, 

DOE will evaluate the documented 

safety analyses for all facilities as part 

of the required periodic update process. 

The Implementation Plan will describe 

the steps that will be taken to evaluate 

safety improvement options for those 

facilities determined to need such 

improvements. 

Sub-recommendation 3—Revise DOE 

Standard 3009–94 to identify clearly 

and unambiguously the requirements 

that must be met to demonstrate that an 

adequate level of protection for the 

public and workers is provided through 

a DSA. This should be accomplished, at 

a minimum, by: (followed by four 

paragraphs labeled a–d). 

DOE is revising DOE Standard 3009 to 

clearly indicate which of its provisions 

are mandatory. DOE will implement the 

specific steps identified in paragraphs 

(a), (b), and (d) of this subrecommendation. However, DOE will 

not commit to implementing paragraph 

(c) as written, because doing so would 

predetermine a specific outcome to the 

current revision process without any 

technical basis. This would be contrary 

to DOE’s standards development 

process. DOE will consider the advice 

provided in paragraph (c) (i.e., 

identification of the criteria that must be 

met for safety class Systems, Structures 

and Components (SSCs)), during the 

Standard 3009 revision process. 

The Implementation Plan will outline 

the development process and how the 

steps identified in all the paragraphs in 

this sub-recommendation will be 

followed. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
16760 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Notices 

Sub-recommendation 4—Amend 10 

CFR Part 830 by incorporating the 

revised version of DOE Standard 3009– 

94 into the text as a requirement, 

instead of as a safe harbor cited in Table 

2. 

The purpose of a ‘‘safe-harbor’’ is to 

provide a standard methodology that, if 

followed, will provide credible analyses 

and adequate safety. Nothing in the 

concept implies that ‘‘safe-harbor’’ 

methodologies are the only way to meet 

requirements. Of course, alternative 

approaches must be approved by DOE, 

and the criteria for accepting these 

alternatives should be clearly defined. 

DOE is planning to review 10 CFR 830 

(issued in 2001), which identifies 

nuclear safety requirements, but we 

cannot commit to the exact language 

prescribed in the Recommendation-that 

is placing Standard 3009 in the body of 

the rule. As a part of our review, we will 

update DOE Standard 3009, clearly 

identifying those provisions that are 

mandatory. When DOE Standard 3009 is 

not applied, appropriate means for 

reviewing and improving alternative 

methodologies will be established. This 

will assure implementation of DOE 

Standard 3009, where appropriate, 

while maintaining the flexibility to 

improve the standard, as needed. This 

approach has allowed DOE to make 

several important improvements to DOE 

Standards in the past. Details of the 

revision process will be provided in the 

Implementation Plan. 

Sub-recommendation 5—Formally 

establish the minimum criteria and 

requirements that govern Federal 

approval of the DSA, by revision of DOE 

Standard 1104–2009, and other 

appropriate documents. The criteria 

and requirements should include: 

(followed by five paragraphs labeled 

a–e). 

DOE agrees with the need for clear 

guidelines and requirements on the 

appropriate delegation of nuclear safety 

authorities and will revise DOE 

Standard 1104–2009 and other 

appropriate DOE documents to achieve 

this. DOE will implement the specific 

steps identified in paragraphs (a) 

through (d) of this sub-recommendation. 

However, DOE cannot commit to 

implementing paragraph (e) as written, 

because it implies that quantitative riskbased decision making must be 

established and used. The Department is 

exploring how quantitative methods 

could be applied to support decisionmaking on safety issues at our sites and 

will keep the Board apprised of 

developments in this area. Today, 

deterministic and qualitative means are 

used. 

The Department agrees that the 

decision to approve safety bases must 

rest on a documented conclusion. The 

conclusion should indicate that the 

safety basis provides a reasonable 

assurance that the facility can be 

operated safely, that the hazards have 

been adequately analyzed, and that the 

engineered and administrative controls 

provide adequate protection for the 

public, workers and the environment. 

The Implementation Plan will outline 

DOE’s revision to standard 3009 and the 

safety basis development process, will 

clarify the safety basis approval process, 

and identify how the steps in this subrecommendation will be addressed. 

Sub-recommendation 6—Formally 

identify the responsible organization 

and identify the processes for 

performing independent oversight to 

ensure the responsibilities identified in 

Item 5 above are fully implemented. 

DOE has already identified the 

responsible organization for performing 

independent oversight for the Secretary: 

the Office of Independent Oversight, 

within the Office of Health, Safety and 

Security (HSS). However, HSS 

Independent Oversight protocols and 

delegation processes will be reviewed 

and modified as necessary to assure 

adequate oversight of nuclear safety 

delegations. The Implementation Plan 

will describe the steps DOE will take, 

review and update the protocols and 

delegation processes. 

We appreciate your advice and will 

continue working closely with the 

Board to improve the Department’s 

Directives in a manner that meets our 

shared objectives to the safe, effective, 

and efficient execution of our mission. 

We look forward to working further 

with the Board and its staff as we 

prepare the Implementation Plan. 

If you have any further questions 

please contact Glenn Podonsky, Chief, 

Office of Health, Safety and Security, at 

202–287–6071. 

Sincerely, 

Steven Chu. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7085 Filed 3–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Case No. RF–018] 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Publication of the 

Petition for Waiver and Notice of 

Granting the Application for Interim 

Waiver of Samsung From the 

Department of Energy Residential 

Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer 

Test Procedure 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of petition for waiver, 

notice of granting application for 

interim waiver, and request for public 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt 

of and publishes the Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc. (Samsung) 

petition for waiver (hereafter, ‘‘petition’’) 

from specified portions of the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) test 

procedure for determining the energy 

consumption of electric refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers. The waiver 

request pertains to Samsung’s product 

lines that incorporate multiple defrost 

cycles. In its petition, Samsung provides 

an alternate test procedure that DOE 

recently published in an interim final 

rule. DOE solicits comments, data, and 

information concerning Samsung’s 

petition and the suggested alternate test 

procedure. DOE also publishes notice of 

the grant of an interim waiver to 

Samsung. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information with respect to the 

Samsung Petition until, but no later 

than April 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by case number ‘‘RF–017,’’ by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: 

AS_Waiver_Requests@ee.doe.gov 

Include the case number [Case No. RF– 

017] in the subject line of the message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J/ 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2945. Please 

submit one signed original paper copy. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES