Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2004 / Notices 63411

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 03005310] 

Notice of Availability of Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact for License 

Termination for ExxonMobil Research 

and Engineering Company’s Facility in 

Annandale, NJ

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Modes, Materials Security & 

Industrial Branch , Division of Nuclear 

Materials Safety, Region I, 475 

Allendale Road, King of Prussia, 

Pennsylvania 19406, telephone (610) 

337–5251, fax (610) 337–5269; or by email: kad@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) is terminating Materials License 

No. 29–05260–13 issued to ExxonMobil 

Research and Engineering Company, 

and authorizing release of its facility in 

Annandale, New Jersey for unrestricted 

use. NRC has prepared an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) in 

support of this action in accordance 

with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 

51. Based on the EA, the NRC has 

concluded that a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) is 

appropriate. The license will be 

terminated following the publication of 

this Notice. 

II. EA Summary 

The purpose of the action is to 

authorize the release of the licensee’s 

Annandale, New Jersey facility for 

unrestricted use. ExxonMobil Research 

and Engineering Company 

(ExxonMobil) has been authorized by 

NRC since June 30, 1986, to use 

radioactive materials for research and 

development purposes at the 

Annandale, New Jersey site. On 

December 18, 2003, ExxonMobil 

requested that NRC release the facility 

for unrestricted use. ExxonMobil has 

conducted surveys of the facility and 

provided information to the NRC to 

demonstrate that the site meets the 

license termination criteria in Subpart E 

of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted 

release. 

NRC staff has prepared an EA in 

support of the license amendment. The 

facility was remediated and surveyed 

prior to the licensee requesting the 

license amendment. The NRC staff has 

reviewed the information and final 

status survey submitted by ExxonMobil. 

Based on the reviews, the staff has 

determined that there are no additional 

remediation activities necessary to 

complete the proposed action. 

Therefore, the staff considered the 

impact of the residual radioactivity at 

the facility and concluded that since the 

residual radioactivity meets the 

requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR 

Part 20, a Finding of No Significant 

Impact is appropriate. 

III. Finding of No Significant Impact 

The staff has prepared the EA 

(summarized above) in support of the 

termination of the license and release of 

the facility for unrestricted use. The 

NRC staff has evaluated ExxonMobil’s 

request and the results of the surveys 

and has concluded that the completed 

action complies with the criteria in 

Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20. The staff 

has found that the environmental 

impacts from the action are bounded by 

the impacts evaluated by NUREG–1496, 

Volumes 1–3, ‘‘Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement in Support of 

Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for 

License Termination of NRC-Licensed 

Facilities’’ (ML042310492, 

ML042320379, and ML042330385). On 

the basis of the EA, the NRC has 

concluded that the environmental 

impacts from the action are expected to 

be insignificant and has determined not 

to prepare an environmental impact 

statement for the action. 

IV. Further Information 

Documents related to this action, 

including the application for the license 

amendment and supporting 

documentation, are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/

reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, 

you can access the NRC’s Agencywide 

Document Access and Management 

System (ADAMS), which provides text 

and image files of NRC’s public 

documents. The ADAMS accession 

numbers for the documents related to 

this Notice are: The Environmental 

Assessment (ML042930009), Letter 

dated December 17, 2003, requesting 

termination of the license 

(ML040130270), letter dated August 12, 

2004, providing additional information 

(ML042380119), and letter dated August 

31, 2004, providing additional 

information (ML042510189). Persons 

who do not have access to ADAMS or 

who encounter problems in accessing 

the documents located in ADAMS, 

should contact the NRC PDR Reference 

staff by telephone at (800) 397–4209 or 

(301) 415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov.

These documents may be viewed 

electronically at the NRC Public 

Document Room (PDR), O 1 F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, MD, 20852. The PDR 

reproduction contractor will copy 

documents for a fee. The PDR is open 

from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except on Federal 

holidays.

Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 

25th day of October, 2004.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

John D. Kinneman, 

Chief, Materials Security & Industrial Branch, 

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Region 

I.

[FR Doc. 04–24305 Filed 10–29–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Solicitation of Public Comments on the 

Implementation of the Reactor 

Oversight Process

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

SUMMARY: Nearly 5 years have elapsed 

since the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) implemented its 

revised Reactor Oversight Process 

(ROP). The NRC is currently soliciting 

comments from members of the public, 

licensees, and interest groups related to 

the implementation of the ROP. This 

solicitation will provide insights into 

the self-assessment process and a 

summary of the feedback will be 

included in the annual ROP selfassessment report to the Commission.

DATES: The comment period expires on 

December 16, 2004. The NRC will 

consider comments received after this 

date if it is practical to do so, but is only 

able to ensure consideration of 

comments received on or before this 

date.

ADDRESSES: Completed questionnaires 

and/or comments may be e-mailed to 

nrcrep@nrc.gov or sent to Michael T. 

Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives 

Branch, Office of Administration (Mail 

Stop T–6D59), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. Comments may also be handdelivered to Mr. Lesar at 11554 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 

between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on 

Federal workdays. 

Documents created or received at the 

NRC after November 1, 1999, are 

63412 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2004 / Notices 

available electronically through the 

NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room 

on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/

reading-rm.html. From this site, the 

public can access the NRC’s 

Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS), which 

provides text and image files of the 

NRC’s public documents. For more 

information, contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

301–415–4737 or 800–397–4209, or by 

e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Serita Sanders, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation (Mail Stop: OWFN 

7A15), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington DC 20555–

0001. Ms. Sanders can also be reached 

by telephone at 301–415–2956 or by email at SXS5@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Program Overview 

The mission of the NRC is to regulate 

the civilian uses of nuclear materials in 

the United States to protect the health 

and safety of the public and the 

environment, and to promote the 

common defense and security by 

preventing the proliferation of nuclear 

material. This mission is accomplished 

through the following activities: 

• License nuclear facilities and the 

possession, use, and disposal of nuclear 

materials. 

• Develop and implement 

requirements governing licensed 

activities. 

• Inspect and enforce licensee 

activities to ensure compliance with 

these requirements and the law. 

While the NRC’s responsibility is to 

monitor and regulate licensees’

performance, the primary responsibility 

for safe operation and handling of 

nuclear materials rests with each 

licensee. 

As the nuclear industry in the United 

States has matured for more than 27 

years, the NRC and its licensees have 

learned much about how to safely 

operate nuclear facilities and handle 

nuclear materials. In April 2000, the 

NRC began to implement more effective 

and efficient inspection, assessment, 

and enforcement approaches, which 

apply insights from these years of 

regulatory oversight and nuclear facility 

operation. Key elements of the Reactor 

Oversight Process (ROP) include NRC 

inspection procedures, plant 

performance indicators, a significance 

determination process, and an 

assessment program that incorporates 

various risk-informed thresholds to help 

determine the level of NRC oversight 

and enforcement. Since ROP 

development began in 1998, the NRC 

has frequently communicated with the 

public by various initiatives: conducting 

public meetings in the vicinity of each 

licensed commercial nuclear power 

plant, issuing FRNs soliciting feedback 

on the ROP, publishing press releases 

about the new process, conducting 

multiple public workshops, placing 

pertinent background information in the 

NRC’s Public Document Room, and 

establishing an NRC Web site containing 

easily accessible information about the 

ROP and licensee performance.

NRC Public Stakeholder Comments 

The NRC continues to be interested in 

receiving feedback from members of the 

public, various public stakeholders, and 

industry groups on their insights 

regarding the CY 2004 implementation 

of the ROP. In particular, the NRC is 

seeking responses to the questions listed 

below, which will provide important 

information that the NRC can use in 

ongoing program improvement. A 

summary of the feedback obtained will 

be provided to the Commission and 

included in the annual ROP selfassessment report. 

This solicitation of public comments 

has been issued each year since ROP 

implementation in 2000. In previous 

years, the question had been free-form 

in nature requesting written responses. 

Although written responses are still 

encouraged, we have added specific 

choices to best describe your experience 

to enable us to more objectively 

determine your level of satisfaction. 

In addition, we are asking for 

feedback under distinct time frames to 

enable us to trend your level of 

satisfaction: During the initial year of 

ROP implementation (2000), and 

current ROP implementation. In future 

years, we will ask for feedback only for 

current ROP implementation. 

Questions 

As previously discussed, we are 

asking for feedback under distinct time 

frames to enable us to trend your level 

of satisfaction. The questionnaire has 

been modified to benchmark the results. 

In responding to these questions, please 

consider your experiences using the 

NRC oversight process during initial 

implementation (first year of ROP) and 

current ROP implementation. 

Shade in the circle that most applies 

to your experiences as follows: (1) Very 

much (2) somewhat (3) neutral (4) 

somewhat less than needed (5) far less 

than needed 

If there are experiences that are rated 

as unsatisfied, or if you have specific 

thoughts or concerns, please elaborate 

in the ‘‘Comments’’ section that follows 

the question and offer your opinion for 

possible improvements. If there are 

experiences or opinions that you would 

like to express that cannot be directly 

captured by the questions, document 

that in question number 20. 

Questions Related to Specific ROP 

Program Areas 

(As appropriate, please provide 

specific examples and suggestions for 

improvement.) 

(1) Does the Performance Indicator 

Program promote plant safety?

1 2 3 4 5 

Initial ROP Implementation ÆÆÆÆÆ

Current ROP ....................... ÆÆÆÆÆ

Comments:

(2) Does appropriate overlap exist 

between the Performance Indicator 

Program and the Inspection Program?

1 2 3 4 5 

Initial ROP Implementation ÆÆÆÆÆ

Current ROP ....................... ÆÆÆÆÆ

Comments:

(3) Is the reporting of PI data efficient?

1 2 3 4 5 

Initial ROP Implementation ÆÆÆÆÆ

Current ROP ....................... ÆÆÆÆÆ

Comments:

(4) Does NEI 99–02, ‘‘Regulatory 

Assessment Performance Indicator 

Guideline’’ provide clear guidance 

regarding Performance Indicators?

1 2 3 4 5 

Initial ROP Implementation ÆÆÆÆÆ

Current ROP ....................... ÆÆÆÆÆ

Comments:

(5) Is the information in the 

inspection reports useful to you?

1 2 3 4 5 

Initial ROP Implementation ÆÆÆÆÆ

Current ROP ....................... ÆÆÆÆÆ

Comments:

(6) Does the Significance 

Determination Process yield equivalent 

results for issues of similar significance 

in all ROP cornerstones?

1 2 3 4 5 

Initial ROP Implementation ÆÆÆÆÆ

Current ROP ....................... ÆÆÆÆÆ

Comments:

(7) Does the NRC take appropriate 

actions to address performance issues 

for those licensees outside of the 

Licensee Response Column of the 

Action Matrix?

1 2 3 4 5 

Initial ROP Implementation ÆÆÆÆÆ

Current ROP ....................... ÆÆÆÆÆ

Comments:

(8) Is the information contained in 

assessment reports relevant, useful, and 

written in plain English?

1 2 3 4 5 

Initial ROP Implementation ÆÆÆÆÆ

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2004 / Notices 63413

Current ROP ....................... ÆÆÆÆÆ

Comments:

Questions related to the efficacy of the 

overall Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) 

(As appropriate, please provide specific 

examples and suggestions for 

improvement.) 

(9) Are the ROP oversight activities 

predictable (i.e., controlled by the 

process) and reasonably objective (i.e., 

based on supported facts, rather than 

relying on subjective judgement)?

1 2 3 4 5 

Initial ROP Implementation ÆÆÆÆÆ

Current ROP ....................... ÆÆÆÆÆ

Comments:

(10) Is the ROP risk-informed, in that 

the NRC’s actions are graduated on the 

basis of increased significance?

1 2 3 4 5 

Initial ROP Implementation ÆÆÆÆÆ

Current ROP ....................... ÆÆÆÆÆ

Comments:

(11) Is the ROP understandable and 

are the processes, procedures and 

products clear and written in plain 

English?

1 2 3 4 5 

Initial ROP Implementation ÆÆÆÆÆ

Current ROP ....................... ÆÆÆÆÆ

Comments:

(12) Does the ROP provide adequate 

regulatory assurance when combined 

with other NRC regulatory processes 

that plants are being operated and 

maintained safely?

1 2 3 4 5 

Initial ROP Implementation ÆÆÆÆÆ

Current ROP ....................... ÆÆÆÆÆ

Comments:

(13) Does the ROP improve the 

efficiency, effectiveness, and realism of 

the regulatory process?

1 2 3 4 5 

Initial ROP Implementation ÆÆÆÆÆ

Current ROP ....................... ÆÆÆÆÆ

Comments:

(14) Does the ROP ensure openness in 

the regulatory process?

1 2 3 4 5 

Initial ROP Implementation ÆÆÆÆÆ

Current ROP ....................... ÆÆÆÆÆ

Comments:

(15) Has the public been afforded 

adequate opportunity to participate in 

the ROP and to provide inputs and 

comments?

1 2 3 4 5 

Initial ROP Implementation ÆÆÆÆÆ

Current ROP ....................... ÆÆÆÆÆ

Comments:

(16) Has the NRC been responsive to 

public inputs and comments on the 

ROP?

1 2 3 4 5 

Initial ROP Implementation ÆÆÆÆÆ

Current ROP ....................... ÆÆÆÆÆ

Comments:

(17) Has the NRC implemented the 

ROP as defined by program documents?

1 2 3 4 5 

Initial ROP Implementation ÆÆÆÆÆ

Current ROP ....................... ÆÆÆÆÆ

Comments:

(18) Does the ROP reduce unnecessary 

regulatory burden on licensees?

1 2 3 4 5 

Initial ROP Implementation ÆÆÆÆÆ

Current ROP ....................... ÆÆÆÆÆ

Comments:

(19) Does the ROP minimize 

unintended consequences?

1 2 3 4 5 

Initial ROP Implementation ÆÆÆÆÆ

Current ROP ....................... ÆÆÆÆÆ

Comments:

(20) Please provide any additional 

information or comments related to the 

Reactor Oversight Process.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day 

of October 2004.

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission . 

Stuart A. Richards, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division 

of Inspection Program Management, 

Inspection Program Branch.

[FR Doc. 04–24304 Filed 10–29–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

Comment Request for Review of a 

Revised Information Collection: OPM 

Online Form 1417

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 

L. 104–13, May 22, 1995), this notice 

announces that the Office of Personnel 

Management intends to submit to the 

Office of Management and Budget a 

request for clearance of a revised 

information collection. Online OPM 

Form 1417, Combined Federal 

Campaign Results Form, is used to 

collect information from the 320 local 

CFC’s around the country to verify 

campaign results. Revisions to the form 

clarify OPM’s request for budgeted 

campaign costs and provide the ability 

to create a printer friendly copy of the 

report. 

We estimate 320 Online OPM Forms 

1417 are completed annually. Each form 

takes approximately 20 minutes to 

complete. The annual estimated burden 

is 107 hours. 

Comments are particularly invited on: 

Whether this information is necessary 

for the proper performance of functions 

of the Office of Personnel Management, 

and whether it will have practical 

utility; whether our estimate of the 

public burden of this collection of 

information is accurate, and based on 

valid assumptions and methodology; 

and ways in which we can minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, through 

the appropriate use of technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

For copies of this proposal, contact 

Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606–

8358, Fax (202) 418–3251 or E-mail to 

mbtoomey@opm.gov. Please be sure to 

include a mailing address with your 

request.

DATES: Comments on this proposal 

should be received within 60 calendar 

days from the date of this publication.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments 

to—Curtis Rumbaugh, CFC Operations 

Manager, Office of CFC Operations, U.S. 

Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E 

Street, NW., Room 5450, Washington, 

DC 20415.

Office of Personnel Management. 

Kay Coles James, 

Director.

[FR Doc. 04–24337 Filed 10–29–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–46–U

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Investment Company Act Release No. 

26643; 812–12953] 

PacifiCare of Arizona, Inc., et al.; 

Notice of Application and Commission 

Statement 

October 25, 2004.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’).

ACTION: (1) Notice of application for an 

order under sections 3(b)(2) and 45(a) of 

the Investment Company Act of 1940 

(the ‘‘Act’’) and (2) a Commission 

statement that the Commission is 

considering clarifying the primary 

business test under sections 3(b)(1) and 

(2) of the Act with respect to health 

maintenance organizations and similar 

entities that provide managed health 

care services (collectively, ‘‘HMOs’’). 

APPLICANTS: PacifiCare of Arizona, Inc., 

PacifiCare of California, PacifiCare of 

Colorado, Inc., PacifiCare of Nevada,