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,