70480 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 233 / Monday, December 6, 2004 / Notices 

3NUREG–1718, Section 6.4.3.3.4, states that the 

applicant should submit justification for the MoS, 

but then states that an MoS of 0.05 is ‘‘generally 

considered to be acceptable without additional 

justification when both the bias and its uncertainty 

are determined to be negligible.’’ These statements 

are inconsistent. The statement about 0.05 being 

generally acceptable without additional justification 

is in error and should be removed from the next 

revision to the SRP.

1 17 CFR 240.10a–1.

2 ‘‘Short sale’’ is defined in Rule 200 of Regulation 

SHO, 17 CFR 242.200.

3Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50104 (July 

28, 2004), 69 FR 48032 (August 6, 2004). 

Specifically, the Pilot Order suspended price tests 

for the following: (1) Short sales in the securities 

identified in Appendix A to the Pilot Order; (2) 

short sales in the securities included in the Russell 

1000 index effected between 4:15 p.m. EST and the 

open of the effective transaction reporting plan of 

the Consolidated Tape Association (‘‘consolidated 

enriched or plutonium fuel facilities 

must be justified but will generally be 

found acceptable, with the caveats 

discussed above3.

For facility processes involving 

unusual materials or new process 

conditions, the validation should be 

reviewed in detail to ensure that there 

are no anomalies associated with unique 

system characteristics. 

In any case, the MoS should not be 

reduced below a minimum of 0.02. 

Reducing the MoS below 0.05 for lowenriched processes or 0.1 for highenriched or plutonium processes 

requires substantial additional 

justification, which may include: 

1. An unusually high degree of 

similarity between the chosen 

benchmarks and anticipated normal and 

credible abnormal conditions being 

validated.

2. Demonstration that the system keff

is highly insensitive to changes in 

underlying system parameters, such that 

the worst credible modeling or cross 

section errors would have a negligible 

effect on the bias. 

3. Demonstration that the system 

being modeled is known to be 

subcritical with a high degree of 

confidence. This requires that there be 

other strong evidence in addition to the 

calculations that the system is 

subcritical (such as comparison with 

highly similar systems in published 

references such as handbooks or 

standards). 

4. Demonstration that the validation 

methodology is exceptionally rigorous, 

so that any potential sources of error 

have been accounted for in calculating 

the USL. 

5. Demonstration that there is a 

dependable and consistent amount of 

conservatism in keff due to the 

conservatism in modeling practices. 

In addition, justification of the MoS 

for abnormal conditions may include: 

6. Demonstration that the increased 

likelihood of a process calculated as 

subcritical being critical is offset by the 

unlikelihood of achieving the abnormal 

condition. 

This list is not all-inclusive; other 

technical justification demonstrating 

that there is a high degree of confidence 

in the calculation of keff may be used. 

Recommendation 

The guidance in this ISG should 

supplement the current guidance in the 

NCS chapters of the fuel facility SRPs 

(NUREG–1520 and –1718). In addition, 

NUREG–1718, Section 6.4.3.3.4, should 

be revised to remove the following 

sentence: ‘‘A minimum subcritical 

margin of 0.05 is generally considered to 

be acceptable without additional 

justification when both the bias and its 

uncertainty are determined to be 

negligible.’’

References 

NUREG–1520, ‘‘Standard Review Plan for the 

Review of a License Application for a Fuel 

Cycle Facility’’

NUREG–1718, ‘‘Standard Review Plan for the 

Review of an Application for a Mixed 

Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility’’

NUREG/CR–6698, ‘‘Guide for Validation of 

Nuclear Criticality Safety Calculational 

Methodology’’

NUREG/CR–6361, ‘‘Criticality Benchmark 

Guide for Light-Water-Reactor Fuel in 

Transportation and Storage Packages’’

Approved: llllllllllll

Date: lllllllllllllll

Director, FCSS 

[FR Doc. 04–26688 Filed 12–3–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request for Review of a 

Revised Information Collection: Form 

DPRS–2809

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 (OPM) has submitted to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) a request for review of a revised 

information collection. DPRS–2809, 

Request to Change Federal Employees 

Health Benefits (FEHB) Enrollment or to 

Receive Plan Brochures, is used by 

former spouses, Temporary 

Continuation of Coverage enrollees, and 

direct pay annuitants to change health 

benefits enrollment or request plan 

brochures for plans they wish to 

consider for enrollment during open 

season. 

Approximately 27,000 DPRS–2809 

forms are completed annually. We 

estimate it takes approximately 45 

minutes to complete the form. The 

annual burden is 20,250 hours. 

For copies of this proposal, contact 

Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606–

8358, FAX (202) 418–3251 or via E-mail 

to mbtoomey@opm.gov. Please include a 

mailing address with your request.

DATES: Comments on this proposal 

should be received within 30 calendar 

days from the date of this publication.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments 

to—

Ellen Korchek, CEBS, Chief, Program 

Planning & Evaluation Group, 

Insurances Services Program, Center 

for Retirement and Insurance 

Services, U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management, 1900 E Street, NW., 

Room 3425, Washington, DC 20415–

3650

and 

Joseph F. Lackey, OPM Desk Officer, 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management & 

Budget, New Executive Office 

Building, NW., Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503.

For Information Regarding 

Administrative Coordination—Contact:

Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, 

Publications Team, Support Group, 

(202) 606–0623.

Office of Personnel Management. 

Kay Coles James, 

Director.

[FR Doc. 04–26729 Filed 12–3–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–38–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 50747] 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 

Order Delaying Pilot Period for 

Suspension of the Operation of Short 

Sale Price Provisions 

November 29, 2004. 

On July 28, 2004, we issued an order 

(‘‘Pilot Order’’) establishing a one year 

Pilot (‘‘Pilot’’) suspending the 

provisions of Rule 10a-1(a) under the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’) 1 and any short sale price test of 

any exchange or national securities 

association for short sales 2 of certain 

securities.3 The Pilot Order provided