74022 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Notices 

1114(B), the Board members shall serve 

for a term of 15 years; except those 

Board members appointed to fill a 

vacancy occurring before the end of the 

term for which the predecessor was 

appointed shall serve only until the end 

of such term. Board members may serve 

after the end of the term until a 

successor has taken office. No Board 

member, other than those originally 

appointed for less than 15-year term or 

a Board member appointed to fill an 

unexpired term may be reappointed for 

successive terms. 

Board members shall be appointed by 

the Secretary of Defense, and their 

membership shall be renewed by the 

Secretary of Defense on an annual basis. 

A member of the Board may be removed 

by the Secretary of Defense for 

misconduct or failure to perform 

functions vested in the Board, and for 

no other reason. 

Board members appointed by the 

Secretary of Defense, who are not fulltime or permanent part-time federal 

officers or employees, shall serve as 

special government employees under 

the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109, and shall, 

under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 

1114(a)(3), serve with compensation, to 

include travel and per diem for official 

travel, in accordance with Title 5, 

United States Code, Section 5703. 

The Chairperson of the Board shall be 

designated by the Under Secretary of 

Defense (Personnel and Readiness), on 

behalf of the Secretary of Defense. 

With DoD approval, the Board is 

authorized to establish subcommittees, 

as necessary and consistent with its 

mission. These subcommittees shall 

operate under the provisions of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 

1972, the Government in the Sunshine 

Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and other 

Governing Federal statutes and 

regulations. 

Such subcommittees shall not work 

independently of the chartered Board, 

and shall report all their 

recommendations and advice to the 

Board for full deliberation and 

discussion. Subcommittees have no 

authority to make decisions on behalf of 

the chartered Board; nor can they report 

directly to the Department of Defense or 

any Federal officers or employees who 

are not Board members. 

Subcommittee members who are not 

Board members, shall be appointed in 

the same manner as the Board members. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Contact Jim Freeman, Deputy Advisory 

Committee Management Officer for the 

Department of Defense, 703–601–6128. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board 

shall meet at the call of the Board’s 

Designated Federal Officer, in 

consultation with the Chairperson. The 

estimated number of Board meetings is 

one per year. 

The Designated Federal Officer, 

pursuant to DoD policy, shall be a fulltime or permanent part-time DoD 

employee, and shall be appointed in 

accordance with governing DoD policies 

and procedures. In addition, the 

Designated Federal Officer is required to 

be in attendance at all Board and 

subcommittee meetings; however, in the 

absence of the Designated Federal 

Officer, the Alternate Designated 

Federal Officer shall attend the meeting. 

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.105(j) and 

102–3.140, the public or interested 

organizations may submit written 

statements to the Department of Defense 

Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care 

Board of Actuaries’ membership about 

the Board’s mission and functions. 

Written statements may be submitted at 

any time or in response to the stated 

agenda of planned meeting of 

Department of Defense MedicareEligible Retiree Health Care Board of 

Actuaries. 

All written statements shall be 

submitted to the Designated Federal 

Officer for the Department of Defense 

Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care 

Board of Actuaries, and this individual 

will ensure that the written statements 

are provided to the membership for 

their consideration. Contact information 

for the Department of Defense MedicareEligible Retiree Health Care Board of 

Actuaries Designated Federal Officer 

can be obtained from the GSA’s FACA 

Database—https://www.fido.gov/ 

facadatabase/public.asp. 

The Designated Federal Officer, 

pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.150, will 

announce planned meetings of the 

Department of Defense MedicareEligible Retiree Health Care Board of 

Actuaries. The Designated Federal 

Officer, at that time, may provide 

additional guidance on the submission 

of written statements that are in 

response to the stated agenda for the 

planned meeting in question. 

Dated: November 18, 2010. 

Morgan F. Park, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30041 Filed 11–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

[Recommendation 2010–1] 

Safety Analysis Requirements for 

Defining Adequate Protection for the 

Public and the Workers 

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board. 

ACTION: Notice, recommendation; 

correction 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

2286a(a)(5), the Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board has made a 

recommendation to the Secretary of 

Energy requesting an amendment to the 

Department of Energy’s nuclear safety 

rule, 10 CFR part 830. An incorrect 

electronic file was submitted to the 

Federal Register and published on 

November 15, 2010 (75 FR 69648). The 

corrected text of the recommendation 

approved by the Board is below. The 

Board is extending the public comment 

period to allow for consideration of this 

correction by all interested parties. 

DATES: Comments, data, views, or 

arguments concerning the 

recommendation are due on or before 

December 30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments, data, 

views, or arguments concerning this 

recommendation to: Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana 

Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, 

DC 20004–2901. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Grosner or Andrew L. Thibadeau 

at the address above or telephone 

number (202) 694–7000. 

Correction: In the Federal Register of 

November 15, 2010 (75 FR 69648), 

immediately following the signature 

block, the recommendation should read 

as follows: 

Dated: November 23, 2010. 

Peter S. Winokur, 

Chairman. 

Recommendation 2010–1 to the Secretary of 

Energy 

Safety Analysis Requirements for Defining 

Adequate Protection for the Public and the 

Workers, Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2286a(a)(5), 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, As Amended 

Dated: October 29, 2010 

Background 

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) nuclear 

safety regulations were developed as a result 

of a mandate by Congress in the Price 

Anderson Act Amendments of 1988. These 

regulations now appear in Parts 820, 830, and 

835 of Title 10 in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR). In this Recommendation, 

the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 

(Board) addresses recent changes in DOE’s 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Notices 74023 

1When DOE issued Change Notice 2, the title of 

this Standard was revised to Preparation Guide for 

U.S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear 

Facility Documented Safety Analyses. 

‘‘interpretation’’ of certain critical provisions 

of Title 10 CFR Part 830, Nuclear Safety 

Management (10 CFR Part 830), provisions 

that are intended to provide adequate 

protection of public health and safety. As 

explained below, in the Board’s view this 

revised interpretative posture weakens the 

safety structure the rule is designed to hold 

firmly in place. 

10 CFR Part 830 imposes a requirement 

that a documented safety analysis (DSA) is to 

be prepared for every DOE nuclear facility. 

This DSA, once approved by DOE, forms the 

regulatory basis for safety of the facility or 

operation. 10 CFR Part 830 does more, 

however: its Appendix A provides ‘‘safe 

harbors’’ for the preparation and approval of 

DSAs. These safe harbors are, in the main, 

references to detailed guidance issued by 

DOE. A DSA that is prepared following 

applicable guidance found in safe harbors 

should be found acceptable, meaning that the 

facility’s safety systems are adequate to 

protect public health and safety from nuclear 

hazards. 

One of the key safe harbor guides for the 

preparation of DSAs is DOE Standard 3009– 

94, Preparation Guide for U.S. Department of 

Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Safety 

Analysis Reports.1 First issued in July of 

1994, this Standard was intended to provide 

guidance on meeting the requirements 

imposed by DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear 

Safety Analysis Reports, a set of nuclear 

safety requirements that preceded and were 

supplanted by 10 CFR Part 830. The Standard 

stated that ‘‘Technical Standards, such as this 

document, support the guides by providing 

additional guidance into how the 

requirements [of Orders and Rules] should be 

met.’’ As such, it did not contain any nuclear 

safety requirements. Five years after its initial 

issuance, DOE amended Standard 3009–94 

by the addition of Appendix A, currently 

entitled ‘‘Evaluation Guideline.’’ The 

guideline applies a dose criterion to the 

results of accident calculations found in 

DSAs. Stated broadly, the Standard mandates 

that safety class systems, structures, and 

components (SSCs) be installed if in a 

potential accident the unmitigated dose 

consequence calculations for a release 

scenario at the site boundary approach the 

Evaluation Guideline numerical value. The 

Evaluation Guideline value established in 

DOE–STD–3009–94 Appendix A is 25 rem 

Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE). The 

Standard further states that although 25 rem 

is not considered an acceptable public 

exposure, it is generally accepted as a value 

indicative of no significant health effects. 

When 10 CFR Part 830 was promulgated in 

final form in early 2001, the version of DOE 

Standard 3009–94 incorporated into 

Appendix A of the rule as a safe harbor 

included the Evaluation Guideline. This 

combination of the rule’s requirement for an 

approved DSA and the application of the 

Evaluation Guideline of DOE Standard 3009– 

94 formed the basis upon which adequate 

protection of the public health and safety 

would be gauged. Whenever dose 

consequence calculations showed that an 

accident scenario would result in offsite 

doses approaching 25 rem TEDE, the 

expectation was that safety related SSCs 

would function as designed, ensuring that 

public doses would never exceed a small 

fraction of the Evaluation Guideline. 

Developments Since 2001 

As a safe harbor for 10 CFR Part 830, the 

Evaluation Guideline described in DOE 

Standard 3009–94 has been enforced and met 

for the majority of DOE’s defense nuclear 

facilities, assuring adequate protection of the 

public, workers, and the environment. 

However, in December 2008, the National 

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 

approved a DSA for the Plutonium Facility 

at Los Alamos National Laboratory that 

represented a significant departure from the 

accepted methodology, as discussed in the 

Board’s Recommendation 2009–2, Los 

Alamos National Laboratory Plutonium 

Facility Seismic Safety. The Board followed 

up its Recommendation with a letter to the 

Deputy Secretary of Energy on March 15, 

2010, that sought to determine whether 

DOE’s current interpretation of 10 CFR Part 

830 and DOE Standard 3009–94 still supports 

the principles of providing adequate 

protection of the public, workers, and the 

environment from the hazards of operating 

DOE’s defense nuclear facilities. The Board’s 

letter particularly expressed concern 

regarding the appearance that DOE’s present 

interpretation is that the nuclear safety 

Evaluation Guideline established in DOE 

Standard 3009–94 does not have to be met. 

DOE’s June 10, 2010, response to the 

Board’s letter states that DOE’s utilization 

and implementation of DOE Standard 3009– 

94 has not changed since issuance of 10 CFR 

Part 830. DOE’s response observes that DOE 

Standard 3009–94 ‘‘was not written as a 

prescriptive item-by-item requirements 

document; rather it provides an overall 

approach and guidance for preparing a DSA.’’ 

DOE’s response states that the Standard 

describes steps that the contractor may take 

if the postulated accident consequences 

cannot be mitigated below the Evaluation 

Guideline. DOE’s response also cites 

guidance for DOE approval authorities 

contained in DOE Standard 1104–2009, 

Review and Approval of Nuclear Facility 

Safety Basis and Safety Design Basis 

Documents, and notes that the Safety Basis 

Approval Authority may prescribe interim 

controls and planned improvements if the 

Evaluation Guideline is exceeded. DOE’s 

response closes by stating that its managers 

‘‘are expected to carefully evaluate situations 

that fall short of expectations and only 

provide their approval of documented safety 

analyses when they are satisfied that 

operations can be conducted safely * * *, 

that options to meet DOE expectations have 

been evaluated, and that adequate 

commitments to achieve an appropriate 

safety posture in a timely manner have been 

made.’’ 

The lack of definitive statements in DOE’s 

June 10, 2010, response illustrates the 

difficulties inherent in applying a guidance 

document as a safe harbor for implementing 

the requirements of a regulation. 

Furthermore, NNSA’s approval of the DSA 

for the Los Alamos National Laboratory’s 

Plutonium Facility in December 2008 

demonstrates that, despite DOE’s stated 

expectations, it is not always true that DOE’s 

managers will ensure safety by imposing 

conditions of approval that address 

inadequacies in the safety basis. This is 

illustrated to a lesser extent at the other 

NNSA facilities—described in follow-up 

correspondence NNSA issued to the Board 

on June 30, 2010—which have not 

implemented controls or compensatory 

measures sufficient to reduce accident 

consequences below the Evaluation 

Guideline. DOE Standard 1104–2009 serves 

as a source of guidance for DOE Safety Basis 

Approval Authorities, but it, too, is a 

guidance document, unequivocally stating, 

‘‘This Standard does not add any new 

requirements for DOE or its contractors.’’ 

DOE’s standards-based regulatory system 

needs a clear and unambiguous set of nuclear 

safety requirements to ensure that adequate 

protection of the public, workers, and the 

environment is provided. Further, it is 

imperative that DOE provide clear direction 

to its Safety Basis Approval Authorities to 

ensure that, if nuclear safety requirements 

cannot be met prior to approval of a DSA, 

DOE imposes clear conditions of approval for 

compensatory measures for the short term 

and facility modifications for the longer term 

to achieve the required safety posture. This 

acceptance of risk and commitment to future 

upgrades must be approved at a level of 

authority within DOE that is high enough to 

control both the resources needed to 

accomplish the upgrades as well as the 

programmatic decision-making involved in 

determining that the risk of continuing 

operations is offset by sufficiently compelling 

programmatic needs. 

Item 4 of the Recommendation below 

deserves a further word of explanation. The 

Board does not recommend lightly a change 

to DOE’s nuclear safety regulations. But as 

explained above, DOE has chosen over the 

past several years to drift away from the 

principles that underlay the rule as originally 

intended. The Board has chosen to 

recommend a rule change because this action 

would tend, in the long run, to prevent future 

shifts in DOE safety policy that would once 

again have to be challenged and argued 

against. For these reasons, the Board 

recommends that the nuclear safety rule, 10 

CFR Part 830, be amended as stated below. 

Recommendation 

Therefore, the Board recommends that 

DOE: 

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. 

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 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
74024 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Notices 

the responsible program secretarial officer to 

develop a formal plan to meet this 

requirement within a reasonable timeframe. 

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: 

a. Clearly defining methodologies and 

providing acceptability criteria for controls, 

parameters, processes, analytical tools, and 

other data that should be used in preparation 

of a DSA, 

b. Delineating the criteria to be met for 

identification and analyses of an adequate set 

of Design Basis Accidents (for new facilities), 

or Evaluation Basis Accidents (for existing 

facilities), 

c. Providing criteria that must be met by 

the safety-class SSCs to (i) mitigate the 

consequences to a fraction of the Evaluation 

Guideline, or (ii) prevent the events by 

demonstrating an acceptable reliability for 

the preventive features, and 

d. Establishing a process and path forward 

to meeting (a) through (c) above through 

compensatory measures and planned 

improvements if the DSA cannot demonstrate 

compliance. 

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. 

5. Formally establish the minimum criteria 

and requirements that govern federal 

approval of a DSA, by revision to DOE 

Standard 1104–2009 and other appropriate 

documents. The criteria and requirements 

should include: 

a. The authorities that can be delegated, the 

required training and qualification of the 

approval authority, and the boundaries and 

limitations of the approval authority’s 

responsibilities, 

b. Actions to be taken if conditions are 

beyond the delegated approval authority’s 

specified boundaries or limitations, 

c. The organization or the individual who 

can approve a DSA that is beyond the 

delegated approval authority’s specified 

boundaries or limitations, 

d. The regulatory process that must be 

followed if conditions are beyond the 

delegated approval authority’s specified 

boundaries or limitations, and any 

compensatory actions to be taken, and 

e. The criteria an approval authority must 

use to quantify the acceptance of risk for 

continued operations when offsite dose 

consequences approach the Evaluation 

Guideline. 

6. Formally designate the responsible 

organization and identify the processes for 

performing oversight to ensure that the 

responsibilities identified in Item 5 above are 

fully implemented. 

Peter S. Winokur, Ph.D., Chairman 

[FR Doc. 2010–30004 Filed 11–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3670–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Submission for OMB Review 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Comment Request. 

SUMMARY: The Director, Information 

Collection Clearance Division, 

Regulatory Information Management 

Services, Office of Management invites 

comments on the submission for OMB 

review as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13). 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before 

December 30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be addressed to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention: Education Desk Officer, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503, be faxed to (202) 395–5806 

or e-mailed to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov with a 

cc: to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Please note 

that written comments received in 

response to this notice will be 

considered public records. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) provide interested Federal 

agencies and the public an early 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection requests. The OMB is 

particularly interested in comments 

which: (1) Evaluate whether the 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (2) Evaluate the 

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) Minimize the burden 

of the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, including through 

the use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Dated: November 24, 2010. 

Darrin A. King, 

Director, Information Collection Clearance 

Division Regulatory Information Management 

Services Office of Management. 

Institute of Education Sciences 

Type of Review: New. 

Title of Collection: Study of Schools 

Targeted for Improvement Using Title I 

Section 1003(g) Funds Provided Under 

the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (Study of School 

Turnaround). 

OMB Control Number: Pending. 

Agency Form Number(s): N/A. 

Frequency of Responses: Annually. 

Affected Public: Not-for-profit 

institutions; State, Local, or Tribal 

Government, State Educational 

Agencies, Local Educational Agencies. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 8,463. 

Total Estimated Annual Burden 

Hours: 3,803. 

Abstract: The purpose of the Study of 

School Turnaround is to document over 

time the intervention models, 

approaches, and strategies adopted and 

implemented by a subset of 60 schools 

receiving federal School Improvement 

Grants (SIG), Title I Section 1003(g), 

provided under the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act. To this end, the 

evaluation will employ multiple data 

collection strategies, including 

telephone interviews with school 

principals, district administrators and 

state officials; site visits to case study 

schools; teacher surveys; and collection 

of fiscal data. Specifically, the study 

will conduct telephone interviews with 

building principals and will administer 

teacher surveys in 60 schools, over three 

years. This set of 60 SIG-awarded 

schools will include three nested 

subsamples: One set of 25 schools in 

which the study team will conduct indepth case studies over three years, and 

two sets of 10 ‘‘special topics’’ schools in 

which the study team will collect 

interview, focus group, and survey data 

on topics of policy interest over a period 

of two years. The study will produce 

annual reports, accompanied by more 

focused research briefs on special topics 

related to the change process in the 

nation’s lowest-performing schools. 

Requests for copies of the information 

collection submission for OMB review 

may be accessed from the RegInfo.gov 

Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain or from the 

Department’s Web site at http:// 

edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the 

‘‘Browse Pending Collections’’ link and 

by clicking on link number 4446. When 

you access the information collection, 

click on ‘‘Download Attachments ’’ to 

view. Written requests for information 

should be addressed to U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 

SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

Requests may also be electronically 

mailed to the Internet address 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202– 

401–0920. Please specify the complete 

title of the information collection and 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES