40572 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Notices 

1The Reactor Safety Study, October 1975 

(sometimes known as the ‘‘Rasmussen Report’’). 

2The NRC approach is summarized at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/riskinformed.html. 

3NASA’s policies and methods can be found at 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/risk/ 

index.htm. 

provision shall be fully severable. The 

balance of the Agreement and the Order 

shall remain in full force and effect, 

unless the Commission and Ross agree 

that severing the provision materially 

affects the purpose of the Agreement 

and the Order. 

Ross Stores, Inc. 

Dated: 6/25/09 

By: 

Mark LeHocky, 

Senior Vice President 

General Counsel & Corporate Secretary 

ROSS STORES, INC. 

4440 Rosewood Drive 

Pleasanton, CA 94588 

Dated: 6/26/09 

By: 

Jeffrey B. Margulies, 

Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. 

555 South Flower Street, Forty-First Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Counsel for Ross Stores, Inc. 

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION STAFF 

Cheryl A. Falvey, 

General Counsel. 

Ronald G. Yelenik, 

Assistant General Counsel, 

Office of the General Counsel. 

Dated: 6/29/09 

By: 

Renee K. Haslett, 

Trial Attorney 

Division of Compliance, 

Office of the General Counsel. 

In the Matter of Ross Stores, Inc.; Order 

Upon consideration of the Settlement 

Agreement entered into between Ross Stores, 

Inc. (‘‘Ross’’) and the U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (‘‘Commission’’) staff, 

and the Commission having jurisdiction over 

the subject matter and over Ross, and it 

appearing that the Settlement Agreement and 

the Order are in the public interest, it is 

ordered, that the Settlement Agreement be, 

and hereby is, accepted; and it is 

further ordered, that Ross shall pay a civil 

penalty in the amount of five hundred 

thousand dollars ($500,000.00) within twenty 

(20) calendar days of service of the 

Commission’s final Order accepting the 

Agreement. The payment shall be made by 

check payable to the order of the United 

States Treasury. Upon the failure of Ross to 

make the foregoing payment when due, 

interest on the unpaid amount shall accrue 

and be paid by Ross at the federal legal rate 

of interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and 

(b). 

Provisionally accepted and provisional 

Order issued on the 5th day August, 2009. 

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 

[FR Doc. E9–19370 Filed 8–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

[Recommendation 2009–1] 

Risk Assessment Methodologies at 

Defense Nuclear Facilities 

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board. 

ACTION: Notice, recommendation. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board has made a 

recommendation to the Secretary of 

Energy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2286a(a)(5) 

which identifies the need for adequate 

policies and associated standards and 

guidance on the use of quantitative risk 

assessment methodologies at the 

Department of Energy’s (DOE) defense 

nuclear facilities. 

DATES: Comments, data, views, or 

arguments concerning the 

recommendation are due on or before 

September 11, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments, data, 

views, or arguments concerning this 

recommendation to: Defense Nuclear 

Faculties Safety Board, 625 Indiana 

Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, 

DC 20004–2001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Grosner or Andrew L. Thibadeau 

at the address above or telephone 

number (202–694–7000). 

Dated: August 5, 2009. 

Joseph F. Bader, 

Acting Vice Chairman. 

RECOMMENDATION 2009–1 TO THE 

SECRETARY OF ENERGY 

Risk Assessment Methodologies at Defense 

Nuclear Facilities Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

2286(a)(5), Atomic Energy Act of 1954, As 

Amended 

Dated: July 30, 2009. 

Overview 

Quantitative risk assessment techniques 

are widely used to improve the safety of 

complex engineering systems. Such 

techniques have been relied upon in the 

nuclear industry for decades. One of the 

seminal documents, known as WASH–1400, 

used an event-tree, fault-tree methodology to 

assess the risk of accidents at nuclear power 

reactors operating in the United States.1

Today, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) employs a more 

sophisticated set of risk assessment tools and 

methodologies.2 Likewise, the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) has developed and implemented a 

detailed policy on the use of quantitative risk 

assessment for its missions.3

The Department of Energy (DOE) has 

historically endorsed a ‘‘bounding’’ or 

deterministic approach to hazard and 

accident analysis, which continues to have 

important applications at defense nuclear 

facilities. Beginning in the early 1990s, the 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 

(Board) observed increasing use of 

quantitative risk assessment techniques by 

DOE. This increased use was not viewed by 

the Board as objectionable in itself; the 

Board’s concern was that DOE was using 

quantitative risk assessment methods without 

having in place a clear policy and set of 

procedures to govern the application of these 

methods at facilities that perform work 

ranging from assembly and disassembly of 

nuclear weapons to nuclear waste processing 

and storage operations. For this reason, the 

Board wrote to the Secretary of Energy on 

April 5, 2004, and made the following 

observation: 

‘‘[T]he Board has reviewed the DOE’s use 

of risk management tools at defense nuclear 

facilities. This review revealed that DOE and 

its contractors have employed risk 

assessment in a variety of activities, 

including the development of documented 

safety analyses and facility-level decision 

making. The level of formality of these 

assessments varies over a wide range. The 

Board’s review also revealed that DOE does 

not have mechanisms (such as standards or 

guides) to control the use of risk management 

tools nor does it have an internal 

organization assigned to maintain cognizance 

and ensure the adequacy and consistency of 

risk assessments. Finally, the Board’s review 

showed that other Federal agencies involved 

in similar high-risk activities (e.g., National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission) have, to 

varying degrees, formalized the use of 

quantitative risk assessment in their 

operations and decision-making activities. 

These agencies have relevant standards and 

defined organizational elements, procedures, 

and processes for the development and use 

of risk management tools.’’ 

On this basis, the Board requested that the 

Secretary ‘‘brief the Board within 60 days of 

receipt of this letter as to DOE’s ongoing and 

planned programs and policies for assessing, 

prioritizing, and managing risk.’’ 

The Board’s initial concerns on this issue 

have been reiterated in letters dated 

November 23, 2005, and May 16, 2007. In the 

Board’s 2006 Annual Report to Congress, the 

section on Risk Assessment Methodologies 

noted ‘‘the slow pace of its development,’’ 

and the 2008 report noted that ‘‘all progress 

[has come] to a halt.’’ The Board’s most 

recent annual report stated that at ‘‘a time 

when governments, financial institutions and 

industries worldwide are expediting the 

implementation of enterprise-wide risk 

governance programs, DOE’s slow pace for 

developing a policy is of serious concern.’’ 

DOE’s most recent correspondence on this 

issue, dated January 9, 2007, outlined plans 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Notices 40573 

4The Board’s Recommendation 2008–1 is 

similarly directed at DOE’s use of a safety 

methodology (in this case, classifying fire 

protection systems as safety-class or safetysignificant) in advance of developing criteria and 

guidance. 

and progress toward developing a policy and 

accompanying guidance document on the use 

of risk assessment at defense nuclear 

facilities. This DOE letter indicated that the 

draft policy and guidance document would 

be ready for submittal to the DOE directives 

system in March 2007. Despite periodic 

meetings with the Board’s staff and briefings 

to the Board, as of July 2009, the draft policy 

and guidance document has not been entered 

into the DOE Directives system, and nearterm resolution of the issue is not evident. 

Without such a policy, DOE has little basis 

to accept the validity of existing risk 

management tools that use quantitative risk 

assessment. This is particularly important 

since the managers of DOE’s field elements 

are allowed to accept the safety risks that 

high-hazard operations pose toward workers 

and the public based on widely varying 

levels of assessments. 

Though Title 10, Part 830 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR 830, Nuclear 

Safety Management) and its associated 

quality assurance considerations govern 

nuclear safety evaluations at a fundamental 

level, these existing requirements are not of 

sufficient specificity to guide the use of 

complex quantitative risk assessments. The 

continued pursuit of ad hoc applications of 

risk assessment in the absence of adequate 

DOE policy and guidance is contrary to the 

standards-based approach to nuclear safety 

espoused by DOE and endorsed by the 

Board.4

Recommendation 

Therefore, the Board recommends that 

DOE: 

1. Establish a policy on the use of 

quantitative risk assessment for nuclear 

safety applications. 

2. Consistent with this policy, establish 

requirements and guidance in a DOE 

directive or directives that prescribe controls 

over the quality, use, implementation, and 

applicability of quantitative risk assessment 

in the design and operation of defense 

nuclear facilities. 

3. Evaluate current ongoing uses of 

quantitative risk assessment methodologies at 

defense nuclear facilities to determine if 

interim guidance or special oversight is 

warranted pending the development of 

formal policy and guidance. 

4. Establish a requirement to identify 

deficiencies and gaps in ongoing applications 

of quantitative risk assessment along with the 

additional research necessary to fill those 

gaps in support of the development and 

implementation of the final policy and 

guidance. 

A. J. Eggenberger, 

Chairman. 

[FR Doc. E9–19245 Filed 8–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3670–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

Notice of Record of Decision for 

Undersea Warfare Training Range 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD. 

ACTION: Notice of record of decision. 

SUMMARY: The United States (U.S.) 

Department of the Navy (Navy), after 

carefully weighing the environmental 

consequences of the installation and 

operation of the proposed action, 

announces its decision to develop an 

undersea warfare training range 

(USWTR) within the Preferred 

Alternative Site, the Jacksonville 

Operating Area (JAX OPAREA). At this 

time the Navy is implementing only a 

portion of the proposed action, a 

decision to move forward with 

installation of the USWTR, which 

consists of installing undersea cables 

and up to 300 nodes over a 500 squarenautical-mile area of the ocean. This 

location is approximately 50 nm from 

the northeast coast of Florida. The 

underwater nodes will be linked by 

underwater cable to a cable termination 

facility located ashore on Naval Station 

Mayport, Florida. 

Although both the installation phase 

and training phase of the USWTR are 

fully analyzed in the Final Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS/ 

EIS), and informs the decision as to the 

site selected for installation of the 

USWTR, this Record of Decision (ROD) 

implements only a portion of the 

proposed action by authorizing the 

installation of the USWTR. Because the 

USWTR is not anticipated to be ready 

for operation until at least 2014, the 

analysis regarding the environmental 

effects from training on the range will be 

updated in a future OEIS/EIS document 

closer in time to the date when the 

training will begin. The principal type 

of training activities on the USWTR will 

be anti-submarine warfare. The decision 

to implement training on USWTR will 

be based on the updated analysis of 

environmental effects in a future OEIS/ 

EIS in conjunction with appropriate 

coordination and consultation with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

complete text of the ROD is available on 

the public web site: http:// 

projects.earthtech.com/uswtr/ 

USWTR_index.htm along with the 

complete Final OEIS/EIS and 

accompanying documentation. Single 

copies of the ROD will be made 

available upon request by contacting 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command 

Atlantic, Attn: USWTR OEIS/EIS Project 

Manager, Code EV22LL, 6506 Hampton 

Boulevard, Lafayette River Annex 

Building A, Norfolk, Virginia 23508– 

1278. 

Dated: August 5, 2009. 

A.M. Vallandingham, 

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate 

General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 

Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–19346 Filed 8–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection Requests 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The Director, Information 

Collection Clearance Division, 

Regulatory Information Management 

Services, Office of Management, invites 

comments on the proposed information 

collection requests as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before October 

13, 2009. 

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. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 

Federal law, or substantially interfere 

with any agency’s ability to perform its 

statutory obligations. The Director, 

Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of 

Management, publishes that notice 

containing proposed information 

collection requests prior to submission 

of these requests to OMB. Each 

proposed information collection, 

grouped by office, contains the 

following: (1) Type of review requested, 

e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or 

reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of 

the collection; (4) Description of the 

need for, and proposed use of, the 

information; (5) Respondents and 

frequency of collection; and (6) 

Reporting and/or Recordkeeping 

burden. OMB invites public comment. 

The Department of Education is 

especially interested in public comment 

addressing the following issues: (1) Is 

this collection necessary to the proper 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES