42128 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 160 / Thursday, August 20, 2009 / Notices 

Web site: http://www.nae.edu/ 

?ID=14646. 

Institutions are encouraged to visit the 

two beta sites NSF is supporting that 

provide resources on ethics education in 

science and engineering. These sites 

will serve as a foundation for an open 

competition for an ongoing on-line RCR 

resource on ethics education in science 

and engineering. This resource has the 

potential to provide a centralized 

location for information that can be 

used to help institutions and PIs meet 

their own particular needs. The resource 

will contain whatever information 

resources the community chooses to 

develop and share including research 

findings, pedagogical materials, and best 

practices. It will be up to each 

institution and discipline to determine 

how best to ensure effective and 

appropriate education in responsible 

research practices. 

Comment 10: Six respondents noted 

current online resources that might be 

used with the online resource. 

Response: NSF will forward the 

recommended resources to the on-line 

resource beta-site for consideration. 

Comment 11: 20 respondents either 

suggested that NSF allow institutions to 

develop their own systems to track and 

verify the delivery of the required 

training or provided potential 

approaches to accomplish this. 

Response: NSF recognizes that there 

are many ways to achieve the training 

objectives of RCR, each with strengths 

and potential pitfalls. NSF intends to 

allow institutions to meet the 

verification requirement using 

appropriate systems of their choosing. 

Comment 12: One commenter 

suggested that NSF’s proposed 

implementation plan will not be 

effective because it does not include 

systems to mitigate against unethical 

behavior. 

Response: We note that the National 

Science and Technology Council has 

developed a Federal policy on research 

misconduct, which authorizes agencies 

to impose administrative actions on 

those who engage in research 

misconduct. See NSF’s implementation 

at 45 CFR Part 689. The NSF Office of 

the Inspector General investigates 

reports of research misconduct and 

refers the results of their findings to 

NSF management for appropriate action. 

Institutions involved in international 

collaborations might find materials 

provided by the Organisation for 

Economic Co-operation and 

Development (OECD) ‘‘Research 

Integrity: preventing misconduct and 

dealing with allegations’’ useful. See: 

http://tinyurl.com/l76p3b. 

Comment 13: Six comments suggested 

that reviewers of proposals and other 

faculty members should be required to 

take RCR training. These comments 

appear to be aimed at the issue of 

plagiarism when reviewing proposals. 

Another commenter suggested that only 

Ph.D. students should be required to 

take such training. 

Response: Section 7009 of the 

COMPETES Act mandates that 

institutions applying for financial 

assistance from the Foundation provide 

such training for undergraduate 

students, graduate students, and 

postdoctoral researchers participating in 

the proposed research project. Thus, 

reviewers and other faculty members are 

not required to take such training, 

although undergraduate and graduate 

students are subject to such a 

requirement. As to faculty members, 

institutions, at their discretion, may 

expand the scope of such training to 

include other categories of individuals 

not covered by Section 7009 of the 

COMPETES Act. As to reviewers, NSF 

has a longstanding policy of providing 

guidance and instructions to our 

reviewer community on the 

confidentiality of information, which 

includes plagiarism, contained in 

proposals and the treatment of conflictsof-interest. 

Comment 14: Two respondents 

suggested alternate mechanisms for an 

institution to inform NSF that it has an 

appropriate training plan. One 

commenter suggested that NSF require 

investigators to include a short 

summary of their institutions’ training 

plans in the body of the proposal. 

Another commenter suggested that, in 

lieu of an institution providing a 

certification with each proposal, an 

institution should only have to submit 

such a certification once and, NSF 

should simply compile a list of 

institutions that have provided the 

requisite certification. 

Response: Although these alternative 

mechanisms have merit, NSF has 

chosen the implementation approach 

that is consistent with how NSF has had 

institutions certify their compliance 

with statutory requirements such as 

Non-discrimination, Conflict of Interest, 

Drug Free Workplace, etc. 

Comment 15: One respondent 

recommended that NSF make the 

development of conceptual models and 

practical assessment of the effects of 

RCR education a research priority. 

Response: Although not an explicit 

research priority, NSF may support 

proposals that address these topics. For 

example, proposals for the development 

of conceptual models and assessment 

methods for RCR may be appropriate for 

submission to programs in the 

Directorate for Education and Human 

Resources. Innovative research on ethics 

and values in science and engineering 

may be appropriate for submission to 

programs in the Social, Behavioral and 

Economic Sciences Directorate. NSF 

expects that such proposals would 

compete for resources along with other 

important educational and research 

activities. 

Comment 16: NSF received 19 general 

comments. These include: (a) comments 

expressing support for the requirement 

or support for the value of RCR training 

in general; and (b) comments not related 

to the RCR requirement. 

Response: These comments provide 

valuable perspectives on RCR training. 

However, no NSF responses are needed 

for purposes of this Federal Register 

Notice. 

Dated: August 14, 2009. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. E9–19930 Filed 8–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0276; NRC–2009–0275; NRC– 

2009–0274; NRC–2009–0277] 

Draft Regulatory Guides: Granting 

Extension of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Granting of Request to 

Extend the Comment Period of Draft 

Regulatory Guide (DG)–1221, ‘‘Control 

of Stainless Steel Weld Cladding of 

Low-Alloy Steel Components;’’ DG– 

1222, ‘‘Control of Preheat Temperature 

for Welding of Low-Alloy Steel;’’ DG– 

1223, ‘‘Control of Electroslag Weld 

Properties;’’ and DG–1224, ‘‘Control of 

the Processing and Use of Stainless 

Steel.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Hixon, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, telephone: (301) 251–7639 or 

e-mail to Jeffrey.Hixon@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) issued for public 

comment DG–1221, DG–1222, DG–1223, 

and DG–1224, which were published in 

the Federal Register, 74 FR 31991, 74 

FR 31993, 74 FR 31993, and 74 FR 

31992, respectively, on July 6, 2009. 

This series was developed to describe 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 160 / Thursday, August 20, 2009 / Notices 42129 

and make available to the public such 

information as methods that are 

acceptable to the NRC staff for 

implementing specific parts of the 

NRC’s regulations, techniques that the 

staff uses in evaluating specific 

problems or postulated accidents, and 

data that the staff needs in its review of 

applications for permits and licenses. 

II. Further Information 

The NRC staff requested receipt of 

comments on DG–1221, DG–1222, DG– 

1223, and DG–1224 by August 31, 2009. 

Requests for technical information about 

DG–1221, DG–1222, DG–1223, and DG– 

1224 may be directed to the NRC 

contact, Jeffrey Hixon at (301) 251–7639 

or e-mail Jeffrey.Hixon@nrc.gov. 

Electronic copies of DG–1221, DG– 

1222, DG–1223, and DG–1224 are 

available through the NRC’s public Web 

site under Draft Regulatory Guides in 

the ‘‘Regulatory Guides’’ collection of 

the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/. Electronic copies of DG– 

1221, DG–1222, DG–1223, and DG–1224 

are also available in ADAMS (http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html), 

under Accession Nos. ML090750044, 

ML090750343, ML090750626, and 

ML090750744, respectively. 

In addition, regulatory guides are 

available for inspection at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room (PDR), which is 

located at 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland. The PDR’s mailing 

address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 

20555–0001. The PDR can also be 

reached by telephone at (301) 415–4737 

or (800) 397–4205, by fax at (301) 415– 

3548, and by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Regulatory guides are not 

copyrighted, and Commission approval 

is not required to reproduce them. 

III. Request To Extend the Comment 

Period 

Basis for the Request 

The NRC received the following 

extension request: 

In a letter, dated August 6, 2009, the 

Nuclear Energy Institute requested that 

the public review and comment period 

on DG–1221, DG–1222, DG–1223, and 

DG–1224 be extended to October 1, 

2009. NEI requested a 30-day extension 

of the public comment period on these 

draft guides until October 1, 2009, to 

allow adequate time to complete and 

document their review. 

Response to Request 

By this action, the NRC staff is 

extending the comment period until 

October 1, 2009. Comments received 

after October 1, 2009, would be 

considered if practical to do so but the 

NRC is able to ensure consideration 

only for comments received on or before 

October 1, 2009. Although a time limit 

is given, comments and suggestions in 

connection with items for inclusion in 

guides currently being developed or 

improvements in all published guides 

are encouraged at any time. 

Comments submitted in writing or in 

electronic form will be made available 

to the public in their entirety through 

the NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS). 

Because your comments will not be 

edited to remove any identifying or 

contact information, the NRC cautions 

you against including any information 

in your submission that you do not want 

to be publicly disclosed. 

The NRC requests that any party 

soliciting or aggregating comments 

received from other persons for 

submission to the NRC inform those 

persons that the NRC will not edit their 

comments to remove any identifying or 

contact information, and therefore, they 

should not include any information in 

their comments that they do not want 

publicly disclosed. You may submit 

comments by any of the following 

methods: 

1. Mail comments to: Rulemaking and 

Directives Branch, Mail Stop: TWB–05– 

B01M, Office of Administration, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

2. Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

[NRC–2009–0276, NRC–2009–0275, 

NRC–2009–0274 and NRC–2009–0277]. 

Address questions about NRC dockets to 

Carol Gallagher, 301–492–3668; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

3. Fax comments to: Rulemaking and 

Directives Branch, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission at (301) 492–3446. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day 

of August 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

John N. Ridgely, 

Acting Chief, Regulatory Guide Development 

Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of 

Nuclear Regulatory Research. 

[FR Doc. E9–19997 Filed 8–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0361; Docket No. 40–8964] 

Notice of Availability of Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact for License 

Amendment for Receipt and 

Processing of Third Party Ion 

Exchange Resin Power Resources, 

Inc., Glenrock, WY 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Douglas T. Mandeville, Project Manager, 

Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch, 

Division of Waste Management and 

Environmental Protection, Office of 

Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

Telephone: (301) 415–0724; fax number: 

(301) 415–5369; e-mail: 

douglas.mandeville@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is issuing a license 

amendment to Material License No. 

SUA–1548, issued to Power Resources, 

Inc. (PRI), to authorize the receipt and 

processing of third party ion exchange 

resin at its in situ recovery (ISR) facility 

near Glenrock, Wyoming. NRC has 

prepared an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) in support of this amendment 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 is appropriate. The 

amendment will be issued following the 

publication of this Notice. 

II. EA Summary 

The purpose of the proposed 

amendment is to authorize the receipt 

and processing of third party ion 

exchange resins at PRI’s Smith Ranch— 

Highland Uranium Project facility near 

Glenrock, Wyoming. Specifically, PRI 

sought permission to accept and process 

365 shipments of ion exchange resin per 

year from NRC licensed facilities in the 

State of Wyoming. This action would be 

performed within the currently 

approved processing limits of 20,000 

gpm flowrate in the central processing 

plant and annual yellowcake production 

of 5.5 million pounds per year. PRI 

submitted the license amendment 

request to the NRC on June 19, 2008. 

The staff has prepared the EA in 

support of the proposed license 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES