46666 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Notices 

Title: National Longitudinal Survey of 

Youth 1979. 

OMB Control Number: 1220–0109. 

Estimated Number of Annual 

Respondents: 11,265. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 11,044. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Description: The information obtained 

in this survey will be used by the 

Department of Labor, other government 

agencies, academic researchers, the 

news media, and the general public to 

understand the employment 

experiences and life-cycle transitions of 

men and women born in the years 1957 

to 1964 and living in the United States 

when the survey began in 1979. 

Darrin A. King, 

Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7–16405 Filed 8–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–24–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review: 

Comment Request 

August 15, 2007. 

The Department of Labor has 

submitted the following public 

information collection request (ICR) to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

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

44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Copies of this 

ICRs, with applicable supporting 

documentation; including among other 

things a description of the likely 

respondents, proposed frequency of 

response, and estimated total burden 

may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov 

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

public/do/PRAMain or by contacting 

Darrin King on 202–693–4129 (this is 

not a toll-free number)/e-mail: 

king.darrin@dol.gov. 

Comments should be sent to Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: John Kraemer, OMB Desk Officer 

for the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street, NW., Room 10235, Washington, 

DC 20503, Telephone: 202–395–4816/ 

Fax: 202–395–6974 (these are not a tollfree numbers), E-mail: 

OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov within 

30 days from the date of this publication 

in the Federal Register. In order to 

ensure the appropriate consideration, 

comments should reference the OMB 

Control Number (see below). 

The OMB is particularly interested in 

comments which: 

• 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; 

• 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; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• 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, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Agency: Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of currently approved collection. 

Title: Student Data Form. 

OMB Control Number: 1218–0172. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

2,000. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 167. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Description: The form is used to 

collect student group and emergency 

contact information from Training 

Institute students. Student group data is 

used for reports, and tuition receipts. 

Darrin A. King, 

Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7–16406 Filed 8–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Emergency Clearance; Public 

Information Collection Requirements 

Submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget; Notice 

AGENCY: National Science Foundation. 

ACTION: Emergency Clearance: Public 

Information Collection Requirements 

Submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). 

SUMMARY: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans 

to request approval of this collection. In 

accordance with the requirement of 

Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork 

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

we are providing an opportunity for 

public comment on this action. After 

obtaining and considering public 

comment, NSF will prepare the 

submission requesting that OMB 

approve clearance of this collection for 

no longer than 3 years. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

send comments regarding the burden or 

any other aspect of these collections of 

information requirements by September 

20, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments 

regarding the information collection and 

requests for copies of the proposed 

information collection request should be 

addressed to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports 

Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. 

295, Arlington, VA 22230, or by e-mail 

to splimpto@nsf.gov, and Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Room 10235, New Executive Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20503. Attn: 

John Kraemer, NSF Desk Officer. 

Comments: Written comments are 

invited on (a) whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

Agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information on 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology; 

or (d) ways to 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. 

NSF has determined that it cannot 

reasonably comply with the normal 

clearance procedures under 5 CFR 1320 

because normal clearance procedures 

are reasonably likely to prevent or 

disrupt the collection of information. 

NSF is requesting emergency review 

from OMB of this information collection 

to enable the Emergency review and 

approval of this ICR will assure 

continuation of the PFF evaluation that 

is also funded by the Atlantic 

Philanthropies. OMB approval has been 

requested for September 24, 2007. If 

granted, the emergency approval is only 

valid for 90 days. 

During this same period, a regular 

review of this information collection 

will be undertaken. During the regular 

review period, the NSF requests written 

comments and suggestions from the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

this information collection. Comments 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Notices 46667 

1Source: Chairman’s Statement, Senator Tom 

Coburn, N.D. (R–OK), What You Don’t Know Can 

Hurt You: S. 2590, the ‘‘Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006’’ (July 

18, 2006). 

are encouraged and will be accepted 

until October 22, 2007 to be assured of 

consideration. Comments received after 

that date will be considered to the 

extent practicable. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance 

Officer, National Science Foundation, 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 295, 

Arlington, Virginia 22230; telephone 

(703) 292–7556; or send e-mail to 

splimpto@nsf.gov. Individuals who use 

a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–

800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 

p.m., Eastern time, Monday through 

Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Approval Number: OMB 3145–

0058. 

Expiration Date: January 31, 2010. 

Overview of this information 

collection: The Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act 

(FFATA) of 2006 (Pub. L. 109–282) 

requires agencies to make award and 

sub-award information available to be 

searched by the public in a single 

searchable Web site developed by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). The impetus for this Act was the 

lack of a single source of accurate, 

complete and timely information on 

federal government spending.1 The 

requirements and residual technical and 

policy impacts of FFATA were 

unanticipated at the time the prior 

information clearance package was 

cleared by OMB. In order to meet the 

legislative mandate and Congressional 

intent of FFATA, NSF needs a reliable 

source of data and the ability to validate 

the accuracy of that data. The change 

that is being proposed by NSF, 

therefore, is essential to ensuring 

compliance with FFATA requirements. 

If NSF cannot collect and validate the 

accuracy of award data, NSF will miss 

the deadline imposed by Congress to 

make award data publicly available by 

January 1, 2008. 

NSF is committed to providing 

citizens accurate, complete, and timely 

information regarding the expenditure 

of taxpayer funds. The policy change for 

which NSF is seeking approval will 

enable the Foundation to accomplish 

this goal. If NSF must follow the normal 

OIRA clearance review process, the 

result will be incomplete and inaccurate 

award data on OMB’s single searchable 

Web site. 

Consult With Other Agencies & the 

Public 

The policy change identified is 

consistent with a previously established 

Government-wide standard imposed by 

Grants.gov as part of its registration 

process. (Reference OMB Clearance 

Number: 4040–0001, Expiration Date: 

04/30/2008). Grants.gov currently has 

103,000 Authorized Organizational 

Representatives registered in the system. 

As reiterated below, 93.1% of 

organizations that submitted proposals 

to NSF in FY06 are already registered in 

CCR. Implementing this policy change, 

will make NSF’s registration 

requirement consistent with that 

currently in use by all other Federal 

granting agencies. 

NSF also plans to announce this 

proposed change at an upcoming 

Federal Demonstration Partnership 

meeting in September to gauge 

community response to this policy 

change. Finally, NSF plans to 

communicate with its small business 

community to obtain feedback as well as 

post a notice on the NSF Web site 

regarding the Foundation’s plans in this 

area. The estimated impact of this 

change is described more fully below. 

Background 

FFATA specifies requisite 

information (14 data elements) that 

must be included for each award, one of 

which is the unique identifier for the 

entity. OMB Memorandum, ‘‘Reporting 

of Data Elements Required by the 

Federal Funding Accountability and 

Transparency Act,’’ (dated March 30, 

2007) defines the unique identifier for 

the entity as the Data Universal 

Numbering System (DUNS) number. 

In accordance with the OMB policy 

‘‘Use of a Universal Identifier by Grant 

Applicants,’’ (June 27, 2003) [68 FR 

38402], NSF collects DUNS numbers for 

all awardees. While NSF collects this 

information, NSF currently does not 

have a mechanism to validate the 

accuracy of the DUNS number provided 

by the organization during the FastLane 

proposal submission process. 

In order to meet the legislative 

mandate and Congressional intent of 

FFATA, NSF needs a reliable source of 

data to validate the accuracy of the 

DUNS number provided by the 

organization. NSF has identified the 

Central Contractor Registration (CCR) 

database as the most complete and 

accurate data source. The CCR system is 

managed under the Integrated 

Acquisition Environment (IAE) 

Presidential Management Agenda 

(PMA) E-Gov initiative. IAE is 

sponsored by OMB and managed by the 

General Services Administration. CCR is 

the primary registrant database for the 

U.S. Government. CCR collects, 

validates, stores, and disseminates data 

in support of agency acquisition 

missions, including Federal agency 

contract and assistance awards. 

All contractors that do business with 

the Federal government and all grantees 

that use Grants.gov are required to 

register in CCR prior to conducting any 

transactions (e.g. submitting a grant 

application). Any organization that 

registers with the CCR must have a valid 

DUNS number. To ensure each 

organization receiving an NSF award 

and/or subaward has a valid DUNS 

number, NSF will require potential 

proposers to register in the CCR prior to 

proposal submission. This approach 

aligns with the government-wide efforts 

described above. The proposed effective 

date for this policy change is October 1, 

2007. Requiring CCR registration 

effective October 1, 2007 will provide 

NSF with sufficient time to change NSF 

proposal preparation requirements to 

mandate this requirement, as well as 

validate DUNS numbers in preparation 

for meeting the FFATA January 1, 2008 

milestone to make award data publicly 

available. 

Impact of Policy Change 

NSF has analyzed the impact of this 

proposed policy change and the 

additional burden associated with it on 

the Foundation’s proposer community. 

The results of this assessment are as 

follows: 

• CCR states it takes approximately 

one hour for an organization to 

complete the online registration, 

depending upon the size and 

complexity of the organization. The one 

hour to complete registration includes 

the time to read the instructions and to 

complete the form online. CCR does 

have handbook users may refer during 

the registration process. CCR 

recommends factoring in an additional 

15 minutes in the instance the user 

references the handbook. 

• NSF retrieved a list of organizations 

that submitted proposals to the 

Foundation in FY 2006 and used a 

sample (5% error) to determine the 

percentage of these organizations 

registered in the CCR. 

• A total of 2,677 organizations 

submitted proposals to NSF in FY 2006. 

• Out of the 2,677 organizations that 

submitted proposals to NSF in FY06, a 

random sample of 247 organizations 

was used to verify CCR registration. 

• Of the 247 sample organizations, 

230 were registered in CCR (93.1%). 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
46668 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Notices 

• Based on the sample analysis of 

FY06 data (the 247 sample 

organizations), it can be concluded that: 

• 93.1% of organizations that 

submitted proposals to NSF in FY06 are 

already registered in CCR. 

• 6.9% of organizations that 

submitted proposals to NSF in FY06 are 

not registered in CCR. 

• Of the 2,677 organizations that 

submitted proposals to NSF in FY06, 

184 organizations (6.9%) would be 

impacted by this policy change. 

The amount of additional burden 

associated with this policy change is 

230 hours (184 organizations * 1.25 

hour to register = 230 hours). On 

average, it takes CCR three days to 

process a registration submission. 

Respondents: Not-for-profit 

institutions, for-profit institutions, 

individuals. 

Number of Respondents: 184. 

Burden on the Public: 230 additional 

hours. 

Dated: August 15, 2007. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. 07–4087 Filed 8–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–346, 50–440, 50–334, and 

50–412; License Nos. NPF–3, NPF–58, DPR–

66 and NPF–73; EA 07–199] 

In the Matter of FirstEnergy Nuclear 

Operating Company; Davis-Besse 

Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1; Beaver 

Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2; 

Confirmatory Order (Effective 

Immediately) 

I 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company (FENOC or licensee) is the 

holder of four NRC Facility Operating 

Licenses issued by the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC or 

Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 

50, which authorizes the operation of 

the specifically-named facilities in 

accordance with the conditions 

specified in each license. License No. 

NPF–3 was issued on April 22, 1977, to 

operate the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power 

Station, Unit No. 1. License No. NPF–

58 was issued on November 13, 1986, to 

operate the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, 

Unit No. 1. License Nos. DPR–66 and 

NPF–73 to operate the Beaver Valley 

Power Station, Units 1 and 2, were 

issued on July 2, 1976, and August 14, 

1987, respectively. Davis-Besse is 

located near Toledo, Ohio; Perry is 

located near Painesville, Ohio; and 

Beaver Valley is located near 

McCandless, Pennsylvania. 

II 

The events leading up to this 

Confirmatory Order date back several 

years. In 2005, the NRC took 

enforcement action against FENOC, 

imposing a $5,450,000 civil penalty for 

regulatory violations associated with the 

2002 reactor pressure vessel head 

degradation event at the Davis-Besse 

Plant. In response to that event, FENOC 

performed root cause evaluations. 

Among other things, FENOC’s root 

cause reports determined that the 

reactor pressure vessel head degradation 

was the result of ongoing and 

undetected Control Rod Drive 

Mechanism nozzle leakage that had 

lasted more than four years. 

In February 2007, the licensee 

informed the NRC that Davis-Besse was 

initiating a condition report based on 

information contained in a letter 

received from Nuclear Electric 

Insurance Limited (NEIL). The NEIL 

letter referenced a new analysis that 

FENOC had commissioned of the DavisBesse reactor pressure vessel head 

degradation event. The new analysis, 

submitted to NEIL as expert testimony 

in an insurance arbitration on December 

18, 2006, was performed by Exponent 

Failure Analysis Associates and Altran 

Solutions Corporation (Exponent) and 

concluded that the time period between 

the beginning of substantial leakage 

from the reactor pressure vessel head 

nozzle and the development of the large 

cavity next to the nozzle may have been 

as short as four months. 

On April 2, 2007, after several 

conference calls with the licensee and 

Exponent to assess whether the 

Exponent Report raised any immediate 

safety concerns (it did not), the NRC 

requested FENOC to respond in writing 

to four questions regarding information 

and conclusions presented in the 

Exponent Report. Among other things, 

the NRC’s request for information asked 

FENOC to ‘‘discuss any differences 

between the Exponent Report 

information and conclusions drawn 

therein, and information previously 

provided in the Root Cause Analysis 

Report and Licensee Event Report for 

the Davis-Besse reactor pressure vessel 

head wastage event.’’

In its May 2, 2007, response to the 

NRC’s request for information, FENOC 

stated that it ‘‘ha[d] not specifically 

evaluated all of the assumptions used by 

Exponent’’ but nevertheless concluded 

that the Exponent Report ‘‘more 

accurately characterizes the time line of 

the reactor head degradation event 

based on [Exponent’s] use of more 

recently available test data in 

conjunction with detailed analytical 

modeling.’’ FENOC’s response did not 

include a detailed discussion of the 

differences between the operational 

experience data and the Exponent 

Report assumptions. 

Consequently, on May 14, 2007, the 

NRC issued FENOC a Demand for 

Information (DFI) pursuant to 10 CFR 

2.204 to determine whether further 

enforcement action was necessary to 

provide reasonable assurance that 

FENOC would continue to operate its 

licensed facilities in accordance with 

the terms of its licenses and the 

Commission’s regulations. The DFI 

required FENOC to provide a detailed 

discussion of the process used to 

determine if the Exponent Report 

assumptions, analyses, conclusions, or 

other related information should have 

been reported to the NRC in a more 

prompt manner; a detailed discussion of 

the differences in assumptions, 

analyses, conclusions, and other related 

information of the Exponent Report and 

technical and programmatic root cause 

reports developed in 2002; and a 

position on whether FENOC endorsed 

the conclusions of a second contractor 

report prepared in connection with the 

NEIL insurance arbitration. 

FENOC responded to the DFI in 

writing on June 13, 2007. In that 

response, FENOC stated that its May 2, 

2007, response ‘‘was primarily focused 

on the detailed analytical studies that 

form the basis for the Exponent Report’s 

time line for the crack growth and 

wastage phenomenon * * * and was 

not a comprehensive review of the 

differences between our root cause 

reports and the Exponent Report.’’

According to the June 13 response, 

FENOC ‘‘continues to believe’’ that its 

earlier root cause reports ‘‘provide a 

comprehensive explanation of the 

progression and causal factors of the 

Davis-Besse reactor pressure vessel head 

degradation event and, hence, contain 

the most appropriate information to 

have used in development and 

implementation of corrective actions to 

prevent recurrence.’’ FENOC’s June 13, 

2007, response further acknowledged 

that it ‘‘should have communicated 

more effectively internally and more 

promptly with the NRC’’ about the 

Exponent Report, and included 

commitments to implement corrective 

actions in those areas. 

On June 27, 2007, the NRC held a 

public meeting with FENOC to discuss 

the DFI response. During the meeting, 

the NRC questioned the corporate safety 

culture at FirstEnergy and whether 

FENOC had changed its position 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES