Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2001 / Notices 33719

COL, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,

and the Commission’s regulations. 10

CFR 52.103(g) requires that the

Commission find that the acceptance

criteria in the ITAAC have been met

before a facility can be authorized to

operate. The staff is seeking public

comment on whether or not COL

applications should contain ITAAC on

operational programs such as security,

training, and emergency planning

(programmatic ITAAC).

In SECY–00–0092, ‘‘Combined

License Review Process’’ dated April 20,

2000, the staff provided a basis for its

stated position that ‘‘programmatic’’

ITAAC are necessary to meet the

requirements of 10 CFR Part 52 and the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954. In the staff

requirements memorandum (SRM) on

SECY–00–0092 dated September 6,

2000, the Commission provided

guidance to the staff in this area and

stated that ‘‘in connection with the Part

52 rulemaking, the staff should

specifically seek comment on and

continue to work with stakeholders on

the need for and scope of the ITAAC for

programmatic areas.’’ In accordance

with the Commission direction, the NRC

staff is seeking comments on the need

for and scope of ITAAC for

programmatic areas. Comments received

will be evaluated by the staff.

In a letter dated May 14, 2001, to

Chairman Meserve the Nuclear Energy

Institute (NEI) provided its position that

COL applications should not contain

ITAAC on operational programs. NEI’s

letter contains a paper that summarizes

its position. NEI requests an ‘‘early

resolution of this issue to allow

licensees, the NRC, and other

stakeholders to be clear on how key Part

52 requirements on the scope of COL

ITAAC are to be met.’’

The documents discussed above (i.e.,

SECY–00–0092, the SRM on SECY–00–

0092, and the May 14, 2001, letter from

NEI) are available in NRC’s Public

Document Room. Documents may be

examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the

NRC’s Public Document Room, located

at One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland. These documents are also

accessible electronically from the

ADAMS Public Library component on

the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov

(the Electronic Reading Room).

Questions and comments should be

directed to Joseph M. Sebrosky, Mail

Stop O–11 F1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555–

001, E-mail:jms3@nrc.gov or by

telephone at 301–415–1132. Comments

should be submitted within 45 days of

the publication of this notice.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 19th day

of June 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Richard J. Barrett,

Acting Director, Future Licensing

Organization, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–15817 Filed 6–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request for Review of an Existing

Information Collection: Court Orders

Affecting Retirement Benefits

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–13, May 22, 1995), this

notice announces that the Office of

Personnel Management (OPM) intends

to submit to the Office of Management

and Budget a request for review of an

existing information collection. The

regulations describe how former

spouses give us written notice of a court

order requiring us to pay benefits to the

former spouse. Specific information is

needed before OPM can make courtordered benefit payments.

Approximately 19,000 former spouses

apply for benefits based on court orders

annually. We estimate it takes

approximately 30 minutes to collect the

information. The annual burden is 9,500

hours.

Comments are particularly invited on:

—Whether this collection of information

is necessary for the proper

performance of functions of OPM, and

whether it will have practical utility;

—Whether our estimate of the public

burden of this collection is accurate,

and based on valid assumptions and

methodology; and

—Ways in which we can minimize the

burden of the collection of

information on those who are to

respond, through use of the

appropriate technological collection

techniques or other forms of

information technology.

For copies of this proposal, contact

Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606–

8358, or E-mail to mbtoomey@opm.gov.

DATES: Comments on this proposal

should be received within 60 calendar

days from the date of this publication.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments

to—Ronald W. Melton, Chief,

Operations Support Division,

Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S.

Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E

Street, NW., Room 3349A, Washington,

DC 20415–3450.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION—CONTACT:

Donna G. Lease, Team Leader, Forms

Analysis and Design, Budget and

Administrative Services Division, (202)

606–0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Steven R. Cohen,

Acting Director.

[FR Doc. 01–15828 Filed 6–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–50–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request for Review of a Revised

Information Collection: Information

and Instructions on Your

Reconsideration Rights, RI 38–47

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–13, May 22, 1995), this

notice announces that the Office of

Personnel Management (OPM) intends

to submit to the Office of Management

and Budget a request for review of a

revised information collection.

Information and Instructions on Your

Reconsideration Rights, RI 38–47,

outlines the procedures required to

request reconsideration of an initial

OPM decision about Civil Service or

Federal Employees retirement, Retired

Federal or Federal Employee Health

Benefits requests to enroll or change

enrollment, or Federal Employees’

Group Life Insurance coverage. The

form lists the procedures and time

periods required for requesting

reconsideration.

Comments are particularly invited on:

—Whether this collection of information

is necessary for the proper

performance of functions of OPM, and

whether it will have practical utility;

—Whether our estimate of the public

burden of this collection is accurate,

and based on valid assumptions and

methodology; and

—Ways in which we can minimize the

burden of the collection of

information on those who are to

respond, through the use of the

appropriate technological collection

techniques or other forms of

information technology.