Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 98 / Friday, May 22, 2009 / Notices 24049 

Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th 

day of May 2009. 

E. Roy Hawkens, 

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety 

and Licensing Board Panel. 

[FR Doc. E9–11985 Filed 5–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC 2009–0214] 

Announcement of a Proposed Process 

Change Regarding the Review of 

Research and Test Reactor License 

Renewal Applications; Notice of Public 

Meeting 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of stakeholder meeting 

regarding a proposed process change for 

the renewal of research and test reactor 

licenses. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is proposing a 

streamlined review process for license 

renewal applications (LRAs) for 

research and test reactor (RTR) licenses 

with the objective of expeditiously 

resolving the backlog of LRAs while 

maintaining safety standards. Draft 

Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) proposed 

to be implemented will be published for 

public review prior to the meeting on 

the NRC Public Meeting Schedule Web 

site, http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ 

public-meetings/index.cfm. 

DATES: A public meeting for 

stakeholders will be held June 4, 2009, 

commencing at 1 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Legacy Hotel and Meeting Center, 

1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 

20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexander Adams Jr., Division of Policy 

and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415– 

1127, e-mail alexander.adams@nrc.gov; 

or Marcus Voth, Division of Policy and 

Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, telephone (301) 415–1210, e-mail 

marcus.voth@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

At the present time 21 of the 32 RTRs 

licensed to operate in the United States 

have LRAs before the NRC. Several 

issues have contributed to the large 

backlog, including NRC licensing 

staffing levels, emergent issues, limited 

licensee resources, existing license 

infrastructure, regulatory requirements, 

and the broad scope of the RTR license 

renewal process as discussed in SECY– 

08–0161, ‘‘Review of Research and Test 

Reactor License Renewal Applications,’’ 

dated October 24, 2008. In a staff 

requirements memorandum (SRM) 

dated March 26, 2009, the staff was 

directed to streamline the current 

license renewal process incorporating 

concepts discussed in SECY–08–0161 

among other measures. These 

documents can be found on the NRC 

Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management system (ADAMS) under 

accession numbers ML0825501403 and 

ML0908501591, respectively. The staff 

is presently developing proposed 

guidance along with the rationale for the 

focused license renewal process for 

RTRs. 

The traditional process currently 

being used for reviewing LRAs is to 

perform a full review based on the 

standard review plan for RTRs, NUREG– 

1537, ‘‘Guidelines for Preparing and 

Reviewing Applications for the 

Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, Part 

2,’’ February 1996. The standard review 

plan addresses all of the topics required 

to be addressed in applications by 10 

CFR 50.33 and 50.34, the same process 

as used for an initial license issuance. 

The staff is proposing to continue this 

full review process for those LRAs well 

into the renewal review process and for 

RTRs licensed for power levels equal to 

or greater than 2 megawatts. The staff 

proposes to apply the new focused 

review process to the remaining LRAs in 

the backlog. 

Two public meetings were held to 

discuss formulation of the proposed 

process with stakeholders, the first on 

September 15, 2008, and a second on 

March 25, 2009. In each meeting the 

staff presented aspects of the proposed 

streamlined review process and 

addressed questions from the public. 

Objectives of the Focused Review 

Process for RTR License Renewal 

The objective of the focused review 

process for license renewal is to provide 

a process that ensures that applications 

are properly evaluated, documented, 

and implemented in accordance with 

the following goals: 

• To ensure the continued health and 

safety of the public and protection of the 

environment, 

• To provide public confidence in the 

regulatory oversight process, 

• To propose an effective, efficient, 

and timely method of processing the 

existing LRA backlog, 

• To develop, document, and 

implement Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) 

for a focused review process, 

• To acknowledge the safe operating 

histories of RTRs demonstrated over the 

facility lifetime documented in reports 

of periodic NRC inspections, and 

• To meet requirements of Section 

104.c of the Atomic Energy Act calling 

for ‘‘* * * only such minimum amount 

of regulation of the licensee as the 

Commission finds will permit the 

common defense and security to protect 

the health and safety of the public and 

will permit the conduct of widespread 

and diverse research and development.’’ 

The staff is proposing that a focused 

approach be implemented for those 

facilities in the current LRA backlog that 

have been reviewed in the past and 

found to have low risk to the public 

health and safety. ISG is being prepared 

that will define a focused review 

process which meets regulatory 

requirements and the goals stated above 

while taking credit for previous reviews 

of structures, systems, and components. 

Likewise, a Safety Evaluation Report 

will be prepared that contains fewer 

than the entire 18 topics addressed in 

the standard review plan but at a 

minimum will address the three areas 

most critical to safety; reactor design 

and operation, accident analysis, and 

technical specifications. The staff is 

proposing that the ISG not be applied in 

the following two situations. 

First, the staff proposes that the 

traditional full review process be used 

for RTRs licensed for greater than 2 

megawatts. The licensed maximum 

thermal power levels of the RTRs range 

from 5 watts to 20 megawatts. The staff 

routinely uses a graded approach to 

apply regulations commensurate with 

the risk of licensed RTRs. A longstanding demarcation used by the staff 

has required additional regulatory 

attention to RTRs licensed for 2 

megawatts or greater. Part of the 

technical basis for this threshold is that 

reactor power is related to the potential 

fission product inventory which in turn 

determines the potential dose 

consequence of an accident. 

Second, the review of some LRAs 

which are currently nearing completion 

using the traditional full review process 

will continue to be performed in that 

manner rather than using the ISG to 

allow for the efficient use of staff 

resources. In implementing the 

proposed ISG the staff may find that one 

or more exemptions to certain 

regulations may be required. If a need 

for an exemption should arise it is 

proposed to be processed using existing 

provisions in the regulations for 

granting exemptions. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
24050 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 98 / Friday, May 22, 2009 / Notices 

Follow-on Actions 

During implementation of the 

streamlined review process the staff will 

be considering other regulatory 

improvements to the RTR LRA process. 

Specific areas being considered are 

requirements for maintaining a 

periodically updated facility Safety 

Analysis Report and the requirement for 

earlier submittal of a LRA, allowing 

time for the licensee to make revisions 

in the event the NRC determines that 

the content of the application does not 

meet the regulatory requirement. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day 

of May 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Kathryn M. Brock, 

Chief, Research and Test Reactor Branch A, 

Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office 

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E9–11984 Filed 5–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

Proposed Submission of Information 

Collection for OMB Review; Comment 

Request; Qualified Domestic Relations 

Orders Submitted to PBGC 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to request 

extension of OMB approval of 

information collection. 

SUMMARY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation (‘‘PBGC’’) intends to 

request that the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) extend approval, 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, of 

the collection of information in PBGC’s 

booklet, Qualified Domestic Relations 

Orders & PBGC (OMB control number 

1212–0054; expires August 31, 2009). 

The booklet provides guidance on how 

to submit a qualified domestic relations 

order (a ‘‘QDRO’’) to PBGC. This notice 

informs the public of PBGC’s intent and 

solicits public comment on the 

collection of information. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted by 

July 21, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the Web 

site instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: 

paperwork.comments@pbgc.gov. 

• Fax: 202–326–4224. 

• Mail or Hand Delivery: Legislative 

and Regulatory Department, Pension 

Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005– 

4026. 

PBGC will make all comments 

available on its Web site at http:// 

www.pbgc.gov. 

Copies of the collections of 

information may be obtained without 

charge by writing to the Disclosure 

Division of the Office of the General 

Counsel of PBGC at the above address 

or by visiting that office or calling 202– 

326–4040 during normal business 

hours. (TTY and TDD users may call the 

Federal relay service toll-free at 1–800– 

877–8339 and ask to be connected to 

202–326–4040.) The current QDRO 

booklet is available on PBGC’s Web site 

at http://www.pbgc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo 

Amato Burns, Attorney, Legislative and 

Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026, 202– 

326–4024. (For TTY/TDD users, call the 

Federal relay service toll-free at 1–800– 

877–8339 and ask to be connected to 

202–326–4024.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A defined 

benefit pension plan that does not have 

enough money to pay benefits may be 

terminated if the employer responsible 

for the plan faces severe financial 

difficulty, such as bankruptcy, and is 

unable to maintain the plan. In such an 

event, PBGC becomes trustee of the plan 

and pays benefits, subject to legal limits, 

to plan participants and beneficiaries. 

The benefits of a pension plan 

participant generally may not be 

assigned or alienated. Title I of ERISA 

provides an exception for domestic 

relations orders that relate to child 

support, alimony payments, or marital 

property rights of an alternate payee (a 

spouse, former spouse, child, or other 

dependent of a plan participant). The 

exception applies only if the domestic 

relations order meets specific legal 

requirements that make it a qualified 

domestic relations order. 

When PBGC is trustee of a plan, it 

reviews submitted domestic relations 

orders to determine whether the order is 

qualified before paying benefits to an 

alternate payee. The requirements for 

submitting a domestic relations order 

and the contents of such orders are 

established by statute. The models and 

the guidance provided by PBGC assist 

parties by making it easier for them to 

comply with ERISA’s QDRO 

requirements in plans trusteed by PBGC; 

they do not create any additional 

requirements and result in a reduction 

of the statutory burden. 

OMB has approved the collection of 

information in PBGC’s booklet, 

Qualified Domestic Relations Orders & 

PBGC under control number 1212–0054 

through August 31, 2009. PBGC intends 

to request that OMB extend its approval 

for another three years. An agency may 

not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to, a collection 

of information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

PBGC estimates that it will receive 

895 domestic relations orders each year 

from prospective alternate payees and 

participants. PBGC further estimates 

that the total average annual burden of 

this collection of information will be 

2085 hours and $496,302. 

PBGC is soliciting public comments 

to— 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collections of information are 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 collections of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodologies and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collections 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. 

Issued in Washington, DC, this 19th day of 

May 2009. 

John H. Hanley, 

Director, Legislative and Regulatory 

Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. E9–12021 Filed 5–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7709–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[Disaster Declaration #11707 and #11708] 

North Dakota Disaster Number ND– 

00016 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Amendment 3. 

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the 

Presidential declaration of a major 

disaster for the State of North Dakota 

(FEMA–1829–DR), dated 04/10/2009. 

Incident: Severe storms and flooding. 

Incident Period: 03/13/2009 and 

continuing. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES