27054 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Notices 

those evaluated in the GEIS. NRC will 

then determine which sections of the 

GEIS can be incorporated by reference 

and which impact conclusions can be 

adopted in the site-specific 

environmental review, and whether 

additional data or analysis is needed to 

determine the environmental impacts 

for a specific resource area. 

Additionally, the GEIS provides 

guidance in the evaluation for certain 

impact analyses (e.g., cumulative 

impacts, environmental justice) for 

which the GEIS did not make impact 

conclusions. No decision on whether to 

license an ISL facility will be made 

based on the GEIS alone. The licensing 

decision will be based, in part, on a sitespecific environmental analysis that 

makes use of the GEIS. 

The GEIS also addresses the no-action 

alternative. Under this alternative, NRC 

would deny the applicant’s or licensee’s 

request for a new ISL facility. As a 

result, the license applicant may choose 

to resubmit the application to use an 

alternate uranium recovery method or 

decide to obtain the yellowcake from 

other sources. A licensee whose license 

renewal application is denied would 

have to commence shutting down 

operations in a timely manner. Denials 

of license amendments would require 

the licensee to continue operating under 

its previously approved license 

conditions. The no-action alternative 

serves as a baseline for comparison of 

the potential environmental impacts. 

Conventional mining/milling and the 

heap leach process are two other 

methods of uranium recovery. However, 

inasmuch as the suitability and 

practicality of using these alternative 

milling methodologies depends upon 

site-specific conditions, a generic 

discussion of potential environmental 

impacts associated with these 

methodologies in the GEIS is not 

appropriate. Accordingly, the GEIS does 

not contain a detailed analysis of 

alternative milling methodologies to the 

ISL process. A detailed analysis of 

reasonable alternative milling 

methodologies that can be applied at a 

specific site will be addressed in the 

NRC’s site-specific environmental 

review for individual ISL license 

applications. 

The GEIS is structured in the 

following manner. The NRC staff began 

by identifying four uranium milling 

regions in the western U.S. to use as a 

framework for discussions in the 

document. Two regions are found in 

Wyoming, one in New Mexico, and a 

final region encompasses portions of 

Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming. 

Next, the GEIS provides a description 

of the ISL process and addresses the 

construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning 

activities for an ISL facility. Financial 

assurance is also discussed, whereby the 

ISL licensee or applicant establishes a 

bond or other financial mechanism prior 

to operations to ensure that sufficient 

funds are available to complete aquifer 

restoration, decommissioning, and 

reclamation activities for the site. 

Then, the GEIS describes the affected 

environment in each uranium milling 

region, using the environmental 

resource areas and topics identified 

through public scoping comments on 

the GEIS and from NRC guidance to its 

staff found in NUREG–1748, 

‘‘Environmental Review Guidance for 

Licensing Actions Associated With 

NMSS Programs,’’ issued by NRC in 

2003. 

Finally, the GEIS provides an 

evaluation of the potential 

environmental impacts of constructing, 

operating, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning at an ISL facility in 

each of the four uranium milling 

regions. Impacts are examined for the 

following resource areas: 

• Land use 

• Transportation 

• Geology and soils 

• Water resources 

• Ecology 

• Air Quality 

• Noise 

• Historical and cultural resources 

• Visual and scenic resources 

• Socioeconomic 

• Public and occupational health 

Following the discussion of potential 

environmental impacts, the GEIS 

addresses cumulative impacts; 

environmental justice; practices, 

measures, and actions to mitigate 

potential impacts; environmental 

monitoring activities; and the 

consultation process with Federal and 

tribal entities. 

To document its review of the 

potential environmental impacts for a 

new ISL facility, NRC will prepare an 

SEIS. NRC’s decision to prepare an SEIS 

is a change to its previously stated 

position (72 FR 54947; September 27, 

2007) that allowed for the possibility of 

NRC preparing an EA on a new ISL 

license application. NRC’s decision to 

prepare an SEIS will more clearly meet 

the requirement for completing an EIS 

for new ISL facilities and considers 

public comments received on the draft 

GEIS. The NRC will follow the public 

participation procedures outlined in 10 

CFR part 51, which can include requests 

for public input on the scope of the SEIS 

and requires public comment on the 

draft SEIS. 

For applications to renew or amend 

existing ISL licenses, NRC will conduct 

an environmental review, consistent 

with the provisions in 10 CFR part 51. 

This review may be an EA, SEIS, or an 

EIS. The NRC previously stated in the 

Federal Register on September 27, 2007 

(72 FR 54947) that all draft EAs 

prepared for ISL facility license 

applications would be available for 

public comment. This statement was 

made in anticipation that NRC would be 

preparing EAs for applications for new 

ISL facilities. As noted, based on public 

comments NRC received on the draft 

GEIS, NRC has decided to prepare an 

SEIS for new license applications. The 

NRC will follow the public participation 

procedures outlined in 10 CFR part 51, 

which require public comment on the 

draft SEIS. The NRC may make a draft 

EA and accompanying Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) available for 

public comment. The decision to submit 

a draft EA for public comment would 

take into account the provisions in 10 

CFR 51.33 concerning the similarity of 

the proposed actions to actions 

normally requiring preparation of an EIS 

and the precedent setting nature of the 

proposed action. Additionally, the NRC 

may consider the level of public interest 

and the contentious nature of the 

proposed action in determining whether 

to publish a draft EA/FONSI for public 

comment. The NRC staff would address 

public comments received on the draft 

EA/FONSI in the staff’s final 

environmental review document. This 

approach is consistent with NRC 

regulations. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day 

of May 2009. 

For The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 

Patrice M. Bubar, 

Deputy Director, Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate, 

Division of Waste Management and 

Environmental Protection, Office of Federal 

and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–13027 Filed 6–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

[OMB Control No. 3206–0042; Form RI 25– 

15] 

Proposed Collection; Request for 

Comments on an Existing Information 

Collection 

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Notices 27055 

L. 104–13, May 22, 1995 and 5 CFR 

1320), this notice announces that the 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 

intends to submit to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) a 

request for comments on an existing 

information collection. This information 

collection, ‘‘Notice of Change in 

Student’s Status’’ (OMB Control No. 

3206–0042; Form RI 25–15), is used to 

collect sufficient information from adult 

children of deceased Federal employees 

or annuitants to assure that the child 

continues to be eligible for payments 

from OPM. 

Comments are particularly invited on: 

—Whether this collection of information 

is necessary for the proper 

performance of functions of the Office 

of Personnel Management, 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. 

Approximately 2,500 certifications are 

processed annually. Each form takes 

approximately 20 minutes to complete. 

The annual estimated burden is 835 

hours. For copies of this proposal, 

contact Cyrus S. Benson on (202) 606– 

4808, FAX (202) 606–0910 or e-mail to 

Cyrus.Benson@opm.gov. Please include 

your mailing address with your request. 

DATES: Comments on this proposal 

should be received within 60 calendar 

days from the date of this publication. 

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments 

to— James K. Freiert, Deputy Assistant 

Director, Retirement Services Program, 

Center for Retirement and Insurance 

Services, U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 

3305, Washington, DC 20415–3500. 

For information regarding 

administrative coordination contact: 

Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, 

Publications Team, RIS Support 

Services/Support Group, U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, 

NW.—Room 4H28, Washington, DC 

20415, (202) 606–0623. 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

John Berry, 

Director. 

[FR Doc. E9–13141 Filed 6–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–38–P 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

[OMB Control No. 3206–0099; Form RI 25– 

41] 

Proposed Collection; Request for 

Comment Extension of a Currently 

Approved Information Collection 

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 

L. 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 

(OMB) a request for extension of a 

currently approved information 

collection. ‘‘This information collection, 

Initial Certification of Full-Time School 

Attendance’’ (OMB Control No. 3206– 

0099; Form RI 25–41), is used to 

determine whether a child is unmarried 

and a full-time student in a recognized 

school. OPM must determine this in 

order to pay survivor annuity benefits to 

children who are age 18 or older. 

Comments are particularly invited on: 

Whether this collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of functions of the Office of Personnel 

Management, and whether it will have 

practical utility; whether our estimate of 

the public burden of this collection of 

information 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 appropriate technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

Approximately 1,200 RI 25–41 forms 

are completed annually. It takes 

approximately 90 minutes to complete 

the form. The annual burden is 1,800 

hours. 

For copies of this proposal, contact 

Cyrus S. Benson on (202) 606–4808, 

FAX (202) 606–0910 or via E-mail to 

Cyrus.Benson@opm.gov. Please include 

a mailing address with your request. 

DATES: Comments on this proposal 

should be received within 60 calendar 

days from the date of this publication. 

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments 

to—James K. Freiert, Deputy Assistant 

Director, Retirement Services Program, 

Center for Retirement and Insurance 

Services, U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 

3305, Washington, DC 20415–3500. 

For information regarding 

administrative coordination contact: 

Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, 

Publications Team, RIS Support 

Services/Support Group, U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, 

NW., Room 4H28, Washington, DC 

20415, (202) 606–0623. 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

John Berry, 

Director. 

[FR Doc. E9–13143 Filed 6–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–38–P 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

[OMB Control No. 3206–0131] 

Revision of Information Collection: 

Combined Federal Campaign 

Applications 

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 

L. 104–13, May 22, 1995), this notice 

announces that the Office of Personnel 

Management intends to submit to the 

Office of Management and Budget a 

request for clearance to revise 

information collection Combined 

Federal Campaign Applications OMB 

Control No. 3206–0131, which include 

OPM Forms 1647 A–E. Combined 

Federal Campaign Eligibility 

Applications are used to review the 

eligibility of national, international, and 

local charitable organizations that wish 

to participate in the Combined Federal 

Campaign. The proposed revisions 

reflect changes in eligibility guidance 

from the Office of Personnel 

Management and recommendations 

from a review conducted by the 

Government Accountability Office. 

We estimate 20,000 responses to this 

information collection annually. Each 

form takes approximately three hours to 

complete. The annual estimated burden 

is 60,000 hours. 

Comments are particularly invited on: 

whether this information is necessary 

for the proper performance of functions 

of the Office of Personnel Management, 

and whether it will have practical 

utility; whether our estimate of the 

public burden of this collection of 

information 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 appropriate use of technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

For copies of this information 

collection, contact Curtis Rumbaugh at 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES