37064 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 

of radioactive source and byproduct 

material. 

7. An estimate of the number of 

annual responses: 894 (273 NRC 

Licensees [68 NRC responses + 205 NRC 

Recordkeepers] + 621 Agreement State 

Licensees [349 Agreement State 

responses + 272 Agreement State 

recordkeepers]). 

8. The estimated number of annual 

respondents: 340 (68 NRC Licensees + 

272 Agreement State Licensees). 

9. An estimate of the total number of 

hours needed annually to complete the 

requirement or request: 65,418 total 

hours [20,769 for NRC Licensees (16,067 

hours for reporting and 4,702 hours for 

recordkeeping) and 44,649 for 

Agreement State Licensees (26,923 

hours for reporting and 17,726 hours for 

recordkeeping)]. 

10. Abstract: 10 CFR Part 40 

establishes requirements for licenses for 

the receipt, possession, use and transfer 

of radioactive source and byproduct 

material. The application, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements are 

necessary to permit the NRC to make a 

determination on whether the 

possession, use, and transfer of source 

and byproduct material is in 

conformance with the Commission’s 

regulations for protection of public 

health and safety. 

A copy of the final supporting 

statement may be viewed free of charge 

at the NRC Public Document Room, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Room O–1 F21, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. OMB clearance 

requests are available at the NRC 

worldwide Web site: http:// 

www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doccomment/omb/index.html. The 

document will be available on the NRC 

home page site for 60 days after the 

signature date of this notice. 

Comments and questions should be 

directed to the OMB reviewer listed 

below by August 26, 2009. Comments 

received after this date will be 

considered if it is practical to do so, but 

assurance of consideration cannot be 

given to comments received after this 

date. 

NRC Desk Officer, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(3150–0020), NEOB–10202, Office of 

Management and Budget, Washington, 

DC 20503. 

The Acting NRC Clearance Officer is 

Tremaine Donnell, (301) 415–6258. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day 

of July 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Tremaine Donnell, 

Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of 

Information Services. 

[FR Doc. E9–17789 Filed 7–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0316; Docket Nos. STN 50–528, 

STN 50–529, and STN 50–530] 

Arizona Public Service Company, et 

al.; Palo Verde Nuclear Generating 

Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; Exemption 

1.0 Background 

The Arizona Public Service Company 

(APS, the facility licensee) is the holder 

of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

41, NPF–51, and NPF–74, which 

authorize operation of the Palo Verde 

Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS, the 

facility), Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively. 

The licenses provide, among other 

things, that the PVNGS is subject to all 

rules, regulations, and orders of the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, 

or the Commission) now or hereafter in 

effect. 

The facility consists of three 

pressurized-water reactors located 55 

miles west of Phoenix, in Maricopa 

County, Arizona. 

2.0 Request/Action 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), Part 55, 

‘‘Operators’ Licenses,’’ specifies the 

requirements and procedures governing 

the issuance of licenses to operators and 

senior operators of utilization facilities 

licensed under the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended, or Section 202 of 

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 

as amended, and 10 CFR part 50, part 

52, or part 54 of the Commission’s 

regulations. Section 55.11, ‘‘Specific 

exemptions,’’ of 10 CFR states that the 

Commission may, upon application by 

an interested person, or upon its own 

initiative, grant such exemptions from 

the requirements of the regulations in 

this part as it determines are authorized 

by law and will not endanger life or 

property and are otherwise in the public 

interest. 

The specific requirements for written 

examinations and operating tests for 

senior operator candidates are described 

in 10 CFR 55.43, ‘‘Written examination: 

Senior operators,’’ and 10 CFR 55.45, 

‘‘Operating tests,’’ respectively. 10 CFR 

55.47, ‘‘Waiver of examination and test 

requirements,’’ provides the criteria 

under which the Commission may 

waive any or all of the test 

requirements, upon application by a 

facility licensee. 

By letter dated February 6, 2009, APS 

requested a one-time exemption, in 

accordance with 10 CFR 55.11, 

‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ from the reactor 

operator licensing examination waiver 

requirements of 10 CFR 55.47(a)(1). 

Specifically, the facility licensee 

requested that Mr. Mark A. Sharp be 

exempted from the requirement to have 

extensive actual operating experience at 

PVNGS (or a comparable facility) within 

2 years before the date of application 

(i.e., December 10, 2008), so that he 

would not have to take and pass an 

NRC-administered written examination 

and operating test as a requirement for 

re-licensing as a senior reactor operator 

at PVNGS. 

Mr. Sharp (Docket No. 55–31662) was 

the holder of Senior Reactor Operator 

License No. SOP–43795 from December 

6, 1996, until December 11, 2006. The 

license authorized Mr. Sharp to 

manipulate the controls of the PVNGS 

facility and to direct the licensed 

activities of licensed operators at the 

facility. Mr. Sharp’s license was 

terminated at the request of facility 

management when he resigned his 

employment with APS. 

By letter dated December 10, 2008, 

and in accordance with 10 CFR 55.31, 

APS submitted a new license 

application (NRC Form 398, ‘‘Personal 

Qualification Statement—Licensee’’) on 

behalf of Mr. Sharp. In that letter, APS 

requested, pursuant to 10 CFR 55.47(a), 

that the NRC waive the requirement for 

Mr. Sharp to take and pass an NRCadministered licensing examination 

(including both the written examination 

and operating test) normally required by 

10 CFR 55.33(a)(2) to approve an 

operator license application. In support 

of the request, APS stated that Mr. 

Sharp had previously been licensed at 

PVNGS for approximately 10 years, had 

extensive actual operating experience at 

the facility, had re-enrolled in the 

licensed operator requalification 

training program and made up the 

training that he had missed during his 

absence, and had passed the recently 

administered written requalification 

examination and operating test. As 

holder of the PVNGS facility operating 

license by which Mr. Sharp was 

previously employed and where his 

services would again be utilized, APS 

also provided the certifications of past 

performance and current qualifications 

required by 10 CFR 55.47(b) and (c). 

By letter dated January 29, 2009, the 

NRC notified Mr. Sharp that his request 

for a waiver of the written examination 

and operating test had been denied 

because he did not satisfy the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 37065 

experience requirements stated in 10 

CFR 55.47(a)(1). Although there was no 

question that Mr. Sharp had extensive 

operating experience at PVNGS, he had 

no actual operating experience at 

PVNGS (or any comparable facility) 

within the 2-year period immediately 

prior to the date of his application. The 

NRC letter informed Mr. Sharp that 

PVNGS could request an exemption 

from the requirements of 10 CFR 

55.47(a)(1) in accordance with 10 CFR 

55.11. The NRC letter did not 

specifically address the requirements of 

10 CFR 55.47(a)(2) and (3); however, the 

NRC staff found no reason to reject 

APS’s certification that Mr. Sharp 

would continue to competently and 

safely discharge his responsibilities and 

that he had learned the procedures for 

and was qualified to operate the PVNGS 

facility. 

Following receipt of the NRC letter of 

January 29, 2009, APS submitted the 

February 6, 2009, exemption request, 

which further explained the facility 

licensee’s need for the requested action. 

NRC Inspection Report 2008–002, dated 

May 9, 2008, had identified a violation 

involving the excessive use of operator 

overtime that resulted from a failure of 

APS to maintain a sufficient number of 

licensed operators at PVNGS. In order to 

increase its staff of licensed reactor 

operators as part of its corrective action 

for that violation, APS has been seeking 

to re-license individuals who had been 

previously licensed at PVNGS, and has 

increased the number of students in its 

licensed reactor operator training 

classes. 

3.0 Discussion 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.11, the 

Commission may, upon application by 

an interested person, or upon its own 

initiative, grant such exemptions from 

the requirements of the regulations in 

this part as it determines are authorized 

by law and will not endanger life or 

property and are otherwise in the public 

interest. The requested action would 

exempt Mr. Sharp from meeting the 

waiver requirement in 10 CFR 

55.47(a)(1) for an applicant to have had 

extensive actual operating experience 

within 2 years of the date of an operator 

license application. Mr. Sharp’s last 

actual operating experience at PVNGS 

(or a comparable facility) occurred on 

November 7, 2006, which was more 

than 2 years before the date on which 

APS submitted his current license 

application (December 10, 2008); 

therefore, the exemption would 

effectively extend the waiver criterion 

specified in 10 CFR 55.47(a)(1), by 

approximately 1 month. 

As described in the December 10, 

2008, license application and in APS’s 

February 6, 2009, exemption request, 

Mr. Sharp was away from the PVNGS 

and the licensed operator requalification 

training program for a period of 19 

months, from November 2006 to June 

2008. Since returning to PVNGS, Mr. 

Sharp has completed the following 

training and experience activities: 

• Through a process involving selfstudy and one-on-one instruction, Mr. 

Sharp made up all of the licensed 

operator requalification training that he 

had missed during his absence. Since 

completing that training, Mr. Sharp has 

rejoined and remains current in the 

PVNGS licensed operator requalification 

training program. 

• Mr. Sharp spent a total of 104 hours 

on shift as an operator under 

instruction, including 20 hours as a 

non-licensed operator performing plant 

walk-downs and tours, 36 hours as a 

Reactor Operator, and 48 hours as a 

Control Room Supervisor. 

• In September and October 2008, Mr. 

Sharp took and passed the regularly 

scheduled licensed operator written 

requalification examination, simulator 

operating test, and walk-through (job 

performance measure) operating test. 

• Since returning to the site in June 

2008, Mr. Sharp has been working as a 

Senior Reactor Operator certified 

classroom and simulator instructor at 

the PVNGS. This position requires 

detailed knowledge of the facility and 

its operating procedures at a level 

comparable to that required of a 

licensed senior reactor operator, and 

involves routine interaction with the 

facility’s operating staff. 

The NRC staff accepts the facility 

licensee’s certification that Mr. Sharp 

discharged his responsibilities 

competently and safely in the past and 

is capable of continuing to do so. 

Similarly, the NRC staff accepts the 

facility licensee’s certification that Mr. 

Sharp has learned the operating 

procedures for and is qualified to 

competently and safely operate the 

PVNGS facility. Therefore, based on 

these certifications and the additional 

information provided by APS in support 

of Mr. Sharp’s experience and 

qualifications, the NRC staff has 

concluded, pursuant to 10 CFR 55.11, 

that granting this exemption from the 

waiver criterion of 10 CFR 55.47(a)(1), 

will have a negligible effect on plant 

safety and will not endanger life or 

property. 

The NRC staff has also concluded, 

pursuant to 10 CFR 55.11, that granting 

this exemption to the waiver criterion of 

10 CFR 55.47(a)(1), is authorized by law 

and is otherwise in the public interest. 

Section 55.11 of 10 CFR allows the NRC 

to grant exemptions to the regulations in 

10 CFR part 55, and the NRC has 

determined that the granting of the 

proposed exemption will not result in a 

violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended, or the Commission’s 

regulations. Therefore, the exemption is 

authorized by law. As noted in the 

exemption request, Mr. Sharp only 

exceeded the waiver criterion of 10 CFR 

55.47(a)(1), for extensive actual 

operating experience within the 

previous 2 years, by 33 days; thus, the 

granting of the exemption in this 

instance would effectively extend that 

criterion by only a brief time. APS has 

had a shortage of licensed operators for 

PVNGS that resulted in an excessive use 

of operator overtime, which in turn led 

to the issuance of an NRC notice of 

violation and the establishment of an 

on-going activity in the corrective action 

program. Worker fatigue, at PVNGS and 

in the nuclear industry, in general, is of 

serious concern to the NRC and 

prompted the Commission to amend 10 

CFR part 26 in March 2008 to include 

new requirements for facility licensees 

to establish written policies for the 

management of fatigue for all 

individuals who are subject to the 

licensee’s fitness-for-duty program, 

including licensed reactor operators. 

The new regulations, which are 

scheduled to go into effect in the fall of 

2009, are expected to increase the 

number of licensed operators that 

facility licensees will need in order to 

maintain minimum shift staffing 

requirements without exceeding workhour limits. 

The next NRC licensing examination 

at PVNGS is currently scheduled for 

November 2009. Delaying Mr. Sharp’s 

opportunity to be re-licensed until that 

time would not serve the best interests 

of APS or the surrounding public, and 

the cost of preparing, approving, and 

administering a special licensing 

examination for Mr. Sharp would be 

substantial for both APS and the NRC, 

without a commensurate benefit to 

either party or the public. Therefore, the 

NRC has determined that the granting of 

this exemption is in the public interest. 

4.0 Conclusion 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 

55.11, granting an exemption from the 

requirements of 10 CFR 55.47(a)(1) to 

allow Mr. Sharp to be eligible for a 

waiver from the NRC licensing 

examination requirements, is authorized 

by law and will not endanger life or 

property and is otherwise in the public 

interest. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
37066 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 

Therefore, the Commission hereby 

grants APS an exemption from the 

requirements of 10 CFR 55.47(a)(1) for 

Mr. Mark A. Sharp, an applicant for a 

senior reactor operator license at the 

PVNGS. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the 

Commission has determined that the 

granting of this exemption will not have 

a significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment (74 FR 34803; 

dated July 17, 2009). 

This exemption is effective upon 

issuance. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day 

of July 2009. 

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Joseph G. Giitter, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E9–17790 Filed 7–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

Submission of Information Collection 

for OMB Review; Comment Request; 

Qualified Domestic Relations Orders 

Submitted to PBGC 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice of request for extension 

of OMB approval. 

SUMMARY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation (‘‘PBGC’’) is requesting 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). 

This notice informs the public of 

PBGC’s request and solicits public 

comment on the collection of 

information. 

DATES: Comments should be submitted 

by August 26, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 

via electronic mail at 

OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov or by fax 

to 202–395–6974. 

A copy of PBGC’s request 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 request 

is also available at http:// 

www.reginfo.gov. 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. (TTY and TDD users may call 

the Federal relay service toll-free at 1– 

800–877–8339 and ask to be connected 

to 202–326–4024.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PBGC is 

requesting that OMB extend its approval 

of the guidance and model language and 

forms contained in the PBGC booklet, 

Qualified Domestic Relations Orders & 

PBGC. 

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. However, Title I 

of ERISA provides an exception for 

domestic relations orders that relate to 

child support, alimony payments, or the 

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, or 

‘‘QDRO.’’ 

ERISA provides that pension plans 

are required to comply with only those 

domestic relations orders which are 

QDROs, and that the decision as to 

whether a domestic relations order is a 

QDRO is made by the plan 

administrator. 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 QDRO are 

established by statute. 

To simplify the process, PBGC has 

included model QDROs and 

accompanying guidance in a booklet, 

Qualified Domestic Relations Orders & 

PBGC.—The models and guidance assist 

parties by making it easier to comply 

with ERISA’s QDRO requirements when 

drafting orders for plans trusteed by 

PBGC. The booklet does not create any 

additional requirements. 

PBGC is not making any substantive 

revisions to the current QDRO booklet. 

One definition has been conformed to a 

change under the Pension Protection 

Act of 2006 and several references have 

been updated. 

The collection of information has 

been approved through August 31, 2009, 

by OMB under control number 1212– 

0054. PBGC is requesting that OMB 

extend approval of the collection of 

information for 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 annually 

and that the average annual burden of 

this collection of information is 2105 

hours and $495,060. 

Issued in Washington, DC, this 21 day of 

July, 2009. 

John H. Hanley, 

Director, Legislative and Regulatory 

Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. E9–17873 Filed 7–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7709–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. MC2009–27 and CP2009–37; 

Order No. 231] 

Priority Mail Contract 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Commission Order No. 231, 

which addresses a new Priority Mail 

contract, was inadvertently submitted to 

the Federal Register for publication in 

the Notices category. It appeared in that 

category on July 16, 2009 (74 FR 34598). 

Order No. 231 should have been 

submitted for publication in the ‘‘Rules’’ 

category, as this would have effectuated 

an intended change in the Code of 

Federal Regulations. The Commission is 

withdrawing the referenced Notice 

document and is submitting Order No. 

231 for publication in the appropriate 

category. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, general counsel, 

202–789–6820 or 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

Judith M. Grady, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–17811 Filed 7–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES