Emergency Preparedness and Response at the Pantex Plant, 76676-76677 [2015-31093]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
76676
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 237 / Thursday, December 10, 2015 / Notices
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these
results in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 2, 2015.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in
the Issues and Decision Memorandum
Summary
Background
Scope of the Order
Discussion of the Issues
Company-Specific Comments
Borusan
9. Duty Drawback and Treatment of the Yield
Loss Factor
10. Home Market Sales of Overruns and the
Ordinary Course of Trade
11. Domestic Inland Freight Expenses
12. International Freight Expenses
Toscelik
13. Billing Adjustments
14. Duty Drawback
15. Duty Drawback Adjustment to Cost
16. Toscelik’s Net Financial Expense
Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2015–31188 Filed 12–9–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES
SAFETY BOARD
[Recommendation 2015–1]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Emergency Preparedness and
Response at the Pantex Plant
Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board.
AGENCY:
19:33 Dec 09, 2015
The Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board (Board)
published a notice of a recommendation
to the Secretary of Energy in the Federal
Register of December 3, 2015, (80 FR
75665), concerning emergency
preparedness at the Pantex Plant. The
Board corrects that notice by providing
the additional information as set forth
below.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General Comments
1. Duty Drawback
2. Duty Drawback and Treatment of the
Resource Utilization Support Fund
3. Deducting Certain Expenses from the Duty
Drawback Calculation
4. Making a Duty Drawback Adjustment to
Normal Value and/or Capping the U.S.
Duty Drawback Adjustment
5. Treatment of Duty Drawback in the Cash
Deposit Rate and Assessment Rate
6. Other Arguments Related to Duty
Drawback
7. Differential Pricing Analysis Should Not
Be Used Because the Cohen’s d Test
Does Not Measure Targeted or Masked
Dumping
8. Differential Pricing Analysis Reasoning for
Use of Average-to-Transaction
Comparison Methodology is Arbitrary
and Unlawful
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Notice, recommendation;
correction.
ACTION:
Jkt 238001
Mark Welch, General Manager, Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625
Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700,
Washington, DC 20004–2901, or
telephone number (202) 694–7000.
Correction
In the Federal Register of December 3,
2015, in FR Doc. 2015–30562, on page
75673, in the first column, after line 37,
add the following information:
CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE
SECRETARY
Department of Energy
Under Secretary for Nuclear Security
Administrator, National Nuclear
Security Administration
Washington, DC 20585
November 4, 2015
The Honorable Joyce L. Connery
Chairman
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
65 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Madam Chairman:
On behalf of the Secretary, thank you
for the opportunity to review the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
(DNFSB) Draft Recommendation 2015–
1, Emergency Preparedness and
Response at the Pantex Plant. The
National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) has established
specific performance goals for the
Pantex Emergency Management
Program, to include improvements in
the three areas highlighted by the Draft
Recommendation 2015–1. These goals
are consistent with the mutually agreedupon benefits of implementing the
DNFSB Recommendation 2014–1.
The draft Recommendation’s risk
assessment states: ‘‘it is not possible to
do a quantitative assessment of the risk
of these [the Pantex Emergency
Management Program] elements to
provide adequate protection of the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
workers and the public.’’ As a point of
clarification, the Department of Energy
(DOE) demonstrates adequate protection
of workers, the public and the
environment as an integral part of
operating a nuclear facility like that
situated at the Pantex Plant. To this end,
the Department has put in place a
system of requirements, standards,
policies and guidance that, when
effectively implemented, not only
provide reasonable assurance of
adequate protection, but takes a very
conservative approach to ensure such
protection. Functions such as
emergency management provide that
additional conservatism and margin of
protection. We are confident that, even
with deficiencies identified by the
DNFSB, the Pantex Emergency
Management Program can perform its
role to ensure this protection.
Accordingly, DOE recommends
removing the phrase: ‘‘in order to
provide an adequate protection to the
public and the workers’’ in justifying
the need for the draft recommendation.
To increase protection assurances and
drive improvement in an effective and
efficient manner, I suggest that the best
approach to address the concerns
identified in your Draft
Recommendation is to incorporate
ongoing NNSA performance
improvement initiatives and
enhancements into the existing
implementation plans for
Recommendation 2014–1. This
approach would enable the Department
to take a holistic, integrated approach to
making the needed improvements at
Pantex.
We appreciate the DNFSB’s
perspective and look forward to
continued positive interactions with
you and your staff to include Pantexspecific actions and milestones in the
existing Implementation Plan for
Recommendation 2014–1.
If you have any questions, please
contact me or Mr. Geoffrey Beausoleil,
Manager, NNSA Production Office, at
865–576–0752.
Sincerely,
Frank G. Klotz
E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM
10DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 237 / Thursday, December 10, 2015 / Notices
76677
DISPOSITION OF DOE COMMENTS ON DRAFT RECOMMENDATION 2015–1
DOE comment
Board response
Revised wording
The draft Recommendation’s risk assessment states: ‘‘it is not
possible to do a quantitative assessment of the risk of these
[the Pantex Emergency Management Program] elements to
provide adequate protection of the workers and the public.’’
As a point of clarification, the Department of Energy (DOE)
demonstrates adequate protection of workers, the public and
the environment as an integral part of operating a nuclear
facility like that situated at the Pantex Plant. To this end, the
Department has put in place a system of requirements,
standards, policies and guidance that, when effectively implemented, not only provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection, but takes a very conservative approach to
ensure such protection. Functions such as emergency management provide that additional conservatism and margin of
protection. We are confident that, even with deficiencies
identified by the DNFSB, the Pantex Emergency Management Program can perform its role to ensure this protection.
Accordingly, DOE recommends removing the phrase: ‘‘in
order to provide an adequate protection to the public and
the workers’’ in justifying the need for the draft recommendation.
To increase protection assurances and drive improvement in
an effective and efficient manner, I suggest that the best approach to address the concerns identified in your Draft Recommendation is to incorporate ongoing NNSA performance
improvement initiatives and enhancements into the existing
implementation plans for Recommendation 2014–1. This approach would enable the Department to take a holistic, integrated approach to making the needed improvements at
Pantex.
Upon review of Draft Recommendation 2015–1, in the
noted phrase the word ‘‘provide’’ was used, whereas, in
similar references to adequate protection in other
parts of Draft Recommendation 2015–1, the word ‘‘ensure’’ was used. The Board
voted to amend the language to reflect that the
Recommendation is intended to ensure adequate
protection.
Original wording of last sentence in first paragraph of the text of the Recommendation:
‘‘We believe that DOE and National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) must address these concerns in order to provide an
adequate protection to the public and the
workers at the Pantex Plant.’’
Revised wording:
‘‘We believe that DOE and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) must
address these concerns in order to ensure
the adequate protection of the public and
the workers at the Pantex Plant.’’
As noted in the ‘‘Findings,
Supporting Data, and Analysis’’ document of Draft
Recommendation 2015–1,
the problems identified in
Draft Recommendation
2015–1 will not be adequately addressed by the
Board’s Recommendation
2014–1, Emergency Preparedness and Response.
No change.
Dated: December 4, 2015.
Joyce L. Connery,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 2015–31093 Filed 12–9–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3670–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket No.: ED–2015–ICCD–0137]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Comment Request;
Evaluation of Effectiveness of the
Scholarships for Opportunity and
Results (SOAR) Program
Institute of Education Sciences
(IES), Department of Education (ED).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is
proposing an extension of an existing
information collection.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before February
8, 2016.
ADDRESSES: To access and review all the
documents related to the information
collection listed in this notice, please
use https://www.regulations.gov by
searching the Docket ID number ED–
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:33 Dec 09, 2015
Jkt 238001
2015–ICCD–0137. Comments submitted
in response to this notice should be
submitted electronically through the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov by selecting the
Docket ID number or via postal mail,
commercial delivery, or hand delivery.
Please note that comments submitted by
fax or email and those submitted after
the comment period will not be
accepted. Written requests for
information or comments submitted by
postal mail or delivery should be
addressed to the Director of the
Information Collection Clearance
Division, U.S. Department of Education,
400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room
2E115, Washington, DC 20202–4537.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
specific questions related to collection
activities, please contact Meredith
Bachman, 202–219–2014.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Department of Education (ED), in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general
public and Federal agencies with an
opportunity to comment on proposed,
revised, and continuing collections of
information. This helps the Department
assess the impact of its information
collection requirements and minimize
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the public’s reporting burden. It also
helps the public understand the
Department’s information collection
requirements and provide the requested
data in the desired format. ED is
soliciting comments on the proposed
information collection request (ICR) that
is described below. The Department of
Education is especially interested in
public comment addressing the
following issues: (1) Is this collection
necessary to the proper functions of the
Department; (2) will this information be
processed and used in a timely manner;
(3) is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4) how might the Department enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (5) how
might the Department minimize the
burden of this collection on the
respondents, including through the use
of information technology. Please note
that written comments received in
response to this notice will be
considered public records.
Title of Collection: Evaluation of
Effectiveness of the Scholarships for
Opportunity and Results (SOAR)
Program.
OMB Control Number: 1850–0800.
Type of Review: An extension of an
existing information collection.
E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM
10DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 237 (Thursday, December 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76676-76677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31093]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
[Recommendation 2015-1]
Emergency Preparedness and Response at the Pantex Plant
AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
ACTION: Notice, recommendation; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) published
a notice of a recommendation to the Secretary of Energy in the Federal
Register of December 3, 2015, (80 FR 75665), concerning emergency
preparedness at the Pantex Plant. The Board corrects that notice by
providing the additional information as set forth below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Welch, General Manager, Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700,
Washington, DC 20004-2901, or telephone number (202) 694-7000.
Correction
In the Federal Register of December 3, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-30562,
on page 75673, in the first column, after line 37, add the following
information:
CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE SECRETARY
Department of Energy
Under Secretary for Nuclear Security
Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration
Washington, DC 20585
November 4, 2015
The Honorable Joyce L. Connery
Chairman
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
65 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Madam Chairman:
On behalf of the Secretary, thank you for the opportunity to review
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Draft
Recommendation 2015-1, Emergency Preparedness and Response at the
Pantex Plant. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has
established specific performance goals for the Pantex Emergency
Management Program, to include improvements in the three areas
highlighted by the Draft Recommendation 2015-1. These goals are
consistent with the mutually agreed-upon benefits of implementing the
DNFSB Recommendation 2014-1.
The draft Recommendation's risk assessment states: ``it is not
possible to do a quantitative assessment of the risk of these [the
Pantex Emergency Management Program] elements to provide adequate
protection of the workers and the public.'' As a point of
clarification, the Department of Energy (DOE) demonstrates adequate
protection of workers, the public and the environment as an integral
part of operating a nuclear facility like that situated at the Pantex
Plant. To this end, the Department has put in place a system of
requirements, standards, policies and guidance that, when effectively
implemented, not only provide reasonable assurance of adequate
protection, but takes a very conservative approach to ensure such
protection. Functions such as emergency management provide that
additional conservatism and margin of protection. We are confident
that, even with deficiencies identified by the DNFSB, the Pantex
Emergency Management Program can perform its role to ensure this
protection. Accordingly, DOE recommends removing the phrase: ``in order
to provide an adequate protection to the public and the workers'' in
justifying the need for the draft recommendation.
To increase protection assurances and drive improvement in an
effective and efficient manner, I suggest that the best approach to
address the concerns identified in your Draft Recommendation is to
incorporate ongoing NNSA performance improvement initiatives and
enhancements into the existing implementation plans for Recommendation
2014-1. This approach would enable the Department to take a holistic,
integrated approach to making the needed improvements at Pantex.
We appreciate the DNFSB's perspective and look forward to continued
positive interactions with you and your staff to include Pantex-
specific actions and milestones in the existing Implementation Plan for
Recommendation 2014-1.
If you have any questions, please contact me or Mr. Geoffrey
Beausoleil, Manager, NNSA Production Office, at 865-576-0752.
Sincerely,
Frank G. Klotz
[[Page 76677]]
Disposition of DOE Comments on Draft Recommendation 2015-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE comment Board response Revised wording
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The draft Recommendation's risk Upon review of Original wording
assessment states: ``it is not Draft of last sentence
possible to do a quantitative Recommendation in first
assessment of the risk of these 2015-1, in the paragraph of the
[the Pantex Emergency noted phrase the text of the
Management Program] elements to word ``provide'' Recommendation:
provide adequate protection of was used, ``We believe that
the workers and the public.'' whereas, in DOE and National
As a point of clarification, similar Nuclear Security
the Department of Energy (DOE) references to Administration
demonstrates adequate adequate (NNSA) must
protection of workers, the protection in address these
public and the environment as other parts of concerns in order
an integral part of operating a Draft to provide an
nuclear facility like that Recommendation adequate
situated at the Pantex Plant. 2015-1, the word protection to the
To this end, the Department has ``ensure'' was public and the
put in place a system of used. The Board workers at the
requirements, standards, voted to amend Pantex Plant.''
policies and guidance that, the language to Revised wording:
when effectively implemented, reflect that the ``We believe that
not only provide reasonable Recommendation is DOE and the
assurance of adequate intended to National Nuclear
protection, but takes a very ensure adequate Security
conservative approach to ensure protection. Administration
such protection. Functions such (NNSA) must
as emergency management provide address these
that additional conservatism concerns in order
and margin of protection. We to ensure the
are confident that, even with adequate
deficiencies identified by the protection of the
DNFSB, the Pantex Emergency public and the
Management Program can perform workers at the
its role to ensure this Pantex Plant.''
protection. Accordingly, DOE
recommends removing the phrase:
``in order to provide an
adequate protection to the
public and the workers'' in
justifying the need for the
draft recommendation.
To increase protection As noted in the No change.
assurances and drive ``Findings,
improvement in an effective and Supporting Data,
efficient manner, I suggest and Analysis''
that the best approach to document of Draft
address the concerns identified Recommendation
in your Draft Recommendation is 2015-1, the
to incorporate ongoing NNSA problems
performance improvement identified in
initiatives and enhancements Draft
into the existing Recommendation
implementation plans for 2015-1 will not
Recommendation 2014-1. This be adequately
approach would enable the addressed by the
Department to take a holistic, Board's
integrated approach to making Recommendation
the needed improvements at 2014-1, Emergency
Pantex. Preparedness and
Response.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: December 4, 2015.
Joyce L. Connery,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 2015-31093 Filed 12-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
