67622 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

is not exempting any data in the system 

regarding an individual’s credit or debit 

card transaction. This system, however, 

may contain records or information 

pertaining to the accounting of 

disclosures made from this system to 

other law enforcement or intelligence 

agencies (federal, state, local, foreign, 

international or tribal) in accordance 

with the published routine uses or 

statutory basis for disclosure under 5 

U.S.C. 552a(b). For the accounting of 

these disclosures only, in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), and (k)(2), DHS 

will claim exemptions for these records 

or information. 

II. Privacy Act 

The Privacy Act embodies fair 

information practice principles in a 

statutory framework governing the 

means by which the U.S. government 

collects, maintains, uses, and 

disseminates personally identifiable 

information. The Privacy Act applies to 

information that is maintained in a 

‘‘system of records.’’ A ‘‘system of 

records’’ is a group of any records under 

the control of an agency from which 

information is retrieved by the name of 

the individual or by some identifying 

number, symbol, or other identifying 

particular assigned to the individual. In 

the Privacy Act, an individual is defined 

to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful 

permanent residents. As a matter of 

policy, DHS extends administrative 

Privacy Act protections to all 

individuals where systems of records 

maintain information on U.S. citizens, 

lawful permanent residents, and 

visitors. 

The Privacy Act allows government 

agencies to exempt certain records from 

the access and amendment provisions. If 

an agency claims an exemption, 

however, it must issue a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to 

the public the reasons why a particular 

exemption is claimed. 

DHS is claiming exemptions from 

certain requirements of the Privacy Act 

for DHS/CBP–003 CDCDS System of 

Records. Some information in DHS/ 

CBP–003 CDCDS System of Records 

relates to official DHS law enforcement 

and immigration activities; specifically, 

records or information pertaining to the 

accounting of disclosures made from 

this system to other law enforcement or 

intelligence agencies (Federal, state, 

local, foreign, international or tribal) in 

accordance with the published routine 

uses or statutory basis for disclosure 

under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b). These 

exemptions are needed to protect 

information relating to DHS activities 

from disclosure to subjects or others 

related to these activities. Specifically, 

the exemptions are required to preclude 

subjects of these activities from 

frustrating these processes and to avoid 

disclosure of activity techniques. 

Disclosure of information to the subject 

of the inquiry could also permit the 

subject to avoid detection or 

apprehension. 

The exemptions proposed here are 

standard law enforcement and national 

security exemptions exercised by a large 

number of federal law enforcement and 

intelligence agencies. In appropriate 

circumstances, where compliance 

would not appear to interfere with or 

adversely affect the law enforcement 

purposes of this system and the overall 

law enforcement process, the applicable 

exemptions may be waived on a case by 

case basis. 

A notice of system of records for DHS/ 

CBP–0 CDCDS System of Records is also 

published in this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5 

Freedom of information; Privacy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DHS proposes to amend 

Chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows: 

PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS 

AND INFORMATION 

1. The authority citation for Part 5 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; Pub. L. 

107–296, 116 Stat. 2135; 5 U.S.C. 301. 

Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. 

Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a. 

2. Add at the end of Appendix C to 

Part 5, the following new paragraph ‘‘1’’: 

Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of 

Records Exempt From the Privacy Act 

* * * * * 

63. The DHS/CBP–003 CDCDS System of 

Records consists of electronic and paper 

records and will be used by DHS and its 

components. The DHS/CBP–003 CDCDS 

System of Records is a repository of 

information held by DHS in connection with 

its several and varied missions and functions, 

including, but not limited to the enforcement 

of civil and criminal laws; investigations, 

inquiries, and proceedings thereunder; 

national security and intelligence activities.. 

The DHS/CBP–003 CDCDS System of 

Records contains information that is 

collected by, on behalf of, in support of, or 

in cooperation with DHS and its components 

and may contain personally identifiable 

information collected by other Federal, State, 

local, tribal, foreign, or international 

government agencies. The Secretary of 

Homeland Security has exempted this system 

from the following provisions of the Privacy 

Act, subject to limitations set forth in 5 

U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4), (e)(8), and (g) 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2). 

Exemptions from these particular subsections 

are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be 

determined at the time a request is made, for 

the following reasons: 

(a) From subsection (c)(3) and (4) 

(Accounting for Disclosures) because release 

of the accounting of disclosures could alert 

the subject of an investigation of an actual or 

potential criminal, civil, or regulatory 

violation to the existence of that investigation 

and reveal investigative interest on the part 

of DHS as well as the recipient agency. 

Disclosure of the accounting would therefore 

present a serious impediment to law 

enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve 

national security. Disclosure of the 

accounting would also permit the individual 

who is the subject of a record to impede the 

investigation, to tamper with witnesses or 

evidence, and to avoid detection or 

apprehension, which would undermine the 

entire investigative process. 

(b) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on 

Individuals) because compliance would 

interfere with DHS’s ability to obtain, serve, 

and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law 

enforcement mechanisms that may be filed 

under seal and could result in disclosure of 

investigative techniques, procedures, and 

evidence. 

(c) From subsection (g)(1) (Civil Remedies) 

to the extent that the system is exempt from 

other specific subsections of the Privacy Act. 

Dated: October 3, 2011. 

Mary Ellen Callahan, 

Chief Privacy Officer, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2011–28400 Filed 11–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 609 and 950 

RIN 1990–AA38 

Modification of Regulatory Provisions 

Requiring Credit Rating or 

Assessments in Accordance With 

Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act 

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, 

Department of Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank 

Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act (the Act), the Department 

of Energy (DOE) has reviewed DOE 

regulations that require the use of an 

assessment of the credit-worthiness of a 

security or money market instrument. 

DOE has identified regulatory 

provisions that may be subject to the 

Act’s requirement to remove any 

references to or requirements in such 

regulations regarding credit ratings. The 

regulations DOE identified are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 67623 

regulations implementing the loan 

guarantee program created by Title XVII 

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and 

regulations implementing the standby 

support program for certain nuclear 

plant delays promulgated pursuant to 

section 638 of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005. DOE provided a report of its 

review to Congress as required by the 

Act and, as a result of this review, 

proposes to modify these regulatory 

provisions to remove provisions that 

would require applicants or sponsors to 

provide a credit rating or other credit 

assessment to DOE. 

DATES: Comments on these proposed 

procedures must be postmarked by 

December 2, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit comments, identified by 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

1990–AA38, by any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: 1990-AA38@hq.doe.gov. 

Include RIN 1990–AA38 in the subject 

line of the message. 

3. Postal Mail: Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Room 6A–245, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Please submit one signed paper 

original and include RIN 1990–AA38 on 

your submission. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Office of 

the General Counsel, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Room 6A–245, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–5281. Please 

submit one signed paper original and 

include RIN 1990–AA38 on your 

submission. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Samuel Walsh, Office of the General 

Counsel, Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121; phone: 

(202) 586–6732; email: 1990- 

AA38@hq.doe.gov. Include RIN 1990– 

AA38 in the subject line of the message. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

939A(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

(the Act), Public Law 111–203, requires 

Federal agencies, including DOE, to 

review (1) any regulation issued by such 

agency that requires the use of an 

assessment of the credit-worthiness of a 

security or money market instrument; 

and (2) any reference to or requirements 

in such regulations regarding credit 

ratings. Subsequent to such review, 

section 939A(b) requires Federal 

agencies to modify any such regulations 

to remove any references to or 

requirements of reliance on credit 

ratings and to substitute an appropriate 

standard of credit-worthiness. To the 

extent feasible, Federal agencies must 

seek to establish uniform standards of 

credit-worthiness, taking into account 

the regulated entities and the purposes 

for which such entities would rely on 

the established standard of creditworthiness. Section 939A(c) also 

requires Federal agencies to submit a 

report to Congress describing any 

regulatory modifications at the 

conclusion of its review. 

DOE submitted a report to Congress 

on July 20, 2011, describing the results 

of its review and the regulatory changes 

DOE was considering. These changes 

consist of revisions to DOE regulations 

implementing the loan guarantee 

program created by Title XVII of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (10 CFR 

609.6, 609.8 and 609.9) and its 

regulations implementing the standby 

support program for certain nuclear 

plant delays promulgated pursuant to 

section 638 of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 (10 CFR 950.10). In today’s 

proposed rule, DOE proposes changes to 

these regulatory provisions to references 

to or requirements of reliance on credit 

ratings. DOE believes that the remaining 

provisions in both 10 CFR part 609 and 

10 CFR part 950 provide an appropriate 

standard of creditworthiness for 

potential applicants and sponsors. 

DOE’s Loan Programs Office currently 

conducts an internal risk analysis 

pursuant to its policies and procedures. 

This analysis is independent of any 

third-party rating and does not require 

the submission of a credit rating or 

credit assessment. For the standby 

support program, a potential sponsor 

would still be required to submit a 

detailed business plan that includes 

intended financing for the project 

including the credit structure and all 

sources and uses of funds for the 

project, and the projected cash flows for 

all debt obligations of the advanced 

nuclear facility which would be covered 

under the Standby Support Contract. 

Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of E.O. 12866. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of a final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) for any rule that by law must be 

proposed for public comment, unless 

the agency certifies that the rule, if 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. As required by 

Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking’’ 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 

16, 2002), DOE published procedures 

and policies on February 19, 2003, to 

ensure that the potential impacts of its 

rules on small entities are properly 

considered during the rulemaking 

process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 

procedures and policies available on the 

Office of the General Counsel’s Web site 

(www.gc.doe.gov). 

DOE has reviewed today’s proposed 

rule under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and certifies that, if adopted, the 

rule would not have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. DOE believes that it is unlikely 

that any entities wishing to contract 

with DOE to offer standby support for 

the specified nuclear plant delays under 

10 CFR part 950 are considered small 

entities. The SBA considers a firm 

engaged in nuclear power generation 

(NAICS Code 221113) to be a small 

business if, including its affiliates, the 

firm is primarily engaged in the 

generation, transmission, and/or 

distribution of electric energy for sale 

and its total electric output for the 

preceding fiscal year did not exceed 

4 million megawatt hours. Because 

nuclear reactors cost on average $4–6 

billion per reactor to construct and 

likely exceed the 4 million megawatt 

hours per year threshold, DOE believes 

that nuclear firms who would engage 

with DOE in standby support activities 

are not small entities. DOE recognizes 

that some applicants for assistance 

under 10 CFR part 609 may be small 

businesses according to SBA size 

standards. DOE believes, however, that 

the impact of the proposed rule on both 

nuclear standby support providers and 

applicants for assistance would not be 

significant. The proposed rule would 

delete from the regulations any 

requirements to provide a credit rating 

or other credit assessment to DOE as 

part of any application, which is 

expected to decrease the burden on 

applicants. In addition to reducing 

regulatory burden, this proposal would 

save nuclear standby support providers 

and applicants for assistance the cost of 

a credit rating, which is determined 

based on negotiations between the 

applicant and the rating agency. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains 

collection-of-information requirements 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

67624 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA). This requirement has been 

submitted to OMB for approval. Public 

reporting burden for submission of the 

required information for the Loan 

Guarantee Program is estimated to 

average 12 hours per response. These 

burden estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Public comment is sought regarding: 

Whether this proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

the accuracy of the burden estimate; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information, 

including through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. Send comments 

on these or any other aspects of the 

collection of information for the Loan 

Guarantee Program to Alvin Leong at 

Alvin.leong@hq.doe.gov and Chad 

Whiteman at 

Chad_S._Whiteman@omb.eop.gov. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

In this proposed rule, DOE proposes 

to delete requirements to provide a 

credit rating or other credit assessment 

as part of an application for financial 

assistance or an application to enter into 

a conditional agreement to provide 

standby support for certain nuclear 

plant delays. DOE has determined that 

proposed change falls within the 

categorical exclusion found at paragraph 

A5 of Appendix A to Subpart D, 10 CFR 

part 1021, which applies to amending 

an existing rule or regulation that does 

not change the environmental effect of 

the rule or regulation being amended. 

Accordingly, neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental 

impact statement is required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications. On March 

14, 2000, DOE published a statement of 

policy describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE has considered today’s 

proposed rule in accordance with EO 

13132 and its policy and determined 

that this proposed rule, if adopted, 

would not preempt State law or have 

any federalism impacts. No further 

action is required by Executive Order 

13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform’’ imposes on Federal agencies 

the general duty to adhere to the 

following requirements: (1) Eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 

(February 7, 1996). Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this 

proposed rule meets the relevant 

standards of Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires each Federal agency to 

assess the effects of Federal regulatory 

actions on State, local, and Tribal 

governments and the private sector. For 

proposed regulatory actions likely to 

result in a rule that may cause 

expenditures by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish estimates of 

the resulting costs, benefits, and other 

effects on the national economy. (2 

U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) UMRA also requires 

Federal agencies to develop an effective 

process to permit timely input by 

elected officers of State, local, and 

Tribal governments on a proposed 

‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate.’’ In addition, UMRA requires 

an agency plan for giving notice and 

opportunity for timely input to small 

governments that may be affected before 

establishing a requirement that might 

significantly or uniquely affect them. On 

March 18, 1997, DOE published a 

statement of policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820. (This policy is 

also available at http://www.gc.doe.gov). 

Today’s proposed rule contains neither 

an intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

would not result in any takings which 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 67625 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) 

provides for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

today’s notice under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) 

is a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, or any successor 

order; and (2) is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is 

designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has concluded that today’s 

regulatory action, which would delete 

requirements to provide a credit rating 

or other credit assessment as part of an 

application for financial assistance or an 

application to enter into a conditional 

agreement to provide standby support 

for certain nuclear plant delays, is not 

a significant energy action because the 

proposed standards are not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, 

nor has it been designated as such by 

the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects for the proposed rule. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology (OSTP), issued its Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 

14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that 

certain scientific information shall be 

peer reviewed by qualified specialists 

before it is disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. DOE has 

determined that today’s proposed rule 

does not contain any influential or 

highly influential scientific information 

that would be subject to the peer review 

requirements of the OMB Bulletin. 

Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 609 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Energy, Loan programs, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

10 CFR Part 950 

Government contracts, Nuclear safety. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 25, 

2011. 

David Frantz, 

Director of the Origination Division of the 

Loan Programs Office. 

John Kelly, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear 

Reactor Technologies. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend Part 

609 of Chapter II and Part 950 of 

Chapter III of Title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations, to read as set forth below: 

PART 609—LOAN GUARANTEES FOR 

PROJECTS THAT EMPLOY 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES 

1. The authority citation for part 609 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7254, 16511–16514. 

§ 609.6 [Amended] 

2. Section 609.6 is amended by: 

a. Removing paragraphs (b)(21); 

b. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(22) 

through (b)(29) as (b)(21) through 

(b)(28). 

3. In § 609.8 revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 609.8 Term sheets and conditional 

commitments. 

(a) DOE, after review and evaluation 

of the Application, additional 

information requested and received by 

DOE, and information obtained as the 

result of meeting with the Applicant 

and the Eligible Lender or other Holder, 

may offer to an Applicant and the 

Eligible Lender or other Holder detailed 

terms and conditions that must be met, 

including terms and conditions that 

must be met by the Applicant and the 

Eligible Lender or other Holder. 

* * * * * 

§ 609.9 [Amended] 

4. Section 609.9 is amended by: 

a. Removing paragraph (f); 

b. Redesignating paragraph (g) as 

paragraph (f). 

PART 950—STANDBY SUPPORT FOR 

CERTAIN NUCLEAR PLANT DELAYS 

5. The authority citation for Part 950 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201, 42 U.S.C. 7101 

et seq., and 42 U.S.C. 16014. 

6. Section 950.10 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 950.10 Conditional agreement. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) A detailed business plan that 

includes intended financing for the 

project including the credit structure 

and all sources and uses of funds for the 

project, and the projected cash flows for 

all debt obligations of the advanced 

nuclear facility which would be covered 

under the Standby Support Contract; 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–28242 Filed 11–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–1167; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–058–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A319 and A320 Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS