73136 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices 

31, 2010 deadline, as extended for this 

specific licensee to December 15, 2010, 

by the exemption granted on August 27, 

2009, until July 15, 2011. Being granted 

this exemption for these items will 

allow the licensee to complete the 

modifications designed to update 

equipment and incorporate state-of-theart technology to meet the noted 

regulatory requirement. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC staff has completed its 

environmental assessment of the 

proposed exemption and has concluded 

that the proposed action to extend the 

implementation deadline would not 

significantly affect plant safety and 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the probability of an accident 

occurring. The proposed action would 

not result in an increased radiological 

hazard beyond those previously 

analyzed. There will be no change to 

radioactive effluents that effect radiation 

exposures to plant workers and 

members of the public. The proposed 

action does not involve a change to 

plant buildings or land areas on the FNP 

site. Therefore, no changes or different 

types of radiological impacts are 

expected as a result of the proposed 

exemption. 

The proposed action does not result 

in changes to land use or water use, or 

result in changes to the quality or 

quantity of non-radiological effluents. 

No changes to the National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System permit 

are needed. No effects on the aquatic or 

terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the 

plant, or to threatened, endangered, or 

protected species under the Endangered 

Species Act, or impacts to essential fish 

habitat covered by the MagnusonSteven’s Act are expected. There are no 

impacts to the air or ambient air quality. 

There are no impacts to historical and 

cultural resources. There would be no 

impact to socioeconomic resources. 

Therefore, no changes to or different 

types of non-radiological environmental 

impacts are expected as a result of the 

proposed exemption. Accordingly, the 

NRC staff concludes that there are no 

significant environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed action. 

The licensee currently maintains a 

security system acceptable to the NRC 

and the NRC expects that the licensee 

will continue to maintain the 

effectiveness of the overall physical 

protection program and protective 

strategy for the duration of this 

exemption. Therefore, the extension of 

the implementation date of the new 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 73 to July 

15, 2011, would not have any significant 

environmental impacts. 

The NRC staff’s safety evaluation will 

be provided in the exemption that will 

be issued as part of the letter to the 

licensee approving the exemption to the 

regulation. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

actions, the NRC staff considered denial 

of the proposed actions (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the 

exemption request would result in no 

change in current environmental 

impacts. The environmental impacts of 

the proposed exemption and technical 

specification change and the ‘‘no action’’ 

alternative are similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The action does not involve the use of 

any different resources than those 

considered in the Final Environmental 

Statement for the FNP, as supplemented 

through the ‘‘Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal 

of Nuclear Plants: Joseph M. Farley 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2—Final 

Report (NUREG—1437, Supplement 

18).’’ 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on November 15, 2010, the NRC staff 

consulted with the Alabama State 

official, Mr. David Walters of the 

Alabama Department of Public Health, 

regarding the environmental impact of 

the proposed action. The State official 

had no comments. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the environmental 

assessment, the NRC staff concludes 

that the proposed action will not have 

a significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC staff has determined not to prepare 

an environmental impact statement for 

the proposed action. 

For further details with respect to the 

proposed action, see the licensee’s 

letters dated September 10, 2010 and 

October 5, 2009. The licensee has 

provided a redacted version of the 

September 10, 2010 letter that is 

publically available and the October 5, 

2010 transmittal letter is publically 

available. The edition of the September 

10, 2010 letter and its enclosure and the 

enclosure to the October 5, 2010 letter 

that contains proprietary securityrelated information is not available to 

the public. Other parts of these 

documents may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR), located at One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible electronically from the 

Agencywide Document Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 

at the NRC Web site: http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 

Persons who do not have access to 

ADAMS or who encounter problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR 

Reference staff by telephone at 1–800– 

397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or send an 

e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day 

of November, 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Robert E. Martin, 

Sr. Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 

II–1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29940 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2010–0002] 

Sunshine Act Notice 

DATES: Week of November 29, 2010. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and closed. 

Additional Items To Be Considered 

Week of November 29, 2010 

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 

10 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public 

Meeting) (Tentative). 

a. Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts 

Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2), Southern 

Alliance for Clean Energy’s Petition for 

Interlocutory Review of LBP–10–12 

(Denying SACE’s Waiver Petition) (July 

14, 2010) (Tentative). 

* * * * * 

* The schedule for Commission 

meetings is subject to change on short 

notice. To verify the status of meetings, 

call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. 

Contact person for more information: 

Rochelle Bavol, (301) 415–1651. 

* * * * * 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the Internet 

at: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policymaking/schedule.html. 

* * * * * 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices 73137 

1See 17 CFR 240.17g–5(a)(3). 

2See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62120 

(May 19, 2010), 75 FR 28825 (May 24, 2010) 

(‘‘Order’’). 

3See id. at 28827–28 (setting forth conditions of 

relief). 

4 17 CFR 240.17g–5(b) and (c). 

5 17 CFR 240.17g–5(a). 

6 15 U.S.C. 78o–7(a)(1)(B)(vi). 

7 17 CFR 240.17g–1. 

8 15 U.S.C. 78o–7(h). 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g. 

braille, large print), please notify Angela 

Bolduc, Chief, Employee/Labor 

Relations and Work Life Branch, at 301– 

492–2230, TDD: 301–415–2100, or by 

e-mail at angela.bolduc@nrc.gov. 

Determinations on requests for 

reasonable accommodation will be 

made on a case-by-case basis. 

* * * * * 

This notice is distributed 

electronically to subscribers. If you no 

longer wish to receive it, or would like 

to be added to the distribution, please 

contact the Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), 

or send an e-mail to 

darlene.wright@nrc.gov. 

Dated: November 22, 2010. 

Rochelle C. Bavol, 

Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30093 Filed 11–24–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request 

Upon Written Request, Copies Available 

From: Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of Investor 

Education and Advocacy, 

Washington, DC 20549–0213. 

Extension: 

Rule 701, OMB Control No. 3235–0522, 

SEC File No. 270–306. 

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments 

on the collection of information 

summarized below. The Commission 

plans to submit this existing collection 

of information to the Office of 

Management and Budget for extension 

and approval. 

Rule 701 (17 CFR 230.701) under the 

Securities Act of 1933 (‘‘Securities Act’’) 

(15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) provides an 

exemption for certain issuers from the 

registration requirements of the 

Securities Act for limited offerings and 

sales of securities issued under 

compensatory benefit plans or contracts. 

The purpose of Rule 701 is to ensure 

that a basic level of information is 

available to employees and others when 

substantial amounts of securities are 

issued in compensatory arrangements. 

Approximately 300 companies annually 

rely on the Rule 701 exemption. The 

Rule 701 disclosure takes an estimated 

2 hours per response to prepare for a 

total annual burden of 600 hours. We 

estimate that 25% of the 2 hours per 

response (0.5 hours) is prepared by the 

company for a total annual reporting 

burden of 150 hours (0.5 hours per 

response × 300 responses). 

Written comments are invited on: (a) 

Whether this collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden imposed 

by the collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information collected; and 

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Consideration will be given to 

comments and suggestions submitted in 

writing within 60 days of this 

publication. 

Please direct your written comments 

to Thomas Bayer, Chief Information 

Officer, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 

6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, 

Virginia 22312; or send an e-mail to: 

PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov. 

Dated: November 22, 2010. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29889 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–63363; File No. S7–04–09] 

Order Extending Temporary 

Conditional Exemption for Nationally 

Recognized Statistical Rating 

Organizations From Requirements of 

Rule 17g–5 Under the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 and Request for 

Comment 

November 23, 2010. 

I. Introduction 

On May 19, 2010, the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) 

conditionally exempted, with respect to 

certain credit ratings and until 

December 2, 2010, nationally recognized 

statistical rating organizations 

(‘‘NRSROs’’) from certain requirements 

in Rule 17g–5(a)(3) 1 under the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Exchange Act’’), which had a 

compliance date of June 2, 2010.2

Pursuant to the Order, an NRSRO is not 

required to comply with Rule 17g– 

5(a)(3) until December 2, 2010 with 

respect to credit ratings where: (1) The 

issuer of the structured finance product 

is a non-U.S. person; and (2) the NRSRO 

has a reasonable basis to conclude that 

the structured finance product will be 

offered and sold upon issuance, and that 

any arranger linked to the structured 

finance product will effect transactions 

of the structured finance product after 

issuance, only in transactions that occur 

outside the U.S. (‘‘covered 

transactions’’).3 The Commission is 

extending the temporary conditional 

exemption exempting NRSROs from 

complying with Rule 17g–5(a)(3) with 

respect to rating covered transactions 

until December 2, 2011. 

II. Background 

Rule 17g–5 identifies, in paragraphs 

(b) and (c) of the rule, a series of 

conflicts of interest arising from the 

business of determining credit ratings.4

Paragraph (a) of Rule 17g–5 5 prohibits 

an NRSRO from issuing or maintaining 

a credit rating if it is subject to the 

conflicts of interest identified in 

paragraph (b) of Rule 17g–5 unless the 

NRSRO has taken the steps prescribed 

in paragraph (a)(1) (i.e., disclosed the 

type of conflict of interest in Exhibit 6 

to Form NRSRO in accordance with 

Section 15E(a)(1)(B)(vi) of the Exchange 

Act 6 and Rule 17g–1) 7 and paragraph 

(a)(2) (i.e., established and is 

maintaining and enforcing written 

policies and procedures to address and 

manage conflicts of interest in 

accordance with Section 15E(h) of the 

Exchange Act).8 Paragraph (c) of Rule 

17g–5 specifically prohibits seven types 

of conflicts of interest. Consequently, an 

NRSRO is prohibited from issuing or 

maintaining a credit rating when it is 

subject to these conflicts regardless of 

whether it had disclosed them and 

established procedures reasonably 

designed to address them. 

In December 2009, the Commission 

adopted subparagraph (a)(3) to Rule 

17g–5. This provision requires an 

NRSRO that is hired by an arranger to 

determine an initial credit rating for a 

structured finance product to take 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES