Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Notices 45657 

3.0 Alternatives To Be Evaluated 

No-Action—The no-action alternative 

would be not to issue the license. Under 

this alternative, the NRC would not 

approve the license application for the 

proposed ISR facility. This serves as a 

baseline for comparison. 

Proposed action—The proposed 

Federal action is to issue a license to use 

or process source material at the 

proposed ISR facility. The license 

review process analyzes the 

construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of ISR facility and 

restoration of the aquifer from which the 

uranium is being extracted. The ISR 

facility would be located in Sweetwater 

County, Wyoming, approximately 70 

miles southeast of Lander, Wyoming 

and approximately 40 miles northwest 

of Rawlins, Wyoming. The applicant 

would be issued an NRC license under 

the provisions of 10 CFR Part 40. 

Other alternatives not listed here may 

be identified through the environmental 

review process. 

4.0 Environmental Impact Areas To 

Be Analyzed 

The following areas have been 

tentatively identified for analysis in the 

SEIS: 

• Land Use: Plans, policies, and 

controls; 

• Transportation: Transportation 

modes, routes, quantities, and risk 

estimates; 

• Geology and Soils: Physical 

geography, topography, geology, and 

soil characteristics; 

• Water Resources: Surface and 

groundwater hydrology, water use and 

quality, and the potential for 

degradation; 

• Ecology: Wetlands, aquatic, 

terrestrial, economically and 

recreationally important species, and 

threatened and endangered species; 

• Air Quality: Meteorological 

conditions, ambient background, 

pollutant sources, and the potential for 

degradation; 

• Noise: Ambient, sources, and 

sensitive receptors; 

• Historical and Cultural Resources: 

Historical, archaeological, and 

traditional cultural resources; 

• Visual and Scenic Resources: 

Landscape characteristics, manmade 

features and viewshed; 

• Socioeconomics: Demography, 

economic base, labor pool, housing, 

transportation, utilities, public services/ 

facilities, and education; 

• Environmental Justice: Potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts to minority and low-income 

populations; 

• Public and Occupational Health: 

Potential public and occupational 

consequences from construction, 

routine operation, transportation, and 

credible accident scenarios (including 

natural events); 

• Waste Management: Types of 

wastes expected to be generated, 

handled, and stored; and 

• Cumulative Effects: Impacts from 

past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions at and near the 

site(s). 

This list is not intended to be all 

inclusive, nor is it a predetermination of 

potential environmental impacts. 

5.0 The NEPA Process 

The SEIS for the Lost Creek ISR 

Project will be prepared pursuant to the 

NRC’s NEPA Regulations at 10 CFR Part 

51. The NRC will continue its 

environmental review of the application 

and as soon as practicable, the NRC and 

its contractor will prepare and publish 

a draft SEIS. NRC currently plans to 

have a 45-day public comment period 

for the draft SEIS. Availability of the 

draft SEIS and the dates of the public 

comment period will be announced in 

the Federal Register and the NRC Web 

site: http://www.nrc.gov. The final SEIS 

will include responses to public 

comments received on the draft SEIS. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day 

of August 2009. 

For the 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. E9–21285 Filed 9–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0386] 

Notice of Availability of Revised Fuel 

Cycle Oversight Process 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Request for public comment on 

revision of the NRC’s fuel cycle 

oversight program. 

SUMMARY: 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) is proposing significant revisions 

to its processes for overseeing the safety 

and security of fuel cycle facilities. The 

NRC plans to develop a revised 

oversight process for fuel cycle facilities 

that is more risk-informed, and 

performance-based, resulting in more 

objective, predictable, and transparent 

results of licensee or certificate holder 

assessments. (This notice will use 

‘‘licensees’’ throughout, but in doing so 

the intent is also to include ‘‘certificate 

holders.’’) Current oversight consists 

mainly of inspections, enforcement and 

periodic assessments based on 

inspection findings. NRC staff intends 

that any revised oversight would not 

establish any new regulatory 

requirements. Rather, revised oversight 

would improve inspection and 

assessment so that NRC conclusions 

would be more closely based on risk 

and more understandable to members of 

the public. Revised oversight could 

potentially add objective measures of 

performance, called performance 

indicators, with criteria for measuring 

acceptable performance. However, 

development of performance indicators 

may not be part of the initial revision to 

the oversight process. Inspections 

would focus in areas of highest risk that 

are not well-measured by performance 

indicators and on validating 

performance indicator information. 

Assessments would be based on more 

objective criteria. Supplemental 

inspections (those above and beyond the 

number and type of inspections normal 

for a well-performing plant) of licensees 

whose performance shows indications 

of decline, would also be based on 

objective criteria. These principles are 

currently applied by the NRC in the 

oversight of power reactor safety and 

security and is outlined in ‘‘Reactor 

Oversight Process,’’ NUREG–1649, 

(Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System [ADAMS] 

Accession No. ML070890365). 

Since 1999, the NRC has undertaken 

several initiatives to examine and 

improve the NRC’s oversight process for 

fuel cycle facilities, including those 

licensed or certified under Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) Part 40 (Domestic Licensing of 

Source Material), Part 70 (Domestic 

Licensing of Special Nuclear Material), 

and Part 76 (Certification of Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants). Although previous 

efforts resulted in some revisions to 

inspection and assessment procedures, 

current NRC oversight could be 

improved by more fully incorporating 

into inspection and assessment the risk 

insights of licensees’ integrated safety 

analyses, where applicable (the 

requirement to perform an integrated 

safety analysis apply only to 10 CFR 

Part 70 licensees). Integrated safety 

analyses establish safety controls based 

on analyses of potential hazards at a 

facility. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
45658 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Notices 

To meet the objective of developing 

an oversight process with an improved 

degree of transparency, predictability, 

objectivity and consistency, using riskinformed and performance-based tools, 

the staff is undertaking a comprehensive 

effort to develop a Revised Fuel Cycle 

Oversight Process (RFCOP). The staff’s 

efforts will be consistent with the recent 

guidance in this area, notably the 

guidance provided in the Staff 

Requirements Memoranda dated April 

3, 2008, and February 17, 2009 

(Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System [ADAMS] 

Accession Nos. ML080940439 and 

ML090490032), and will be responsive 

to recommendations in the Office of 

Inspector General report OIG 07–A–06 

(ADAMS ML070100282). 

DATES: The comment period expires 

November 2, 2009. Comments received 

after this date will be considered if it is 

practical to do so, but the Commission 

is able to ensure consideration only for 

comments received on or before this 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of the following methods. 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2009– 

0386 in the subject line of your 

comments. Comments submitted in 

writing or electronic format will be 

posted on the NRC Web site and on the 

Federal rulemaking Web site 

Regulations.gov. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying information, the NRC 

cautions you against including any 

information in your submission that you 

do not want to be publically disclosed. 

The NRC requests that any party 

soliciting or aggregating comments 

received from other persons for 

submission to the NRC inform those 

persons that the NRC will not edit their 

comments to remove any identifying or 

contact information, and therefore they 

should not include any information in 

their comments that they do not want 

publically disclosed. 

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

NRC–2009–0386. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 

301–492–3668; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

Mail comments to: Michael T. Lesar, 

Chief, Rules and Directives Branch 

(RDB), Division of Administrative 

Services, Office of Administration, Mail 

Stop: TWB–05–B10M, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, or by fax to RBD at 

(301) 492–3446. 

You can access publically available 

documents related to this notice using 

the following methods: 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publically available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public 

File Area 01 F21, One White Flint 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publically available documents created 

or received at the NRC are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading room-rm/adams.html. From this 

page, the public can gain entry into 

ADAMS, which provides text and image 

files of NRC’s public documents. If you 

do not have access to ADAMS or if there 

are problems in accessing the 

documents in ADAMS, contact the 

NRC’s PDR reference staff at 1–800–

397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail 

to pdr.resources@nrc.gov. 

Members of the public interested in 

obtaining additional information in 

regard to the NRC’s Revised Fuel Cycle 

Oversight Process will be able to do so 

by periodically visiting http:// 

www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ 

component/main?main=Docket

Detail&d=NRC–2009–0386. The NRC 

expects to continue publishing 

documents about the Revised Fuel Cycle 

Oversight Process using the 

regulations.gov Web site, in addition to 

making them available electronically in 

the Public Document Room (PDR), and 

the Electronic Document Room using 

the Agencywide Document Access and 

Management System (ADAMS), http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading room-rm/ 

adams.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Russell Gibbs, Team Leader, Division of 

Fuel Facility Inspection, Region II, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20005–0001. 

Telephone: (404) 562–4806 or (301) 

492–3120; Fax (404) 562–4955 or (301) 

492–3363; E-mail: 

Russell.Gibbs@nrc.gov. 

Background: 

The NRC’s mission is to license and 

regulate the civilian use of byproduct, 

source, and special nuclear materials to 

ensure adequate protection of public 

health and safety, promote the common 

defense and security, and protect the 

environment. 

NRC’s current fuel cycle facility 

oversight program relies primarily on 

inspections at each fuel cycle facility. 

Inspections review licensee activities in 

the areas of nuclear criticality, chemical 

process, fire, and radiation safety, 

emergency preparedness, physical 

security, information security, and 

material control and accounting. NRC’s 

inspection results are documented in 

inspection reports. 

Over the years, NRC staff has 

periodically changed the fuel cycle 

oversight process to make 

improvements. The NRC plans to build 

on these previous actions by revising 

the oversight program to better use the 

risk insights from integrated safety 

analyses and to develop more objective 

assessment and decision tools. 

Integrated safety analyses are required 

by NRC regulations to be done by Part 

70 licensees and applicants for a Part 70 

license. The analyses evaluate what 

could go wrong at a facility and 

establish the basis for safety controls 

called items relied on for safety (IROFS). 

In 1999, the success in the initial 

implementation of the Reactor Oversight 

Process (ROP) prompted the NRC staff 

to evaluate whether the fuel cycle 

facility oversight process could be 

improved using elements similar to 

those in the ROP. Stakeholders 

(licensees, public interest groups, NRC 

staff, interested members of the general 

public, etc.) were actively involved in 

the development of a revised oversight 

process. After approximately 2 years, 

the NRC decided to defer further work 

on the revised oversight process until 

after licensees completed the integrated 

safety analyses and the NRC reviewed 

them. The NRC staff also evaluated the 

feasibility of performance indicators for 

fuel cycle facilities, but subsequently 

ended that work in 2006 at the direction 

of the Commission. In 2007, the Office 

of Inspector General (OIG) issued an 

audit report recommending that the 

NRC develop a fuel cycle oversight 

process that is consistent with a 

structured process, similar to the ROP. 

In April 2008, the Commission directed 

the staff to make the fuel cycle 

performance review process more 

transparent and risk-informed and to 

consider performance indicators or 

metrics leveraging the risk insights of 

ISAs. 

In March 2009, a Steering Committee 

was established to provide overall 

leadership to revise the fuel cycle 

oversight process. The Steering 

Committee then established a team of 

NRC staff members with a broad range 

of experiences to develop a revised 

oversight process while working closely 

with both internal and external 

stakeholders. 

The revised oversight process would 

use the NRC’s Strategic Goals as its 

foundation. The NRC’s Strategic Goals 

are to: (1) Ensure adequate protection of 

public health and safety and the 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Notices 45659 

environment; (2) and ensure adequate 

protection in the secure use and 

management of radioactive materials. 

The staff intends to use risk-informed 

methods to assess facility performance. 

In a ‘‘risk-informed’’ approach to 

regulatory decision making, risk insights 

are considered together with other 

factors to establish a process that better 

focuses both licensee and regulatory 

attention on design and operational 

issues commensurate with their 

importance to safety and security. The 

NRC plans to produce a predictable, 

graded process that will help to focus 

NRC oversight based on both the most 

risk significant aspects of plant design 

and operation as well as licensee 

performance. NRC staff intends that the 

revised oversight process more fully use 

the risk insights from licensees’ 

integrated safety analyses, where 

applicable. The NRC intends that the 

revised oversight will use objective 

measures and metrics for NRC 

assessments of licensee performance 

and allow the NRC to make timely 

decisions on what kind of inspections 

will be conducted beyond a basic set of 

inspections. The revised program would 

include a baseline level of oversight that 

would be carried out for all licensees. 

The inspection program may be 

supplemented by performance indicator 

information provided by licensees 

voluntarily. 

This program, when fully 

implemented, would apply to uranium 

enrichment plants, high- and lowenriched uranium and plutonium 

processing plants, and uranium 

hexafluoride processing facilities. 

Uranium mill facilities have a separate 

inspection program. 

The NRC staff is considering an 

oversight framework that would include 

strategic performance areas (safety and 

security) supported by cornerstones. In 

this framework, licensee performance in 

each cornerstone may be assessed using 

a combination of performance indicators 

and the results of a baseline inspection 

program as determined by a defined 

significance determination process. 

Both performance indicators and the 

results of the inspection program would 

have risk-informed thresholds, and 

crossing either a performance indicator 

or an inspection threshold would have 

the same meaning in the assessment of 

each cornerstone. Licensee and NRC 

action for a given level of performance 

would be prescribed by an Action 

Matrix. The entire process would be 

supported by a robust licensee 

corrective action program at each 

licensee facility. 

Although the NRC believes that 

enhancements to fuel cycle oversight are 

needed, the NRC is confident that its 

current oversight program is adequate 

for the NRC to conclude whether or not 

licensees are operating safely and 

securely. 

Scope of Public Comment Period 

The NRC seeks public comment and 

feedback on the specific topics 

highlighted in the questions below. 

Commenters are not limited to and are 

not obligated to address every issue 

discussed in the questions. In providing 

comments, each commenter’s response 

should reference the number of the 

applicable question (e.g., ‘‘Response to 

A.1.’’). Comments should be as specific 

as possible and should indicate why a 

commenter supports or does not support 

an aspect of this plan. The use of 

examples is encouraged. 

At this time comments are requested 

on the following issues: 

A. The Regulatory Oversight 

Framework, Cornerstones, Significance 

Determination, Action Matrix, 

Performance Indicators, and Their 

Thresholds 

1. Graphic descriptions of an Oversight 

Framework and a Fuel Cycle Facility 

Oversight Process are available in 

ADAMS (ML091970084) 

These graphically describe how the 

RFCOP would: (1) Facilitate greater 

regulatory attention to facilities with 

performance problems while 

maintaining a baseline level of oversight 

on facilities that perform well; (2) give 

industry and public timely and 

understandable assessments of facility 

performance; (3) allow all stakeholders 

to understand what the regulatory 

response to issues and indicators will 

be; and (4) focus NRC and licensee 

resources on those aspects of 

performance having the greatest impact 

on safety and security. 

Are there any other significant areas 

that need to be addressed for the NRC 

to meet its mission of ensuring that fuel 

cycle facilities are operated in a manner 

that provides adequate protection of 

public health and safety and the 

environment, and protects against 

radiological sabotage and the theft or 

diversion of special nuclear materials? 

2. Cornerstones 

The cornerstones being considered for 

these facilities include nuclear 

criticality, radiological, and chemical 

safety, emergency preparedness, 

physical security, information security 

and material control and accounting. 

Information Security will not be 

incorporated into the revised oversight 

at this time. Fire safety would be 

addressed through its impacts on other 

safety cornerstones such as criticality, 

radiological and chemical safety. These 

cornerstones are being considered 

because staff believes that they best 

represent the requirements that are 

necessary to meet the Agency’s mission. 

Are there other important aspects of 

fuel cycle facility performance that 

would not otherwise be captured by 

these cornerstones? 

3. Significance Determination Process 

When a licensee performance 

deficiency is identified, it would be 

assessed using a defined significance 

determination process which would use 

risk insights to evaluate the significance 

of the performance deficiency against 

defined thresholds. The risksignificance of the performance 

deficiency would be determined before 

any NRC action, beyond baseline 

inspection and oversight, would be 

taken. If it is determined that the 

performance deficiency is not risksignificant, each facility would be 

expected to disposition the issue using 

its own corrective action program 

without additional oversight by the 

NRC. If it is determined to be risksignificant, the NRC’s response would 

be prescribed using an Action Matrix. 

Are there other important aspects of 

significance determination that should 

be considered by NRC? 

4. Performance Indicators and 

Associated Thresholds 

Performance indicators may not be 

developed in the initial revision to the 

fuel cycle oversight process. However, 

the NRC staff plans to interact with 

industry and other stakeholders to 

assess development of indicators to 

measure important attributes that will 

help the NRC ensure that the facility is 

operating in a manner that protects 

public health and safety and ensures 

security. The performance indicators, 

which would be submitted voluntarily 

by licensees on a periodic basis, would 

provide a sample of objective data on 

which to assess licensee performance. 

The performance indicators are 

intended to directly relate to the 

cornerstones and be significant, high 

level indicators of facility performance 

that, when thresholds are crossed, 

reveal adverse trends that warrant 

increased regulatory oversight. 

Would performance indicators, along 

with inspection findings, be effective in 

determining levels of licensee 

performance? What should be 

considered in determining performance 

indicators and their thresholds? How 

should the performance indicators be 

used? 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
45660 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Notices 

5. Action Matrix 

An Action Matrix would be 

developed to provide guidance to 

ensure consistent regulatory response 

for a given level of licensee 

performance. The matrix would be 

categorized into four areas (meeting 

between NRC and Licensee Senior 

Management, licensee action, NRC 

inspection, and regulatory action) and 

would be graded across a range of 

licensee performance. The NRC’s 

decision to take an action beyond 

baseline inspection and oversight would 

be a direct result of performance 

indicators, if available, or inspection 

findings that crossed defined 

thresholds. If licensee performance 

declines, more significant actions would 

be considered. 

What should the NRC consider in the 

development of an Action Matrix? 

Would the use of the Action Matrix and 

underlying decision logic be an 

appropriate approach to NRC and 

licensee action? 

6. Other Comments 

Are there any other comments related 

to the oversight framework, 

cornerstones, performance indicators, or 

thresholds? 

B. Risk-Informed Baseline Inspections 

The baseline inspection program 

would be based on a set of inspectable 

areas that, in conjunction with the 

performance indicators, if available, 

would provide enough information for 

the NRC to determine whether the 

objectives of each cornerstone of safety 

or security are being met. This baseline 

inspection program would be the 

minimum inspection at each facility. 

The baseline inspection could be 

different for different types of facilities 

that have different potential risks (for 

example low enriched uranium 

processing versus high enriched 

uranium processing). 

Are there any other factors that 

should be considered in defining the 

baseline inspection program? Are there 

any other comments related to the 

baseline inspection program? 

C. Assessment Process 

1. Frequency of Assessments 

The revised oversight process would 

provide for continuous, semi-annual, 

annual, and biennial reviews of licensee 

performance. The resulting assessment 

would be based on licensee 

performance, as measured by 

performance indicators, if available, and 

inspection program results, as compared 

against an Action Matrix. The 

semiannual and annual assessments 

would also include inspection planning. 

Would this frequency of conducting 

assessments be appropriate to maintain 

a current assessment of licensee 

performance? 

2. Communicating Assessment Results 

The revised oversight would include 

several methods for communicating 

information to licensees and the public. 

First, the information being assessed 

(performance indicator and inspection 

results) would be made public as the 

information becomes available. Second, 

the NRC would send each licensee a 

letter at a defined frequency (e.g., every 

six months) that provides the NRC’s 

assessment of licensee performance and 

describes the NRC’s oversight of the 

facility. In addition, the letter would 

outline any changes to the NRC’s 

planned inspections for the upcoming 

18 months. Third, the NRC would hold 

an annual public meeting with each 

licensee to discuss its performance. 

Would these methods of 

communication provide sufficient 

opportunity for licensees and the public 

to gain an understanding of performance 

and interact with the NRC? 

3. Other Comments 

Are there any other comments related 

to the proposed assessment process? 

D. Implementation 

1. Transition Plan 

A transition plan that identifies 

important activities needed to complete 

and implement the potential processes 

would have to be developed. 

Are there major activities that if not 

accomplished could prevent successful 

implementation of the potential 

processes? 

2. Other Comments 

Are there any other comments related 

to implementing the new processes? 

E. Additional Comments 

In addition to the previously 

mentioned issues, commenters are 

invited to give any other views on the 

NRC assessment process that could 

assist the NRC in improving its 

effectiveness. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 21st day 

of August 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Marissa G. Bailey, 

Director, Special Projects and Technical 

Support Directorate, Division of Fuel Cycle 

Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. E9–21278 Filed 9–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. IC–28892] 

Notice of Applications for 

Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the 

Investment Company Act of 1940 

August 28, 2009. 

The following is a notice of 

applications for deregistration under 

section 8(f) of the Investment Company 

Act of 1940 for the month of August, 

2009. A copy of each application may be 

obtained via the Commission’s Web site 

by searching for the file number, or an 

applicant using the Company name box, 

at http://www.sec.gov/search/ 

search.htm or by calling (202) 551– 

8090. An order granting each 

application will be issued unless the 

SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons 

may request a hearing on any 

application by writing to the SEC’s 

Secretary at the address below and 

serving the relevant applicant with a 

copy of the request, personally or by 

mail. Hearing requests should be 

received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on 

September 22, 2009, and should be 

accompanied by proof of service on the 

applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, 

for lawyers, a certificate of service. 

Hearing requests should state the nature 

of the writer’s interest, the reason for the 

request, and the issues contested. 

Persons who wish to be notified of a 

hearing may request notification by 

writing to the Secretary, U.S. Securities 

and Exchange Commission, 100 F 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549– 

1090. 

For Further Information Contact: 

Diane L. Titus at (202) 551–6810, SEC, 

Division of Investment Management, 

Office of Investment Company 

Regulation, 100 F Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20549–4041. 

Dreman Claymore Global Dividend & 

Income Fund [File No. 811–21557] 

Fiduciary/Claymore Energy & 

Infrastructure Fund [File No. 811– 

21810] Claymore/Zacks Quantitative 

Growth & Income Fund [File No. 811– 

21925] Claymore/Voyageur Income & 

Opportunities Fund [File No. 811– 

22076] 

Summary: Each applicant, a closedend investment company, seeks an 

order declaring that it has ceased to be 

an investment company. Applicants 

have never made a public offering of 

their securities and do not propose to 

make a public offering or engage in 

business of any kind. 

Filing Dates: The applications were 

filed on June 10, 2009, and amended on 

August 14, 2009. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES