9982 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Notices 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. 

Thursday, March 22, 2007 

12:55 p.m. 

Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) 

(Tentative). 

a. Consumers Energy Company, et al. 

(Palisades Nuclear Plant); License 

Transfer Application (Tentative). 

Week of March 26, 2007—Tentative 

Thursday, March 29, 2007 

9:30 a.m. 

Discussion of Management Issues 

(Closed—Ex. 2). 

1:30 p.m. 

Discussion of Security Issues 

(Closed—Ex. 1, 3, & 9). 

Week of April 2, 2007—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the Week of April 2, 2007. 

Week of April 9, 2007—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the Week of April 9, 2007. 

*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: 

Michelle Schroll, (301) 415–1662. 

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 

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 the 

NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator, 

Deborah Chan, at 301–415–7041, TDD: 

301–415–2100, or by e-mail at 

DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on 

requests for reasonable accommodation 

will be made on a case-by-case basis. 

This notice is distributed by mail to 

several hundred 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). 

In addition, distribution of this meeting 

notice over the Internet system is 

available. If you are interested in 

receiving this Commission meeting 

schedule electronically, please send an 

electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. 

Dated: March 1, 2007. 

R. Michelle Schroll, 

Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 07–1062 Filed 3–2–07; 1:27 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499; License 

Nos. NPF–76 and NPF–80] 

STP Nuclear Operating Company; 

Notice of Issuance of Director’s 

Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 

Notice is hereby given that the 

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, has issued a director’s 

decision with regard to a petition dated 

May 16, 2006, filed by Mr. Glenn Adler 

on behalf of Service Employees 

International Union, hereinafter referred 

to as the Petitioner. The petition was 

supplemented by letter dated June 26, 

2006, and provided to the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) during a 

meeting with the agency’s petition 

review board (PRB) on June 27, 2006. 

Transcripts of the meeting are available, 

as an attachment to the PRB meeting 

summary, via the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) on the agency’s Web 

site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html and for inspection at the 

NRC Public Document Room, located at 

One White Flint North, Public File Area 

01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. The petition 

concerns the operation of the South 

Texas Project (STP) Electric Generating 

Station, Units 1 and 2. 

The Petitioner requested that the NRC 

issue a demand for information (DFI) to 

STP Nuclear Operating Company 

(STPNOC), licensee for STP, to provide 

the results of assessments of the safetyconscious work environment (SCWE) at 

STP conducted since January 1, 2004; 

summaries of action plans and results of 

actions to remedy the problems revealed 

by the assessments, including 

documents mentioned at an August 

2005 meeting convened to discuss the 

STP SCWE; summaries of action plans 

and results of efforts to remedy 

problems revealed by such assessments 

in 2001 and 2003; and all 

correspondence between the NRC, 

STPNOC, and Wackenhut Corporation 

concerning the 2001, 2003, and 2005 

comprehensive cultural surveys (CCAs). 

As the basis for the petition, the 

Petitioner stated that, in 1998 the NRC 

found that STP had violated Federal law 

by subjecting four employees to a 

‘‘hostile work environment’’ after the 

employees raised safety concerns. The 

Petitioner noted that the NRC issued an 

order requiring STP to hire an 

independent contractor to conduct 

periodic CCAs. 

The Petitioner stated that the licensee 

hired Synergy Consulting Services 

Corporation. The Wackenhut 

Corporation took over security at STP in 

July 2001, after winning a 3-year 

contract for security, with an option for 

2 additional years. The Petitioner 

further noted that in the 2001 and 2003 

CCAs, Wackenhut scored poorly on 

independent surveys assessing the 

STPNOC nuclear safety culture, SCWE, 

general culture and work environment, 

leadership, management, and 

supervisory skills and practices. 

The Petitioner stated that, despite 

apparently repeated efforts by STPNOC 

to remedy the poor performance of 

Wackenhut, a more recent survey 

revealed that Wackenhut’s performance 

problems continued, as indicated in the 

2005 CCA, and that the STPNOC action 

plans apparently were not successful 

with respect to Wackenhut and other 

entities. 

The Petitioner stated that obtaining 

the documents it identified will 

facilitate the NRC to be better informed 

about improvement in the licensee’s 

SCWE at STPNOC. In addition, the NRC 

will be better able to assess the 

effectiveness of previous steps taken 

with Wackenhut and other entities for 

whom problems persisted, despite 

repeated efforts to remedy them. 

On June 27, 2006, the Petitioner and 

the licensee’s attorney met with the 

staff’s PRB. The meeting gave the 

Petitioner and the licensee’s attorney an 

opportunity to provide additional 

information and to clarify issues raised 

in the petition. The summary of the 

meeting and its transcript are available 

in ADAMS, as stated above. 

On November 21, 2006, the NRC sent 

a copy of the proposed director’s 

decision to the Petitioner and the 

licensee for comment. At the request of 

the Petitioner, the NRC extended the 

end of the comment period from 

December 21, 2006, to January 12, 2007. 

However, the NRC staff did not receive 

any comments. The NRC has included 

the latest update of the results of its 

ongoing oversight at STP, and made 

some editorial changes to the text of this 

director’s decision. 

The director’s decision [DD–07–01] 

explains the reasons for this decision 

pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 

2.206, the complete text of which is 

available on the agency’s Web site via 

ADAMS and at the Commission’s Public 

Document Room, located at One White 

Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 

11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland, and from the 

ADAMS Public Library component on 

the NRC’s Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm.html (the Public Electronic 

Reading Room). 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Notices 9983 

1 15 U.S.C. 78q(d). 

2 15 U.S.C. 78k–1(a)(3)(B). 

3 17 CFR 240.17d–2. 

4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55057 

(January 8, 2007), 72 FR 2040 (January 17, 2007) 

(‘‘Notice’’). 

5 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1). 

6 15 U.S.C. 78q(d). 

7 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2). 

8 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1). 

9See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report 

of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 94–

75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975). 

10 17 CFR 240.17d–1. Rule 17d–1 authorizes the 

Commission to name a single SRO as the designated 

examining authority (‘‘DEA’’) to examine common 

members for compliance with the financial 

responsibility requirements imposed by the Act, or 

by Commission or SRO rules. 

11 17 CFR 240.17d–2. 

12See Notice, supra note 4. 

13The Parties currently operate pursuant to a 

17d–2 plan in which NASD has assumed certain 

inspection, examination, and enforcement 

responsibility for common members with respect to 

certain applicable laws, rules, and regulations (the 

‘‘current NASD–ISE 17d–2 plan’’). See Securities 

Exchange Act Release Nos. 42668 (April 11, 2000), 

65 FR 21048 (April 19, 2000) (File No. 4–431) 

Continued 

The NRC staff denied the Petitioner’s 

request for a DFI to STPNOC. Issuance 

of a DFI is not warranted because the 

NRC has already reviewed and has 

ready access to all the information for 

which the Petitioner had requested a 

DFI. NRC has also denied your request 

to docket the documents for which you 

requested DFI. The NRC will docket 

only documents which are submitted to 

the NRC. However, NRC is denying your 

request for a DFI, and NRC did not 

require submission of the documents in 

its Confirmatory Order Modifying 

License (Effective Immediately) of June 

9, 1998. Instead, STPNOC maintains the 

documents for ready access by the NRC 

at the site. 

A copy of the director’s decision will 

be filed with the Secretary of the 

Commission for the Commission’s 

review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206 

of the Commission’s regulations. As 

provided for by this regulation, the 

director’s decision will constitute the 

final action of the Commission 25 days 

after the date of the decision, unless the 

Commission, on its own motion, 

institutes a review of the director’s 

decision in that time. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day 

of February 2007. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

J.E. Dyer, 

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E7–3827 Filed 3–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

United States Postal Service Board of 

Governors; Sunshine Act Meeting 

Board Votes To Close February 27, 2007 

Meeting 

By telephone vote on February 27, 

2007, the Board of Governors of the 

United States Postal Service voted 

unanimously to close to public 

observation its meeting held in 

Washington, DC, via teleconference. The 

Board determined that prior public 

notice was not possible. 

Item Considered: Postal Regulatory 

Commission Opinion and 

Recommended Decision in Docket No. 

R2006–1, Postal Rate and Fee Changes. 

General Counsel Certification: The 

General Counsel of the United States 

Postal Service has certified that the 

meeting was properly closed under the 

Government in the Sunshine Act. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Requests for information about the 

meeting should be addressed to the 

Secretary of the Board, Wendy A. 

Hocking, at (202) 268–4800. 

Wendy A. Hocking, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 07–1066 Filed 3–2–07; 1:58 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–M 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–55367; File No. 4–529] 

Program for Allocation of Regulatory 

Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule 17d–

2; Order Approving and Declaring 

Effective a Plan for the Allocation of 

Regulatory Responsibilities Between 

the International Securities Exchange, 

LLC and the National Association of 

Securities Dealers, Inc. 

February 27, 2007. 

Notice is hereby given that the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has issued an Order, 

pursuant to Sections 17(d) 1 and 

11A(a)(3)(B) 2 of the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’), granting approval 

and declaring effective an amended and 

restated plan for the allocation of 

regulatory responsibilities (‘‘Plan’’) that 

was filed pursuant to Rule 17d–2 under 

the Act 3 by the International Securities 

Exchange, LLC (‘‘ISE’’) and the National 

Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. 

(‘‘NASD’’) (together with ISE, the 

‘‘Parties’’).4

Accordingly, NASD shall assume, in 

addition to the regulatory responsibility 

it has under the Act, the regulatory 

responsibilities allocated to it under the 

Plan. At the same time, ISE is relieved 

of those regulatory responsibilities 

allocated to NASD under the Plan. 

I. Introduction 

Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,5 among 

other things, requires every selfregulatory organization (‘‘SRO’’) 

registered as either a national securities 

exchange or registered securities 

association to examine for, and enforce 

compliance by, its members and persons 

associated with its members with the 

Act, the rules and regulations 

thereunder, and the SRO’s own rules, 

unless the SRO is relieved of this 

responsibility pursuant to Section 

17(d) 6 or 19(g)(2) 7 of the Act. Section 

17(d)(1) of the Act 8 was intended, in 

part, to eliminate unnecessary multiple 

examinations and regulatory 

duplication for those broker-dealers that 

maintain memberships in more than one 

SRO (‘‘common members’’).9 With 

respect to a common member, Section 

17(d)(1) authorizes the Commission, by 

rule or order, to relieve an SRO of the 

responsibility to receive regulatory 

reports, to examine for and enforce 

compliance with applicable statutes, 

rules, and regulations, or to perform 

other specified regulatory functions. 

To implement Section 17(d)(1), the 

Commission adopted two rules: Rule 

17d–1 10 and Rule 17d–2 11 under the 

Act. Rule 17d–2 permits SROs to 

propose joint plans for the allocation of 

regulatory responsibilities, other than 

financial responsibility rules, with 

respect to their common members. 

Under paragraph (c) of Rule 17d–2, the 

Commission may declare such a plan 

effective if, after providing for notice 

and comment, it determines that the 

plan is necessary or appropriate in the 

public interest and for the protection of 

investors, to foster cooperation and 

coordination among the SROs, to 

remove impediments to, and foster the 

development of, a national market 

system and a national clearance and 

settlement system, and is in conformity 

with the factors set forth in Section 

17(d) of the Act. Upon effectiveness of 

a plan filed pursuant to Rule 17d–2, an 

SRO is relieved of those regulatory 

responsibilities for common members 

that are allocated by the plan to another 

SRO. 

On January 17, 2007, the Commission 

published notice of the Plan filed by ISE 

and NASD.12 The Commission received 

no comments on the Plan. The Plan is 

intended to replace and supersede the 

current 17d–2 plan between NASD and 

ISE and all prior amendments thereto in 

their entirety,13 and is intended to 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES