Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices 60359 

To read or download a copy of the 

new NACOSH charter, go to Docket No. 

OSHA–2008–0002 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal. The charter also is 

available for inspection and copying at 

the OSHA Docket Office, N–2625, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone (202) 693–2350. In addition, 

the charter may be viewed or 

downloaded at the Federal Advisory 

Committees Database at http:// 

www.fido.gov. 

Authority and Signature 

Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant 

Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health, directed the 

preparation of this notice under the 

authority granted by Sections 6(b) and 

7(a) of the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655, 656), 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 

U.S.C. App. 2), 29 CFR parts 1912 and 

1912a, 41 CFR 102–3, and Secretary of 

Labor’s Order 5–2007 (72 FR 31160). 

Signed at Washington, DC this 6th day of 

October 2008. 

Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. E8–24189 Filed 10–9–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE 

CORPORATION 

[MCC FR 08–15] 

Report on the Criteria and 

Methodology for Determining the 

Eligibility of Candidate Countries for 

Millennium Challenge Account 

Assistance in Fiscal Year 2009 

AGENCY: Millennium Challenge 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This report to Congress is 

provided in accordance with section 

608(b) of the Millennium Challenge Act 

of 2003, 22 U.S.C.A. 7701, 7707(b) (the 

‘‘Act’’). 

Dated: October 7, 2008. 

Henry Pitney, 

(Acting) Vice President and General Counsel, 

Millennium Challenge Corporation. 

Report on the Criteria and Methodology 

for Determining the Eligibility of 

Candidate Countries for Millennium 

Challenge Account Assistance in Fiscal 

Year 2009 Summary 

This report to Congress is provided in 

accordance with section 608(b) of the 

Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, 22 

U.S.C.A. 7701, 7707(b) (the Act). 

The Act authorizes the provision of 

Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) 

assistance to countries that enter into 

compacts with the United States to 

support policies and programs that 

advance the prospects of such countries 

achieving lasting economic growth and 

poverty reduction. The Act requires the 

Millennium Challenge Corporation 

(MCC) to take a number of steps in 

determining the countries that, based on 

their demonstrated commitment to just 

and democratic governance, economic 

freedom and investing in their people, 

and the opportunity to reduce poverty 

and generate economic growth in the 

country, will be eligible for MCA 

assistance during fiscal year 2009 

(FY09). These steps include the 

submission of reports to the 

congressional committees specified in 

the Act and the publication of notices in 

the Federal Register that identify: 

1. The countries that are ‘‘candidate 

countries’’ for MCA assistance during 

FY09 based on their per-capita income 

levels and their eligibility to receive 

assistance under U.S. law, and countries 

that would be candidate countries but 

for specified legal prohibitions on 

assistance (section 608(a) of the Act); 

2. The criteria and methodology that 

the Board of Directors of MCC (the 

Board) will use to measure and evaluate 

the relative policy performance of the 

candidate countries consistent with the 

requirements of section 607 of the Act 

in order to select ‘‘MCA eligible 

countries’’ from among the ‘‘candidate 

countries’’ (section 608(b) of the Act); 

and 

3. The list of countries determined by 

the Board to be ‘‘MCA eligible 

countries’’ for FY09, with justification 

for eligibility determination and 

selection for compact negotiation, 

including which of the MCA eligible 

countries the Board will seek to enter 

into MCA compacts (section 608(d) of 

the Act). 

This report sets out the criteria and 

methodology to be applied in 

determining eligibility for new partner 

countries for FY09 MCA assistance. 

The Criteria and Methodology for FY09 

MCC reviews all of its indicators and 

methodology annually to ensure that the 

best measures are being used and, from 

time to time, recommends changes or 

refinements if MCC identifies better 

methodologies, better indicators, or 

improved sources of data. MCC takes 

into account public comments received 

on the previous year’s criteria and 

methodology and consults with a broad 

range of experts in the development 

community and within the U.S. 

Government. 

MCC recommends no changes to the 

selection criteria and methodology for 

this fiscal year. 

Potential Future Changes 

Since FY07, MCC has pursued 

research and consultation to explore the 

possibility of adopting a new education 

indicator in the Investing in People 

category. However, MCC was unable to 

identify an indicator that would 

significantly strengthen the selection 

criteria in FY09. MCC will continue to 

explore potential measures. Over the 

last fifteen years, much attention has 

been focused on enrolling and keeping 

more children in school, but not 

necessarily on enhancing the quality of 

education. With the support of the 

World Bank, USAID, UNESCO, the 

Basic Education Coalition, and others, 

efforts are currently underway to 

develop cross-country measures of 

learning outcomes, educational quality, 

and governments’ commitment to 

improving educational quality. 

However, these efforts are still under 

development and there are currently no 

education quality indicators that are 

viable for MCC purposes at this time. In 

assessing new indicators, MCC favors 

those that: (1) Are developed by an 

independent third party; (2) utilize 

objective and high quality data that rely 

upon an analytically rigorous 

methodology; (3) are publicly available; 

(4) have broad country coverage; (5) are 

comparable across countries; (6) have a 

clear theoretical or empirical link to 

economic growth and poverty 

reduction; (7) are policy linked (i.e., 

measure factors that governments can 

influence within a two to three year 

horizon); and (8) have broad consistency 

in results from year to year. 

Many of MCC’s candidate countries in 

the lower middle income category have 

realized substantial success in achieving 

high levels of performance on select 

Investing in People indicators. MCC will 

explore options for alternative measures 

of an Investing in People policy 

framework that do a better job of 

distinguishing among high performers 

to incorporate in future fiscal years for 

the lower middle income countries. 

Several of MCC’s early compacts are 

due to conclude within the next two 

years. MCC will review whether the 

selection criteria and methodology 

should be modified when applied to 

selecting a country as eligible for a 

second compact. 

Criteria and Methodology 

The Board will select eligible 

countries based on the following, among 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

60360 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices 

other factors: (1) Their overall 

performance in relation to their incomelevel peers in three broad policy 

categories—Ruling Justly, Encouraging 

Economic Freedom, and Investing in 

People; (2) the opportunity to reduce 

poverty and generate economic growth. 

Section 607 of the Act requires that the 

Board’s determination of eligibility be 

based ‘‘to the maximum extent possible, 

upon objective and quantifiable 

indicators of a country’s demonstrated 

commitment’’ to the criteria set out in 

the Act. For FY09, there will be two 

groups of candidate countries—low 

income countries and lower middle 

income countries. Low income 

candidate countries refer to those 

countries that have a per capita income 

equal to or less than $1,785 and are not 

ineligible to receive United States 

economic assistance under part I of the 

Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 by 

reason of the application of any 

provision of the Foreign Assistance Act 

or any other provision of law. Lower 

middle income candidate countries are 

those that have a per capita income 

between $1,786 and $3,705 and are not 

ineligible to receive United States 

economic assistance. 

The Board will make use of seventeen 

indicators to assess policy performance 

of individual countries (specific 

definitions of the indicators and their 

sources are set out in annex A). These 

indicators are grouped for purposes of 

the FY09 assessment methodology 

under the three policy categories listed 

below. 

Ruling justly Encouraging economic freedom Investing in people 

1. Civil Liberties .................................................. 1. Inflation ........................................................ 1. Public Expenditure on Health. 

2. Political Rights ................................................ 2. Fiscal Policy ................................................. 2. Public Expenditure on Primary Education. 

3. Voice and Accountability ................................ 3. Business Start-Up ........................................ 3. Immunization Rates (DPT3 and Measles). 

4. Government Effectiveness ............................. 4. Trade Policy ................................................. 4. Girls’ Primary Education Completion. 

5. Rule of Law .................................................... 5. Regulatory Quality ....................................... 5. Natural Resource Management. 

6. Control of Corruption ...................................... 6. Land Rights and Access.

In making its determination of 

eligibility with respect to a particular 

candidate country, the Board will 

consider whether a country performs 

above the median in relation to its peers 

on at least half of the indicators in the 

Ruling Justly and Economic Freedom 

categories, above the median on at least 

three of the five indicators in the 

Investing in People category, and above 

the median on the Control of Corruption 

indicator. One exception to this 

methodology is that the median is not 

used for the Inflation indicator. Instead, 

to pass the Inflation indicator a 

country’s inflation rate needs to be 

under a fixed ceiling of 15 percent. The 

Board will also take into consideration 

whether a country performs 

substantially below the median on any 

indicator (i.e., in the bottom 25th 

percentile) and has not taken 

appropriate measures to address this 

shortcoming. The indicator 

methodology will be the predominant 

basis for determining which countries 

will be eligible for MCA assistance. In 

addition, the Board may exercise 

discretion in evaluating performance on 

the indicators and determining a final 

list of eligible countries. 

Where necessary, the Board may also 

take into account other quantitative and 

qualitative information (supplemental 

information) to determine whether a 

country performed satisfactorily in 

relation to its peers in a given category. 

There are elements of the criteria set out 

in the Act for which there is either 

limited quantitative information (e.g., 

rights of people with disabilities) or no 

well-developed performance indicator. 

Until such data and/or indicators are 

developed, the Board may rely on 

additional data and qualitative 

information to assess policy 

performance. The Board may also 

consider whether any adjustments 

should be made for data gaps, lags, 

trends, or other weaknesses in particular 

indicators. For example, the State 

Department Human Rights Report 

contains qualitative information to make 

an assessment on a variety of criteria 

outlined by Congress, such as the rights 

of people with disabilities, the treatment 

of women and children, workers rights, 

and human rights. Similarly, as 

additional information in the area of 

corruption, the Board may consider how 

a country scores on Transparency 

International’s Corruption Perceptions 

Index and the Global Integrity Index, as 

well as on the defined indicator. 

Compact eligible partners are 

expected to seek to maintain and 

improve policy performance. MCC 

recognizes that partner countries may 

not meet the formal eligibility criteria 

from time to time due to a number of 

factors, such as changes in the peergroup median; graduation into a new 

income category (e.g., from low income 

to lower middle income); numerical 

declines that are within the margin of 

error; slight declines in policy 

performance; revisions or corrections of 

data; the introduction of new sub-data 

sources; or changes in the indicators 

used to measure performance. None of 

these factors alone warrants suspension 

or termination of eligibility and/or 

assistance. Countries that demonstrate a 

significant policy reversal can face a 

warning, suspension, or termination of 

eligibility and/or assistance. According 

to MCC’s authorizing legislation, ‘‘[a]fter 

consultation with the Board, the Chief 

Executive Officer may suspend or 

terminate assistance in whole or in part 

for a country or entity * * * if * * * 

the country or entity has engaged in a 

pattern of actions inconsistent with the 

criteria used to determine the eligibility 

of the country or entity * * *.’’ Given 

data lags, this pattern of behavior need 

not be captured in the indicators for 

MCC to take action. [See MCC’s Policy 

on Suspension and Termination] 

As provided in the Act, following the 

determination of eligible countries, the 

Chief Executive Officer’s Report to 

Congress will set out the list of eligible 

countries, identify with which of those 

countries MCC will seek to enter into 

compact negotiations, and include a 

justification for such eligibility 

determinations and selections for 

compact negotiation. 

Relationship to Legislative Criteria 

Within each policy category, the Act 

sets out a number of specific selection 

criteria. As indicated above, a set of 

objective and quantifiable policy 

indicators is used to establish eligibility 

for MCA assistance and measure the 

relative performance by candidate 

countries against these criteria. The 

Board’s approach to determining 

eligibility ensures that performance 

against each of these criteria is assessed 

by at least one of the seventeen objective 

indicators. Most are addressed by 

multiple indicators. The specific 

indicators used to measure each of the 

criteria set out in the Act are listed 

below. 

Section 607(b)(1): Just and democratic 

governance, including a demonstrated 

commitment to: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices 60361 

(a) Promote political pluralism, 

equality and the rule of law; 

Indicators—Political Rights, Civil 

Liberties, Voice and Accountability, 

and Rule of Law 

(b) Respect human and civil rights, 

including the rights of people with 

disabilities; 

Indicators—Political Rights, Civil 

Liberties, and Voice and 

Accountability 

(c) Protect private property rights; 

Indicators—Civil Liberties, Regulatory 

Quality, Rule of Law, and Land Rights 

and Access 

(d) Encourage transparency and 

accountability of government; and 

Indicators—Political Rights, Civil 

Liberties, Voice and Accountability, 

Control of Corruption, Rule of Law, 

and Government Effectiveness 

(e) Combat corruption; 

Indicators—Civil Liberties, Rule of Law, 

and Control of Corruption 

Section 607(b)(2): Economic freedom, 

including a demonstrated commitment 

to economic policies that: 

(a) Encourage citizens and firms to 

participate in global trade and 

international capital markets; 

Indicators—Fiscal Policy, Inflation, 

Trade Policy, Business Start-Up, and 

Regulatory Quality 

(b) Promote private sector growth and 

the sustainable management of natural 

resources; 

Indicators—Inflation, Business Start-Up, 

Fiscal Policy, Land Rights and Access, 

Natural 

(c) Resource Management, and 

Regulatory Quality strengthen market 

forces in the economy; and 

Indicators—Fiscal Policy, Inflation, 

Trade Policy, Business Start-Up, Land 

Rights and Access, and Regulatory 

Quality 

(d) Respect worker rights, including 

the right to form labor unions; 

Indicators—Civil Liberties and Voice 

and Accountability 

Section 607(b)(3): Investments in the 

people of such country, particularly 

women and children, including 

programs that (A) promote broad-based 

primary education and (B) strengthen 

and build capacity to provide quality 

public health and reduce child 

mortality. 

Indicators—Girls’ Primary Education 

Completion, Public Expenditure on 

Primary Education, Immunization 

Rates, Public Expenditure on Health, 

and Natural Resource Management 

Where necessary the Board will also 

draw on supplemental data and 

qualitative information, including the 

State Department’s Human Rights 

Report, Transparency International’s 

Corruption Perceptions Index, and the 

Global Integrity Index. 

Annex A to Report: Indicator 

Definitions 

The following 17 indicators will be 

used to measure candidate countries’ 

demonstrated commitment to the 

criteria found in section 607(b) of the 

Act. The indicators are intended to 

assess the degree to which the political 

and economic conditions in a country 

serve to promote broad-based 

sustainable economic growth and 

reduction of poverty; and thus provide 

a sound environment for the use of 

MCA funds. The indicators are not goals 

in themselves; rather they measure 

policies that are linked to broad-based 

sustainable economic growth. The 

indicators were selected based on their 

relationship to economic growth and 

poverty reduction, the number of 

countries they cover, their transparency 

and availability, and their relative 

soundness and objectivity. Where 

possible, the indicators are developed 

by independent sources. 

Ruling Justly 

1. Civil Liberties: A panel of 

independent experts rates countries on: 

Freedom of expression; association and 

organizational rights; rule of law and 

human rights; and personal autonomy 

and economic rights. Source: Freedom 

House. 

2. Political Rights: A panel of 

independent experts rates countries on: 

The prevalence of free and fair elections 

of officials with real power; the ability 

of citizens to form political parties that 

may compete fairly in elections; 

freedom from domination by the 

military, foreign powers, totalitarian 

parties, religious hierarchies and 

economic oligarchies; and the political 

rights of minority groups. Source: 

Freedom House. 

3. Voice and Accountability: An index 

of surveys that rates countries on: The 

ability of institutions to protect civil 

liberties; the extent to which citizens of 

a country are able to participate in the 

selection of governments; and the 

independence of the media. Source: 

World Bank Institute. 

4. Government Effectiveness: An 

index of surveys that rates countries on: 

The quality of public service provision; 

civil servants’ competency and 

independence from political pressures; 

and the government’s ability to plan and 

implement sound policies. Source: 

World Bank Institute. 

5. Rule of Law: An index of surveys 

that rates countries on: The extent to 

which the public has confidence in and 

abides by the rules of society; the 

incidence of violent and nonviolent 

crime; the effectiveness, independence, 

and predictability of the judiciary; and 

the enforceability of contracts. Source: 

World Bank Institute. 

6. Control of Corruption: An index of 

surveys that rates countries on: The 

frequency of ‘‘additional payments to 

get things done;’’ the effects of 

corruption on the business 

environment; ‘‘grand corruption’’ in the 

political arena; and the tendency of 

elites to engage in ‘‘state capture.’’ 

Source: World Bank Institute. 

Encouraging Economic Freedom 

1. Inflation: The most recent 12- 

month change in consumer prices as 

reported in the IMF’s International 

Financial Statistics or in another public 

forum by the relevant national monetary 

authorities. Source: The International 

Monetary Fund’s World Economic 

Outlook (WEO) database. 

2. Fiscal Policy: The overall budget 

deficit divided by GDP, averaged over a 

three-year period. The data for this 

measure relies primarily on IMF country 

reports with input from U.S. missions in 

host countries, or is provided directly 

by the recipient government where 

public IMF data is outdated or 

unavailable. All data is cross-checked 

with the IMF’s World Economic 

Outlook database to try to ensure 

consistency across countries and made 

publicly available. Source: International 

Monetary Fund Country Reports, 

National Governments, and the 

International Monetary Fund’s World 

Economic Outlook (WEO) database. 

3. Business Start-Up: An index that 

rates countries on the time and cost of 

complying with all procedures officially 

required for an entrepreneur to start up 

and formally operate an industrial or 

commercial business. Source: 

International Finance Corporation. 

4. Trade Policy: A measure of a 

country’s openness to international 

trade based on weighted average tariff 

rates and non-tariff barriers to trade. 

Source: The Heritage Foundation. 

5. Regulatory Quality: An index of 

surveys that rates countries on: The 

burden of regulations on business; price 

controls; the government’s role in the 

economy; foreign investment regulation; 

and many other areas. Source: World 

Bank Institute. 

6. Land Rights and Access: An index 

that rates countries on: The extent to 

which the institutional, legal, and 

market framework provide secure land 

tenure and equitable access to land in 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

60362 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices 

rural areas and the time and cost of 

property registration in urban and periurban areas. Source: The International 

Fund for Agricultural Development 

(IFAD) and the International Finance 

Corporation. 

Investing in People 

1. Public Expenditure on Health: 

Total expenditures on health by 

government at all levels divided by 

GDP. Source: The World Health 

Organization (WHO). 

2. Immunization Rates: The average of 

DPT3 and measles immunization rates 

for the most recent year available. 

Source: The World Health Organization 

(WHO). 

3. Total Public Expenditure on 

Primary Education: Total expenditures 

on primary education by government at 

all levels divided by GDP. Source: The 

United Nations Educational, Scientific 

and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 

and National Governments. 

4. Girls’ Primary Completion Rate: 

The number of female students enrolled 

in the last grade of primary education 

minus repeaters divided by the 

population in the relevant age cohort. 

Source: United Nations Educational, 

Scientific and Cultural Organization 

(UNESCO). 

5. Natural Resource Management: An 

index made up of four indicators: Ecoregion protection, access to improved 

water, access to improved sanitation, 

and child (ages 1–4) mortality. Source: 

The Center for International Earth 

Science Information Network (CIESIN) 

and the Yale Center for Environmental 

Law and Policy (YCLEP). 

[FR Doc. E8–24206 Filed 10–9–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9211–03–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice (08–077)] 

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; 

Meeting. 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Notice of Meeting; Correction. 

Federal Register Citation of 

Previous Announcement: 73 FR 58668, 

Notice Number 08–067, October 7, 2008. 

SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration published a 

document in the Federal Register of 

October 7, 2008, announcing a meeting 

of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel 

(ASAP). The document announced an 

incorrect meeting time. 

Correction: Date and time of ASAP 

meeting is Wednesday, October 23, 

2008, 10 a.m. to 12 noon. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Kathy Dakon, Aerospace Safety 

Advisory Panel Executive Director, 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, Washington, DC 20546, 

(202) 358–0732. 

Dated: October 7, 2008. 

P. Diane Rausch, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer, 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–24244 Filed 10–9–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510–13–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Advisory Committee for Mathematical 

and Physical Sciences; Notice of 

Meeting 

In accordance with Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as 

amended), the National Science 

Foundation announces the following 

meeting: 

Name: Advisory Committee for 

Mathematical and Physical Sciences (66) 

Date/Time: November 5, 2008 2 p.m.–4 

p.m.; November 6, 2008 8 a.m.–6 p.m.; 

November 7, 2008 8 a.m.–3 p.m. 

Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 

Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, 

November 5 Room 1005; November 6, Room 

375; November 7, Room 1235. 

Type of Meeting: Open. 

Contact Person: Dr. Morris L. Aizenman, 

Senior Science Associate, Directorate for 

Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Room 

1005, National Science Foundation, 4201 

Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. 

(703) 292–8807. 

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and 

recommendations concerning NSF science 

and education activities within the 

Directorate for Mathematical and Physical 

Sciences. 

Agenda: 

Briefing to new members about NSF and 

Directorate (11/5). 

Update on current status of Directorate. 

Report of NSF Advisory Panel on Light 

Source Facilities Subcommittee. 

Meeting of MPSAC with Divisions within 

MPS Directorate. 

Discussion of MPS Long-term Planning 

Activities. 

Summary Minutes: May be obtained from 

the contact person listed above. 

Dated: October 6, 2008. 

Susanne E. Bolton, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8–24067 Filed 10–9–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–028] 

South Carolina Electric & Gas 

Company, Acting for Itself and as 

Agent for the South Carolina Public 

Service Authority (Also Referred to as 

Santee Cooper) Application for the 

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 

2 and 3; Notice of Order, Hearing, and 

Opportunity To Petition for Leave To 

Intervene 

Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended, and the regulations 

in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Part 2, ‘‘Rules of 

Practice for Domestic Licensing 

Proceedings and Issuance of Orders,’’ 10 

CFR Part 50, ‘‘Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities,’’ 

and 10 CFR Part 52, ‘‘Licenses, 

Certifications, and Approvals for 

Nuclear Power Plants,’’ notice is hereby 

given that a hearing will be held, at a 

time and place to be set in the future by 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC, the Commission) or 

designated by the Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board (Board). The hearing 

will consider the application dated 

March 27, 2008, filed by South Carolina 

Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G), acting 

for itself and as agent for South Carolina 

Public Service Authority (also referred 

to as Santee Cooper), pursuant to 

Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 52, for a 

combined license (COL). The 

application requests approval of a COL 

for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 

Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, to be 

located in Fairfield County, South 

Carolina. The application was accepted 

for docketing on July 31, 2008 (August 

6, 2008; 73 FR 45793). The docket 

numbers established for this COL 

application are 52–027 and 52–028. The 

Summer COL application incorporates 

by reference Appendix D to 10 CFR 52 

(which includes the AP1000 design 

through Revision 15), as amended by 

the AP1000 Design Control Document 

(DCD) submitted by Westinghouse as 

Revision 16 and Westinghouse 

Technical Report APP–GW–GLR–134, 

Revision 4. By letter to Westinghouse 

dated January 18, 2008, the staff 

accepted DCD Revision 16 for 

docketing. Proposed amendments to the 

AP1000 certified design are subject of 

an ongoing rulemaking under docket 

number 52–006. 

The hearing on the COL application 

will be conducted by a Board that will 

be designated by the Chairman of the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel or will be conducted by the 

Commission. Notice as to the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES