61216 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 

USAID has the meaning provided in 

paragraph 1(e) of Part B of Annex I. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24820 Filed 10–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9211–03–P 

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE 

CORPORATION 

[MCC FR 10–12] 

Report on the Selection of Eligible 

Countries for Fiscal Year 2011 

AGENCY: Millennium Challenge 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This report is provided in 

accordance with section 608(d)(1) of the 

Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, 

Public Law 108–199, Division D, (the 

‘‘Act’’), 22 U.S.C. 7708(d)(1). 

Dated: September 28, 2010. 

Melvin F. Williams, Jr., 

VP/General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, 

Millennium Challenge Corporation. 

Report on the Criteria and Methodology 

for Determining the Eligibility of 

Candidate Countries for Millennium 

Challenge Account Assistance for Fiscal 

Year 2011 

This report to Congress is provided in 

accordance with section 608(b) of the 

Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as 

amended, 22 U.S.C. 7707(b) (the ‘‘Act’’). 

The Act authorizes the provision of 

Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) 

assistance to countries that enter into a 

Millennium Challenge Compact 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 what countries will be 

selected as eligible for MCA compact 

assistance for fiscal year 2011 (FY11) 

based on the countries’ demonstrated 

commitment to just and democratic 

governance, economic freedom, and 

investing in their people, as well as 

MCC’s opportunity to reduce poverty 

and generate economic growth in the 

country. These steps include the 

submission of reports to the 

congressional committees specified in 

the Act and publication of notices in the 

Federal Register that identify: 

The countries that are ‘‘candidate 

countries’’ for MCA assistance for FY11 

based on their per capita income levels 

and their eligibility to receive assistance 

under U.S. law. This report also 

identifies countries that would be 

candidate countries but for specified 

legal prohibitions on assistance (section 

608(a) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(a)); 

The criteria and methodology that 

MCC’s Board of Directors (Board) will 

use to measure and evaluate the policy 

performance of the candidate countries 

consistent with the requirements of 

section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) 

in order to determine ‘‘MCA eligible 

countries’’ from among the ‘‘candidate 

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

and 

The list of countries determined by 

the Board to be ‘‘MCA eligible countries’’ 

for FY11, with justification for 

eligibility determination and selection 

for compact negotiation, including with 

which of the MCA eligible countries the 

Board will seek to enter into MCA 

compacts (section 608(d) of the Act). 

This report is the second of the three 

required reports listed above. 

Criteria and Methodology for FY11 

The Board will base its selection of 

eligible countries on several factors 

including: 

The country’s overall performance in 

three broad policy categories—Ruling 

Justly, Encouraging Economic Freedom, 

and Investing in People; MCC’s 

opportunity to reduce poverty and 

generate economic growth in a country; 

and Availability of funds to MCC. 

Performance of Policy Categories 

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 FY11, 

there will be two groups of candidate 

countries—low income countries (LIC) 

and lower middle income countries 

(LMIC). As outlined in MCC’s Report on 

Countries that are Candidate Countries 

for Millennium Challenge Account 

Eligibility for Fiscal Year 2011 and 

Countries that would be Candidates but 

or Legal Prohibitions (August 2010), LIC 

candidates are those countries that have 

a per capita income equal to or less than 

$1,905 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 Assistant 

Act or any other provision of law. LMIC 

candidates are those countries that have 

a per capita income between $1,906 and 

$3,945 and are not ineligible to receive 

United States economic assistance 

under the same stipulations. 

The Board uses seventeen indicators 

to assess the policy performance of 

individual countries (specific 

definitions of the indicators and their 

sources are set out in the attached 

Annex A). These indicators are grouped 

for purposes of the FY11 assessment 

methodology under the three policy 

categories listed below. 

Ruling Justly 

Civil Liberties 

Political Rights 

Voice and Accountability 

Government Effectiveness 

Rule of Law 

Control of Corruption 

Encouraging Economic Freedom 

Inflation 

Fiscal Policy 

Business Start-up 

Trade Policy 

Regulatory Quality 

Land Rights Access 

Investing in People 

Public Expenditure on Health 

Public Expenditure on Primary 

Education 

Immunization Rates 

Girls’ Primary Education Completion 

Natural Resource Management 

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 

income level peers (LIC or LMIC) on at 

least three of the indicators in each of 

the Ruling Justly, Encouraging 

Economic Freedom, and Investing in 

People categories, 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 must be under a fixed ceiling of 15 

percent. The Board may also take into 

consideration whether a country 

performs substantially below the 

median on any indicator (i.e., below the 

25th percentile) and has not taken 

appropriate measures to address this 

shortcoming. 

Approach to Income Classification 

Transition 

Each year a number of countries shift 

income groups, and some countries 

formerly classified as LICs suddenly 

face new, higher performance standards 

in the LMIC group. As a result, they 

typically perform relatively worse as an 

LMIC, even if they performed relatively 

well as an LIC, and maintained or 

improved performance over the 

previous year in absolute terms. To 

address the challenges associated with 

sudden changes in performance 

standards for these countries, MCC has 

adopted an approach to income category 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61217 

transition whereby the Board may 

consider the indicator performance of 

countries that transitioned from the LIC 

to the LMIC category both relative to 

their LMIC peers, as well as in 

comparison to the current fiscal year’s 

LIC pool for a period of three years. 

Supplemental Information 

While the indicators are the 

predominant basis for determining 

which countries will be eligible for 

MCA assistance, it is consistent with the 

Act for the Board to exercise discretion 

when evaluating performance on the 

indicators and determining a final list of 

eligible countries. The Board may 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 income 

category. Such supplemental 

information is important because there 

are elements of the eligibility criteria set 

out in the Act for which there is either 

limited quantitative information (e.g., 

the 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. 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. 

Supplemental information is also 

important because it makes up for data 

gaps, lags, trends, or other weaknesses 

in particular indicators. For example, 

the median score (and passing 

threshold) for the Girls’ Primary 

Education Completion indicator in the 

LMIC group has historically been very 

high. Recognizing that this may pose 

limitations on the indicator’s ability to 

meaningfully differentiate policy 

performance, the Board may consider 

that a girls’ primary education 

completion rate above 95 percent 

essentially represents full completion, 

regardless of where the median score for 

this indicator falls. As additional 

information in the area of corruption, 

the Board may consider how a country 

is evaluated by supplemental sources 

like Transparency International’s 

Corruption Perceptions Index and the 

Global Integrity Report, among others, 

as well as on the defined indicator. 

Consideration for Subsequent Compacts 

Countries nearing the end of compact 

implementation may be considered for 

eligibility for a second compact. In 

determining eligibility for a second 

compact, the Board will consider, 

among other factors, the country’s 

policy performance using the 

methodology and criteria described 

above and the country’s track record of 

performance implementing its first 

compact. To assess implementation of a 

first compact, the Board will consider 

the nature of the country partnership 

with MCC, the degree to which the 

country has demonstrated a 

commitment and capacity to achieve 

program results, and the degree to 

which the country has implemented the 

compact in accordance with MCC’s 

policies and standards. 

Continuing Policy Performance 

Partner countries that are developing 

or implementing a compact are expected 

to seek to maintain and improve policy 

performance. MCC recognizes that 

partner countries may not meet the 

indicator criteria from time to time due 

to a number of factors, such as changes 

in the peer-group median; transition 

into a new income category (e.g., from 

LIC to LMIC); numerical declines in 

score that are within the statistical 

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 in measuring performance. None of 

these factors alone signifies a significant 

policy reversal or warrants suspension 

or termination of eligibility and/or 

assistance. 

However, MCC may issue a warning, 

suspension, or termination of eligibility 

and/or assistance to countries that 

demonstrate a significant policy 

reversal. 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 * * *.’’ Because 

of data lags, this pattern of actions need 

not be captured in the indicators for 

MCC to take action. 

Consideration of Changes to the Criteria 

and Methodology 

For FY11, there are no changes to the 

core criteria or methodology used in 

FY10. 

In keeping with MCC’s commitment 

to aid effectiveness through regular 

evaluation of its own practice, MCC is 

undertaking a comprehensive review of 

its country selection process. At the 

time the selection system was 

established, MCC’s country scorecard 

represented the most effective way to 

use third-party data to compare policy 

performance as objectively as possible 

across the broad majority of low and 

lower middle income countries. After 

using this system for six years, MCC 

believes it is appropriate to undertake a 

review to ensure that the most effective 

indicator system is being used to 

evaluate and select countries for 

eligibility. While the review may find 

that MCC should make no changes to 

the selection system, it may, 

alternatively, identify recommended 

adjustments. Any such adjustments 

could be implemented as part of the 

fiscal year 2012 selection process. 

The selection review is in its early 

stages and planned to extend through 

mid-2011. The review will include 

consultations with a broad range of 

stakeholders and experts in the 

development community. As a first step, 

MCC encourages broad participation in 

the formal public comment period that 

follows the publication of this report 

and lasts until December 15. 

Relationship to Statutory 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 in determining 

eligibility for MCA assistance and in 

measuring the relative performance by 

candidate countries against these 

criteria. Performance against each of 

these criteria is assessed by at least one 

of the seventeen objective indicators 

and some criteria are addressed by 

multiple indicators. The following list 

of the criteria set forth in the Act 

identifies in parentheses the 

corresponding indicators. 

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

governance, including a demonstrated 

commitment to— 

(A) Promote political pluralism, 

equality and the rule of law (Political 

Rights, Civil Liberties, Voice and 

Accountability, and Rule of Law); 

(B) Respect human and civil rights, 

including the rights of people with 

disabilities (Political Rights, Civil 

Liberties, and Voice and 

Accountability); 

(C) Protect private property rights 

(Civil Liberties, Regulatory Quality, Rule 

of Law, and Land Rights and Access); 

(D) Encourage transparency and 

accountability of government (Political 

Rights, Civil Liberties, Voice and 

Accountability, Control of Corruption, 

Rule of Law, and Government 

Effectiveness); and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
61218 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 

(E) Combat corruption (Political 

Rights, 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 (Fiscal 

Policy, Inflation, Trade Policy, and 

Regulatory Quality); 

(B) Promote private sector growth 

(Inflation, Business Start-Up, Fiscal 

Policy, Land Rights and Access, and 

Regulatory Quality); 

(C) Strengthen market forces in the 

economy (Fiscal Policy, Inflation, Trade 

Policy, Business Start-Up, Land Rights 

and Access, and Regulatory Quality); 

and 

(D) Respect worker rights, including 

the right to form labor unions (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 (Girls’ Primary Education 

Completion and Public Expenditure on 

Primary Education); 

(B) Strengthen and build capacity to 

provide quality public health and 

reduce child mortality (Immunization 

Rates, Public Expenditure on Health, 

and Natural Resource Management); 

and 

(C) Promote the protection of 

biodiversity and the transparent and 

sustainable management and use of 

natural resources (Natural Resource 

Management). 

Annex A 

Indicator Definitions 

The following 17 indicators will be 

used in measuring candidate countries’ 

demonstrated commitment to the 

criteria set forth 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 are proxy 

measures of policies that are linked to 

broad-based sustainable economic 

growth. The indicators were selected 

based on their (i) Relationship to 

economic growth and poverty 

reduction; (ii) the number of countries 

they cover; (iii) transparency and 

availability; and (iv) relative soundness 

and objectivity. Where possible, the 

indicators are developed by 

independent sources. 

Ruling Justly 

Civil Liberties: Independent experts 

rate countries on: Freedom of 

expression; association and 

organizational rights; rule of law and 

human rights; and personal autonomy 

and economic rights, among other 

things. Source: Freedom House. 

Political Rights: Independent experts 

rate 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, 

among other things. Source: Freedom 

House. 

Voice and Accountability: An index 

of surveys and expert assessments that 

rate 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, among other things. Source: 

Worldwide Governance Indicators 

(World Bank/Brookings Institution). 

Government Effectiveness: An index 

of surveys and expert assessments that 

rate 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, among other 

things. Source: Worldwide Governance 

Indicators (World Bank/Brookings 

Institution). 

Rule of Law: An index of surveys and 

expert assessments that rate countries 

on: The extent to which the public has 

confidence in and abides by the rules of 

society; the incidence and impact of 

violent and nonviolent crime; the 

effectiveness, independence, and 

predictability of the judiciary; the 

protection of property rights; and the 

enforceability of contracts, among other 

things. Source: Worldwide Governance 

Indicators (World Bank/Brookings 

Institution). 

Control of Corruption: An index of 

surveys and expert assessments that rate 

countries on: ‘‘Grand corruption’’ in the 

political arena; the frequency of petty 

corruption; the effects of corruption on 

the business environment; and the 

tendency of elites to engage in ‘‘state 

capture,’’ among other things. Source: 

Worldwide Governance Indicators 

(World Bank/Brookings Institution). 

Encouraging Economic Freedom 

Inflation: The most recent average 

annual change in consumer prices. 

Source: The International Monetary 

Fund’s World Economic Outlook 

Database. 

Fiscal Policy: The overall budget 

balance divided by GDP, averaged over 

a three-year period. The data for this 

measure come primarily from IMF 

country reports or, where public IMF 

data are outdated or unavailable, are 

provided directly by the recipient 

government with input from U.S. 

missions in host countries. All data are 

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 Database. 

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. 

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. 

Regulatory Quality: An index of 

surveys and expert assessments that rate 

countries on: the burden of regulations 

on business; price controls; the 

government’s role in the economy; and 

foreign investment regulation, among 

other areas. Source: Worldwide 

Governance Indicators (World Bank/ 

Brookings Institution). 

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 

rural areas and the time and cost of 

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

Fund for Agricultural Development and 

the International Finance Corporation. 

Investing in People 

Public Expenditure on Health: Total 

expenditures on health by government 

at all levels divided by GDP. Source: 

The World Health Organization. 

Immunization Rates: The average of 

DPT3 and measles immunization 

coverage rates for the most recent year 

available. Source: The World Health 

Organization and the United Nations 

Children’s Fund. 

Total Public Expenditure on Primary 

Education: Total expenditures on 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61219 

primary education by government at all 

levels divided by GDP. Source: The 

United Nations Educational, Scientific 

and Cultural Organization and National 

Governments. 

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 

(gross intake ratio in the last grade of 

primary). Source: United Nations 

Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Organization. 

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 and the 

Yale Center for Environmental Law and 

Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24727 Filed 10–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9211–03–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice (10–116)] 

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; 

Meeting 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public 

Law 92–463, as amended, the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

announces a forthcoming meeting of the 

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. 

DATES: Friday, October 22, 2010, 12:30 

p.m. to 2 p.m. Central Standard Time. 

ADDRESSES: Johnson Space Center, 

NASA Road 1, Building 1, Room 966, 

Houston, TX 77058. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Kathy Dakon, Aerospace Safety 

Advisory Panel Executive Director, 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, Washington, DC 20546, 

(202) 358–0732. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel will 

hold its fourth Quarterly Meeting for 

2010. This discussion is pursuant to 

carrying out its statutory duties for 

which the Panel reviews, identifies, 

evaluates, and advises on those program 

activities, systems, procedures, and 

management activities that can 

contribute to program risk. Priority is 

given to those programs that involve the 

safety of human flight. The agenda will 

include Safety and Mission Assurance 

Issues, Safely De-Orbiting the 

International Space Station, and 

Inspector General Study: Astronaut 

Health Update. The meeting will be 

open to the public up to the seating 

capacity of the room. Seating will be on 

a first-come basis. Attendees will be 

required to sign a visitor’s register and 

to comply with NASA security 

requirements, including the 

presentation of a valid picture ID, before 

receiving an access badge. Foreign 

nationals attending the meeting will be 

required to provide the following 

information no less than 7 working days 

prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; 

date/place of birth; citizenship; visa/ 

green card information (number, type, 

expiration date); passport information 

(number, country, expiration date); 

employer/affiliation information (name 

of institution, address, country, 

telephone); and title/position of 

attendee. Additional information may 

be requested. This would also include 

Legal Permanent Resident information: 

Green card number and expiration date. 

To expedite admittance, attendees with 

U.S. citizenship can provide identifying 

information 2 working days in advance. 

Persons with disabilities who require 

assistance should indicate this. 

Photographs will only be permitted 

during the first 10 minutes of the 

meeting. During the first 30 minutes of 

the meeting, members of the public may 

make a 5-minute verbal presentation to 

the Panel on the subject of safety in 

NASA. Any member of the public is 

permitted to file a written statement 

with the Panel at the time of the 

meeting. Verbal presentations and 

written comments should be limited to 

the subject of safety in NASA and 

should be received 2 working days in 

advance. It is imperative that the 

meeting be held on this date to 

accommodate the scheduling priorities 

of the key participants. To reserve a 

seat, file a written statement, or make a 

verbal presentation, please contact Ms. 

Susan Burch via e-mail at 

Susan.Burch@nasa.gov. 

Dated: September 28, 2010. 

P. Diane Rausch, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer, 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24753 Filed 10–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–458; NRC–2010–0315] 

Entergy Operations, Inc.; River Bend 

Station, Unit 1; Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

changes to the Emergency Plan, 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54, ‘‘Conditions 

of licenses,’’ paragraph (q), for Facility 

Operating License No. DPF–47, issued 

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the 

licensee), for operation of the River 

Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), located in 

West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. In 

accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC 

performed an environmental 

assessment. Based on the results of the 

environmental assessment, the NRC is 

issuing a finding of no significant 

impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The guidance in NUREG–0654/ 

FEMA–REP–1, Table B–1, ‘‘Minimum 

Staffing Requirements for NRC 

Licensees for Nuclear Power Plant 

Emergencies,’’ for repair and corrective 

actions states that two individuals, one 

Mechanical Maintenance/Radwaste 

Operator and one Electrical 

Maintenance/Instrumentation and 

Control (I&C) technician, should be 

designated for each shift, but their 

functions may be carried out by shift 

personnel assigned other duties. The 

licensee is committed to the guidance in 

NUREG–0654, but has requested a 

deviation. Specifically, the proposed 

action would revise Section 13.3.4.2.2.4, 

‘‘Plant Systems Engineering, Repair, and 

Corrective Actions,’’ and Table 13.3–17, 

‘‘Shift Staffing and Augmentation 

Capabilities,’’ of the RBS Emergency 

Plan (E-Plan). The revision will allow 

two maintenance positions on shift to be 

filled with any combination of the three 

maintenance craft disciplines. 

Currently, Table 13.3–17 of the E-Plan 

only allows Electrical or I&C technicians 

to fill these two positions. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

January 28, 2010 (Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) Accession No. 

ML100320044). 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed change will allow the 

required shift complement of two 

technicians to be any combination from 

the three maintenance groups. Since the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES