Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Notices 64751 

integrity. The individual providing the 

signature should know that he/she is 

signing the document, and the signature 

process should be concise enough to 

assure that the individual initiating the 

process is the same person concluding 

the process. Systems that produce 

electronic records should have 

provisions that inform individuals 

electronically signing the document that 

they are entering their signatures. This 

process should be separate from the act 

of opening the document because most 

records required by NRC are produced 

by other individuals and may be 

produced and revised over an 

unspecified time. 

The signature process should be such 

that it is uniquely tied to the individual 

whose signature is required and the 

period that the signature process is open 

should be short enough to assure that 

the individual starting the process is the 

individual completing the process. If the 

signature is required to demonstrate 

review of specific information, then 

completion of the electronic signature 

should also block alteration of that 

information. Subsequent changes to the 

information should require a new 

electronic signature and not overwrite 

previous versions of the signed 

document. If the document must be 

dated and signed to meet the 

regulations, the electronic signature 

process should also affix the date and 

time to each electronic signature. 

Because these electronic records are 

kept at the facility and not sent to the 

NRC they have to be electronically 

inspected at the facility. Printing an 

electronic record with an electronic 

signature would not constitute a 

complete and accurate record because 

critical electronic information 

associated with the electronic record 

would not be available for inspection. 

B. Issues for Discussion 

The following is a listing of issues 

regarding the use of electronic 

signatures on documents related to the 

medical use of byproduct material. Each 

issue is followed by one or more 

questions about existing practices 

related to standards, authentication, 

non-repudiation, data integrity, records 

inspection, and improvements to 

software. The questions listed below are 

not meant to be a complete or final list 

of issues to be considered but are 

provided to initiate comments. 

Stakeholders are requested to comment 

on and recommend additions, deletions, 

or modifications to the issues listed 

below; and propose considerations for 

implementation of electronic signatures 

regarding each issue, as appropriate. 

These issues, and other relevant and 

substantial issues identified by 

commenters, will serve as the basis of 

discussion at the public meetings, if 

these meetings are scheduled in the 

future. Public feedback will also be used 

in developing options for 

implementation. 

Issue No. 1—Standards 

Q1.1 What standards for electronic 

signatures in medical records are in use 

or under development? 

Q1.2 How do these standards 

address the principles of authentication, 

non-repudiation, data integrity, and 

access for inspection, as described in 

Issues No. 2 through 5, below? 

Q1.3 Do these standards consider 

any additional key principles? 

Issue No. 2—Authentication 

Q2.1 For software applications 

currently in use, how does the licensee 

assure that the signature process is 

uniquely tied to the individual whose 

signature is required? 

Issue No. 3—Non-Repudiation 

Q3.1 For software applications 

currently in use, what provisions does 

the licensee use to inform persons 

electronically signing documents that 

they are entering their signature? 

Issue No. 4—Data Integrity 

Q4.1 For software applications 

currently in use, how does the licensee 

assure that the document being 

electronically signed cannot be changed 

after it is signed? 

Q4.2 For software applications 

currently in use, how does the licensee 

assure that subsequent changes to the 

electronically signed document require 

a new electronic signature and cannot 

overwrite previous versions of the 

signed document? 

Q4.3 For software applications 

currently in use, how does the licensee 

assure that the electronic signature 

process affixes the date and time to each 

electronic signature? 

Issue No. 5—Records Inspection 

Q5.1 For software applications 

currently in use, how does the licensee 

assure that electronically signed 

documents and all revisions to the 

electronically signed documents are 

accessible for inspection? 

Q5.2 For software applications 

currently in use, how does the licensee 

assure that electronically signed 

documents and all revisions to the 

electronically signed documents are 

retained for 3 years? 

Issue No. 6—Need for Improvements to 

Current Commercially-Available 

Software Applications 

Q6.1 Are any improvements needed 

for current commercially-available 

software applications to adequately 

meet existing standards and principles? 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day 

of Oct. 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Christian Einberg, 

Acting Deputy Director, Licensing and 

Inspection Support Directorate, Division of 

Materials Safety and State Agreements, Office 

of Federal and State Materials, and 

Environmental Management Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26391 Filed 10–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. STN 50–456, STN 50–457, STN 

50–454, and STN 50–455; NRC–2010–0329] 

Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 and 

Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; 

Notice of Withdrawal of Application for 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission) has 

granted the request of Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC (the licensee) 

to withdraw its March 26, 2009, 

application for proposed amendments to 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–72 

and NPF–77 for Braidwood Station, 

Units 1 and 2, respectively, located in 

Will County, Illinois, and to Facility 

Operating License Nos. NPF–37 and 

NPF–66 for Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 

and 2, respectively, located in Ogle 

County, Illinois. 

The proposed amendment would 

have revised the fire protection program 

to eliminate the requirement for the 

backup manual carbon dioxide fire 

suppression system in the upper cable 

spreading rooms. 

The Commission had previously 

issued a Notice of Consideration of 

Issuance of Amendment published in 

the Federal Register on May 19, 2009 

(74 FR 23445). However, by letter dated 

September 20, 2010, the licensee 

withdrew the proposed change. 

For further details with respect to this 

action, see the application for 

amendment dated March 26, 2009, as 

supplemented by letters dated 

September 10, 2009, March 15, and May 

27, 2010, and the licensee’s letter dated 

September 20, 2010, which withdrew 

the application for license amendment. 

Documents may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
64752 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Notices 

Document Room (PDR), located at One 

White Flint North, Public File Area O1 

F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available 

records will be accessible electronically 

from the Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading 

Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 

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

adams.html. Persons who do not have 

access to ADAMS or who encounter 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS should contact the 

NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone 

at 1–800–397–4209, or 301–415–4737 or 

by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day 

of October 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Marshall J. David, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing 

Branch III–2, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26394 Filed 10–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

PACIFIC NORTHWEST ELECTRIC 

POWER AND CONSERVATION 

PLANNING COUNCIL 

Amended Columbia River Basin Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

AGENCY: Pacific Northwest Electric 

Power and Conservation Planning 

Council (Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council), an interstate 

compact agency organized under the 

authority of the Pacific Northwest 

Electric Power Planning and 

Conservation Act of 1980, 16 U.S.C. 839 

et seq. (Northwest Power Act). 

ACTION: Notice of final action adopting 

the management plan elements of the 

Bitterroot River Subbasin Plan into the 

Council’s Columbia River Basin Fish 

and Wildlife Program. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 4(h) of 

the Northwest Power Act, the Council 

has amended its Columbia River Basin 

Fish and Wildlife Program to add the 

Bitterroot River Subbasin Plan. The 

program as amended may be found on 

the Council’s Web site at http:// 

www.nwcouncil.org/fw/program and 

then, for the subbasin plan elements and 

relevant decision documents in 

particular, at http://www.nwcouncil.org/ 

fw/subbasinplanning/Default.htm. 

Further information and an explanation 

of this amendment process may be 

found in the documents on that page or 

by contacting the Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council at (503) 222–5161 

or toll free (800) 452–5161. 

Stephen L. Crow, 

Executive Director. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26372 Filed 10–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

Upon Written Request, Copies Available 

From: Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of Investor 

Education and Advocacy, 

Washington, DC 20549–0213. 

Extension: 

Form N–CSR, SEC File No. 270–512, OMB 

Control No. 3235–0570. 

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

and Exchange Commission (the 

‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) a request for extension of the 

previously approved collection of 

information discussed below. 

Form N–CSR (17 CFR 249.331 and 

274.128) is a combined reporting form 

used by management investment 

companies to file certified shareholder 

reports under the Investment Company 

Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–1 et seq.) 

(‘‘Investment Company Act’’) and under 

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 

U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (‘‘Exchange Act’’). 

Form N–CSR is to be used for reports 

under Section 30(b)(2) of the Investment 

Company Act and Section 13(a) or 15(d) 

of the Exchange Act, filed pursuant to 

rule 30b2–1(a) under the Investment 

Company Act (17 CFR 270.30b2–1(a)). 

Reports on Form N–CSR are to be filed 

with the Commission not later than 10 

days after the transmission to 

stockholders of any report that is 

required to be transmitted to 

stockholders under rule 30e–1 under the 

Investment Company Act (17 CFR 

270.30e–1). 

The Commission estimates that there 

are 6,640 reports filed on Form N–CSR 

annually and that the average number of 

portfolios referenced in each filing is 

3.75. The Commission further estimates 

that the hour burden for preparing and 

filing a report on Form N–CSR is 7.62 

hours per portfolio. Given that filings on 

Form N–CSR are filed semi-annually, 

filings on Form N–CSR require 15.24 

hours per portfolio each year. The total 

annual hour burden for Form N–CSR, 

therefore, is estimated to be 154,686 

hours. 

The current total annual cost burden 

to respondents for outside professionals 

associated with the collection of data 

relating to Form N–CSR is currently 

$1,119,001 and the new total annual 

cost burden to respondents is estimated 

to be $1,556,401, representing an 

increase of $437,400. 

The information collection 

requirements imposed by Form N–CSR 

are mandatory. Responses to the 

collection of information will not be 

kept confidential. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid control number. 

Please direct general comments 

regarding the above information to the 

following persons: (i) Desk Officer for 

the Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of Management and 

Budget, Room 10102, New Executive 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 

or send an e-mail to: Shagufta Ahmed at 

Shagufta_Ahmed@omb.eop.gov; and (ii) 

Jeffrey Heslop, Acting Director/CIO, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General 

Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312, or 

send an e-mail to: 

PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov. Comments must 

be submitted to OMB within 30 days of 

this notice. 

Dated: October 13, 2010. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26343 Filed 10–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

Upon Written Request, Copies Available 

From: Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of Investor 

Education and Advocacy, 

Washington, DC 20549–0213. 

Extension: 

Form 5 OMB Control No. 3235–0362 SEC 

File No. 270–323. 

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget this 

request for extension of the previously 

approved collection of information 

discussed below. 

Under Section 16(a) of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’) 

(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) every person who 

is directly or indirectly the beneficial 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES