Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices 36273 

Title: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

(Tax Identification No.) 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

(Mailing Address) 

lllllllllllllllllllll

(Telephone Number) 

lllllllllllllllllllll

(Fax Number) 

Form of TCCULGP Assignment 

The undersigned is the holder (‘‘Holder’’) 

or a duly authorized representative 

(‘‘Representative’’) of a holder or holders of 

Temporary Corporate Credit Union 

Stabilization Fund (‘‘TCCUSF’’) guaranteed 

debt under the _________ [insert title of 

governing document and CUSIP Number, if 

any] dated _______ [insert month, day and 

year] by and between _____ Credit Union 

(‘‘Issuer’’), as the Issuer, and the undersigned 

(as amended from time to time, the 

‘‘Agreement’’), pursuant to which the 

TCCUSF-guaranteed debt obligations were 

issued by ____ Credit Union and are now 

outstanding. The undersigned Holder, or 

Representative on behalf of all holders, has 

demanded payment of amounts due and 

payable, and that are now in default, such 

default not having been cured as of the date 

hereof. 

In conjunction with that demand, the 

undersigned Holder, or Representative on 

behalf of all holders, has executed and 

submits this Assignment made pursuant to 

the terms of Section [___] of the Agreement. 

Capitalized terms used herein and not 

otherwise defined herein shall have the 

meanings assigned thereto in the Agreement. 

For value received, the undersigned 

Holder, or Representative on behalf of all 

holders, (the ‘‘Assignor’’), hereby assigns to 

the National Credit Union Administration 

(‘‘NCUA’’) TCCUSF, without recourse, all of 

the Assignor’s respective rights, title and 

interest in and to: (a) The promissory note or 

other instrument evidencing the debt issued 

under the Agreement (the ‘‘Note’’); (b) the 

Agreement pursuant to which the Note was 

issued; and (c) any other instrument or 

agreement executed by the Issuer regarding 

obligations of the Issuer under the Note or 

the Agreement (collectively, the 

‘‘Assignment’’). 

The Assignor acknowledges and agrees that 

this Assignment is subject to the Agreement 

and to the following: 

1) In the event the Assignor receives any 

payment under or related to the Note or the 

Agreement from a party other than the 

TCCUSF (a ‘‘Non-TCCUSF Payment’’): 

a. After the date of demand for a guarantee 

payment on the TCCUSF pursuant to the 

TCCULGP, but prior to the date of the 

TCCUSF’s first guarantee payment under the 

Agreement, the Assignor shall promptly but 

in no event later than five (5) Business Days 

after the receipt notify the TCCUSF of the 

date and the amount of such Non-TCCUSF 

Payment and shall apply such payment as 

payment made by the Issuer, and not as a 

guarantee payment made by the TCCUSF 

under the TCCULGP, and therefore, the 

amount of such payment shall be excluded 

from this Assignment; and 

b. After the TCCUSF’s first guarantee 

payment under the Agreement, the Assignor 

shall forward promptly to the TCCUSF such 

Non-TCCUSF Payment in accordance with 

the payment instructions provided in writing 

by the TCCUSF. 

2) Acceptance by the Assignor of payment 

pursuant to the TCCULGP for its own behalf, 

or in the case of a Representative Assignor, 

on behalf of the holders, shall constitute a 

release by such Holder or holders of any 

liability of the TCCUSF and the NCUA under 

the TCCULGP with respect to such payment. 

The person who is executing this 

Assignment on behalf of the Assignor hereby 

represents and warrants to the NCUA and the 

TCCUSF that he/she/it is duly authorized to 

do so. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Assignor has 

caused this instrument to be executed and 

delivered this ___ day of ____, 20_. 

Very truly yours, 

[Assignor] 

By: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Printed Name: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

For more information about the original 

and revised TCCULGPs, including terms, 

conditions, participants, and forms, 

interested parties may contact Senior Analyst 

Dave Shetler of the NCUA Office of Corporate 

Credit Unions. 

Dated: July 16, 2009. 

Mary Rupp, 

Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. E9–17339 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Comment Request 

AGENCY: National Science Foundation. 

ACTION: Submission for OMB review; 

comment request. 

SUMMARY: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) has submitted the 

following information collection 

requirement to OMB for review and 

clearance under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–13. 

This is the second notice for public 

comment; the first was published in the 

Federal Register at 74 FR 23219, and no 

comments were received. NSF is 

forwarding the proposed renewal 

submission to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for clearance 

simultaneously with the publication of 

this second notice. The full submission 

may be found at: http:// 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

Comments regarding (a) whether the 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of burden including 

the validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility and clarity of the 

information to be collected; or (d) ways 

to minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology should be 

addressed to: Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: 

Desk Officer for National Science 

Foundation, 725—17th Street, NW., 

Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 

and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports 

Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 

Suite 295, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or 

send e-mail to splimpto@nsf.gov. 

Comments regarding this information 

collection are best assured of having 

their full effect if received within 30 

days of this notification. Copies of the 

submission(s) may be obtained by 

calling 703–292–7556. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Suzanne H. Plimpton at 703–292–7556 

or send email to splimpto@nsf.gov. 

Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, 

Monday through Friday. 

NSF may not conduct or sponsor a 

collection of information unless the 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number 

and the agency informs potential 

persons who are to respond to the 

collection of information that such 

persons are not required to respond to 

the collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title of Collection: Implementation 

Evaluation of the ADVANCE Program. 

OMB Control No.: 3145–NEW. 

Abstract: 

The ADVANCE Program was 

established by the National Science 

Foundation in 2001 to address the 

underrepresentation and inadequate 

advancement of women on STEM 

(Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics) faculties at postsecondary 

institutions. The evaluation being 

conducted by the Urban Institute 

focuses on the implementation of 

ADVANCE projects at institutions 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
36274 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices 

throughout the nation. The three major 

funding components—institutional 

transformation, leadership, and 

partnership awards—as well as all 

cohorts funded that completed their 

funding cycles will be included. The 

study will rely on a thorough review of 

project documents, telephone 

interviews with all grantees, and 

detailed case studies at selected sites. 

The goal of the evaluation will be to 

identify models of implementation and, 

depending on outcomes by model, 

conduct case studies at selected 

institutions to understand how 

ADVANCE models operate and may be 

effective in differing settings. 

Respondents: Faculty and staff at 

institutions of higher education 

awarded an ADVANCE grant from NSF. 

Estimated Number of Annual 

Respondents: 200 (total). 

Burden on the Public: 200 hours. 

Dated: July 17, 2009. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. E9–17360 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–219; NRC–2009–0320] 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC; 

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating 

Station; Environmental Assessment 

and Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of exemptions from Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G, 

‘‘Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown 

Capability,’’ for Renewed Facility 

Operating License No. DPR–16, for the 

use of operator manual actions in lieu 

of the requirements specified in Section 

III.G.2, as requested by Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC (the 

licensee), for operation of the Oyster 

Creek Nuclear Generating Station 

(Oyster Creek), located in Ocean 

County, New Jersey. Therefore, as 

required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is 

issuing this environmental assessment 

and finding of no significant impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would grant 

exemptions to 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix R, Section III.G.2 based on 20 

operator manual actions contained in 

the licensee’s Fire Protection Program 

(FPP). The licensee’s FPP requires that 

the identified operator manual actions 

be performed outside of the control 

room to achieve shutdown following 

fires in certain fire areas. The licensee 

states that each of the manual actions 

were subjected to a manual action 

feasibility review for Oyster Creek that 

determined that the manual actions are 

feasible and can be reliably performed. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

March 3, 2009 (available in the 

Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession No. ML090630132). 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed exemption from 10 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix R, was submitted in 

response to the need for an exemption 

as identified by NRC Regulatory 

Information Summary (RIS) 2006–10, 

‘‘Regulatory Expectations with 

Appendix R Paragraph III.G.2 Operator 

Manual Actions.’’ The RIS noted that 

NRC inspections identified that some 

licensees had relied upon operator 

manual actions, instead of the options 

specified in Paragraph III.G.2 of 10 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix R, as a permanent 

solution to resolve issues related to 

Thermo-Lag 330–1 fire barriers. The 

licensee indicates that some of the 

operator manual actions referenced in 

the March 3, 2009, application were 

previously included in correspondence 

with the NRC and found acceptable in 

a fire protection-related Safety 

Evaluation (SE) dated March 24, 1986 

(ADAMS Accession No. 8604070468). 

The remaining operator manual actions 

referenced were explicitly considered in 

an SE dated June 25, 1990 (ADAMS 

Accession No. 9006280092), supporting 

a separate Appendix R exemption. RIS 

2006–10, however, identifies that an 

exemption under 10 CFR Section 50.12 

is necessary for use of the manual 

actions in lieu of the requirements of 10 

CFR Part 50, Appendix R, III.G.2, even 

if the NRC previously issued an SE that 

found the manual actions acceptable. 

RIS 2006–10 and Enforcement Guidance 

Memorandum 07–004 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML071830345) provided 

that exemption requests must be 

submitted by March 6, 2009. The 

licensee’s proposed exemption provides 

the formal vehicle for NRC approval for 

the use of the specified operator manual 

actions instead of the options specified 

in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, III.G.2. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC staff evaluated the manual 

operator actions presented in the 

proposed exemption in NRC SEs dated 

March 24, 1986, and June 25, 1990, and 

found that they maintained a safe 

shutdown capability that satisfies the 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix R, III.G. Therefore, the 

proposed action will not significantly 

increase the probability or consequences 

of accidents, nor does the proposed 

action introduce a new or different kind 

of accident. No changes are being made 

in the types of effluents that may be 

released off site. There is no significant 

increase in the amount of any effluent 

released off site. None of the manual 

actions to be performed are in areas that 

have radiation levels that would 

preclude entry. Further, the licensee 

stated that the highest expected dose 

during performance of the manual 

actions is 100 millirem (2 percent of the 

annual occupational limit) and the 

majority of manual actions are not in 

radiological controlled areas. Based on 

this consideration, the NRC staff finds 

that there is no significant increase in 

occupational or public radiation 

exposure. Therefore, there are no 

significant radiological impacts 

associated with the proposed action. 

The NRC staff, thus concludes that 

granting the proposed exemption would 

result in no significant radiological 

environmental impact. 

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 

action does not have a potential to affect 

any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no 

other environmental impact. Therefore, 

there are no significant non-radiological 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that 

there are no significant environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the NRC staff considered denial 

of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the 

application would result in no change 

in current environmental impacts. The 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and the alternative action are 

similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The action does not involve the use of 

any different resources than those 

previously considered in the 1974 Final 

Environmental Statement for Oyster 

Creek and NUREG–1437, Vol. 1, 

Supplement 28, ‘‘Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants 

Regarding Oyster Creek Nuclear 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES